Trial Protocol: Reaccumulation rate of pleural effusions after therapeutic aspiration: An observational cohort study to determine baseline factors associated with rate of pleural fluid reaccumulation following therapeutic aspiration in patients with malignant pleural effusion attending a pleural clinic (REPEAT).

Background: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is the build-up of pleural fluid in the space between the lung and chest wall due to advanced cancer. It is treated initially by large volume drainage (therapeutic aspiration). If the fluid reaccumulates, a definitive procedure is performed. There is wide variation in rate of reaccumulation. Patients with rapid reaccumulation often attend hospital as an emergency. Conversely, patients with slow reaccumulation do not need a definitive procedure and may experience cancelled or unnecessary procedures. This study aims to create and validate a multivariable prediction model to predict how quickly pleural fluid will reaccumulate in patients with MPE following therapeutic aspiration. Research question: Can we predict how quickly pleural fluid will reaccumulate in patients with MPEs? Methods: A total of 200 patients with known or suspected MPE attending for therapeutic aspiration will be recruited from 5-10 UK hospitals over 20 months. Patients will be enrolled prior to undergoing aspiration. Following this, they will undergo chest X-ray, which will be repeated one week later (treatment as usual). Rate of reaccumulation will be calculated based on change of size of the effusion seen on X-ray. Data will be collected on common clinical biomarkers e.g., size of effusion on pre-aspiration chest X-ray, volume of fluid drained. This data will be analysed to create a clinical score.A further validation cohort of 40 patients will be enrolled in parallel with creation of the score. Anticipated impact: The ability to predict rate of reaccumulation of MPE will enable patients and clinicians to make better informed treatment decisions. For patients with predicted rapid reaccumulation, a definitive procedure could be offered as first-line treatment, rather than a therapeutic aspiration. This will prevent emergency hospital admissions and decrease number of procedures. By contrast, patients whose effusions will recur slowly may avoid an unnecessary procedure.

People with incurable cancer commonly feel breathless due to buildup of fluid around the lung. We treat this by draining fluid off, but it often comes back. When this happens, we offer the patient a permanent implanted drain, so they can drain the fluid off at home. However, sometimes the fluid builds up very quickly. The patient becomes very breathless and needs an emergency hospital admission. In other people, the fluid builds up slowly and they may never need another drain. The aim of this study is to improve treatment by finding a way to predict how quickly fluid will come back. It will be run in five hospitals across England and involve 240 patients over three years. When patients first come to have fluid drained, we will record information about them and their disease. We will measure how quickly the fluid comes back and record hospital admissions and need for fluid drainage over the following three months. We will use this information to create a clinical score. We will then test this score in a second group of patients to make sure it works. The idea for this study came from one of our patients who had just had fluid drained and asked, 'when will it come back?' We couldn't answer his question and therefore developed this study. Our patients and the public have been involved in the design of this study and will continue to be involved. This score will be used to inform patients so they can choose the best treatment for them. If we know the fluid will build up quickly, we can offer patients a permanent drain straight away. If patients know their fluid will build up slowly, they may choose to have the fluid drained when needed without a permanent drain.

Antibiotic review kit for hospitals (ARK-Hospital): a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse in hospitals depend on prescribers taking decisions to stop unnecessary antibiotic use. There is scarce evidence for how to support these decisions. We evaluated a multifaceted behaviour change intervention (ie, the antibiotic review kit) designed to reduce antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients by increasing appropriate decisions to stop antibiotics at clinical review. METHODS: We performed a stepped-wedge, cluster (hospital)-randomised controlled trial using computer-generated sequence randomisation of eligible hospitals in seven calendar-time blocks in the UK. Hospitals were eligible for inclusion if they admitted adult non-elective general or medical inpatients, had a local representative to champion the intervention, and could provide the required study data. Hospital clusters were randomised to an implementation date occurring at 1-2 week intervals, and the date was concealed until 12 weeks before implementation, when local preparations were designed to start. The intervention effect was assessed using data from pseudonymised routine electronic health records, ward-level antibiotic dispensing, Clostridioides difficile tests, prescription audits, and an implementation process evaluation. Co-primary outcomes were monthly antibiotic defined daily doses per adult acute general medical admission (hospital-level, superiority) and all-cause mortality within 30 days of admission (patient level, non-inferiority margin of 5%). Outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (ie, excluding sites that withdrew before implementation). Intervention effects were assessed by use of interrupted time series analyses within each site, estimating overall effects through random-effects meta-analysis, with heterogeneity across prespecified potential modifiers assessed by use of meta-regression. This trial is completed and is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN12674243. FINDINGS: 58 hospital organisations expressed an interest in participating. Three pilot sites implemented the intervention between Sept 25 and Nov 20, 2017. 43 further sites were randomised to implement the intervention between Feb 12, 2018, and July 1, 2019, and seven sites withdrew before implementation. 39 sites were followed up for at least 14 months. Adjusted estimates showed reductions in total antibiotic defined daily doses per acute general medical admission (-4·8% per year, 95% CI -9·1 to -0·2) following the intervention. Among 7 160 421 acute general medical admissions, the ARK intervention was associated with an immediate change of -2·7% (95% CI -5·7 to 0·3) and sustained change of 3·0% (-0·1 to 6·2) in adjusted 30-day mortality. INTERPRETATION: The antibiotic review kit intervention resulted in sustained reductions in antibiotic use among adult acute general medical inpatients. The weak, inconsistent intervention effects on mortality are probably explained by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals should use the antibiotic review kit to reduce antibiotic overuse. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Pneumothorax management: current state of practice in the UK.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Spontaneous pneumothorax is a common pathology but optimal initial treatment regime is not well defined. Treatment options including conservative management, needle aspiration (NA) or insertion of a small-bore chest drain. Recent large randomised controlled trials may change the treatment paradigm: comparing conservative and ambulatory management to standard care, but current guidelines need to be updated. The aim of this study was to assess the current "state of play" in the management of pneumothorax in the UK. METHODS: Physicians and respiratory healthcare staff were invited to complete an online survey on the initial and subsequent management of pneumothorax. RESULTS: This study is the first survey of pneumothorax practice across the UK, which highlights variation in practice: 50% would manage a large primary pneumothorax with minimal symptoms conservatively, compared to only 3% if there were significant symptoms; 64% use suction if the pneumothorax had not resolved after > 2 days, 15% always clamp the chest drain prior to removal; whereas 30% never do. NICE guidance recommends the use of digital suction but this has not translated into widespread usage: only 23% use digital suction to check for resolution of air leak). CONCLUSION: Whilst there has always been allowance for individual clinician preference in guidelines, there needs to be consensus on the optimum management strategy. The challenge the new guidelines face is to design a simple and pragmatic approach, using this new evidence base.

Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax: an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Primary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy young patients. Optimal management is not defined and often results in prolonged hospitalisation. Data on efficacy of ambulatory options are poor. We aimed to describe the duration of hospitalisation and safety of ambulatory management compared with standard care. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, adults (aged 16-55 years) with symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax were recruited from 24 UK hospitals during a period of 3 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion, or both). The primary outcome was total length of hospital stay including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation. Patients with available data were included in the primary analysis and all assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Clinical Trials Number, ISRCTN79151659. FINDINGS: Of 776 patients screened between July, 2015, and March, 2019, 236 (30%) were randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). At day 30, the median hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the 114 patients with available data who received ambulatory treatment (0 days [IQR 0-3]) than in the 113 with available data who received standard care (4 days [IQR 0-8]; p<0·0001; median difference 2 days [95% CI 1-3]). 110 (47%) of 236 patients had adverse events, including 64 (55%) of 117 patients in the ambulatory care arm and 46 (39%) of 119 in the standard care arm. All 14 serious adverse events occurred in patients who received ambulatory care, eight (57%) of which were related to the intervention, including an enlarging pneumothorax, asymptomatic pulmonary oedema, and the device malfunctioning, leaking, or dislodging. INTERPRETATION: Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation including re-admissions in the first 30 days, but at the expense of increased adverse events. This data suggests that primary spontaneous pneumothorax can be managed for outpatients, using ambulatory devices in those who require intervention. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Effect of Thoracoscopic Talc Poudrage vs Talc Slurry via Chest Tube on Pleurodesis Failure Rate Among Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusions: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is challenging to manage. Talc pleurodesis is a common and effective treatment. There are no reliable data, however, regarding the optimal method for talc delivery, leading to differences in practice and recommendations. Objective: To test the hypothesis that administration of talc poudrage during thoracoscopy with local anesthesia is more effective than talc slurry delivered via chest tube in successfully inducing pleurodesis. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted at 17 UK hospitals. A total of 330 participants were enrolled from August 2012 to April 2018 and followed up until October 2018. Patients were eligible if they were older than 18 years, had a confirmed diagnosis of MPE, and could undergo thoracoscopy with local anesthesia. Patients were excluded if they required a thoracoscopy for diagnostic purposes or had evidence of nonexpandable lung. Interventions: Patients randomized to the talc poudrage group (n = 166) received 4 g of talc poudrage during thoracoscopy while under moderate sedation, while patients randomized to the control group (n = 164) underwent bedside chest tube insertion with local anesthesia followed by administration of 4 g of sterile talc slurry. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pleurodesis failure up to 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes included pleurodesis failure at 30 and 180 days; time to pleurodesis failure; number of nights spent in the hospital over 90 days; patient-reported thoracic pain and dyspnea at 7, 30, 90, and 180 days; health-related quality of life at 30, 90, and 180 days; all-cause mortality; and percentage of opacification on chest radiograph at drain removal and at 30, 90, and 180 days. Results: Among 330 patients who were randomized (mean age, 68 years; 181 [55%] women), 320 (97%) were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 90 days, the pleurodesis failure rate was 36 of 161 patients (22%) in the talc poudrage group and 38 of 159 (24%) in the talc slurry group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.54-1.55]; P = .74; difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -10.7% to 7.2%]). No statistically significant differences were noted in any of the 24 prespecified secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with malignant pleural effusion, thoracoscopic talc poudrage, compared with talc slurry delivered via chest tube, resulted in no significant difference in the rate of pleurodesis failure at 90 days. However, the study may have been underpowered to detect small but potentially important differences. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN47845793.

Antibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital): study protocol for a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To ensure patients continue to get early access to antibiotics at admission, while also safely reducing antibiotic use in hospitals, one needs to target the continued need for antibiotics as more diagnostic information becomes available. UK Department of Health guidance promotes an initiative called 'Start Smart then Focus': early effective antibiotics followed by active 'review and revision' 24-72 h later. However in 2017, < 10% of antibiotic prescriptions were discontinued at review, despite studies suggesting that 20-30% of prescriptions could be stopped safely. METHODS/DESIGN: Antibiotic Review Kit for Hospitals (ARK-Hospital) is a complex 'review and revise' behavioural intervention targeting healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic prescribing or administration in inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine (the largest consumers of non-prophylactic antibiotics in hospitals). The primary study objective is to evaluate whether ARK-Hospital can safely reduce the total antibiotic burden in acute/general medical inpatients by at least 15%. The primary hypotheses are therefore that the introduction of the behavioural intervention will be non-inferior in terms of 30-day mortality post-admission (relative margin 5%) for an acute/general medical inpatient, and superior in terms of defined daily doses of antibiotics per acute/general medical admission (co-primary outcomes). The unit of observation is a hospital organisation, a single hospital or group of hospitals organised with one executive board and governance framework (National Health Service trusts in England; health boards in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland). The study comprises a feasibility study in one organisation (phase I), an internal pilot trial in three organisations (phase II) and a cluster (organisation)-randomised stepped-wedge trial (phase III) targeting a minimum of 36 organisations in total. Randomisation will occur over 18 months from November 2017 with a further 12 months follow-up to assess sustainability. The behavioural intervention will be delivered to healthcare professionals involved in antibiotic prescribing or administration in adult inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine. Outcomes will be assessed in adult inpatients admitted to acute/general medicine, collected through routine electronic health records in all patients. DISCUSSION: ARK-Hospital aims to provide a feasible, sustainable and generalisable mechanism for increasing antibiotic stopping in patients who no longer need to receive them at 'review and revise'. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN12674243 . Registered on 10 April 2017.

Randomised Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax (RAMPP): protocol of an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Introduction: Pneumothorax is a common clinical problem. Primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) occurs in otherwise fit young patients, but optimal management is not clearly defined and often results in a long hospital stay. Ambulatory treatment options are available, but the existing data on their efficacy are poor. The Randomised Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing ambulatory management with standard care, specifically designed to safely and effectively reduce hospital stay. Methods and analysis: 236 patients with PSP will be recruited from UK hospitals. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to treatment to either the 'Intervention' arm (ambulatory device; Rocket Pleural Vent) or the 'Control' arm (aspiration ± standard chest drain insertion). Patients will be followed up for a total of 12 months to assess recurrence rates. The primary outcome is total length of stay in hospital (including readmissions) up to 30 days postrandomisation. The secondary outcomes are pain and breathlessness scores, air leak measurement and radiological evidence (on CT scanning) of emphysema-like changes, compared with short-term and long-term outcomes, respectively, and health economic analysis. Ethics and dissemination: The trial has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service Committee South-Central Oxford A (15/SC/0240). Trial registration number: ISRCTN79151659.

Predicting outcomes in primary spontaneous pneumothorax using air leak measurements.

The initial treatment regime for primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) is generic and non-personalised, often involving a long hospital stay waiting for air leak to cease. This prospective study of 81 patients with PSP, who required drain insertion, captured daily digital air leak measurements and assessed failure of medical management against prespecified criteria. Patients with higher air leak at day 1 or 2 had significantly longer hospital stay. If air leak was ≥100 mL/min on day 1, the adjusted OR of treatment failure was 5.2 (95% CI 1.2 to 22.6, p=0.03), demonstrating that early digital air leak measurements could potentially predict future medical treatment failure. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN79151659.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of continuous positive airway pressure for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome in older people: PREDICT.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic and economic benefits of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (OSAS) have been established in middle-aged people. In older people there is a lack of evidence. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical efficacy of CPAP in older people with OSAS and to establish its cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: A randomised, parallel, investigator-blinded multicentre trial with within-trial and model-based cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: Two hundred and seventy-eight patients, aged ≥ 65 years with newly diagnosed OSAS [defined as oxygen desaturation index at ≥ 4% desaturation threshold level for > 7.5 events/hour and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score of ≥ 9] recruited from 14 hospital-based sleep services across the UK. INTERVENTIONS: CPAP with best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone. Autotitrating CPAP was initiated using standard clinical practice. BSC was structured advice on minimising sleepiness. COPRIMARY OUTCOMES: Subjective sleepiness at 3 months, as measured by the ESS (ESS mean score: months 3 and 4) and cost-effectiveness over 12 months, as measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and health-care resource use, information on which was collected monthly from patient diaries. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Subjective sleepiness at 12 months (ESS mean score: months 10, 11 and 12) and objective sleepiness, disease-specific and generic quality of life, mood, functionality, nocturia, mobility, accidents, cognitive function, cardiovascular risk factors and events at 3 and 12 months. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-eight patients were randomised to CPAP (n = 140) or BSC (n = 138) over 27 months and 231 (83%) patients completed the trial. Baseline ESS score was similar in both groups [mean (standard deviation; SD) CPAP 11.5 (3.3), BSC 11.4 (4.2)]; groups were well balanced for other characteristics. The mean (SD) in ESS score at 3 months was -3.8 (0.4) in the CPAP group and -1.6 (0.3) in the BSC group. The adjusted treatment effect of CPAP compared with BSC was -2.1 points [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.0 to -1.3 points; p < 0.001]. At 12 months the effect was -2.0 points (95% CI -2.8 to -1.2 points; p < 0.001). The effect was greater in patients with increased CPAP use or higher baseline ESS score. The number of QALYs calculated using the EQ-5D was marginally (0.005) higher with CPAP than with BSC (95% CI -0.034 to 0.044). The average cost per patient was £1363 (95% CI £1121 to £1606) for those allocated to CPAP and £1389 (95% CI £1116 to £1662) for those allocated to BSC. On average, costs were lower in the CPAP group (mean -£35; 95% CI -£390 to £321). The probability that CPAP was cost-effective at thresholds conventionally used by the NHS (£20,000 per QALY gained) was 0.61. QALYs calculated using the Short Form questionnaire-6 Dimensions were 0.018 higher in the CPAP group (95% CI 0.003 to 0.034 QALYs) and the probability that CPAP was cost-effective was 0.96. CPAP decreased objective sleepiness (p = 0.02), increased mobility (p = 0.03) and reduced total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.05, p = 0.04, respectively) at 3 months but not at 12 months. In the BSC group, there was a fall in systolic blood pressure of 3.7 mmHg at 12 months, which was not seen in the CPAP group (p = 0.04). Mood, functionality, nocturia, accidents, cognitive function and cardiovascular events were unchanged. There were no medically significant harms attributable to CPAP. CONCLUSION: In older people with OSAS, CPAP reduces sleepiness and is marginally more cost-effective than BSC over 12 months. Further work is required in the identification of potential biomarkers of sleepiness and those patients at increased risk of cognitive impairment. Early detection of which could be used to inform the clinician when in the disease cycle treatment is needed to avert central nervous system sequelae and to assist patients decision-making regarding treatment and compliance. Treatment adherence is also a challenge in clinical trials generally, and adherence to CPAP therapy in particular is a recognised concern in both research studies and clinical practice. Suggested research priorities would include a focus on optimisation of CPAP delivery or support and embracing the technological advances currently available. Finally, the improvements in quality of life in trials do not appear to reflect the dramatic changes noted in clinical practice. There should be a greater focus on patient centred outcomes which would better capture the symptomatic improvement with CPAP treatment and translate these improvements into outcomes which could be used in health economic analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN90464927. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Evaluating the efficacy of thoracoscopy and talc poudrage versus pleurodesis using talc slurry (TAPPS trial): protocol of an open-label randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The management of recurrent malignant pleural effusions (MPE) can be challenging. Various options are available, with the most efficacious and widely used being talc pleurodesis. Talc can either be applied via a chest drain in the form of slurry, or at medical thoracoscopy using poudrage. Current evidence regarding which method is most effective is conflicting and often methodologically flawed. The TAPPS trial is a suitably powered, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial designed to compare the pleurodesis success rate of medical thoracoscopy and talc poudrage with chest drain insertion and talc slurry. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 330 patients with a confirmed MPE requiring intervention will be recruited from UK hospitals. Patients will be randomised (1:1) to undergo either small bore (<14 Fr) Seldinger chest drain insertion followed by instillation of sterile talc (4 g), or to undergo medical thoracoscopy and simultaneous poudrage (4 g). The allocated procedure will be performed as an inpatient within 3 days of randomisation taking place. Following discharge, patients will be followed up at regular intervals for 6 months. The primary outcome measure is pleurodesis failure rates at 3 months. Pleurodesis failure is defined as the need for further pleural intervention for fluid management on the side of the trial intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service Committee North West-Preston (12/NW/0467). There is a trial steering committee which includes independent members and a patient and public representative. The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences, as well as being disseminated via local and national charities and patient groups. All participants who wish to know the study results will also be contacted directly on their publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47845793.

Continuous positive airway pressure in older people with obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome (PREDICT): a 12-month, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic and economic benefits of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) syndrome have been established in middle-aged people; however, the benefits in older people are unknown. This trial was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: This 12-month, multicentre, randomised trial enrolled patients across 14 National Health Service sleep centres in the UK. Consecutive patients aged 65 years or older with newly diagnosed OSA syndrome were eligible to join the trial. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) into parallel groups to receive either CPAP with best supportive care (BSC) or BSC alone for 12 months. Randomisation was done by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit with computer-generated randomisation. The main investigator at each centre was masked to the trial randomisation. Coprimary endpoints were Epworth sleepiness score (ESS) at 3 months and cost-effectiveness over the 12-month trial period. Secondary outcomes were subjective sleepiness at 12 months, plus objective sleepiness, quality of life, mood, functionality, nocturia, mobility, accidents, cognitive function, and cardiovascular risk factors and events at 3 months and 12 months. The analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN90464927. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2010, and May 30, 2012, 278 patients were randomly assigned to the trial, of whom 231 (83%) completed the trial. 140 patients were allocated to and received CPAP plus BSC and 138 were allocated to and received BSC only. CPAP reduced ESS by 2·1 points (95% CI -3·0 to -1·3; p<0·0001) at 3 months for 124 (89%) of 140 patients compared with 124 (90%) of 138 patients given BSC, and by 2·0 points (-2·8 to -1·2; p<0·0001) at 12 months for 116 patients compared with 122 patients given BSC. The effect was greater in patients with higher CPAP usage or higher baseline ESS. Quality-adjusted life-years were similar between the groups (treatment effect 0·01 (95% CI -0·03 to 0·04; p=0·787) and health-care costs were marginally reduced with CPAP (-£35, -390 to 321; p=0·847). CPAP improved objective sleepiness (p=0·024), mobility (p=0·029), total cholesterol (p=0·048), and LDL cholesterol (p=0·042) at 3 months, but these were not sustained at 12 months. Measures of mood, functionality, nocturia, accidents, cognitive function, and cardiovascular events remained unchanged. Systolic blood pressure fell in the BSC group. 37 serious adverse events occurred in the CPAP group, and 22 in BSC group; all were independently classified as being unrelated to the trial and no significant harm was attributed to CPAP use. INTERPRETATION: In older people with OSA syndrome, CPAP reduces sleepiness and is marginally more cost effective over 12 months than is BSC alone. On the basis of these results, we recommend that CPAP treatment should be offered routinely to older patients with OSA syndrome. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment, NIHR Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit at the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust and Imperial College London.