High phenotypic and genotypic plasticity among strains of the mushroom-forming fungus Schizophyllum commune.

Schizophyllum commune is a mushroom-forming fungus notable for its distinctive fruiting bodies with split gills. It is used as a model organism to study mushroom development, lignocellulose degradation and mating type loci. It is a hypervariable species with considerable genetic and phenotypic diversity between the strains. In this study, we systematically phenotyped 16 dikaryotic strains for aspects of mushroom development and 18 monokaryotic strains for lignocellulose degradation. There was considerable heterogeneity among the strains regarding these phenotypes. The majority of the strains developed mushrooms with varying morphologies, although some strains only grew vegetatively under the tested conditions. Growth on various carbon sources showed strain-specific profiles. The genomes of seven monokaryotic strains were sequenced and analyzed together with six previously published genome sequences. Moreover, the related species Schizophyllum fasciatum was sequenced. Although there was considerable genetic variation between the genome assemblies, the genes related to mushroom formation and lignocellulose degradation were well conserved. These sequenced genomes, in combination with the high phenotypic diversity, will provide a solid basis for functional genomics analyses of the strains of S. commune.

Social contact and the perceived impact of social distancing on health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic among community dwelling older adults taking part in the OPAL cohort study.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, social distancing and reduced social contact may have affected older adults' health. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the perceived impact of social distancing on older adults' health and explore the association between social contact and health outcomes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of the OPAL cohort study. SUBJECTS: Community dwelling older adults. METHODS: We sent questionnaires to participants of an existing cohort study (n = 4328). Questions included the amount and type of social contact, and how often they went outside. Participants rated the impact of social distancing on their health. Sociodemographic factors and quality of life were available from previous questionnaires. We examined quality of life prior to and during the pandemic and explored the cross-sectional relationship between social contact and health using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 3856/4328 (89%) questionnaires returned. EQ-5D scores changed little compared to pre-pandemic scores but 25% of participants reported their overall health had worsened. The telephone was the most used method of contact (78%). Video calls were used least with 35% of participants not using them or having no access to them. 13% of respondents never went outside. Lower levels of contact were associated with increased risk of reporting worse health (Odds ratio (OR) 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.08)). Those experiencing financial strain and who spent less time outside experienced the largest increase in risk of reporting perceived worsened overall health. Those reporting a strain to get by financially were 4 times more likely to report worsened health than those who described themselves as quite comfortably off (OR 4.00 (95% CI 1.86-8.16)). Participants who reported never going outside were twice as likely to report worsened health compared to those who went outside daily (OR 2.00 (95% CI 1.57-2.54)). CONCLUSIONS: Less contact with other people was associated with perceived worsening in overall health. Although many older people reported using online technology, such as video calls, a substantial proportion were not using them. Older people facing financial strain were more likely to report worsened health, highlighting the impact of social inequalities during the pandemic. Going outside less was also associated with perceived worsened health.

Statistical analysis plan for the TRANSLATE (TRANSrectal biopsy versus Local Anaesthetic Transperineal biopsy Evaluation of potentially clinically significant prostate cancer) multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The TRANSLATE (TRANSrectal biopsy versus Local Anaesthetic Transperineal biopsy Evaluation) trial assesses the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two biopsy procedures in terms of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa). This article describes the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the TRANSLATE randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS/DESIGN: TRANSLATE is a parallel, superiority, multicentre RCT. Biopsy-naïve men aged ≥ 18 years requiring a prostate biopsy for suspicion of possible PCa are randomised (computer-generated 1:1 allocation ratio) to one of two biopsy procedures: transrectal (TRUS) or local anaesthetic transperineal (LATP) biopsy. The primary outcome is the difference in detection rates of clinically significant PCa (defined as Gleason Grade Group ≥ 2, i.e. any Gleason pattern ≥ 4 disease) between the two biopsy procedures. Secondary outcome measures are th eProBE questionnaire (Perception Part and General Symptoms) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF, Domain A) scores, International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) values, EQ-5D-5L scores, resource use, infection rates, complications, and serious adverse events. We describe in detail the sample size calculation, statistical models used for the analysis, handling of missing data, and planned sensitivity and subgroup analyses. This SAP was pre-specified, written and submitted without prior knowledge of the trial results. DISCUSSION: Publication of the TRANSLATE trial SAP aims to increase the transparency of the data analysis and reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias. Any deviations from the current SAP will be described and justified in the final study report and results publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN98159689, registered on 28 January 2021 and registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05179694) trials registry.

Tailored exercise management (TEMPO) versus usual care for people aged 80 years or older with hip/knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is recommended for all people with osteoarthritis. However, these recommendations are based on randomised clinical trials including people with an average age between 60 and 70 years, and these findings cannot reliably be generalised to people aged 80 years or older. Rapid loss of muscle occurs after 70 years of age, and older people are more likely to also have other health conditions that contribute to difficulties with daily activities and impact on their response to exercise. To improve care for people aged 80 or older with osteoarthritis, it is thought that a tailored exercise intervention targeting both osteoarthritis and any other health conditions they have, may be needed. The aim of this study will be to test if it is possible to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for people over 80 years of age with hip/knee osteoarthritis of a tailored exercise intervention. METHODS: A multicentre, parallel, 2-group, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study, conducted in ≥ 3 UK NHS physiotherapy outpatient services. Participants (n ≥ 50) with clinical knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and ≥ 1 comorbidity will be recruited by screening referrals to participating NHS physiotherapy outpatient services, via screening of general practice records and via identification of eligible individuals from a cohort study run by our research group. Participants will be randomised (computer-generated: 1:1) to receive either: a 12-week education and tailored exercise intervention (TEMPO); or usual care and written information. The primary feasibility objectives are to estimate: (1) ability to screen and recruit eligible participants; (2) retention of participants, measured by the proportion of participants who provide outcome data at 14-week follow-up. Secondary quantitative objectives are to estimate: (1) participant engagement assessed by physiotherapy session attendance and home exercise adherence; (2) sample size calculation for a definitive RCT. One-to-one semi-structured interviews will explore the experiences of trial participants and physiotherapists delivering the TEMPO programme. DISCUSSION: Progression criteria will be used to determine whether a definitive trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the TEMPO programme is considered feasible with or without modifications to the intervention or trial design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75983430. Registered 3/12/2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN75983430.

Economic costs, health-related quality of life outcomes and cost-utility of a physical and psychological group intervention targeted at older adults with neurogenic claudication.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that structured and progressive exercise underpinned by a cognitive behavioural approach can improve functional outcomes in patients with neurogenic claudication (NC). However, evidence surrounding its economic benefits is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the economic costs, health-related quality of life outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) versus best practice advice (BPA) in older adults with NC. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted based on data from a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial. The base-case economic evaluation took the form of an intention-to-treat analysis conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective and separately from a societal perspective. Costs (£ 2018-2019 prices) were collected prospectively over a 12 month follow-up period. A bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, was conducted to estimate the incremental cost per QALY gained and the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of the BOOST programme in comparison to BPA. Sensitivity and pre-specified subgroup analyses explored uncertainty and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Participants (N = 435) were randomised to the BOOST programme (n = 292) or BPA (n = 143). Mean (standard error [SE]) NHS and PSS costs over 12 months were £1,974 (£118) in the BOOST arm versus £1,827 (£169) in the BPA arm (p = 0.474). Mean (SE) QALY estimates were 0.620 (0.009) versus 0.599 (0.006), respectively (p = 0.093). The probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged between 67 and 83% (NHS and PSS perspective) and 79-89% (societal perspective) at cost-effectiveness thresholds between £15,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained. INMBs ranged between £145 and £464 at similar cost-effectiveness thresholds. The cost-effectiveness results remained robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The BOOST programme resulted in modest QALY gains over the 12 month follow-up period. Future studies with longer intervention and follow-up periods are needed to address uncertainty around the health-related quality of life impacts and cost-effectiveness of such programmes. Trial registration This study has been registered in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, reference number ISRCTN12698674. Registered on 10 November 2015.

Protocol for the TRANSLATE prospective, multicentre, randomised clinical trial of prostate biopsy technique.

OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives: to determine whether local anaesthetic transperineal prostate (LATP) biopsy improves the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa), defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) Grade Group ≥2 disease (i.e., any Gleason pattern 4 disease), compared to transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) prostate biopsy, in biopsy-naïve men undergoing biopsy based on suspicion of csPCa. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: to compare (i) infection rates, (ii) health-related quality of life, (iii) patient-reported procedure tolerability, (iv) patient-reported biopsy-related complications (including bleeding, bruising, pain, loss of erectile function), (v) number of subsequent prostate biopsy procedures required, (vi) cost-effectiveness, (vii) other histological parameters, and (viii) burden and rate of detection of clinically insignificant PCa (ISUP Grade Group 1 disease) in men undergoing these two types of prostate biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The TRANSLATE trial is a UK-wide, multicentre, randomised clinical trial that meets the criteria for level-one evidence in diagnostic test evaluation. TRANSLATE is investigating whether LATP biopsy leads to a higher rate of detection of csPCa compared to TRUS prostate biopsy. Both biopsies are being performed with an average of 12 systematic cores in six sectors (depending on prostate size), plus three to five target cores per multiparametric/bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging lesion. LATP biopsy is performed using an ultrasound probe-mounted needle-guidance device (either the 'Precision-Point' or BK UA1232 system). TRUS biopsy is performed according to each hospital's standard practice. The study is 90% powered to detect a 10% difference (LATP biopsy hypothesised at 55% detection rate for csPCa vs 45% for TRUS biopsy). A total of 1042 biopsy-naïve men referred with suspected PCa need to be recruited. CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide robust prospective data to determine the diagnostic ability of LATP biopsy vs TRUS biopsy in the primary diagnostic setting.

Hormone replacement therapy (conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene) for post-menopausal women with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis: primary report from the HOPE-e randomised, placebo-controlled, feasibility study.

Background: Symptomatic hand osteoarthritis is more common in women than in men, and its incidence increases around the age of menopause, implicating oestrogen deficiency. No randomised controlled trials of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have been done in people with hand osteoarthritis. We aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a form of HRT (conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene) in post-menopausal women with painful hand osteoarthritis. Methods: The HOPE-e feasibility study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, for which we recruited women aged 40-65 years, for whom 1-10 years had passed after their final menstrual period, with definite hand osteoarthritis and at least two painful hand joints. Participants were recruited across three primary or secondary care sites and from the community and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene or placebo, orally once every day for 24 weeks, before weaning for 4 weeks until the end of the study. The primary feasibility outcomes were rates of identification, recruitment, randomisation, retention, and compliance of eligible participants, and the likelihood of unmasking. The secondary objective was to generate proof-of-concept quantitative and qualitative data on the acceptability of proposed clinical outcomes for a full trial and adverse events. We used an intention-to-treat analysis, and criteria for progression to a full trial were pre-defined as recruitment of at least 30 participants across all sites in 18 months; a dropout rate of less than or equal to 30% of randomised individuals; and acceptability to the majority of participants, including acceptable rates of adverse events. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the recruitment window was reduced to 12-15 months. A proportionately reduced minimum sample size of 22 was judged to be sufficient to test feasibility. This trial was registered at ISRCTN, ISRCTN12196200. Findings: From May 9, 2019 to Dec 31, 2020, 434 enquiries or referrals were received. We did 96 telephone pre-screens; of the 35 eligible participants, seven were excluded as ineligible at the telephone or face-to-face screening and 28 (80% [95% CI 63-92]) were randomly assigned. Of the 406 who were not randomly assigned, 250 (62%) were ineligible (with contraindicated medications accounting for 50 [20%] of these), 101 (25%) did not respond to further enquiries, and 55 (14%) chose not to proceed (with the most common reason being not wanting to take a hormone-based drug). All 28 randomised participants completed all follow-up assessments with high compliance and outcome measure completeness. All three adverse event-related treatment withdrawals were in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported. Participants and investigators were successfully masked (participant Bang's blinding index placebo group 0·50 [95% CI 0·25-0·75]). The trial met the prespecified criteria for progression to a full trial. Interpretation: This first-ever feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of HRT for post-menopausal women with painful hand osteoarthritis met its progression criteria, although it was not powered to detect a clinical effect. This outcome indicates that a full trial of an HRT in this population is feasible and acceptable and identifies potential refinements with regard to the design of such a trial. Funding: Research for Patient Benefit programme, National Institute for Health Research.

A meta-research study of randomized controlled trials found infrequent and delayed availability of protocols.

OBJECTIVES: Availability of randomized controlled trial (RCT) protocols is essential for the interpretation of trial results and research transparency. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this study, we determined the availability of RCT protocols approved in Switzerland, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom in 2012. For these RCTs, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and trial registries for publicly available protocols and corresponding full-text publications of results. We determined the proportion of RCTs with (1) publicly available protocols, (2) publications citing the protocol, and (3) registries providing a link to the protocol. A multivariable logistic regression model explored factors associated with protocol availability. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-six RCTs were included, of which 118 (36.2%) made their protocol publicly available; 56 (47.6% 56 of 118) provided as a peer-reviewed publication and 48 (40.7%, 48 of 118) provided as supplementary material. A total of 90.9% (100 of 110) of the protocols were cited in the main publication, and 55.9% (66 of 118) were linked in the clinical trial registry. Larger sample size (>500; odds ratio [OR] = 5.90, 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.75-13.31) and investigator sponsorship (OR = 1.99, 95% CI, 1.11-3.59) were associated with increased protocol availability. Most protocols were made available shortly before the publication of the main results. CONCLUSION: RCT protocols should be made available at an early stage of the trial.

The Transcription Factor Roc1 Is a Key Regulator of Cellulose Degradation in the Wood-Decaying Mushroom Schizophyllum commune.

Wood-decaying fungi of the class Agaricomycetes (phylum Basidiomycota) are saprotrophs that break down lignocellulose and play an important role in nutrient recycling. They secrete a wide range of extracellular plant cell wall degrading enzymes that break down cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin, the main building blocks of plant biomass. Although the production of these enzymes is regulated mainly at the transcriptional level, no activating regulators have been identified in any wood-decaying fungus in the class Agaricomycetes. We studied the regulation of cellulase expression in the wood-decaying fungus Schizophyllum commune. Comparative genomics and transcriptomics on two wild isolates revealed a Zn2Cys6-type transcription factor gene (roc1) that was highly upregulated during growth on cellulose, compared to glucose. It is only conserved in the class Agaricomycetes. A roc1 knockout strain showed an inability to grow on medium with cellulose as sole carbon source, and growth on cellobiose and xylan (other components of wood) was inhibited. Growth on non-wood-related carbon sources was not inhibited. Cellulase gene expression and enzyme activity were reduced in the Δroc1 strain. ChIP-Seq identified 1474 binding sites of the Roc1 transcription factor. Promoters of genes involved in lignocellulose degradation were enriched with these binding sites, especially those of LPMO (lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase) CAZymes, indicating that Roc1 directly regulates these genes. A conserved motif was identified as the binding site of Roc1, which was confirmed by a functional promoter analysis. Together, Roc1 is a key regulator of cellulose degradation and the first identified in wood-decaying fungi in the phylum Basidiomycota. IMPORTANCE Wood-degrading fungi in the phylum Basidiomycota play a crucial role in nutrient recycling by breaking down all components of wood. Fungi have evolved transcriptional networks that regulate expression of wood-degrading enzymes, allowing them to prioritize one nutrient source over another. However, to date all these transcription factors have been identified in the phylum Ascomycota, which is only distantly related to the phylum Basidiomycota. Here, we identified the transcription factor Roc1 as a key regulator of cellulose degradation in the mushroom-forming and wood-degrading fungus Schizophyllum commune. Roc1 is highly conserved in the phylum Basidiomycota. Using comparative genomics, transcriptomics, ChIP-Seq and promoter analysis we have identified direct targets of Roc1, as well as other aspects of the transcriptional response to cellulose.

Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis.

BACKGROUND: We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations. CONCLUSIONS: We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Flexibility and resistance exercises versus usual care for improving pain and function after distal radius fracture in adults aged 50 years or over: protocol for the WISE randomised multicentre feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Distal radius fractures represent about 1 in 5 of all fractures treated in UK hospitals. Most distal radius fractures occur in women aged 50 years or over after a fall. Distal radius fractures are managed using splints or casting, some are also treated with surgical fixation. Patients often experience long-term muscle weakness of the hand and arm that may impact their ability to do daily activities such as personal hygiene, routine household chores and food preparation. We propose a structured and tailored flexibility and resistance exercise programme for the hand and arm supplemented with behaviour change strategies to help perform daily exercise. The main aim of our study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial. METHODS: This study is a multicentre, parallel-group individually randomised feasibility trial. We will recruit a minimum of 72 adults aged 50 years or over with distal radius fracture treated surgically or non-surgically from at least three UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. They will be randomised 1:1:1 to receive usual care, usual care and independent exercise with a single therapy session or usual care and supervised exercise with three therapy sessions over 12 weeks. Our primary feasibility objectives are (1) patient engagement assessed by recruitment, (2) acceptability of the interventions assessed by adherence and patient and clinician experience and (3) retention of participants in the trial. Outcome measures will be assessed at baseline, 3 months and at 6 months after randomisation. A qualitative sub-study will explore the experiences of the trial participants and therapists delivering the exercises. DISCUSSION: A definitive trial will be considered feasible without major modifications if our progression criteria are met. If successful, the findings will inform the design of a future definitive RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the WISE exercise programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12290145 .

The Clinical Effectiveness of a Physiotherapy Delivered Physical and Psychological Group Intervention for Older Adults With Neurogenic Claudication: The BOOST Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Neurogenic claudication (NC) is a debilitating spinal condition affecting older adults' mobility and quality of life. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial of 438 participants evaluated the effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST program) compared to physiotherapy assessment and tailored advice (best practice advice [BPA]) for older adults with NC. Participants were identified from spinal clinics (community and secondary care) and general practice records and randomized 2:1 to the BOOST program or BPA. The primary outcome was the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) at 12 months. Data were also collected at 6 months. Other outcomes included ODI walking item, 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and falls. The primary analysis was intention-to-treat. RESULTS: The average age of participants was 74.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 6.0) and 57% (246/435) were female. There was no significant difference in ODI scores between treatment groups at 12 months (adjusted mean difference [MD]: -1.4 [95% confidence intervals (CI) -4.03, 1.17]), but, at 6 months, ODI scores favored the BOOST program (adjusted MD: -3.7 [95% CI -6.27, -1.06]). At 12 months, the BOOST program resulted in greater improvements in walking capacity (6MWT MD: 21.7m [95% CI 5.96, 37.38]) and ODI walking item (MD: -0.2 [95% CI -0.45, -0.01]) and reduced falls risk (odds ratio: 0.6 [95% CI 0.40, 0.98]) compared to BPA. No serious adverse events were related to either treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The BOOST program substantially improved mobility for older adults with NC. Future iterations of the program will consider ways to improve long-term pain-related disability. Clinical Trials Registration Number: ISRCTN12698674.

Intravenous iron to treat anaemia following critical care: a multicentre feasibility randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is common and associated with poor outcomes in survivors of critical illness. However, the optimal treatment strategy is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, feasibility RCT to compare either a single dose of ferric carboxymaltose 1000 mg i.v. or usual care in patients being discharged from the ICU with moderate or severe anaemia (haemoglobin ≤100 g L-1). We collected data on feasibility (recruitment, randomisation, follow-up), biological efficacy, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-eight participants were randomly allocated (49 in each arm). The overall recruitment rate was 34% with 6.5 participants recruited on average per month. Forty-seven of 49 (96%) participants received the intervention. Patient-reported outcome measures were available for 79/93 (85%) survivors at 90 days. Intravenous iron resulted in a higher mean (standard deviation [sd]) haemoglobin at 28 days (119.8 [13.3] vs 106.7 [14.9] g L-1) and 90 days (130.5 [15.1] vs 122.7 [17.3] g L-1), adjusted mean difference (10.98 g L-1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.96-17.01; P<0.001) over 90 days after randomisation. Infection rates were similar in both groups. Hospital readmissions at 90 days post-ICU discharge were lower in the i.v. iron group (7/40 vs 15/39; risk ratio=0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-0.99; P=0.037). The median (inter-quartile range) post-ICU hospital stay was shorter in the i.v. iron group but did not reach statistical significance (5.0 [3.0-13.0] vs 9.0 [5.0-16.0] days, P=0.15). CONCLUSION: A large, multicentre RCT of i.v. iron to treat anaemia in survivors of critical illness appears feasible and is necessary to determine the effects on patient-centred outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13721808 (www.isrctn.com).

Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Clinical trial registries are important for gaining an overview of ongoing research efforts and for deterring and identifying publication bias and selective outcome reporting. The reliability of the information in trial registries is uncertain. Objective: To assess the reliability of information across registries for trials with multiple registrations. Evidence Review: For this systematic review, 360 protocols of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Germany in 2012 were evaluated. Clinical trial registries were searched from March to September 2019 for corresponding registrations of these RCTs. For RCTS that were recorded in more than 1 clinical trial registry, key trial characteristics that should be identical among all trial registries (ie, sponsor, funding source, primary outcome, target sample size, trial status, date of first patient enrollment, results available, and main publication indexed) were extracted in duplicate. Agreement between the different trial registries for these key characteristics was analyzed descriptively. Data analyses were conducted from May 1 to November 30, 2020. Representatives from clinical trial registries were interviewed to discuss the study findings between February 1 and March 31, 2021. Findings: The analysis included 197 RCTs registered in more than 1 trial registry (151 in 2 registries and 46 in 3 registries), with 188 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 185 in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 20 in ISRCTN, and 47 in other registries. The agreement of key information across all registries was as follows: 178 of 197 RCTs (90%; 95% CI, 85%-94%) for sponsor, 18 of 20 (90%; 95% CI, 68%-99%) for funding source (funding was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov), 154 of 197 (78%; 95% CI, 72%-84%) for primary outcome, 90 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for trial status, 122 of 194 (63%; 95% CI, 56%-70%) for target sample size, and 43 of 57 (75%; 95% CI, 62%-86%) for the date of first patient enrollment when the comparison time was increased to 30 days (date of first patient enrollment was not reported on EudraCT). For results availability in trial registries, agreement was 122 of 197 RCTs (62%; 95% CI, 55%-69%) for summary data reported in the registry and 91 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for whether a published article with the main results was indexed. Different legal requirements were stated as the main reason for inconsistencies by representatives of clinical trial registries. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, for a substantial proportion of registered RCTs, information about key trial characteristics was inconsistent across trial registries, raising concerns about the reliability of the information provided in these registries. Further harmonization across clinical trial registries may be necessary to increase their usefulness.

Progressive exercise compared with best-practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for rotator cuff disorders: the GRASP factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design). SETTING: Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017-May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months -0.66, 99% confidence interval -4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference -5.64, 99% confidence interval -9.93 to -1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.11, 99% confidence interval -4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment. LIMITATIONS: Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28. 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. 25, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The rotator cuff is a group of muscles and tendons that stabilise the shoulder and allow it to move. Problems with the rotator cuff are very common. Symptoms include pain, which can affect a person's ability to work, sleep well or perform daily tasks. It is not known which treatments work best for shoulder pain, how exactly they should be delivered and whether or not people do better if they are given a steroid injection. The GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial tested whether or not people with a rotator cuff disorder would do better after a progressive exercise programme (supervised by a physiotherapist over six appointments spread out over 16 weeks) compared with a one-off best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. The trial also tested whether or not giving a corticosteroid injection in the shoulder before starting either regime would help people recover more. We assessed the cost of delivering these treatments to the NHS. We recruited 708 people from 20 NHS-based musculoskeletal centres in the UK. People were allocated to one of four treatment groups at random: (1) progressive exercise (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (one physiotherapy session). Trial participants were asked to complete a questionnaire that asked about their level of shoulder pain and their ability to perform basic daily tasks before treatment, and then again at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. Participants' shoulder pain and function improved over time in each of the four treatment groups. The GRASP trial showed that there was no difference between the best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist and the more comprehensive exercise programme. Corticosteroid injection improved people's shoulder pain and function, but only by a small amount and in the short term. No serious side effects were observed during the 12-month follow-up period. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection is likely to be most cost-effective to the NHS.

Progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of patients with rotator cuff disorders (GRASP): a multicentre, pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid injections and physiotherapy exercise programmes are commonly used to treat rotator cuff disorders but the treatments' effectiveness is uncertain. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme with a single session of best practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial (2 × 2 factorial), we recruited patients from 20 UK National Health Service trusts. We included patients aged 18 years or older with a rotator cuff disorder (new episode within the past 6 months). Patients were excluded if they had a history of significant shoulder trauma (eg, dislocation, fracture, or full-thickness tear requiring surgery), neurological disease affecting the shoulder, other shoulder conditions (eg, inflammatory arthritis, frozen shoulder, or glenohumeral joint instability), received corticosteroid injection or physiotherapy for shoulder pain in the past 6 months, or were being considered for surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (centralised computer-generated system, 1:1:1:1) to progressive exercise (≤6 sessions), best practice advice (one session), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise, or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (statistical significance set at 1%). The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ISRCTN16539266, and EuDRACT, 2016-002991-28. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2017, and May 2, 2019, we screened 2287 patients. 708 patients were randomly assigned to progressive exercise (n=174), best practice advice (n=174), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n=182), or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (n=178). Over 12 months, SPADI data were available for 166 (95%) patients in the progressive exercise group, 164 (94%) in the best practice advice group, 177 (97%) in the corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise group, and 175 (98%) in the corticosteroid injection then best practice advice group. We found no evidence of a difference in SPADI score between progressive exercise and best practice advice when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -0·66 [99% CI -4·52 to 3·20]). We also found no evidence of a difference between corticosteroid injection compared with no injection when analysed over 12 months (-1·11 [-4·47 to 2·26]). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best practice advice session with a physiotherapist in improving shoulder pain and function. Subacromial corticosteroid injection provided no long-term benefit in patients with rotator cuff disorders. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment Programme.

Randomised study within a trial (SWAT) to evaluate personalised versus standard text message prompts for increasing trial participant response to postal questionnaires (PROMPTS).

BACKGROUND: Use of a person's name in a text message has been shown to be effective in instigating behaviour change. We evaluated the effectiveness of a personalised text message (including the recipient's name) versus a standardised text message for prompting a response from trial participants to complete and return postal follow-up questionnaires. METHODS: Using a randomised study within a trial (SWAT) embedded within the host GRASP (Getting it Right: Addressing Shoulder Pain) trial, participants who provided a mobile telephone number were randomised (1:1) by a central computer system to receive either (1) a personalised text message which included their name or (2) a standard text message. Text messages were sent by the trial office on the same day as the 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaire. The primary outcome was questionnaire response rate, defined as the proportion of 6-month GRASP follow-up questionnaires returned by participants. Secondary outcomes included time to response, the proportion of participants sent a reminder follow-up questionnaire, and cost. RESULTS: Between March 2017 and May 2019 (recruitment period for GRASP trial), 618 participants were randomised to a personalised (n = 309) or standard (n = 309) text message and all were included in the analysis. The overall questionnaire response rate was 87% (n = 537/618); 90% (n = 277/309) of participants responded in the personalised text message group compared to 84% (n = 260/309) in the standard text message group (relative risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.13). Participants randomised to receive the personalised text message were more likely to return their initial postal questionnaire than those who received the standard text message (n = 185/309; 60% vs. n = 160/309; 52%) (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.00 to 1.33); this represents an absolute percentage difference between intervention groups of 8%. Post hoc subgroup analysis showed that males under 65 years were the group most likely to return their initial questionnaire if they received a personalised text message. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants who received a personalised text message were more likely to return their questionnaire than those who received the standard text message. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GRASP Trial ISRCTN16539266 ; SWAT Repository ID 35.

Hand Osteoarthritis: investigating Pain Effects of estrogen-containing therapy (HOPE-e): a protocol for a feasibility randomised placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand osteoarthritis (OA) is a common condition, causing pain, stiffness and reduced quality of life. Incidence is higher amongst women, particularly around the age of the menopause. Whilst the relationship between sex hormones and OA has been studied in vitro, in epidemiological studies and in clinical trials of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), this study is the first to investigate the effect of estrogen-containing therapy on hand pain in post-menopausal women with symptomatic hand OA in a randomised study design. METHODS: This is a feasibility study of a double-blinded placebo-controlled intervention with 1:1 randomisation to either a combination of conjugated estrogens 0.45 mg and bazedoxifene acetate 20 mg (Duavive) or placebo. The target population is post-menopausal women with symptomatic hand OA, aiming to recruit 60-90 study participants. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of a future fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT). Participants will take the study medication for 24 weeks and be followed up for 28 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcomes used to determine feasibility are eligible participant identification rates and routes; recruitment, randomisation and retention rates of eligible participants; study medication compliance; and the likelihood of unintentional unblinding. Secondary outcomes include measures of hand pain, function, appearance and menopausal symptoms. An end of study questionnaire and focus groups will help to refine the final protocol for a full study. DISCUSSION: Identifying new treatments for symptomatic hand OA is a recognised research priority. The study will help us to understand whether there are sufficient interested and eligible individuals in this target population who would consider HRT for their hand symptoms. It will provide proof-of-concept RCT data on the effects of HRT on hand pain and other clinically relevant outcomes in this population. The study will gain valuable information on the feasibility of a full RCT and how best to run this. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a relevant conference. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12196200 registered on 15 January 2019.