Needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren's contractures of the fingers (Hand-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dupuytren's contractures (DC) are fibrous cords under the skin of the hand that cause one or more fingers to curl gradually and irreversibly towards the palm. These contractures are usually painless but can cause a loss of hand function. Two treatments for Dupuytren's contractures are widely used within the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK: removal of the contractures via surgery (limited fasciectomy) and division of the contractures via a needle inserted through the skin (needle fasciotomy). This study aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of needle fasciotomy (NF) versus limited fasciectomy (LF) for the treatment of DC in the NHS, in terms of patient-reported hand function and resource utilisation. METHODS/DESIGN: Hand-2 is a national multi-centre, two-arm, parallel-group randomised, non-inferiority trial. Patients will be eligible to join the trial if they are aged 18 years or older, have at least one previously untreated finger with a well-defined Dupuytren's contracture of 30° or greater that causes functional problems and is suitable for treatment with either LF or NF. Patients with a contracture of the distal interphalangeal joint only are ineligible. Eligible consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to receive either NF or LF and will be followed up for 24 months post-treatment. A QuinteT Recruitment Intervention will be used to optimise recruitment. The primary outcome measure is the participant-reported assessment of hand function, assessed by the Hand Health Profile of the Patient Evaluation Measure (PEM) questionnaire at 12 months post-treatment. Secondary outcomes include other patient-reported measures, loss of finger movement, and cost-effectiveness, reported over the 24-month post-treatment. Embedded qualitative research will explore patient experiences and acceptability of treatment at 2 years post-surgery. DISCUSSION: This study will determine whether treatment with needle fasciotomy is non-inferior to limited fasciectomy in terms of patient-reported hand function at 12 months post-treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy ISRCTN12525655. Registered on 18th September 2020.

Choosing and evaluating randomisation methods in clinical trials: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There exist many different methods of allocating participants to treatment groups during a randomised controlled trial. Although there is research that explores trial characteristics that are associated with the choice of method, there is still a lot of variety in practice not explained. This study used qualitative methods to explore more deeply the motivations behind researchers' choice of randomisation, and which features of the method they use to evaluate the performance of these methods. METHODS: Data was collected from online focus groups with various stakeholders involved in the randomisation process. Focus groups were recorded and then transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. RESULTS: Twenty-five participants from twenty clinical trials units across the UK were recruited to take part in one of four focus groups. Four main themes were identified: how randomisation methods are selected; researchers' opinions of the different methods; which features of the method are desirable and ways to measure method features. Most researchers agree that the randomisation method should be selected based on key trial characteristics; however, for many, a unit standard is in place. Opinions of methods were varied with some participants favouring stratified blocks and others favouring minimisation. This was generally due to researchers' perception of the effect these methods had on balance and predictability. Generally, predictability was considered more important than balance as adjustments cannot be made for it; however, most researchers felt that the importance of these two methods was dependent on the design of the study. Balance is usually evaluated by tabulating variables by treatment arm and looking for perceived imbalances, predictability was generally considered much harder to measure, partly due to differing definitions. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variety in practice on how randomisation methods are selected and researcher's opinions on methods. The difference in practice observed when looking at randomisation method selection can be explained by a difference in unit practice, and also by a difference in researchers prioritisation of balance and predictability. The findings of this study show a need for more guidance on randomisation method selection.

Prognosis of Patients With Neuropathic Low Back-Related Leg Pain: An Exploratory Study Using Prospective Data From UK Primary Care.

This prospective cohort study investigates the prognosis of patients with neuropathic low back-related leg pain consulting in UK primary care. Data from 511 patients were collected using standardised baseline clinical examinations (including magnetic resonance imaging scan findings), self-report questionnaires at baseline, 4 months, 12 months, and 3 years. Cases of possible neuropathic pain (NP) and persistent-NP were identified using either of 2 definitions: 1) clinical diagnosis of sciatica, 2) self-report version of leeds assessment for neurological symptoms and signs (s-LANSS). Mixed-effects models compared pain intensity (highest of mean leg or mean back pain [0-10 Numerical Rating Scale]) over 3-years between persistent-NP versus non-persistent-NP based on 1) clinical diagnosis, 2) s-LANSS. Logistic regression examined associations between potential prognostic factors and persistent-NP at 4 months based on the 2 NP definitions. At 4-months, using both definitions: 1) approximately 4 out of 10 patients had persistent-NP, 2) mean pain intensity was higher for patients with persistent-NP at all follow-up points compared to those without, 3) only pain self-efficacy was significantly associated with persistent-NP (s-LANSS: OR .98, sciatica: .98), but it did not predict cases of persistent-NP in either multivariable model. Based on factors routinely collected from self-report and clinical examination, it was not possible to predict persistent-NP in this population. PERSPECTIVE: This study provides evidence that neuropathic back-related leg pain in patients consulting in primary care is not always persistent. Patients with persistent neuropathic pain had worse outcomes than those without. Neither leg pain intensity, pain self-efficacy nor MRI scan findings predicted cases of persistent neuropathic pain in this patient population.

Feasibility of conducting a cohort randomised controlled trial assessing the effectiveness of a nurse-led package of care for knee pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a cohort randomised-controlled trial (RCT) of a nurse-led package of care for knee pain and determine treatment sequence for use in a future trial. METHODS: Open label, three-arm, single-centre, mixed-methods, feasibility cohort RCT. Adults aged ≥40 years with moderate-to-severe knee pain for ≥3 months were eligible. Participants were randomised into groups A (non-pharmacological treatment first), B (pharmacological treatment first), or group C (usual care). The intervention was delivered over 26-weeks. Outcomes were dropout rate, recruitment rate, intervention fidelity, ability to collect outcome data and treatment acceptability. RESULTS: Seventeen participants were randomised and enrolled into each of groups A and B (5.2% recruitment rate), and 174 randomised to group C. Participant characteristics at randomisation were comparable across the three arms. COVID-19 paused the study from March-November-2020. Participants enrolled in groups A and B before March-2020 were withdrawn at restart. Of the 20 participants enrolled after restart, 18 completed the study (10% dropout). The nurse reported delivering most aspects of the intervention with high fidelity. Participants viewed the package of care as structured, supportive and holistic, they learnt about self-managing knee pain, and could engage with and follow the non-pharmacological treatment. Most found the non-pharmacological treatment more useful than the pharmacological treatment, preferring to receive it before or alongside analgesia. Many self-reported questionnaires were not fully completed. CONCLUSIONS: The nurse-led package of care for knee pain was acceptable with low dropout, although the cohort RCT design may not be feasible for a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov; NCT03670706.

Self-collected versus health-care professional taken swab for identification of vaginal-rectal colonisation with group B streptococcus in late pregnancy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Testing for group B streptococcus (GBS) requires a vaginal-rectal swab in late pregnancy. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of the test accuracy of a self-collected swab compared with a health-care professional collected swab in the diagnosis of GBS colonisation. SEARCH STRATEGY: The Cochrane Library (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects [DARE] and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]), EMBASE, MEDLINE and Trip were searched in May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, test accuracy studies or diagnostic yield studies that compared the accuracy of a self-collected vaginal-rectal swab, compared to that taken by a health-care professional, for the detection of GBS colonisation in the third trimester. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently screened, selected studies, extracted data and assessed study quality. MAIN RESULTS: 10 studies, with 2578 women were included. Pooled sensitivity of self-collected swabs was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81 to 0.95) and pooled specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: This study provides reassuring evidence that self-collected swabs for maternal GBS colonisation are highly accurate relative to swabs collected by health-care professionals. Women requiring a swab for GBS colonisation can self-swab with appropriate instructions if they choose. FUNDING: Personal fellowship from the University of Nottingham for KFW.

Feasibility of a RCT of techniques for managing an impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean section: the MIDAS scoping study.

Background: Second-stage caesarean sections, of which there are around 34,000 per year in the UK, have greater maternal and perinatal morbidity than those in the first stage. The fetal head is often deeply impacted in the maternal pelvis, and extraction can be difficult. Numerous techniques are reported, but the superiority of one over another is contentious and there is no national guidance. Objective: To determine the feasibility of a randomised trial of different techniques for managing an impacted fetal head during emergency caesarean. Design: A scoping study with five work packages: (1) national surveys to determine current practice and acceptability of research in this area, and a qualitative study to determine acceptability to women who have experienced a second-stage caesarean; (2) a national prospective observational study to determine incidence and rate of complications; (3) a Delphi survey and consensus meeting on choice of techniques and outcomes for a trial; (4) the design of a trial; and (5) a national survey and qualitative study to determine acceptability of the proposed trial. Setting: Secondary care. Participants: Health-care professionals, pregnant women, women who have had a second-stage caesarean, and parents. Results: Most (244/279, 87%) health-care professionals believe that a trial in this area would help guide their practice, and 90% (252/279) would be willing to participate in such a trial. Thirty-eight per cent (98/259) of parents reported that they would take part. Women varied in which technique they thought was most acceptable. Our observational study found that impacted head is common (occurring in 16% of second-stage caesareans) and leads to both maternal (41%) and neonatal (3.5%) complications. It is most often treated by an assistant pushing the head up vaginally. We designed a randomised clinical trial comparing the fetal pillow with the vaginal push technique. The vast majority of health-care professionals, 83% of midwives and 88% of obstetricians, would be willing to participate in the trial proposed, and 37% of parents reported that they would take part. Our qualitative study found that most participants thought the trial would be feasible and acceptable. Limitations: Our survey is subject to the limitation that, although responses refer to contemporaneous real cases, they are self-reported by the surgeon and collected after the event. Willingness to participate in a hypothetical trial may not translate into recruitment to a real trial. Conclusions: We proposed a trial to compare a new device, the fetal pillow, with a long-established procedure, the vaginal push technique. Such a trial would be widely supported by health-care professionals. We recommend that it be powered to test an effect on important short term maternal and baby outcomes which would require 754 participants per group. Despite the well-known difference between intent and action, this would be feasible within the UK. Future work: We recommend a randomised controlled trial of two techniques for managing an impacted fetal head with an in-built internal pilot phase and alongside economic and qualitative substudies. Study registration: This study is registered as Research Registry 4942. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Text: One-quarter of UK pregnant women have a caesarean section. Most of these procedures are straightforward, but in a small number of cases unexpected complications can make the birth difficult. One complication, an impacted fetal head, may happen when caesarean sections are done in the second 'pushing' stage of labour. If the baby's head is low and wedged in the woman's pelvis, lifting it can be difficult, which can result in damage to the mother's womb and vagina, and to her baby. Occasionally, babies die. There are different techniques doctors and midwives can use to make these births easier, but there is uncertainty around which is best. To plan a trial to test these techniques, we needed to know how often impacted head happens, what techniques are used to manage it and whether or not research is acceptable to parents and health-care professionals. We surveyed doctors and midwives to find out which techniques they use and what training they need. We surveyed parents and pregnant women and interviewed women who had experienced a second-stage caesarean. We collected information from UK hospitals to find out how common this is and the impact on women and babies. We found out the following. List: • Around 7% of caesareans take place in second stage, and impacted fetal head occurs in 16% of these births. List: • One-third of women would consent to take part in a trial, if the complication happened to them. List: • Nearly all midwives and doctors thought that this research was important and would be willing to take part. Text: Using all of the information we collected, we designed a clinical trial. We wanted to compare two techniques for managing an impacted fetal head. The first is the vaginal push technique, where the doctor or midwife puts their hand into the mother's vagina to push her baby's head up, and the second is the fetal pillow, a device inserted into the mother's vagina before the operation starts to dislodge the baby's head upwards.

A systematic review of randomisation method use in RCTs and association of trial design characteristics with method selection.

BACKGROUND: When conducting a randomised controlled trial, there exist many different methods to allocate participants, and a vast array of evidence-based opinions on which methods are the most effective at doing this, leading to differing use of these methods. There is also evidence that study characteristics affect the performance of these methods, but it is unknown whether the study design affects researchers' decision when choosing a method. METHODS: We conducted a review of papers published in five journals in 2019 to assess which randomisation methods are most commonly being used, as well as identifying which aspects of study design, if any, are associated with the choice of randomisation method. Randomisation methodology use was compared with a similar review conducted in 2014. RESULTS: The most used randomisation method in this review is block stratification used in 162/330 trials. A combination of simple, randomisation, block randomisation, stratification and minimisation make up 318/330 trials, with only a small number of more novel methods being used, although this number has increased marginally since 2014. More complex methods such as stratification and minimisation seem to be used in larger multicentre studies. CONCLUSIONS: Within this review, most methods used can be classified using a combination of simple, block stratification and minimisation, suggesting that there is not much if any increase in the uptake of newer more novel methods. There seems to be a noticeable polarisation of method use, with an increase in the use of simple methods, but an increase in the complexity of more complex methods, with greater numbers of variables included in the analysis, and a greater number of strata.

Erector Spinae Plane Blocks for the Early Analgesia of Rib Fractures in Trauma (ESPEAR): protocol for a multicentre pilot randomised controlled trial with feasibility and embedded qualitative assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with rib fractures commonly experience significant acute pain and are at risk of hypoxia, retained secretions, respiratory failure and death. Effective analgesia improves these outcomes. There is widespread variation in analgesic treatments given to patients including oral, intravenous and epidural routes of administration. Erector spinae plane (ESP) blockade, a novel regional analgesic technique, may be effective, but high-quality evidence is lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To determine if a definitive trial of ESP blockade in rib fractures is possible, we are conducting a multicentre, randomised controlled pilot study with feasibility and qualitative assessment. Fifty adult patients with rib fractures will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to ESP blockade with multimodal analgesia or placebo ESP blockade with multimodal analgesia. Participants and outcome assessors will be blinded. The primary feasibility outcomes are recruitment rate, retention rate and trial acceptability assessed by interview. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Oxford B Research Ethics Committee on 22 February 2022 (REC reference: 22/SC/0005). All participants will provide written consent. Trial results will be reported via peer review and to grant funders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN49307616.

Accuracy of placement of ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome does not influence pain and function: Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the accuracy of placement of ultrasound-guided (US-guided) corticosteroid injections for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome (SAPS) influences pain and function outcomes. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of data collected in a previous randomised controlled trial (RCT). Video images of US-guided subacromial corticosteroid injections delivered in the RCT were reviewed to categorise injection accuracy into three groups: definitely/probably not in the subacromial bursa (Group 1); probably in the subacromial bursa (Group 2); and definitely in the subacromial bursa (Group 3). The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) total score. Secondary outcomes included SPADI pain and function subscales and participants' self-reported global impression of change. Outcomes were compared between the accuracy groups after adjusting for pre-selected baseline characteristics. RESULTS: US-guided injection accuracy data were available for 114 participants: 22 categorised into Group 1, 21 into Group 2 and 71 into Group 3. There were no significant differences in mean total SPADI scores between the three injection accuracy groups at 6 weeks (Group 2 vs. 1: 8.22 (95% CI -4.01, 20.50); Group 3 versus 1: -0.57 (95% CI -10.27, 9.13) or 6 months (Group 2 vs. 1: 12.38 (95% CI -5.34, 30.10); Group 3 versus 1: 3.10 (95% CI -11.04, 17.23). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of injection placement in SAPS did not influence pain and function, suggesting that improvements in patients' outcomes using subacromial corticosteroid injections can be achieved without US guidance.

Acceptability of a nurse-led non-pharmacological complex intervention for knee pain: Nurse and patient views and experiences.

OBJECTIVES: The overall purpose of this research programme is to develop and test the feasibility of a complex intervention for knee pain delivered by a nurse, and comprising both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. In this first phase, we examined the acceptability of the non-pharmacological component of the intervention; issues faced in delivery, and resolved possible challenges to delivery. METHODS: Eighteen adults with chronic knee pain were recruited from the community. The intervention comprised holistic assessment, education, exercise, weight-loss advice (where appropriate) and advice on adjunctive treatments such as hot/cold treatments, footwear modification and walking aids. After nurse training, the intervention was delivered in four sessions spread over five weeks. Participants had one to one semi-structured interview at the end of the intervention. The nurse was interviewed after the last visit of the last participant. These were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Themes were identified by one author through framework analysis of the transcripts, and cross-checked by another. RESULTS: Most participants found the advice from the nurse easy to follow and were satisfied with the package, though some felt that too much information was provided too soon. The intervention changed their perception of managing knee pain, learning that it can be improved with self-management. However, participants thought that the most challenging part of the intervention was fitting the exercise regime into their daily routine. The nurse found discussion of goal setting to be challenging. CONCLUSION: The nurse-led package of care is acceptable within a research setting. The results are promising and will be applied in a feasibility randomised-controlled trial.

The FEED1 trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of full milk feeds versus intravenous fluids with gradual feeding for preterm infants (30-33 weeks gestational age).

BACKGROUND: In the UK, approximately 8% of live births are preterm (before 37 weeks gestation), more than 90% of whom are born between 30 and 36 weeks, forming the largest proportion of a neonatal units' workload. Neonatologists are cautious in initiating full milk feeds for preterm infants due to fears of necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). There is now evidence to dispute this fear. Small studies have shown that feeding preterm infants full milk feeds enterally from birth could result in a shorter length of hospital stay, which is important to parents, clinicians and NHS services without increasing the risk of NEC. This trial aims to investigate whether full milk feeds initiated in the first 24 h after birth reduces the length of hospital stay in comparison to introduction of gradual milk feeding with IV fluids or parenteral nutrition. METHODS: FEED1 is a multi-centre, open, parallel group, randomised, controlled superiority trial of full milk feeds initiated on the day of birth versus gradual milk feeds for infants born at 30+0 to 32+6 (inclusive) weeks gestation. Recruitment will take place in around 40 UK neonatal units. Mothers will be randomised 1:1 to full milk feeds, starting at 60 ml/kg day, or gradual feeds, as per usual local practice. Mother's expressed breast milk will always be the first choice of milk, though will likely be supplemented with formula or donor breast milk in the first few days. Feeding data will be collected until full milk feeds are achieved (≥ 140 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days). The primary outcome is length of infant hospital stay. Additional data will be collected 6 weeks post-discharge. Follow-up at 2 years (corrected gestational age) is planned. The sample size is 2088 infants to detect a between group difference in length of stay of 2 days. Accounting for multiple births, this requires 1700 women to be recruited. Primary analysis will compare the length of hospital stay between groups, adjusting for minimisation variables and accounting for multiple births. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide high-quality evidence on feeding practices for preterm infants. Full milk feeds from day of birth could result in infants being discharged sooner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN89654042 . Prospectively registered on 23 September 2019: ISRCTN is a primary registry of the WHO ICTRP network, and all items from the WHO Trial Registration dataset are included.

Motivation and willingness to increase physical activity for dementia risk reduction: Cross-Sectional UK survey with people aged 50 and over.

METHODS: Attitudes to increasing physical activity to reduce risk of dementia were assessed in a national online survey promoted via online forums and public adverts. The Motivation to Change Behaviour for Dementia Risk Reduction (MOCHAD-10) scale examined motivation for lifestyle change. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the predictors of willingness and motivation to increase physical activity. RESULTS: Data from 3,948 individuals showed most people were moderately/very physically active (80%). People more likely to be physically active had better health and education, were older, male, and had a partner. People willing to increase physical activity (73%) were more likely to be younger, non-White, underweight, had better health and lifestyles, and had experience caring for someone with dementia. People with higher levels of motivation to change lifestyle (MOCHAD-10 subscales) were more likely to be female, younger, in poorer physical/mental health, had lower perceived mental activity, and were a carer for someone with dementia. CONCLUSION: Men and those with better health status were more physically active. Those who exercised less and those who were more motivated to increase physical activity were not necessarily able to be physically active. Multisectoral public health strategies should seek to use the high motivation levels among this group to mitigate the barriers related to physical activity for dementia risk reduction.

Fidelity assessment of nurse-led non-pharmacological package of care for knee pain in the package development phase of a feasibility randomised controlled trial based in secondary care: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate fidelity of delivery of a nurse-led non-pharmacological complex intervention for knee pain. SETTING: Secondary care. Single-centre study. STUDY DESIGN: Mixed methods study. PARTICIPANTS: Eighteen adults with chronic knee pain. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Age >40 years, knee pain present for longer than 3 months, knee pain for most days of the previous month, at least moderate pain in two of the five domains of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain scale. INTERVENTIONS: Nurse-led non-pharmacological intervention comprising assessment, education, exercise, use of hot/cold treatments, footwear modification, walking aids and weight-loss advice (if required). OUTCOMES: Primary: fidelity of delivery of intervention, secondary: nurses' experience of delivering intervention. METHODS: Each intervention session with every participant was video recorded and formed part of fidelity assessment. Fidelity checklists were completed by the research nurse after each session and by an independent researcher, after viewing the video-recordings blinded to nurse ratings. Fidelity scores (%), percentage agreement and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) were calculated. Two semi-structured interviews were conducted with the research nurse. RESULTS: Fourteen participants completed all visits. 62 treatment sessions took place. Nurse self-report and assessor video rating scores for all 62 treatment sessions were included in fidelity assessment. Overall fidelity was higher on nurse self-report (97.7%) than on objective video-rating (84.2%). Percentage agreement between nurse self-report and video-rating was 73.3% (95% CI 71.3 to 75.3). Fidelity was lowest for advice on footwear and walking aids. The nurse reported difficulty advising on thermal treatments, footwear and walking aids, and did not feel confident negotiating achievable and realistic goals with participants. CONCLUSIONS: A trained research nurse can deliver most components of a non-pharmacological intervention for knee pain to a high degree of fidelity. Future research should assess intervention fidelity in a routine clinical setting, and examine its clinical and cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03670706.

Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for interventions to foster and maintain independence for people with dementia to support community living, improve morale, and reduce stigma. We investigated a social intervention to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. METHODS: In this two arm parallel group, feasibility RCT at six sites in England, participants were randomized (1:1) to the PRIDE intervention (encompassing social, physical, and cognitive domains supported by a facilitator over three sessions) compared to usual care only. The main objective was to determine the feasibility of a main trial with respect to measures of recruitment, retention, and adherence to the intervention. RESULTS: During a 7-month period, 402 people were invited to the trial, 148 were screened (37%, 95% confidence interval (CI)=32-42%), 137 were eligible at pre-consent, 94 consented to the trial (69% of those eligible, 95% CI=60-76%), and 92 were randomized (46 to each group). Of those allocated to the intervention, 42 (91%) received at least one of three intervention sessions. Outcome assessment follow-up visits were completed for 73 participants at 6 months (79%, 95% CI=70-87%), and this was similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: A large multi-center trial of the PRIDE intervention in community-dwelling people with mild dementia is feasible using systematic recruitment strategies. The intervention was successfully delivered and well received by participants. Findings from this study will be used to refine the design and processes for a definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2018.

The cost-effectiveness of different approaches to exercise and corticosteroid injection for subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether physiotherapist-led exercise intervention and US-guided subacromial CS injection is cost-effective when compared with standard advice and exercise leaflet and unguided injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome. METHODS: An incremental cost-utility analysis using patient responses to the five-level EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire was undertaken from a healthcare perspective alongside a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial with 256 participants over a 12-month follow-up period. Uncertainty was explored through the use of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The cost-utility analysis indicated that physiotherapist-led exercise was associated with an incremental cost of £155.99 (95% CI 69.02, 241.93) and 0.031 (95% CI -0.01, 0.07) additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5031 per QALY gained and an 85% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with the advice and exercise leaflet. US-guided injection was associated with an incremental cost of £15.89 (95% CI -59.36, 109.86) and 0.024 (95% CI -0.02, 0.07) additional QALYs, an ICER of £662 per QALY gained and a 83% chance of being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained compared with unguided injection. CONCLUSION: Physiotherapist-led exercise was cost-effective compared with the advice and exercise leaflet, and US-guided injection was cost-effective when compared with unguided injection. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, http://www.isrctn.com, ISRCTN42399123.

Providing patients with direct access to musculoskeletal physiotherapy: the impact on general practice musculoskeletal workload and resource use. The STEMS-2 study.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the real-world impact of patient direct access to NHS physiotherapy (self-referral) on (a) general practice consultations for musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions and (b) specified clinical management for patients with MSK conditions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Natural experiment in four general practices and the associated physiotherapy service. METHODS: Anonymised routinely collected data were obtained. MSK coded GP consultations, recorded fit notes, MSK-related prescription medication, X-rays and MRI requests, and referrals to secondary care for patients consulting with MSK conditions were identified and trends described across a 6-year period (June 2011 to June 2017). Joinpoint regression analysis was used to identify any significant changes in GP MSK consultation trends before and after the introduction of self-referral to physiotherapy. Physiotherapy service data examined access methods used by patients (GP referred, GP recommended self-referral, true self-referral) and the number of physiotherapy sessions. RESULTS: Direct access resulted in inconsistent impact on general practices. In one arm of the experiment a significant increase in GP consultations was observed and in one arm was stable. Exploratory examination of clinical management showed only requests for X-rays (arm 1) and possibly requests for MRI (arm 2) changed over time. Physiotherapy service referrals showed a low uptake of true self-referral (10% and 6%) in each arm respectively. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine the real-world impact of patient direct access to physiotherapy at general practice level. We found no consistent impact of patient direct access on GP MSK workload. Impact on some clinical management was observed but not consistently in the direction suggested by previous studies.

Optimising outcomes of exercise and corticosteroid injection in patients with subacromial pain (impingement) syndrome: a factorial randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness of (1) physiotherapist-led exercise versus an exercise leaflet, and (2) ultrasound-guided subacromial corticosteroid injection versus unguided injection for pain and function in subacromial pain (formerly impingement) syndrome (SAPS). METHODS: This was a single-blind 2×2 factorial randomised trial. Adults with SAPS were randomised equally to one of four treatment groups: (1) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise, (2) ultrasound-guided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet, (3) unguided corticosteroid injection and physiotherapist-led exercise and (4) unguided corticosteroid injection and an exercise leaflet. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), collected at 6 weeks, 6 and 12 months and compared at 6 weeks for the injection interventions and 6 months for the exercise interventions by intention to treat. RESULTS: We recruited 256 participants (64 treatment per group). Response rates for the primary outcome were 94% at 6 weeks, 88% at 6 months and 80% at 12 months. Greater improvement in total SPADI score was seen with physiotherapist-led exercise than with the exercise leaflet at 6 months (adjusted mean difference -8.23; 95% CI -14.14 to -2.32). There were no significant differences between the injection groups at 6 weeks (-2.04; -7.29 to 3.22), 6 months (-2.36; -8.16 to 3.44) or 12 months (1.59; -5.54 to 8.72). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with SAPS, physiotherapist-led exercise leads to greater improvements in pain and function than an exercise leaflet. Ultrasound guidance confers no additional benefit over unguided corticosteroid injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN42399123.

TANDEM TRIAL: a factorial randomised controlled trial of dose and review schedule of bevacizumab (Avastin) for neovascular macular degeneration in the East Midlands.

OBJECTIVE: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD) causes damage to the macula and severe vision loss. Bevacizumab is the most cost-effective nAMD treatment. The TANDEM trial was designed to determine whether, in patients with nAMD, low-dose bevacizumab is non-inferior to the standard dose in terms of visual deterioration and whether a bimonthly regimen is non-inferior to monthly, treatment as required, regimens. METHODS: This was a multicentre, 2×2 factorial, double-masked, non-inferiority randomised trial with patients considered eligible if they met the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence criteria for nAMD treatment with ranibizumab. Participants were randomly assigned to standard (1.25 mg) or low (0.625 mg) dose bevacizumab and either monthly or bimonthly review regimen. The primary outcome was time to vision deterioration, defined as reduction of ≥15 letters (three lines) during the loading phase (visual acuity scores at visits B and C compared with the initial visit A), or ≥6 letters (one line) during the maintenance phase (visual acuity scores at subsequent visits compared with mean vision at visits A-C). RESULTS: In total 812 participants (918 eyes) were randomised into the trial. The low dose showed some evidence of being non-inferior to standard dose (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.42), however, there was no strong evidence of bimonthly review being non-inferior to monthly review (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.94). There was no difference in visual acuity when assessed at 9 months and no major differences in the frequency of serious adverse events or reactions between the groups. CONCLUSION: The standard dose of bevacizumab can be halved without compromising efficacy. Bimonthly review cannot be considered to be no worse than monthly review.

Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is 'stepped', comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care. DESIGN: This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients' and clinicians' views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist. RESULTS: A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration. LIMITATIONS: Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results. FUTURE WORK: Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581. 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. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sciatica is pain that spreads into the leg because of a trapped nerve in the lower back. It can be a very painful condition that affects everyday life and ability to work. People with sciatica usually see their general practitioner first; if they do not get better over time, they may be referred to a physiotherapist or, eventually, to a spinal specialist. It is difficult to know which sciatica patient will do well without much treatment and who might need to see a physiotherapist or spinal specialist sooner. Stratified care is an approach aiming to help decide, early on, which patients need to see which health professionals. It has previously been shown to be helpful for patients with lower-back pain. In a trial of 476 patients with sciatica a stratified care model was tested to see if it led to faster improvements in sciatica-related leg pain, when compared with usual care. Adults seeing their general practitioner with sciatica were invited to attend a research clinic. Those willing to take part were randomly assigned to stratified care or usual care. Patients in the stratified care arm were referred either to physiotherapy for a short or a longer course of treatment, or to undergo magnetic resonance imaging and see a spinal specialist with the magnetic resonance imaging results within 4 weeks. Pain, function and quality-of-life data were collected over 12 months using text messages and questionnaires. Although patients in the stratified care arm improved slightly more quickly (2 weeks, on average), we did not find convincing evidence that stratified care led to better results than usual care. On average, most patients in both trial arms improved in a similar way over 12 months. The stratified care model tested in this trial did not lead to faster recovery for patients with sciatica than usual care.

East Midlands knee pain multiple randomised controlled trial cohort study: cohort establishment and feasibility study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Knee pain due to osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of disability. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence OA guidelines recommend education, exercise and weight loss advice (if overweight) as core interventions before pharmacological adjuncts. However, implementation of these in primary care is often suboptimal. This study aims to develop a complex intervention with non-pharmacological and pharmacological components that can be delivered by nurses. The feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and feasibility of undertaking a future cohort randomised controlled trial (RCT) will be explored. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In phase 1, we will develop a training programme for nurses and evaluate the fidelity and acceptability of the non-pharmacological element of the intervention. Fidelity checklists completed by the nurse will be compared with video analysis of the treatment sessions. Patients and nurses will be interviewed to determine the acceptability of the intervention and explore challenges to intervention delivery. The non-pharmacological component will be modified based on the findings. In phase 2, we will assess the feasibility of conducting a cohort RCT comprising both the pharmacological and modified non-pharmacological components. We will compare three groups: group A will receive the non-pharmacological components delivered before pharmacological components; group B will receive pharmacological components followed by the non-pharmacological components; and group C (control arm) will continue to receive usual care. Study outcomes will be collected at three time points: baseline, 13 and 26 weeks after randomisation. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with a sample of participants from each of the two active intervention arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by the East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0288) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (protocol v4.0, 10/02/2020). The study will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidance and standards. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed academic journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03670706.