Clinical effectiveness of the psychological therapy Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy in addition to usual care compared with assessment-enhanced usual care alone: a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Mental health difficulties are common in children and young people with chronic health conditions, but many of those in need do not access evidence-based psychological treatments. The study aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of integrated mental health treatment for children and young people with epilepsy, a common chronic health condition known to be associated with a particularly high rate of co-occurring mental health difficulties. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of participants aged 3-18 years, attending epilepsy clinics across England and Northern Ireland who met diagnostic criteria for a common mental health disorder. Participants were randomised (1:1; using an independent web-based system) to receive the Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy (MICE) in addition to usual care, or assessment-enhanced usual care alone (control). Children and young people in both groups received a full diagnostic mental health assessment. MICE was a modular psychological intervention designed to treat common mental health conditions in children and young people using evidence-based approaches such as cognitive behaviour therapy and behavioural parenting strategies. Usual care for mental health disorders varied by site but typically included referral to appropriate services. Participants, along with their caregivers, and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation but statisticians were masked until the point of analysis. The primary outcome, analysed by modified intention-to-treat, was the parent-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at 6 months post-randomisation. The study is complete and registered with ISRCTN (57823197). FINDINGS: 1401 young people were potentially deemed eligible for study inclusion. Following the exclusion of 531 young people, 870 participants were assessed for eligibility and completed the SDQ, and 480 caregivers provided consent for study inclusion between May 20, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022. Between Aug 28, 2019, and Feb 21, 2022, 334 participants (mean ages 10·5 years [SD 3·6] in the MICE group vs 10·3 [4·0] in control group at baseline) were randomly assigned to an intervention using minimisation balanced by age, primary mental health disorder, diagnosis of intellectual disability, and autistic spectrum disorder at baseline. 168 (50%) of the participants were female and 166 (50%) were male. 166 participants were randomly assigned to the MICE group and 168 were randomly assigned to the control group. At 6 months, the mean SDQ difficulties for the 148 participants in the MICE group was 17·6 (SD 6·3) and 19·6 (6·1) for the 148 participants in the control group. The adjusted effect of MICE was -1·7 (95% CI -2·8 to -0·5; p=0·0040; Cohen's d, 0·3). 14 (8%) patients in the MICE group experienced at least one serious adverse event compared with 24 (14%) in the control group. 68% percent of serious adverse events (50 events) were admission due to seizures. INTERPRETATION: MICE was superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving symptoms of emotional and behavioural difficulties in young people with epilepsy and common mental health disorders. The trial therefore shows that mental health comorbidities can be effectively and safely treated by a variety of clinicians, utilising an integrated intervention across ages and in the context of intellectual disability and autism. The evidence from this trial suggests that such a model should be fully embedded in epilepsy services and serves as a model for other chronic health conditions in young people. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and Epilepsy Research UK Endeavour Project Grant.

Total Ankle Replacement Versus Arthrodesis for End-Stage Ankle Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: End-stage ankle osteoarthritis causes severe pain and disability. There are no randomized trials comparing the 2 main surgical treatments: total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion (AF). OBJECTIVE: To determine which treatment is superior in terms of clinical scores and adverse events. DESIGN: A multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: 60672307). SETTING: 17 National Health Service trusts across the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, aged 50 to 85 years, and suitable for either procedure. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to TAR or AF surgical treatment. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing (MOXFQ-W/S) domain scores between baseline and 52 weeks after surgery. No blinding was possible. RESULTS: Between 6 March 2015 and 10 January 2019, a total of 303 patients were randomly assigned; mean age was 68 years, and 71% were men. Twenty-one patients withdrew before surgery, and 281 clinical scores were analyzed. At 52 weeks, the mean MOXFQ-W/S scores improved for both groups. The adjusted difference in the change in MOXFQ-W/S scores from baseline was -5.6 (95% CI, -12.5 to 1.4), showing that TAR improved more than AF, but the difference was not considered clinically or statistically significant. The number of adverse events was similar between groups (109 vs. 104), but there were more wound healing issues in the TAR group and more thromboembolic events and nonunion in the AF group. The symptomatic nonunion rate for AF was 7%. A post hoc analysis suggested superiority of fixed-bearing TAR over AF (-11.1 [CI, -19.3 to -2.9]). LIMITATION: Only 52-week data; pragmatic design creates heterogeneity of implants and surgical techniques. CONCLUSION: Both TAR and AF improve MOXFQ-W/S and had similar clinical scores and number of harms. Total ankle replacement had greater wound healing complications and nerve injuries, whereas AF had greater thromboembolism and nonunion, with a symptomatic nonunion rate of 7%. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute for Health and Care Research Heath Technology Assessment Programme.

Favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or combination therapy (FLARE): A randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 factorial placebo-controlled trial of early antiviral therapy in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Early antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: At the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68.

Effectiveness of Belimumab After Rituximab in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: B-cell depletion with rituximab is commonly used for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) that is refractory to conventional therapy, but it yields variable responses. We hypothesized that high B-cell activating factor (BAFF) levels after rituximab can cause disease flares, thereby limiting its effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To obtain preliminary evidence for efficacy of the anti-BAFF therapeutic belimumab after rituximab in SLE. DESIGN: Phase 2, randomized, double-blind (patients, assessors, researchers, care providers), placebo-controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial. (ISRCTN: 47873003). SETTING: England. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-two patients who had SLE that was refractory to conventional treatment and whose physicians had recommended rituximab therapy were recruited between 2 February 2017 and 28 March 2019. INTERVENTION: Participants were treated with rituximab and 4 to 8 weeks later were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous belimumab or placebo for 52 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: The prespecified primary end point was serum IgG anti-double-stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody levels at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes included incidence of disease flares and adverse events. RESULTS: At 52 weeks, IgG anti-dsDNA antibody levels were lower in patients treated with belimumab compared with placebo (geometric mean, 47 [95% CI, 25 to 88] vs. 103 [CI, 49 to 213] IU/mL; 70% greater reduction from baseline [CI, 46% to 84%]; P < 0.001). Belimumab reduced risk for severe flare (BILAG-2004 grade A) compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.27 [CI, 0.07 to 0.98]; log-rank P = 0.033), with 10 severe flares in the placebo group and 3 in the belimumab group. Belimumab did not increase incidence of serious adverse events. Belimumab significantly suppressed B-cell repopulation compared with placebo (geometric mean, 0.012 [CI, 0.006 to 0.014] vs. 0.037 [CI, 0.021 to 0.081] × 109/L) at 52 weeks in a subset of patients (n = 25) with available data. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size; biomarker primary end point. CONCLUSION: Belimumab after rituximab significantly reduced serum IgG anti-dsDNA antibody levels and reduced risk for severe flare in patients with SLE that was refractory to conventional therapy. The results suggest that this combination could be developed as a therapeutic strategy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Versus Arthritis.

Effect of Corneal Cross-linking versus Standard Care on Keratoconus Progression in Young Patients: The KERALINK Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy and safety of corneal cross-linking (CXL) for stabilization of progressive keratoconus. DESIGN: Observer-masked, randomized, controlled, parallel-group superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty participants 10 to 16 years of age with progressive keratoconus, one eye of each deemed the study eye. METHODS: The study eye was randomized to either CXL plus standard care or standard care alone, with spectacle or contact lens correction as necessary for vision. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was steep keratometry (K2) in the study eye as a measure of the steepness of the cornea at 18 months. Secondary outcomes included keratoconus progression defined as a 1.5-diopter (D) increase in K2, visual acuity, keratoconus apex corneal thickness, and quality of life. RESULTS: Of 60 participants, 30 were randomized to CXL and standard care groups. Of these, 30 patients in the CXL group and 28 patients in the standard care group were analyzed. Mean K2 in the study eye 18 months after randomization was 49.7 D (standard deviation [SD], 3.8 D) in the CXL group and 53.4 D (SD, 5.8 D) in the standard care group. The adjusted mean difference in K2 in the study eye was -3.0 D (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to -1.1 D; P = 0.002), favoring CXL. Adjusted differences between groups in uncorrected and corrected vision favored eyes receiving CXL: -0.31 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; 95% CI, -0.50 to -0.11 logMAR; P = 0.002) and -0.51 logMAR (95% CI, -1.37 to 0.35 logMAR; P = 0.002). Keratoconus progression in the study eye occurred in 2 patients (7%) randomized to CXL compared with 12 patients (43%) randomized to standard care. The unadjusted odds ratio suggests that on average, patients in the CXL arm had 90% (odds ratio, 0.1; 95% CI, 0.02-0.48; P = 0.004) lower odds of experiencing progression compared with those receiving standard care. CONCLUSIONS: CXL arrests progression of keratoconus in the majority of young patients. CXL should be considered as a first-line treatment in progressive disease. If the arrest of keratoconus progression induced by CXL is sustained in longer follow-up, particular benefit may be derived from avoiding a later requirement for contact lens wear or corneal transplantation.

Post hoc analysis of the Exenatide-PD trial-Factors that predict response.

Exenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist and a licensed treatment for Type 2 diabetes significantly reduced deterioration in motor symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. In addition, there were trends favouring the exenatide group in assessments of nonmotor symptoms, cognition, and quality of life. The aim of this exploratory post hoc analysis was to generate new hypotheses regarding (a) whether candidate baseline factors might predict the magnitude of response to exenatide; and (b) whether the beneficial effects of exenatide reported for the overall population are consistent in various subgroups of patients. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to determine possible predictors of motor response to exenatide in this cohort. Potential treatment by subgroup interactions for changes in; motor severity, nonmotor symptoms, cognition, and quality of life after 48-weeks treatment with exenatide were evaluated among post hoc subgroups defined by age, motor phenotype, disease duration, disease severity, body mass index (BMI), and insulin resistance. In the subgroup analyses, exenatide once-weekly was associated with broadly improved outcome measures assessing motor severity, nonmotor symptoms, cognition, and quality of life across all subgroups, however, tremor-dominant phenotype and lower Movement Disorder Society-Sponsored Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part-2 scores predicted greatest motor response to exenatide and there was an indication that patients with older age of onset and disease duration over 10 years responded less well. While patients with a range of demographic and clinical factors can potentially benefit from exenatide once-weekly, these data support an emphasis towards recruiting patients at earlier disease in future planned clinical trials of gluacagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists in Parkinson's disease (PD).

Exenatide once weekly versus placebo in Parkinson's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exenatide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, has neuroprotective effects in preclinical models of Parkinson's disease. We investigated whether these effects would be apparent in a clinical trial. METHODS: In this single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with moderate Parkinson's disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive subcutaneous injections of exenatide 2 mg or placebo once weekly for 48 weeks in addition to their regular medication, followed by a 12-week washout period. Eligible patients were aged 25-75 years, had idiopathic Parkinson's disease as measured by Queen Square Brain Bank criteria, were on dopaminergic treatment with wearing-off effects, and were at Hoehn and Yahr stage 2·5 or less when on treatment. Randomisation was by web-based randomisation with a two strata block design according to disease severity. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was the adjusted difference in the Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) motor subscale (part 3) in the practically defined off-medication state at 60 weeks. All efficacy analyses were based on a modified intention-to-treat principle, which included all patients who completed any post-randomisation follow-up assessments. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01971242) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between June 18, 2014, and March 13, 2015, 62 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 32 to exenatide and 30 to placebo. Our primary analysis included 31 patients in the exenatide group and 29 patients in the placebo group. At 60 weeks, off-medication scores on part 3 of the MDS-UPDRS had improved by 1·0 points (95% CI -2·6 to 0·7) in the exenatide group and worsened by 2·1 points (-0·6 to 4·8) in the placebo group, an adjusted mean difference of -3·5 points (-6·7 to -0·3; p=0·0318). Injection site reactions and gastrointestinal symptoms were common adverse events in both groups. Six serious adverse events occurred in the exenatide group and two in the placebo group, although none in either group were judged to be related to the study interventions. INTERPRETATION: Exenatide had positive effects on practically defined off-medication motor scores in Parkinson's disease, which were sustained beyond the period of exposure. Whether exenatide affects the underlying disease pathophysiology or simply induces long-lasting symptomatic effects is uncertain. Exenatide represents a major new avenue for investigation in Parkinson's disease, and effects on everyday symptoms should be examined in longer-term trials. FUNDING: Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research.

Comparison of the impact of cancer between British and US long-term non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors.

PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to examine quality of life, using the Impact of Cancer version 2 (IOCv2), in British non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survivors and investigate differences between survivors in the UK and the USA. METHODS: NHL survivors (326 UK and 667 US) completed the 37-item IOCv2 and psychological distress, fatigue and social support questionnaires. RESULTS: The IOCv2 showed good reliability in the British sample with higher internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.7-0.9) and no floor and ceiling effects. UK survivors showed significantly higher negative (p < 0.001) and higher positive (p = 0.003) IOC compared to US survivors. Younger survivors (p = 0.003), those with shorter time since diagnosis (p < 0.001) and with lower levels of social support (p = 0.001), showed more negative IOC in both groups. Higher negative IOC was also significantly associated with fatigue (p < 0.001) and depressive symptoms (p < 0.001) in both countries. Higher positive IOC was associated with female gender (p < 0.001), longer time since diagnosis (p = 0.02), those diagnosed at later stage (p < 0.05) and with greater social support (p = 0.004). Whereas significantly lower positive IOC was associated with white ethnicity (p < 0.001), higher education levels (p < 0.05) and fatigue (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The IOCv2 is reliable and applicable in UK and US populations. Both negative and positive IOC scores were higher in British compared to US survivors. However, in both countries, psychosocial factors consistently showed the greatest impact on QOL irrespective of clinical characteristics. Recognition and treatment of individuals with these risk factors is a high priority for improving QOL in long-term cancer survivors, as is the development of modular interventions aimed at increasing positive IOC as well as decreasing negative impact. The IOCv2 shows great potential both as a screening and assessment measure for examining cancer-related outcomes among survivors.

Fertility and sexual function in long-term survivors of haematological malignancy: using patient-reported outcome measures to assess a neglected area of need in the late effects clinic.

Problems of sexual function and fertility in long-term survivors (≥5 years) of haematological malignancy are often neglected in clinic. Our centre carried out a questionnaire study in this population addressing patient-perceived fertility and sexual function. 718 patients responded (56% of those invited; 39% Hodgkin, 45% non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16% acute leukaemia). Respondent women were more likely to remain childless than a normal control population. Self-reported infertility was more likely in men than women [odds ratio (OR) 1·77, P = 0·001]. Myeloablative therapy increased the likelihood of childlessness (OR 2·48, P = 0·004). Few attended fertility support services (12%). 24% of men banked sperm and 29% of these used the sample, of which 46% resulted in successful pregnancy. Fertility clinic attendance and sperm storage was more likely post-1990 (OR 4·05, P < 0·001; OR 5·05, P < 0·001 respectively). Reporting a negative impact of cancer on sexual function was more common in women than men (OR 2·20, P < 0·001), and increased with current age and age at diagnosis (by 3-4% per year, P ≤ 0·001) but decreased with longer follow-up (by 2%/year, P = 0·005). Patients on anti-depressants and those reporting cancer-related body change/appearance concerns more frequently reported a negative impact (P < 0·04 and P < 0·03 respectively). These self-reported outcomes confirm literature findings, suggest improvement over time, but highlight a need for involvement of support services.

Psychosocial factors associated with impact of cancer in longterm haematological cancer survivors.

To assess the impact of cancer (IOC) on subsequent quality of life (QOL), 718 long-term haematological cancer survivors completed validated psychosocial, functional and QOL scales, including IOC. Fifteen percent reported significant psychological distress, 18% high levels of fatigue and 10% moderate to severe functional impairment. These groups of participants also showed poorer QOL. There were no significant differences in psychological distress (P = 0·76), fatigue (P = 0·23) or functional impairment (P = 0·74) across different cancer subtypes. Two separate hierarchical regression analyses examined the combined association of disease-type, psychosocial and other factors on negative and positive IOC scores respectively. Higher negative IOC scores were significantly associated (P ≤ 0·001) with medical comorbidity, psychological distress, lower social support, high fatigue levels and functional impairment. Paediatric patients (diagnosed at <17 years) had significantly higher negative IOC scores than adult patients (P = 0·001); greater years since diagnosis was significantly (P < 0·001) associated with less negative IOC. Higher positive IOC was associated with acute leukaemia (P = 0·01); lower positive IOC with paediatric patients (P < 0·001), white ethnicity (P < 0·001), higher education (P = 0·003), no partner (P = 0·01) and lower social support (P = 0·01). Screening for medical comorbidity, psychological distress and fatigue identifies those needing most support and should allow earlier interventions to address negative and positive IOC to improve the well-being of cancer survivors.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Total Ankle Replacement Compared with Ankle Arthrodesis for Patients Aged 50-85 Years with End-Stage Ankle Osteoarthritis: The TARVA Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis suffer from reduced mobility and quality of life and the main surgical treatments are total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion (AF). OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to calculate the mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of TAR compared with AF in patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, over 52 weeks and over the patients' lifetime. METHOD: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of 282 participants from 17 UK centres recruited to a randomised controlled trial (TARVA). QALYs were calculated using index values from EQ-5D-5L. Resource use information was collected from case report forms and self-completed questionnaires. Primary analysis was within-trial analysis from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective, while secondary analyses were within-trial analysis from wider perspective and long-term economic modelling. Adjustments were made for baseline resource use and index values. RESULTS: Total cost at 52 weeks was higher in the TAR group compared with the AF group, from the NHS and PSS perspective (mean adjusted difference £2539, 95% confidence interval [CI] £1142, £3897). The difference became very small from the wider perspective (£155, 95% CI -  £1947, £2331). There was no significant difference between TAR and AF in terms of QALYs (mean adjusted difference 0.02, 95% CI -  0.015, 0.05) at 52 weeks post-operation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £131,999 per QALY gained 52 weeks post-operation. Long-term economic modelling resulted in an ICER of £4200 per QALY gained, and there is a 69% probability of TAR being cost effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: TAR does not appear to be cost effective over AF 52 weeks post-operation. A decision model suggests that TAR can be cost effective over the patients' lifetime but there is a need for longer-term prospectively collected data. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555.

Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT.

Background: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery. Results: Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm (n = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm (n = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; p = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; p = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime. Limitations: This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible. Conclusions: Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling. Future work: We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555. 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. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Each year, over 29,000 patients with ankle osteoarthritis seek a specialist opinion, of whom 4000 undergo NHS surgical treatment. The main surgical treatments for severe ankle osteoarthritis are total ankle replacement or arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion). Both are known to be good treatments to relieve pain, and each has its advantages. Total ankle replacement is a more popular patient choice than ankle fusion. When deciding whether to undergo ankle replacement or fusion, patients consult various sources, but the majority of them rely on the advice of their surgeon to make a final decision. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a high-quality randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatments and there are no published guidelines on the most suitable management. In this study, 303 patients were randomised to a type of ankle surgery: 138 in the total ankle replacement arm and 144 in the ankle fusion arm received surgery. We found that both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' walking ability, but we did not find a statistically significant difference between the treatment arms based on our primary outcome measure at 1 year. When we considered the type of total ankle replacement implant, we found that the implant most commonly used in the NHS (a fixed-bearing two-component implant) had better outcomes at 1 year than ankle fusion. Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion appear to be safe. However, there were more wound-healing issues and nerve injuries in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. Twelve per cent of patients experienced bone non-union in the ankle fusion arm, but only 7.1% experienced symptoms. We estimate that there is a 69% chance that total ankle replacement would be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime. This study provides the NHS with important information that could help to obtain the best possible outcome for patients with severe ankle arthritis.

Early antiviral treatment in outpatients with COVID-19 (FLARE): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this trial is to assess whether early antiviral therapy in outpatients with COVID-19 with either favipiravir plus lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir alone, or favipiravir alone, is associated with a decrease in viral load of SARS-CoV-2 compared with placebo. TRIAL DESIGN: FLARE is a phase IIA randomised, double-blind, 2x2 factorial placebo-controlled, interventional trial. PARTICIPANTS: This trial is being conducted in the United Kingdom, with Royal Free Hospital, London as the lead site. Participants are non-hospitalised adults with highly suspected COVID-19 within the first 5 days of symptom onset, or who have tested positive with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 within the first 7 days of symptom onset, or who are asymptomatic but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 for the first time within the last 48 hours. Inclusion criteria are as follows: 1. Any adult with the following: Symptoms compatible with COVID-19 disease (Fever >37.8°C on at least one occasion AND either cough and/ or anosmia) within the first 5 days of symptom onset (date/time of enrolment must be within the first 5 days of symptom onset) OR ANY symptoms compatible with COVID-19 disease (may include, but are not limited to fever, cough, shortness of breath, malaise, myalgia, headache, coryza) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the first 7 days of symptom onset) (date/time of enrolment must be within the first 7 days of symptom onset) OR no symptoms but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the last 48 hours (date/time of test must be within 48 hours of enrolment) 2. Male or female aged 18 years to 70 years old inclusive at screening 3. Willing and able to take daily saliva samples 4. Able to provide full informed consent and willing to comply with trial-related procedures Exclusion criteria are as follows: 1. Known hypersensitivity to any of the active ingredients or excipients in favipiravir and matched placebo, and in lopinavir/ritonavir and matched placebo (See Appendix 2) 2. Chronic liver disease at screening (known cirrhosis of any aetiology, chronic hepatitis (e.g. autoimmune, viral, steatohepatitis), cholangitis or any known elevation of liver aminotransferases with AST or ALT > 3 X ULN)* 3. Chronic kidney disease (stage 3 or beyond) at screening: eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 * 4. HIV infection, if untreated, detectable viral load or on protease inhibitor therapy 5. Any clinical condition which the investigator considers would make the participant unsuitable for the trial 6. Concomitant medications known to interact with favipiravir and matched placebo, and with lopinavir/ritonavir and matched placebo, and carry risk of toxicity for the participant 7. Current severe illness requiring hospitalisation 8. Pregnancy and/ or breastfeeding 9. Eligible female participants of childbearing potential and male participants with a partner of childbearing potential not willing to use highly effective contraceptive measures during the trial and within the time point specified following last trial treatment dose. 10. Participants enrolled in any other interventional drug or vaccine trial (co-enrolment in observational studies is acceptable) 11. Participants who have received the COVID-19 vaccine *Considering the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 to impact viral load, the absence of known chronic liver/ kidney disease will be confirmed verbally by the participant during pre-screening and Screening/Baseline visit. Safety blood samples will be collected at Screening/Baseline visit (Day 1) and test results will be examined as soon as they become available and within 24 hours. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Participants will be randomised 1:1:1:1 using a concealed online minimisation process into one of the following four arms: Arm 1: Favipiravir + Lopinavir/ritonavir Oral favipiravir at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 2: Favipiravir + Lopinavir/ritonavir placebo Oral favipiravir at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir matched placebo at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 3: Favipiravir placebo + Lopinavir/ritonavir Oral favipiravir matched placebo at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 4: Favipiravir placebo + Lopinavir/ritonavir placebo Oral favipiravir matched placebo at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir matched placebo at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is upper respiratory tract viral load at Day 5. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Percentage of participants with undetectable upper respiratory tract viral load after 5 days of therapy Proportion of participants with undetectable stool viral load after 7 days of therapy Rate of decrease in upper respiratory tract viral load during 7 days of therapy Duration of fever following commencement of trial medications Proportion of participants with hepatotoxicity after 7 days of therapy Proportion of participants with other medication-related toxicity after 7 days of therapy and 14 days post-randomisation Proportion of participants admitted to hospital with COVID-19 related illness Proportion of participants admitted to ICU with COVID-19 related illness Proportion of participants who have died with COVID-19 related illness Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of favipiravir Exploratory: Proportion of participants with deleterious or resistance-conferring mutations in SARS-CoV-2 RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised 1:1:1:1 using a concealed online minimisation process, with the following factors: trial site, age (≤ 55 vs > 55 years old), gender, obesity (BMI <30 vs ≥30), symptomatic or asymptomatic, current smoking status (Yes = current smoker, No = ex-smoker, never smoker), ethnicity (Caucasian, other) and presence or absence of comorbidity (defined as diabetes, hypertension, ischaemic heart disease (including previous myocardial infarction), other heart disease (arrhythmia and valvular heart disease), asthma, COPD, other chronic respiratory disease). BLINDING (MASKING): Participants and investigators will both be blinded to treatment allocation (double-blind). NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): 240 participants, 60 in each arm. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol version 4.0 dated 7th January 2021. Date of first enrolment: October 2020. Recruitment is ongoing, with anticipated finish date of 31st March 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The FLARE trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, trial identifying number NCT04499677 , date of registration 4th August 2020. FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

M.I.C.E-Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy: a randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MATCH-ADTC in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone for children and young people with common mental health disorders and epilepsy-study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders in the context of long-term conditions in children and young people are currently overlooked and undertreated. Evidence-based psychological treatments for common childhood mental health disorders (anxiety, depression and disruptive behaviour disorders) have not been systematically evaluated in young people with epilepsy despite their high prevalence in this population. The aim of this multi-site randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding a modular psychological intervention to usual care for the mental health disorders in comparison to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. METHODS: In total, 334 participants aged 3-18 years attending epilepsy services will be screened for mental health disorders with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the diagnostic Development and Wellbeing Assessment (DAWBA). Those identified as having a mental health disorder and consenting to the trial will be randomised to either receive up to 22 sessions of the modular psychological intervention (MATCH-ADTC) delivered over the telephone over 6 months by non-mental health professionals in addition to usual care or to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-randomisation. It is hypothesised that MATCH-ADTC plus usual care will be superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving emotional and behavioural symptoms. The primary outcome is the SDQ reported by parents at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include parent-reported mental health measures such as the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, quality of life measures such as the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory and physical health measures such as the Hague Seizure Severity Scale. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Qualitative process evaluations and a health economic evaluation will also be completed. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine whether a systematic and integrated approach to the identification and treatment of mental health disorders in children and young people with epilepsy is clinically and cost-effective. The findings will contribute to policies and practice with regard to addressing mental health needs in children and young people with other long-term conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN57823197 . Registered on 25 February 2019.

Exenatide once weekly over 2 years as a potential disease-modifying treatment for Parkinson's disease: protocol for a multicentre, randomised, double blind, parallel group, placebo controlled, phase 3 trial: The 'Exenatide-PD3' study.

INTRODUCTION: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a common neurodegenerative disorder with substantial morbidity. No disease-modifying treatments currently exist. The glucagon like peptide-1 receptor agonist exenatide has been associated in single-centre studies with reduced motor deterioration over 1 year. The aim of this multicentre UK trial is to confirm whether these previous positive results are maintained in a larger number of participants over 2 years and if effects accumulate with prolonged drug exposure. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of exenatide at a dose of 2 mg weekly in 200 participants with mild to moderate PD. Treatment duration is 96 weeks. Randomisation is 1:1, drug to placebo. Assessments are performed at baseline, week 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84 and 96 weeks.The primary outcome is the comparison of Movement Disorders Society Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale part 3 motor subscore in the practically defined OFF medication state at 96 weeks between participants according to treatment allocation. Secondary outcomes will compare the change between groups among other motor, non-motor and cognitive scores. The primary outcome will be reported using descriptive statistics and comparisons between treatment groups using a mixed model, adjusting for baseline scores. Secondary outcomes will be summarised between treatment groups using summary statistics and appropriate statistical tests to assess for significant differences. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee and the Health Research Authority. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, presented at scientific meetings and to patients in lay-summary format. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT04232969, ISRCTN14552789.

Safety and efficacy of belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in systemic LUPUS erythematosus (BEAT-LUPUS) trial: statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that rituximab, a B cell depletion therapy, is an effective treatment for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). Data on the mechanisms of B cell depletion in SLE indicate that the combination of rituximab and belimumab may be more effective than rituximab alone. The safety and efficacy of belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in systemic LUPUS erythematosus (BEAT-LUPUS) trial aims to determine whether belimumab is superior to placebo, when given 4-8 weeks after treatment with rituximab. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for this trial as an update to the published protocol. It is written prior to the end of patient follow-up, while the outcome of the trial is still unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: BEAT-LUPUS is a randomised, double-blind, phase II trial of 52 weeks of belimumab versus placebo, initiated 4-8 weeks after rituximab treatment. The primary outcome is anti-dsDNA antibodies at 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include lupus flares and damage, adverse events, doses of concomitant medications, quality of life, and clinical biomarkers. We describe the trial's clinical context, outcome measures, sample size calculation, and statistical modelling strategy, and the supportive analyses planned to evaluate for mediation of the treatment effect through changes in concomitant medication doses and bias from missing data. DISCUSSION: The analysis will provide detailed information on the safety and effectiveness of belimumab. It will be implemented from July 2020 when patient follow-up and data collection is complete. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 47873003 . Registered on 28 November 2016. EudracT: 2015-005543-14 . Registered on 19 November 2018.

Corneal cross-linking versus standard care in children with keratoconus - a randomised, multicentre, observer-masked trial of efficacy and safety (KERALINK): a statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The KERALINK trial tests the hypothesis that corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment reduces the progression of keratoconus in comparison to standard care in patients aged 10-16 years. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for this trial as an update to the published protocol. It is written before the end of the patient follow-up, while the outcome of the trial is still unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: KERALINK is a randomised controlled, observer-masked, multicentre trial in progressive keratoconus comparing epithelium-off CXL with standard care, including spectacles or contact lenses as necessary for best-corrected acuity. Keratoconus is a disorder of the shape of the cornea in which the normally round dome-shaped clear front window of the eye (cornea) thins progressively leading to a cone-like bulge. This impairs the ability of the eye to focus properly, causing reduced vision which requires spectacle or contact lens wear or, in a minority of patients, eventually corneal replacement by a transplant for best vision. The primary outcome measure is the between-group difference in K2 at 18 months adjusted for K2 at baseline examination. K2 is the value of the steepest corneal meridian as measured on Pentacam topography. Secondary outcomes are keratoconus progression, time to keratoconus progression, visual acuity, refraction, apical corneal thickness and adverse events. Patient-reported effects will be explored by questionnaires. We describe in detail the statistical aspects of KERALINK: the outcome measures, the sample size calculation, general analysis principles, the planned descriptive statistics and statistical models, and planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: The KERALINK statistical analysis will provide comprehensive and precise information on the relative effectiveness of the two treatments. The plan will be implemented in May 2020 when follow-up for the trial is completed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT, 2016-001460-11. Registered on 19 May 2016.

A randomised, multi-centre trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis in the treatment of patients with end stage ankle osteoarthritis (TARVA): statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial aims to determine which surgical procedure confers the greatest improvement in pain-free function for patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Both procedures are effective but there has not yet been a direct comparison to establish which is superior. This article describes the statistical analysis plan for this trial as an update to the published protocol. It is written prior to the end of patient follow-up, while the outcome of the trial is still unknown. DESIGN AND METHODS: TARVA is a randomised, un-blinded, parallel group trial of total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis. The primary outcome is the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score at 52 weeks post-surgery. Secondary outcomes include measures of pain, social interaction, physical function, quality of life, and range of motion. We describe in detail the statistical aspects of TARVA: the outcome measures, the sample size calculation, general analysis principles including treatment of missing data, the planned descriptive statistics and statistical models, and planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION: The TARVA statistical analysis will provide comprehensive and precise information on the relative effectiveness of the two treatments. The plan will be implemented in January 2020 when follow-up for the trial is completed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry number 60672307, ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT02128555. Registered 1 May 2014. Recruitment started in January 2015 and ended in January 2019.

A randomised, controlled, observer-masked trial of corneal cross-linking for progressive keratoconus in children: the KERALINK protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The KERALINK trial tests the hypothesis that corneal cross-linking (CXL) treatment reduces the progression of keratoconus in comparison to standard care in patients under 17 years old. KERALINK is a randomised controlled, observer-masked, multicentre trial in progressive keratoconus comparing epithelium-off CXL with standard care, including spectacles or contact lenses as necessary for best-corrected acuity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 30 participants will be randomised per group. Eligible participants aged 10-16 years with progressive keratoconus in one or both eyes will be recruited. Following randomisation, participants will be followed up 3-monthly for 18 months. The effect on progression will be determined by K2 on corneal topography. The primary outcome measure is between-group difference in K2 at 18 months adjusted for K2 at baseline examination. Secondary outcomes are the effect of CXL on (1) keratoconus progression, (2) time to keratoconus progression, (3) visual acuity, (4) refraction, (5) apical corneal thickness and (6) adverse events. Patient-reported effects will be explored by questionnaires. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Committee Approval was obtained on 30 June 2016 (ref: 14/LO/1937). Current protocol: V.5.0 (08/11/2017). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: European Union clinial trials register (EudraCT) 2016-001460-11.

Belimumab after B cell depletion therapy in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (BEAT Lupus) protocol: a prospective multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, 52-week phase II clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Few treatment options exist for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) who fail conventional therapy. Although widely used to treat lupus, the efficacy of B cell depletion therapy using rituximab has not been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. Following rituximab, elevated levels of serum B cell activating factor (BAFF) have been associated with failure to remit or subsequent lupus relapse. The administration of belimumab, a monoclonal antibody specific for BAFF and approved for lupus therapy, could potentiate the efficacy of rituximab and enable longer periods of disease remission. The aim of this trial is to assess the safety and efficacy of belimumab following rituximab in patients with SLE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BEAT Lupus is a double-blind, randomised, placebo controlled, phase II clinical trial. Patients with SLE commencing a treatment cycle of rituximab (two 1g infusions, 2 weeks apart) as standard of care will be randomised to receive belimumab or placebo, 4 to 8 weeks following the first rituximab infusion. Belimumab or placebo infusions are administered for 52 weeks. The primary outcome measure is anti-double stranded DNA (anti-dsDNA) antibody levels at 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes include measures of adverse events, lupus disease activity and cumulative steroid dose. The kinetics of B cell repopulation will be assessed in a subgroup of participants. Belimumab administration after rituximab may provide a novel therapeutic pathway for patients with active lupus if safety is demonstrated in this proof of concept study, and lower anti-dsDNA antibodies levels are achieved in those patients treated with belimumab compared with placebo. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been reviewed and approved by the Hampstead Research Ethics Committee - London (reference 16/LO/1024). Trial information is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN47873003, and the results of this trial will be submitted for publication in relevant peer-reviewed journals. Key findings will also be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47873; date assigned to the registry: 28 November 2016. The stage is pre-results.