Immobilisation of torus fractures of the wrist in children (FORCE): a randomised controlled equivalence trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The most common fractures in children are torus (buckle) fractures of the wrist. Controversy exists over treatment, which ranges from splint immobilisation and discharge to cast immobilisation, follow-up, and repeat imaging. This study compared pain and function in affected children offered a soft bandage and immediate discharge with those receiving rigid immobilisation and follow-up as per treating centre protocol. METHODS: In this randomised controlled equivalence trial we included 965 children (aged 4-15 years) with a distal radius torus fracture from 23 hospitals in the UK. Children were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the offer of bandage group or rigid immobilisation group using bespoke web-based randomisation software. Treating clinicians, participants, and their families could not be masked to treatment allocation. Exclusion criteria included multiple injuries, diagnosis at more than 36 h after injury, and inability to complete follow-up. The primary outcome was pain at 3-days post-randomisation measured using Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. We performed a modified intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis. The trial was registered with ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13955395. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2019, and July 13, 2020, 965 children were randomly allocated to a group, 489 to the offer of a bandage group and 476 to the rigid immobilisation group, 379 (39%) were girls and 586 (61%) were boys. Primary outcome data was collected for 908 (94%) of participants, all of whom were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Pain was equivalent at 3 days with 3·21 points (SD 2·08) in the offer of bandage group versus 3·14 points (2·11) in the rigid immobilisation group. With reference to a prespecified equivalence margin of 1·0, the adjusted difference in the intention-to-treat population was -0·10 (95% CI -0·37 to 0·17) and-0·06 (95% CI -0·34 to 0·21) in the per-protocol population. INTERPRETATION: This trial found equivalence in pain at 3 days in children with a torus fracture of the distal radius assigned to the offer of a bandage group or the rigid immobilisation group, with no between-group differences in pain or function during the 6 weeks of follow-up. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Effectiveness of nail bed repair in children with or without replacing the fingernail: NINJA multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for nail bed injuries in children is common. One of the key surgical decisions is whether to replace the nail plate following nail bed repair. The aim of this RCT was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nail bed repair with fingernail replacement/substitution compared with repair without fingernail replacement. METHODS: A two-arm 1 : 1 parallel-group open multicentre superiority RCT was performed across 20 secondary-care hospitals in the UK. The co-primary outcomes were surgical-site infection at around 7 days after surgery and cosmetic appearance summary score at a minimum of 4 months. RESULTS: Some 451 children presenting with a suspected nail bed injury were recruited between July 2018 and July 2019; 224 were allocated to the nail-discarded arm, and 227 to the nail-replaced arm. There was no difference in the number of surgical-site infections at around 7 days between the two interventions or in cosmetic appearance. The mean total healthcare cost over the 4 months after surgery was €84 (95 per cent c.i. 34 to 140) lower for the nail-discarded arm than the nail-replaced arm (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After nail bed repair, discarding the fingernail was associated with similar rates of infection and cosmesis ratings as replacement of the finger nail, but was cost saving. Registration number: ISRCTN44551796 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

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.

Content of Health Economics Analysis Plans (HEAPs) for Trial-Based Economic Evaluations: Expert Delphi Consensus Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) currently lack consistency, with uncertainty surrounding appropriate content. We aimed to develop a list of essential items that should be included in HEAPs for economic evaluations conducted alongside randomized trials. METHODS: A list of potential items for inclusion was developed by examining existing HEAPs. An electronic Delphi survey was conducted among professional health economists. Respondents were asked to rate potential items from 1 (least important) to 9 (most important), suggest additional items, and comment on proposed items (round 1). A second survey (round 2) was emailed to participants, including the participant's own scores from round 1 along with summary results from the whole panel; participants were asked to rerate each item. Consensus criteria for inclusion in the final list were predefined as >70% of participants rating an item 7-9 and <15% rating it 1-3 after round 2. A final item selection meeting was held to scrutinize the results and adjudicate on items lacking consensus. RESULTS: 62 participants completed round 1 of the survey. The initial list included 72 potential items; all 72 were carried forward to round 2, and no new items were added. 48 round 1 respondents (77.4%) completed round 2 and reached consensus on 53 items. At the final meeting, the expert panel (n = 9) agreed that 58 items should be included in the essential list, moved 9 items to an optional list, and dropped 5 items. CONCLUSIONS: Via expert consensus opinion, this study identified 58 items that are considered essential in a HEAP.

Effect of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Wound Dressing on Deep Surgical Site Infection After Surgery for Lower Limb Fractures Associated With Major Trauma: The WHIST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Following surgery to treat major trauma-related fractures, deep wound infection rates are high. It is not known if negative pressure wound therapy can reduce infection rates in this setting. Objective: To assess outcomes in patients who have incisions resulting from surgery for lower limb fractures related to major trauma and were treated with either incisional negative pressure wound therapy or standard wound dressing. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial conducted at 24 trauma hospitals representing the UK Major Trauma Network that included 1548 patients aged 16 years or older who underwent surgery for a lower limb fracture caused by major trauma from July 7, 2016, through April 17, 2018, with follow-up to December 11, 2018. Interventions: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy (n = 785), which involved a specialized dressing used to create negative pressure over the wound, vs standard wound dressing not involving negative pressure (n = 763). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was deep surgical site infection at 30 days diagnosed according to the criteria from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A preplanned secondary analysis of the primary outcome was performed at 90 days. The secondary outcomes were patient-reported disability (Disability Rating Index), health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5-level EQ-5D), surgical scar assessment (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale), and chronic pain (Douleur Neuropathique Questionnaire) at 3 and 6 months, as well as other local wound healing complications at 30 days. Results: Among 1548 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 49.8 [20.3] years; 561 [36%] were aged ≤40 years; 583 [38%] women; and 881 [57%] had multiple injuries), 1519 (98%) had data available for the primary outcome. At 30 days, deep surgical site infection occurred in 5.84% (45 of 770 patients) of the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group and in 6.68% (50 of 749 patients) of the standard wound dressing group (odds ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.33]; absolute risk difference, -0.77% [95% CI, -3.19% to 1.66%]; P = .52). There was no significant difference in the deep surgical site infection rate at 90 days (11.4% [72 of 629 patients] in the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group vs 13.2% [78 of 590 patients] in the standard wound dressing group; odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.19]; absolute risk difference, -1.76% [95% CI, -5.41% to 1.90%]; P = .32). For the 5 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, there were no significant differences at any time point. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who underwent surgery for major trauma-related lower limb fractures, use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy, compared with standard wound dressing, resulted in no significant difference in the rate of deep surgical site infection. The findings do not support the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in this setting, although the event rate at 30 days was lower than expected. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN12702354.

Cost-effectiveness of replacing versus discarding the nail in children with nail bed injury.

Every year in the UK, around 10 000 children need to have operations to mend injuries to the bed of their fingernails. Currently, most children have their fingernail placed back on the injured nail bed after the operation. The NINJA trial found that children were slightly less likely to have an infection if the nail was thrown away rather than being put back, but the difference between groups was small and could have be due to chance. This study looked at whether replacing the nail is cost-effective compared with throwing it away. Using data from the NINJA trial, we compared costs, healthcare use, and quality of life and assessed the cost-effectiveness of replacing the nail. It was found that throwing the nail away after surgery would save the National Health Service (NHS) £75 (€85) per operation compared with placing the nail back on the nail bed. Changing clinical practice could save the NHS in England £720 000 (€819 000) per year.

What do we know about managing Dupuytren's disease cost-effectively?

BACKGROUND: Dupuytren's disease (DD) is a common and progressive, fibroproliferative disorder of the palmar and digital fascia of the hand. Various treatments have been recommended for advanced disease or to retard progression of early disease and to prevent deterioration of the finger contracture and quality of life. Recent studies have tried to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapies for DD, but there is currently no systematic assessment and appraisal of the economic evaluations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted, following PRISMA guidelines, to identify studies reporting economic evaluations of interventions for managing DD. Databases searched included the Ovid MEDLINE/Embase (without time restriction), National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database (all years) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library) Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Cost-effectiveness analyses of treating DD were identified and their quality was assessed using the CHEERS assessment tool for quality of reporting and Phillips checklist for model evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 103 studies were screened, of which 4 met the study inclusion criteria. Two studies were from the US, one from the UK and one from Canada. They all assessed the same interventions for advanced DD, namely collagenase Clostridium histolyticum injection, percutaneous needle fasciotomy and partial fasciectomy. All studies conducting a cost-utility analysis, two implemented a decision analytic model and two a Markov model approach. None of them were based on a single randomised controlled trial, but rather synthesised evidence from various sources. Studies varied in their time horizon, sources of utility estimates and perspective of analysis. The overall quality of study reporting was good based on the CHEERS checklist. The quality of the model reporting in terms of model structure, data synthesis and model consistency varied across the included studies. CONCLUSION: Cost-effectiveness analyses for patients with advanced DD are limited and have applied different approaches with respect to modelling. Future studies should improve the way they are conducted and report their findings according to established guidance for conducting economic modelling of health care technologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered ( CRD42016032989 ; date 08/01/2016) with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews.

An empirical evaluation of the SF-12, SF-6D, EQ-5D and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire in patients with rheumatoid arthritis of the hand.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties, namely acceptability, validity, reliability, interpretability and responsiveness of the EuroQol EQ-5D (EQ-5D visual analogue (VAS) and EQ-5D (utility)), Short Form 12 Dimensions (SF-12), SF-6D and Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) of the hand. METHODS: The empirical investigation was based upon data from a randomised controlled trial of 488 adults with rheumatoid arthritis who had pain and dysfunction of the hands and/or wrists. Participants completed the EQ-5D, SF-12 and MHQ at baseline and at 4 and 12 months follow up. Acceptability was measured using completion rates over time; construct validity using the "known groups" approach, based on pain troublesomeness; convergent validity using spearman's rho correlation (ρ); reliability using internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha); interpretability using minimal important differences (MID); and responsiveness using effect sizes and standardised response means (SRM) stratified by level of self-rated improvement in hand and wrist function or level of self-rated benefit and satisfaction from trial treatments. RESULTS: At baseline, the study population had a mean age of 62.4 years, a mean MHQ score of 52.1 and included 76% women. The EQ-5D (utility) had the highest completion rates across time points. All instruments discriminated between pre-specified groups based on pain troublesomeness. Convergent validity analysis indicated that the MHQ score correlated strongly with the EQ-5D (ρ = 0.65) and SF-6D (ρ = 0.63) utility scores. The MHQ was most responsive at detecting change in indicators of RA pain severity between baseline and 4 months, whilst minimal important differences varied considerably across PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: The instruments evaluated in this study displayed varying psychometric properties in the context of RA of the hand. The selection of a preferred instrument in evaluative studies should ultimately depend on the relative importance placed on individual psychometric properties and the importance placed on generation of health utilities for economic evaluation purposes.

Timely Digital Patient-Clinician Communication in Specialist Clinical Services for Young People: A Mixed-Methods Study (The LYNC Study).

BACKGROUND: Young people (aged 16-24 years) with long-term health conditions can disengage from health services, resulting in poor health outcomes, but clinicians in the UK National Health Service (NHS) are using digital communication to try to improve engagement. Evidence of effectiveness of this digital communication is equivocal. There are gaps in evidence as to how it might work, its cost, and ethical and safety issues. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to understand how the use of digital communication between young people with long-term conditions and their NHS specialist clinicians changes engagement of the young people with their health care; and to identify costs and necessary safeguards. METHODS: We conducted mixed-methods case studies of 20 NHS specialist clinical teams from across England and Wales and their practice providing care for 13 different long-term physical or mental health conditions. We observed 79 clinical team members and interviewed 165 young people aged 16-24 years with a long-term health condition recruited via case study clinical teams, 173 clinical team members, and 16 information governance specialists from study NHS Trusts. We conducted a thematic analysis of how digital communication works, and analyzed ethics, safety and governance, and annual direct costs. RESULTS: Young people and their clinical teams variously used mobile phone calls, text messages, email, and voice over Internet protocol. Length of clinician use of digital communication varied from 1 to 13 years in 17 case studies, and was being considered in 3. Digital communication enables timely access for young people to the right clinician at the time when it can make a difference to how they manage their health condition. This is valued as an addition to traditional clinic appointments and can engage those otherwise disengaged, particularly at times of change for young people. It can enhance patient autonomy, empowerment and activation. It challenges the nature and boundaries of therapeutic relationships but can improve trust. The clinical teams studied had not themselves formally evaluated the impact of their intervention. Staff time is the main cost driver, but offsetting savings are likely elsewhere in the health service. Risks include increased dependence on clinicians, inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, and communication failures, which are mostly mitigated by young people and clinicians using common-sense approaches. CONCLUSIONS: As NHS policy prompts more widespread use of digital communication to improve the health care experience, our findings suggest that benefit is most likely, and harms are mitigated, when digital communication is used with patients who already have a relationship of trust with the clinical team, and where there is identifiable need for patients to have flexible access, such as when transitioning between services, treatments, or lived context. Clinical teams need a proactive approach to ethics, governance, and patient safety.

Exercises to improve function of the rheumatoid hand (SARAH): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Disease-modifying biological agents and other drug regimens have substantially improved control of disease activity and joint damage in people with rheumatoid arthritis of the hand. However, commensurate changes in function and quality of life are not always noted. Tailored hand exercises might provide additional improvements, but evidence is lacking. We estimated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tailored hand exercises in addition to usual care during 12 months. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group trial, at 17 National Health Service sites across the UK we randomly assigned 490 adults with rheumatoid arthritis who had pain and dysfunction of the hands and had been on a stable drug regimen for at least 3 months, to either usual care or usual care plus a tailored strengthening and stretching hand exercise programme. Participants were randomly assigned with stratification by centre. Allocation was computer generated and unmasked to participants and therapists delivering treatment after randomisation. Outcome assessors and all investigators were masked to allocation. Physiotherapists or occupational therapists gave the treatments. The primary outcome was the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire overall hand function score at 12 months. The analysis was by intention to treat. We calculated cost per quality-adjusted life-year. This trial is registered as ISRCTN 89936343. FINDINGS: Between Oct 5, 2009, and May 10, 2011, we screened 1606 people, of whom 490 were randomly assigned to usual care (n=244) or tailored exercises (n=246). 438 of 490 participants (89%) provided 12 month follow-up data. Improvements in overall hand function were 3·6 points (95% CI 1·5-5·7) in the usual care group and 7·9 points (6·0-9·9) in the exercise group (mean difference between groups 4·3, 95% CI 1·5-7·1; p=0·0028). Pain, drug regimens, and health-care resource use were stable for 12 months, with no difference between the groups. No serious adverse events associated with the treatment were recorded. The cost of tailored hand exercise was £156 per person; cost per quality-adjusted life-year was £9549 with the EQ-5D (£17,941 with imputation for missing data). INTERPRETATION: We have shown that a tailored hand exercise programme is a worthwhile, low-cost intervention to provide as an adjunct to various drug regimens. Maximisation of the benefits of biological and DMARD regimens in terms of function, disability, and health-related quality of life should be an important treatment aim. FUNDING: UK National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (NIHR HTA), project number 07/32/05.

Psychometric properties of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in patients diagnosed with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-3 L, the SF-12 v2 and its preference based derivative the SF-6D, and the St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), in patients diagnosed with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: Data from the Oscillation in ARDS (OSCAR) randomised unblinded clinical trial of 795 patients diagnosed with ARDS provided the foundation of this secondary psychometric analysis. The three source patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) (EQ-5D-3 L, SF-12 and SGRQ) were collected at both 6 and 12 months post randomisation. All measures were tested for acceptability, reliability, internal consistency, validity and responsiveness. Data from responders at 6 months was used to test for acceptability, reliability, known groups validity and internal responsiveness. Data from patients who responded at both 6 and 12 months was used to test for convergent validity and external responsiveness. RESULTS: Rates of response at both 6 and 12 months post randomisation were 89.88 % for the EQ-5D-3 L, 77.38 % for the SF-6D, 71.43 % for both the physical and mental components of the SF-12 and 38.10 % for the SGRQ. All measures had a Cronbach's Alpha statistic higher than 0.7. For known group's validity, there was no difference in mean summary or utility scores between known groups for all PROMs with minimal effect sizes. All three source measures showed strong convergent and discriminant validity. There was consistent evidence that the SF-6D is an empirically valid and efficient alternative to the EQ-5D-3 L. The EQ-5D-3 L and SGRQ were more responsive compared to the SF-12 and SF-6D with the EQ-5D-3 L generating greater effect sizes than the SGRQ. CONCLUSION: The PROMs explored in this study displayed varying psychometric properties in the context of ARDS. Further research should focus on shortening the SGRQ whilst still maintaining its psychometric properties and mapping between the SGRQ and preference-based measures for future application within economic evaluations of respiratory focused interventions. The selection ofa preferred PROM for evaluative studies within the ARDS context should ultimately depend on the relative importance placed on individual psychometric properties and the importance placed on generation of health utilities for economic evaluation purposes.

An economic evaluation of a self-management programme of activity, coping and education for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The aim was to undertake a cost-utility analysis of a self-management programme of activity, coping and education (SPACE) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The analysis was conducted alongside a six-month randomized controlled trial in 30 primary care settings. The economic analysis used data from 184 patients with confirmed diagnosis of COPD, forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity ratio <0.7 and with grade 2-5 on the Medical Research Council dyspnoea scale. Participants received either a self-management programme consisting of an education manual (SPACE for COPD) and consultation or usual care. Six-month costs were estimated from the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated based on patient responses at baseline and six months.The mean difference in costs between usual care and SPACE FOR COPD programme was -£27.18 (95% confidence interval (CI); -£122.59 to £68.25) while mean difference in QALYs was -0.10 (95% CI; -0.17 to -0.02). The results suggest that the intervention is more costly and more effective than usual care. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 97% at a threshold of £20,000/QALY gained. We conclude that the SPACE FOR COPD programme is cost-effective compared to usual care.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of soft bandage and immediate discharge versus rigid immobilization in children with distal radius torus fractures.

Aims: The aim of this trial was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a soft bandage and immediate discharge, compared with rigid immobilization, in children aged four to 15 years with a torus fracture of the distal radius. Methods: A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted from the UK NHS and personal social services (PSS) perspective, as well as a broader societal point of view. Health resources and quality of life (the youth version of the EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D-Y)) data were collected, as part of the Forearm Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) multicentre randomized controlled trial over a six-week period, using trial case report forms and patient-completed questionnaires. Costs and health gains (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) were estimated for the two trial treatment groups. Regression was used to estimate the probability of the new treatment being cost-effective at a range of 'willingness-to-pay' thresholds, which reflect a range of costs per QALY at which governments are typically prepared to reimburse for treatment. Results: The offer of a soft bandage significantly reduced cost per patient (saving £12.55 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£5.30 to £19.80)) while QALYs were similar (QALY difference between groups: 0.0013 (95% CI -0.0004 to 0.003)). The high probability (95%) that offering a bandage is a cost-effective option was consistent when examining the data in a range of sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: In addition to the known clinical equivalence, this study found that the offer of a bandage reduced cost compared with rigid immobilization among children with a torus fracture of the distal radius. While the cost saving was small for each patient, the high frequency of these injuries indicates a significant saving across the healthcare system.

Radiological outcomes following surgical fixation with wires versus moulded cast for patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius: a radiographic analysis from the DRAFFT2 trial.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to report the radiological outcomes of patients with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture who were randomized to a moulded cast or surgical fixation with wires following manipulation and closed reduction of their fracture. The secondary aim was to correlate radiological outcomes with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the year following injury. Methods: Participants were recruited as part of DRAFFT2, a UK multicentre clinical trial. Participants were aged 16 years or over with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture, and were eligible for the trial if they needed a manipulation of their fracture, as recommended by their treating surgeon. Participants were randomly allocated on a 1:1 ratio to moulded cast or Kirschner wires after manipulation of the fracture in the operating theatre. Standard posteroanterior and lateral radiographs were performed in the radiology department of participating centres at the time of the patient's initial assessment in the emergency department and six weeks postoperatively. Intraoperative fluoroscopic images taken at the time of fracture reduction were also assessed. Results: Patients treated with surgical fixation with wires had less dorsal angulation of the radius versus those treated in a moulded cast at six weeks after manipulation of the fracture; the mean difference of -4.13° was statistically significant (95% confidence interval 5.82 to -2.45). There was no evidence of a difference in radial shortening. However, there was no correlation between these radiological measurements and PROMs at any timepoint in the 12 months post-injury. Conclusion: For patients with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture treated with a closed manipulation, surgical fixation with wires leads to less dorsal angulation on radiographs at six weeks compared with patients treated in a moulded plaster cast alone. However, the difference in dorsal angulation was small and did not correlate with patient-reported pain and function.

Cost-effectiveness of adalimumab for early-stage Dupuytren's disease : an economic evaluation based on a randomized controlled trial and individual-patient simulation model.

AIMS: To estimate the potential cost-effectiveness of adalimumab compared with standard care alone for the treatment of early-stage Dupuytren's disease (DD) and the value of further research from an NHS perspective. METHODS: We used data from the Repurposing anti-TNF for Dupuytren's disease (RIDD) randomized controlled trial of intranodular adalimumab injections in patients with early-stage progressive DD. RIDD found that intranodular adalimumab injections reduced nodule hardness and size in patients with early-stage DD, indicating the potential to control disease progression. A within-trial cost-utility analysis compared four adalimumab injections with no further treatment against standard care alone, taking a 12-month time horizon and using prospective data on EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and resource use from the RIDD trial. We also developed a patient-level simulation model similar to a Markov model to extrapolate trial outcomes over a lifetime using data from the RIDD trial and a literature review. This also evaluated repeated courses of adalimumab each time the nodule reactivated (every three years) in patients who initially responded. RESULTS: The within-trial economic evaluation found that adalimumab plus standard care cost £503,410 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained versus standard care alone over a 12-month time horizon. The model-based extrapolation suggested that, over a lifetime, repeated courses of adalimumab could cost £14,593 (95% confidence interval £7,534 to £42,698) per QALY gained versus standard care alone. If the NHS was willing to pay £20,000/QALY gained, there is a 77% probability that adalimumab with retreatment is the best value for money. CONCLUSION: Repeated courses of adalimumab are likely to be a cost-effective treatment for progressive early-stage DD. The value of perfect parameter information that would eliminate all uncertainty around the parameters estimated in RIDD and the duration of quiescence was estimated to be £105 per patient or £272 million for all 2,584,411 prevalent cases in the UK. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(11):898-906.

Moulded cast compared with K-wire fixation after manipulation of an acute dorsally displaced distal radius fracture: the DRAFFT 2 RCT.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a displaced fracture of the distal radius are frequently offered surgical fixation. Manipulation of the fracture and moulded plaster casting is an alternative treatment that avoids metal implants, but evidence of its effectiveness is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare functional outcomes, quality-of-life outcomes, complications and resource use among patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius treated with manipulation and surgical fixation with Kirschner wires (K-wires) and those treated with manipulation and moulded cast. DESIGN: Pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial with a health economic evaluation. SETTING: A total of 36 orthopaedic trauma centres in the UK NHS. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (aged ≥ 16 years) treated for an acute dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius were potentially eligible. Patients were excluded if their injury had occurred > 2 weeks previously, if the fracture was open, if it extended > 3 cm from the radiocarpal joint or if it required open reduction, or if the participant was unable to complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned in theatre (1 : 1) to receive a moulded cast (i.e. the cast group) or surgical fixation with K-wires (i.e. the K-wire group) after fracture manipulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Health-related quality of life was recorded using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, and resource use was recorded from a health and personal social care perspective. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and March 2019, 500 participants (mean age 60 years, 83% women) were randomly allocated to receive a moulded cast (n = 255) or surgical fixation with K-wire (n = 245) following a manipulation of their fracture. A total of 395 (80%) participants were included in the primary analysis at 12 months. There was no difference in the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score at 1 year post randomisation [cast group: n = 200, mean score 21.2 (standard deviation 23.1); K-wire group: n = 195, mean score 20.7 (standard deviation 22.3); adjusted mean difference -0.34 (95% confidence interval -4.33 to 3.66); p = 0.87]. A total of 33 (13%) participants in the cast group required surgical fixation for loss of fracture position in the first 6 weeks, compared with one participant in the K-wire group (odds ratio 0.02, 95% confidence interval 0.001 to 0.10). The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis showed that manipulation and surgical fixation with K-wires had a higher mean cost than manipulation and a moulded cast, despite similar mean effectiveness. The use of K-wires is unlikely to be cost-effective, and sensitivity analyses found this result to be robust. LIMITATIONS: Because the interventions were identifiable, neither patients nor clinicians could be blind to their treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical fixation with K-wires was not found to be superior to moulded casting following manipulation of a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius, as measured by Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation score. However, one in eight participants treated in a moulded cast required surgery for loss of fracture reduction in the first 6 weeks. After a successful closed reduction, clinicians may consider a moulded cast as a safe and cost-effective alternative to surgical fixation with K-wires. FUTURE WORK: Further research should focus on optimal techniques for immobilisation and manipulation of this type of fracture, including optimal analgesia, and for rehabilitation of the patient after immobilisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11980540 and UKCRN Portfolio 208830. 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. 26, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many patients with a wrist fracture can be treated with a simple cast or splint. However, if the broken bones have moved out of position, patients are frequently offered a manipulation of the fracture to restore the position of the broken bones. The bones may then be held in place with metal implants while they heal. A moulded plaster cast, shaped to support the bones, is an alternative treatment that avoids metal implants, but there is little research to suggest which treatment is better. The Distal Radius Acute Fracture Fixation Trial 2 (DRAFFT 2) study compared surgical fixation with metal wires with a moulded cast for patients with a broken wrist. Half of the patients underwent surgical fixation and half were given the moulded cast. The decision about which treatment patients were given was made by chance using a computer to ensure a fair comparison. The patients in both groups described their own wrist function and quality of life in the first year after their treatment and these descriptions were compared. A total of 500 patients took part at 36 NHS hospitals in the UK. The patients treated with a moulded cast reported very similar wrist function and quality of life to that of the patients treated with surgical fixation. However, one in eight patients treated with the moulded cast later required surgery because their broken bones had fallen back out of position. This study showed that a moulded cast is as good as, but costs less than, surgical fixation for patients with a broken wrist in terms of wrist function. However, a small proportion of the patients treated with a moulded cast may require later surgery if the broken bones cannot be held in position by the cast alone.

Offer of a bandage versus rigid immobilisation in 4- to 15-year-olds with distal radius torus fractures: the FORCE equivalence RCT.

BACKGROUND: Torus (buckle) fractures of the wrist are the most common fractures in children involving the distal radius and/or ulna. It is unclear if children require rigid immobilisation and follow-up or would recover equally as well by being discharged without any immobilisation or a bandage. Given the large number of these injuries, identifying the optimal treatment strategy could have important effects on the child, the number of days of school absence and NHS costs. OBJECTIVES: To establish whether or not treating children with a distal radius torus fracture with the offer of a soft bandage and immediate discharge (i.e. offer of a bandage) provides the same recovery, in terms of pain, function, complications, acceptability, school absence and resource use, as treatment with rigid immobilisation and follow-up as per usual practice (i.e. rigid immobilisation). DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: Twenty-three UK emergency departments. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 965 children (aged 4-15 years) with a distal radius torus fracture were randomised from January 2019 to July 2020 using a secure, centralised, online-encrypted randomisation service. Exclusion criteria included presentation > 36 hours after injury, multiple injuries and an inability to complete follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: A bandage was offered to 489 participants and applied to 458, and rigid immobilisation was carried out in 476 participants. Participants and clinicians were not blinded to the treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The pain at 3 days post randomisation was measured using the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. Secondary outcomes were the patient-reported outcomes measurement system upper extremity limb score for children, health-related quality of life, complications, school absence, analgesia use and resource use collected up to 6 weeks post randomisation. RESULTS: A total of 94% of participants provided primary outcome data. At 3 days, the primary outcome of pain was equivalent in both groups. With reference to the prespecified equivalence margin of 1.0, the adjusted difference in the intention-to-treat population was -0.10 (95% confidence interval -0.37 to 0.17) and the per-protocol population was -0.06 (95% confidence interval -0.34 to 0.21). There was equivalence of pain in both age subgroups (i.e. 4-7 years and 8-15 years). There was no difference in the rate of complications, with five complications (1.0%) in the offer of a bandage group and three complications (0.6%) in the rigid immobilisation group. There were no differences between treatment groups in functional recovery, quality of life or school absence at any point during the follow-up. Analgesia use was marginally higher at day 1 in the offer of a bandage group than it was in the rigid immobilisation group (83% vs. 78% of participants), but there was no difference at other time points. The offer of a bandage significantly reduced the cost of treatment and had a high probability of cost-effectiveness at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Families had a strong pre-existing preference for the rigid immobilisation treatment. Given this, and the inability to blind families to the treatment allocation, observer bias was a concern. However, there was clear evidence of equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings support the offer of a bandage in children with a distal radius torus fracture. FUTURE WORK: A clinical decision tool to determine which children require radiography is an important next step to prevent overtreatment of minor wrist fractures. There is also a need to rationalise interventions for other common childhood injuries (e.g. 'toddler's fractures' of the tibia). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13955395 and UKCRN Portfolio 39678. 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. 26, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Torus fractures (also called buckle fractures) of the wrist are the most common type of broken bone in children, affecting 60,000 children in the UK per year. They are the mildest form of broken bone, in which the bone crushes (or buckles). Despite these fractures being so common, there is no 'standard treatment'. The traditional treatment is to use a plaster cast and arrange outpatient follow-up. Recent medical research has suggested that wearing a bandage, or even having no treatment, might result in similar healing. In this study, we looked into whether or not a bandage (which was optional to wear) and no further follow-up resulted in the same recovery as a hard splint and usual follow-up. A total of 965 children aged 4­15 years from 23 emergency departments in the UK took part in the study. Children were evenly divided between the bandage and hard splint groups in a process called randomisation. Prior to the study, families told us that managing pain after injury was the most important issue to them. We asked children and their families to tell us about pain, recovery using the arm, quality of life, complications encountered and school absences. We also looked at the financial costs to families and the NHS. WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: The two treatments resulted in the same outcomes. The majority of those offered a bandage chose to wear it immediately. There was no difference at all in the levels of pain between those treated with a hard splint and usual outpatient follow-up and those offered a bandage and discharge (i.e. no further follow up) from hospital the same day. Similarly, there was no difference in the recovery using the arm, quality of life, complications encountered or school absences. There was a very slight increase in pain killer use in the bandage group at day 1, but not at any other time point. Overall, the cost of the offer of a bandage was slightly lower for families and the NHS. In conclusion, the findings of this study support offering a bandage to be used at the discretion of families to treat children with a torus fracture of the wrist.

Assessing a 12-month course of oral alendronate for adults with avascular necrosis of the hip: MANTIS RCT with internal pilot.

BACKGROUND: People with avascular necrosis of the hip have very limited treatment options currently available to stop the progression of this disease; this often results in the need for a hip replacement. There is some weak evidence that a class of drugs called bisphosphonates may delay the course of the disease, and this trial was commissioned and set up to provide robust evidence regarding the use of bisphosphonates in adults aged ≥ 18 years with this condition. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the Managing Avascular Necrosis Treatments: an Interventional Study ( MANTIS ) trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-month course of alendronate in the treatment of avascular necrosis. DESIGN: This was a 66-month, definitive, multisite, two-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot phase. SETTING: Eight secondary care NHS hospitals across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Planned trial size - 280 adult patients with avascular necrosis. INTERVENTION: Participants in the intervention group received 70 mg of alendronate (an oral bisphosphonate) weekly for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOMES: The main outcomes were Oxford Hip Score at 12 months (short-term outcome) and the time to decision that a hip replacement is required at 36 months (long-term outcome). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were recruited and randomised to receive either the intervention drug, alendronate, or a placebo-matched tablet. LIMITATIONS: This trial was principally limited by low disease prevalence. Other limitations included the late disease stage at which participants were identified and the rapid progression of the disease. FUTURE WORK: This trial was limited by a low recruitment rate. Avascular necrosis of the hip should be treated as a rare disease. Future trials would need to recruit many more sites and recruit over a longer time period, and, for this reason, a registry may provide a more effective means of collecting data pertaining to this disease. CONCLUSIONS: The MANTIS trial was terminated at the end of the pilot phase, because it did not meet its go/no-go criteria. The main issue was a poor recruitment rate, owing to a lower than expected disease prevalence and difficulties in identifying the condition at a sufficiently early stage. Those patients who were identified and screened either were too advanced in their disease progression or were already taking medication. We would not recommend that a short-term interventional study is conducted on this condition until its prevalence, geographic foci and natural history and better understood. The difficulty of acquiring this understanding is likely to be a barrier in most health-care markets. One means of developing this understanding would be the introduction of a database/registry for patients suffering from avascular necrosis of the hip. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN14015902. 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. 26, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: The Managing Avascular Necrosis Treatments: an Interventional Study ( MANTIS ) trial was designed to compare ways of treating patients with avascular necrosis who are seeking to slow down the deterioration of their condition. Alendronate is a drug routinely available across the NHS in both tablet and injection form, and doctors and scientists believe that it might prevent ongoing hip deterioration and result in fewer patients requiring a total hip replacement. WHAT DID WE DO?: This trial attempted to compare alendronate taken as a tablet with an identical-looking tablet that did not contain any of the drug (a placebo) to find out if alendronate reduced the number of patients requiring a hip replacement and having pain (compared with patients who did not get alendronate). WHAT DID WE FIND?: Patients were willing to participate in the trial but we were able to recruit only a small number to the study. The main reason for this was difficulty in identifying potentially suitable patients and approaching them at the right point in their medical care. This was more challenging than anticipated, particularly because the NHS sites and professionals that patients with this condition seek out are extremely variable in the UK. It was also difficult to locate and identify patients with the condition at an early enough stage, and before they had already started taking the drug. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: More information on patients with this rare condition, such as NHS referral pathways, and an understanding of how the condition progresses may help to improve our understanding of this patient group. This information could also help us determine whether or not there is scope to carry out the study in a different way that might enable these patients to be more easily identified.

Reamed intramedullary nailing versus circular frame external fixation for segmental tibial fractures (STIFF-F): a mixed methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Segmental tibial fractures are fractures in two or more areas of the tibial diaphysis resulting in a separate intercalary segment of the bone. Surgical fixation is recommended for patients with segmental tibial fractures as non-operative treatment outcomes are poor. The most common surgical interventions are intramedullary nailing (IMN) and circular frame external fixation (CFEF), but evidence about which is better is of poor quality. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine optimum treatment is required. STIFF-F aimed to assess the feasibility of a multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF for segmental tibial fracture. METHODS: STIFF-F was a mixed-methods feasibility study comprising a pilot RCT conducted at six UK Major Trauma Centres, qualitative interviews drawing on Phenomenology and an online survey of rehabilitation. The primary outcome was recruitment rate. Patients, 16 years and over, with a segmental tibial fracture (open or closed) deemed suitable for IMN or CFEF were eligible to participate. Randomisation was stratified by site using random permuted blocks of varying sizes. Participant or assessor blinding was not possible. Interviews were undertaken with patients about their experience of injury, treatment, recovery and participation. Staff were interviewed to identify contextual factors affecting trial processes, their experience of recruitment and the treatment pathway. An online survey was developed to understand the rehabilitation context of the treatments. RESULTS: Eleven patients were screened and three recruited to the pilot RCT. Nineteen staff and four patients participated in interviews, and 11 physiotherapists responded to the survey. This study found the following: (i) segmental tibial fractures were rarer than anticipated, (ii) the complexity of the injury, study setup times and surgeon treatment preferences impeded recruitment, (iii) recovery from a segmental tibial fracture is challenging, and rehabilitation protocols are inconsistent and (iv) despite the difficulty recruiting, staff valued this research question and strived to find a way forward. CONCLUSION: The proposed multicentre RCT comparing IMN with CFEF is not feasible. This study highlighted the difficulty of recruiting patients to an RCT of a complex rare injury over a short time period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry: ISRCTN11229660.

Treating to target in psoriatic arthritis: assessing real-world outcomes and optimising therapeutic strategy for adults with psoriatic arthritis-study protocol for the MONITOR-PsA study, a trials within cohorts study design.

BACKGROUND: The Tight Control of psoriatic arthritis (TICOPA) trial confirmed improved clinical outcomes with a treat to target (T2T) strategy in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This consisted of 4-weekly review and escalation of 'step up' therapy (single disease modifying therapy (DMARD), combination DMARDs and then biologics) based on remission criteria. Based on this, a T2T approach is supported by European PsA treatment recommendations. However, it is not commonly implemented in routine care primarily due to feasibility and cost concerns. In the TICOPA trial, the same treatment regime was used for all participants regardless of their disease profile. Despite the recognition of PsA as a highly heterogeneous condition, no studies have tailored which drugs are used depending on disease severity. The cohort will establish real world outcomes for the T2T approach in PsA and also form the basis of a trials within cohorts (TWiCs) design to test alternative therapeutic approaches within embedded clinical trials providing an evidence base for treatment strategy in PsA. METHODS: The Multicentre Observational Initiative in Treat to target Outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis (MONITOR-PsA) cohort will apply a T2T approach within routine care. It will recruit newly diagnosed adult patients with PsA starting systemic therapies. The cohort is observational allowing routine therapeutic care within NHS clinics but a T2T approach will be supported when monitoring treatment within the cohort. Eligible participants will be adults (≥18 years) with active PsA with ≥ 1 tender or swollen joints or enthesis who have not previously had treatment with DMARDs for articular disease. DISCUSSION: This study is the first TWiC designed to support a fully powered randomised drug trial. The results from the observational cohort will be compared with those observed in the TICOPA trial investigating the clinical effectiveness and health care costs of the pragmatic T2T approach. Nested trials will provide definitive RCT evidence establishing the optimal management of PsA within the T2T approach. The TWiCs design allows robust generalizability to routine healthcare, avoids disappointment bias, aids recruitment and in future will allow assessment of longer-term outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03531073 . Retrospectively registered on 21 May 2018.