Development of a brief, generic, modular resource-use measure (ModRUM): piloting with patients.

BACKGROUND: Bespoke self-report resource-use measures (RUMs) are commonly developed or adapted for each new randomised controlled trial. Consequently, RUMs lack standardisation and validation is rarely conducted. A new generic RUM, ModRUM, has been developed using a rigorous process, including consultation with health economists and patients. ModRUM includes a concise core healthcare module, designed to be included in all trials, and depth-adding questions, which can replace or be added to core questions as needed. Modules covering other sectors are under development. The aim of this study was to test the acceptability, feasibility, and criterion and construct validity of the healthcare module of ModRUM. METHODS: Patients who had a recent appointment at their GP practice were invited to complete ModRUM (core module or core module with depth questions), a characteristics form and the EQ-5D-5L. Acceptability was assessed via response rates and questionnaire completion time. Feasibility was assessed by reviewing issues observed in participants' responses and question completion rates. Construct validity was tested via hypothesis testing and known-group analyses, using Wilcoxon rank-sum and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and a generalised linear model. Criterion validity was tested by comparing ModRUM results with primary care medical records. Sensitivity, specificity, and agreement using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (pc) were estimated. RESULTS: One hundred patients participated from five GP practices in the South-West of England. Acceptability was higher for the core module (20% versus 10% response rate). Question completion rates were high across both versions (> 90%). Some support was observed for construct validity, with results suggesting that healthcare costs differ dependent on the number of long-term conditions (p < 0.05) and are negatively associated with health-related quality of life (p < 0.01). Sensitivity was high for all questions (> 0.83), while specificity varied (0.33-0.88). There was a good level of agreement for GP contacts and costs, and prescribed medication costs (pc > 0.6). CONCLUSION: This study provided preliminary evidence of the acceptability, feasibility, and criterion and construct validity of ModRUM. Further testing is required within trials and with groups that were less well represented in this study.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision). INTERVENTIONS: A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4). CONCLUSIONS: At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.

The STAR care pathway for patients with pain at 3 months after total knee replacement: a multicentre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of people experience chronic pain after total knee replacement, but effective treatments are not available. We aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a new care pathway for chronic pain after total knee replacement. METHODS: We did an unmasked, parallel group, pragmatic, superiority, randomised, controlled trial at eight UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. People with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway plus usual care, or to usual care alone. The STAR intervention aimed to identify underlying causes of chronic pain and enable onward referrals for targeted treatment through a 3-month post-surgery assessment with an extended scope practitioner and telephone follow-up over 12 months. Co-primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity and pain interference in the replaced knee, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales at 12 months (scored 0-10, best to worst) and analysed on an as-randomised basis. Resource use, collected from electronic hospital records and participants, was valued with UK reference costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from EQ-5D-5L responses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92545361. FINDINGS: Between Sept 6, 2016, and May 31, 2019, 363 participants were randomly assigned to receive the intervention plus usual care (n=242) or to receive usual care alone (n=121). Participants had a median age of 67 years (IQR 61 to 73), 217 (60%) of 363 were female, and 335 (92%) were White. 313 (86%) patients provided follow-up data at 12 months after randomisation (213 assigned to the intervention plus usual care and 100 assigned to usual care alone). At 12 months, the mean between-group difference in the BPI severity score was -0·65 (95% CI -1·17 to -0·13; p=0·014) and the mean between-group difference in the BPI interference score was -0·68 (-1·29 to -0·08; p=0·026), both favouring the intervention. From an NHS and personal social services perspective, the intervention was cost-effective (greater improvement with lower cost), with an incremental net monetary benefit of £1256 (95% CI 164 to 2348) at £20 000 per QALY threshold. One adverse reaction of participant distress was reported in the intervention group. INTERPRETATION: STAR is a clinically effective and cost-effective intervention to improve pain outcomes over 1 year for people with chronic pain at 3 months after total knee replacement surgery. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

What are the inpatient and day case costs following primary total hip replacement of patients treated for prosthetic joint infection: a matched cohort study using linked data from the National Joint Registry and Hospital Episode Statistics.

BACKGROUND: Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following total hip replacement (THR) surgery is a serious complication that negatively impacts patients' lives and is financially burdensome for healthcare providers. As the number of THRs increases, so does this financial burden. This research estimates the economic burden with respect to inpatient and day case hospital admissions for patients receiving revision surgery for PJI following primary THR. METHODS: In this matched cohort study, the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) was used to identify patients. Patients revised for PJI with a one- or two-stage revision following THR and patients not revised for PJI were matched on several characteristics using exact and radius matching. Hospital inpatient and day case healthcare records from the English Hospital Episode Statistics database were obtained for 5 years following the identified patient's primary THR. UK national unit costs were applied to hospital admissions and the 5-year total cost was estimated. A two-part model (Probit and generalised linear model) was employed to estimate the incremental difference in costs between those revised and not revised for PJI. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2009, 1914 revisions for PJI were identified in the NJR. The matching resulted in 422 patients revised for PJI and 1923 matches not revised for PJI who were included in the analysis. The average cost of inpatient and day case admissions in the 5 years following primary THR was approximately £42,000 for patients revised for PJI and £8000 for patients not revised for PJI. The difference in costs over the 5 years was £33,452 (95% CI £30,828 to £36,077; p < 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: In the 5 years following primary THR, patients who develop PJI and have revision surgery cost approximately £33,000 (over 5-fold) more than patients not revised for PJI based on their hospital inpatient and day case admissions alone. The total burden of PJI is likely to be much higher when also considering outpatient, primary and community care costs. This highlights the need to find both ways to reduce the incidence of PJI following THR and cost-effective treatment strategies if PJI occurs.

Active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy in PSA-detected clinically localised prostate cancer: the ProtecT three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50-69 years. DESIGN: A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. SETTING: Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50-69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. TRIAL PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p < 0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy's impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy). LIMITATIONS: A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. CONCLUSIONS: At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and is often found through a blood test called a prostate-specific antigen test and through biopsies of the prostate. Over the years, these tests led to the detection of many small cancers that do not cause harm. Some prostate cancers are harmful, but it is difficult to recognise them early. When cancer is still inside the prostate, the conventional treatments are surgery or radiotherapy, which carry side effects including leaking urine and difficulty getting an erection, so another option is repeat investigations at regular intervals (active monitoring), with treatments given if the cancer progresses. These options needed to be compared in a study called a 'randomised trial' in which men agree to be allocated to one of the three treatments. In the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study, 200,000 men aged 50­69 years were invited to have a prostate-specific antigen test. Of the 82,849 men who agreed to be tested, 1643 of whom had prostate cancer that was still contained in the prostate agreed to be allocated to one of the three treatments. After an average of 10 years of follow-up, 99% of men were alive in each of the treatment groups. However, when compared with active monitoring, surgery and radiotherapy reduced the risk of disease spreading outside the prostate by half. Patients reported that urinary leakage and sexual function were worst with surgery, and sexual and bowel functions were affected by radiotherapy. Men on active monitoring had a gradual decline in their urinary and sexual function, particularly as around half of them later had surgery or radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was the treatment that seemed to be the best value for money. The findings from the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study can help men make decisions about being tested and which treatment to have if they are found to have cancer within the prostate. We now need to find out the longer-term effects of these treatments on how long men live and their quality of life.

The ProtecT randomised trial cost-effectiveness analysis comparing active monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence relating to the cost-effectiveness of treatments for localised prostate cancer. METHODS: The cost-effectiveness of active monitoring, surgery, and radiotherapy was evaluated within the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomised controlled trial from a UK NHS perspective at 10 years' median follow-up. Prostate cancer resource-use collected from hospital records and trial participants was valued using UK reference-costs. QALYs (quality-adjusted-life-years) were calculated from patient-reported EQ-5D-3L measurements. Adjusted mean costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated; cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty; subgroup analyses considered age and disease-risk. RESULTS: Adjusted mean QALYs were similar between groups: 6.89 (active monitoring), 7.09 (radiotherapy), and 6.91 (surgery). Active monitoring had lower adjusted mean costs (£5913) than radiotherapy (£7361) and surgery (£7519). Radiotherapy was the most likely (58% probability) cost-effective option at the UK NICE willingness-to-pay threshold (£20,000 per QALY). Subgroup analyses confirmed radiotherapy was cost-effective for older men and intermediate/high-risk disease groups; active monitoring was more likely to be the cost-effective option for younger men and low-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: Longer follow-up and modelling are required to determine the most cost-effective treatment for localised prostate cancer over a man's lifetime. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297: http://isrctn.org (14/10/2002); ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (23/01/2014).

Results of the feasibility phase of the managed activity graded exercise in teenagers and pre-adolescents (MAGENTA) randomised controlled trial of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is relatively common in young people and causes significant disability. Graded exercise therapy (GET) and activity management are recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) despite a limited evidence-base for either treatment in paediatric CFS/ME. This paper reports on feasibility and acceptability measures from the feasibility phase of the ongoing MAGENTA randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigating GET versus activity management for young people with CFS/ME. METHODS: Setting: Three specialist secondary care National Health Service (NHS) Paediatric CFS/ME services (Bath, Cambridge and Newcastle).Participants: Young people aged 8-17 years with a diagnosis of mild to moderate CFS/ME. Young people were excluded if they were severely affected, referred to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) at initial assessment or unable to attend clinical sessions.Interventions: GET and activity management delivered by physiotherapists, occupational therapists, nurses and psychologists. Families and clinicians decided the number (typically 8-12) and frequency of appointments (typically every 2-6 weeks).Outcome Measures: Recruitment and follow-up statistics. We used integrated qualitative methodology to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the trial processes and the interventions. RESULTS: 80/161 (49.7%) of eligible young people were recruited at two sites between September 2015 and August 2016, indicating recruitment to the trial was feasible. Most recruitment (78/80; 97.5%) took place at one centre. Recruitment consultations, online consent and interventions were acceptable, with less than 10% in each arm discontinuing trial treatment. Response rate to the primary outcome (the SF36-PFS at 6 months) was 91.4%. Recruitment, treatment and data collection were not feasible at one centre. The site was withdrawn from the study.In response to data collected, we optimised trial processes including using Skype for recruitment discussions; adapting recruiter training to improve recruitment discussions; amending the accelerometer information leaflets; shortening the resource use questionnaires; and offering interventions via Skype. These amendments have been incorporated into the full trial protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting an RCT investigating GET versus activity management is feasible and acceptable for young people with CFS/ME. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN23962803 10.1186/ISRCTN23962803, date of registration: 03 September 2015.

Results of a feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a peer-led school-based intervention to increase the physical activity of adolescent girls (PLAN-A).

BACKGROUND: Most adolescent girls in the UK do not meet government physical activity recommendations and effective interventions are needed. This study reports the results of a feasibility trial of PLAN-A, a novel school-based peer-led physical activity intervention for adolescent girls. METHODS: A two-arm cluster randomised controlled feasibility study was conducted in six English secondary schools (4 intervention & 2 control). Year 8 (age 12-13) girls were eligible and randomisation was at school-level. The intervention involved training Year 8 girls (out of school for two consecutive days, plus one top-up day 5 weeks later), who were identified by their peers as influential, to provide informal support to their friends to increase their physical activity. Feasibility of the intervention and the research was examined, including: recruitment, training attendance and data provision rates, evidence of promise of the intervention to affect weekday moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), intervention cost and estimation of the sample size for a definitive trial. Accelerometer and questionnaire data were collected at the beginning of Year 8 (Time 0), the end of Year 8 (10-weeks after peer-supporter training) and the beginning of Year 9 (Time 2). RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-seven girls were recruited (95% recruitment rate). 55 girls consented to be a peer-supporter and 53 peer-supporters were trained (97% of those invited). Accelerometer return rates exceeded 85% at each time point and wear time criteria was met by 83%, 71% and 62% participants at Time 0, 1 and 2 respectively. Questionnaire data were provided by >91% of participants at each time point. Complete-case adjusted linear regression analysis showed evidence of a 6.09 minute (95% CI = 1.43, 10.76) between-arms difference in weekday MVPA at Time 2 in favour of the intervention arm. On average PLAN-A cost £2685 per school to deliver (£37 per Year 8 girl). There were no adverse events. A trial involving 20 schools would be adequately powered to detect a between-arms difference in weekday MVPA of at least six minutes. CONCLUSIONS: The PLAN-A intervention adopts a novel peer-led approach, is feasible, and shows evidence of promise to positively affect girls' physical activity levels. A definitive trial is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISCTRN, ISRCTN12543546, Registered on 28/7/2015, URL of registry record: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12543546.

Investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of FITNET-NHS (Fatigue In Teenagers on the interNET in the NHS) compared to Activity Management to treat paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) is a relatively common and disabling condition. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) as a treatment option for paediatric CFS/ME because there is good evidence that it is effective. Despite this, most young people in the UK are unable to access local specialist CBT for CFS/ME. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) showed FITNET was effective in the Netherlands but we do not know if it is effective in the National Health Service (NHS) or if it is cost-effective. This trial will investigate whether FITNET-NHS is clinically effective and cost-effective in the NHS. METHODS: Seven hundred and thirty-four paediatric patients (aged 11-17 years) with CFS/ ME will be randomised (1:1) to receive either FITNET-NHS (online CBT) or Activity Management (delivered via video call). The internal pilot study will use integrated qualitative methods to examine the feasibility of recruitment and the acceptability of treatment. The full trial will assess whether FITNET-NHS is clinically effective and cost-effective. The primary outcome is disability at 6 months, measured using the SF-36-PFS (Physical Function Scale) questionnaire. Cost-effectiveness is measured via cost-utility analysis from an NHS perspective. Secondary subgroup analysis will investigate the effectiveness of FITNET-NHS in those with co-morbid mood disorders. DISCUSSION: If FITNET-NHS is found to be feasible and acceptable (internal pilot) and effective and cost-effective (full trial), its provision by the NHS has the potential to deliver substantial health gains for the large number of young people suffering from CFS/ME but unable to access treatment because there is no local specialist service. This trial will provide further evidence evaluating the delivery of online CBT to young people with chronic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, registration number: ISRCTN18020851 . Registered on 4 August 2016.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process in addition to specialist medical care for paediatric chronic fatigue syndrome: randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Lightning Process (LP) in addition to specialist medical care (SMC) compared with SMC alone, for children with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalitis (ME). DESIGN: Pragmatic randomised controlled open trial. Participants were randomly assigned to SMC or SMC+LP. Randomisation was minimised by age and gender. SETTING: Specialist paediatric CFS/ME service. PATIENTS: 12-18 year olds with mild/moderate CFS/ME. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey Physical Function Subscale (SF-36-PFS) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pain, anxiety, depression, school attendance and cost-effectiveness from a health service perspective at 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: We recruited 100 participants, of whom 51 were randomised to SMC+LP. Data from 81 participants were analysed at 6 months. Physical function (SF-36-PFS) was better in those allocated SMC+LP (adjusted difference in means 12.5(95% CI 4.5 to 20.5), p=0.003) and this improved further at 12 months (15.1 (5.8 to 24.4), p=0.002). At 6 months, fatigue and anxiety were reduced, and at 12 months, fatigue, anxiety, depression and school attendance had improved in the SMC+LP arm. Results were similar following multiple imputation. SMC+LP was probably more cost-effective in the multiple imputation dataset (difference in means in net monetary benefit at 12 months £1474(95% CI £111 to £2836), p=0.034) but not for complete cases. CONCLUSION: The LP is effective and is probably cost-effective when provided in addition to SMC for mild/moderately affected adolescents with CFS/ME. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81456207.

One-stage or two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection--the INFORM trial: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) affects approximately 1% of patients following total hip replacement (THR) and often results in severe physical and emotional suffering. Current surgical treatment options are debridement, antibiotics and implant retention; revision THR; excision of the joint and amputation. Revision surgery can be done as either a one-stage or two-stage operation. Both types of surgery are well-established practice in the NHS and result in similar rates of re-infection, but little is known about the impact of these treatments from the patient's perspective. The main aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine whether there is a difference in patient-reported outcome measures 18 months after randomisation for one-stage or two-stage revision surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: INFORM (INFection ORthopaedic Management) is an open, two-arm, multi-centre, randomised, superiority trial. We aim to randomise 148 patients with eligible PJI of the hip from approximately seven secondary care NHS orthopaedic units from across England and Wales. Patients will be randomised via a web-based system to receive either a one-stage revision or a two-stage revision THR. Blinding is not possible due to the nature of the intervention. All patients will be followed up for 18 months. The primary outcome is the WOMAC Index, which assesses hip pain, function and stiffness, collected by questionnaire at 18 months. Secondary outcomes include the following: cost-effectiveness, complications, re-infection rates, objective hip function assessment and quality of life. A nested qualitative study will explore patients' and surgeons' experiences, including their views about trial participation and randomisation. DISCUSSION: INFORM is the first ever randomised trial to compare two widely accepted surgical interventions for the treatment of PJI: one-stage and two-stage revision THR. The results of the trial will benefit patients in the future as the main focus is on patient-reported outcomes: pain, function and wellbeing in the long term. Patients state that these outcomes are more important than those that are clinically derived (such as re-infection) and have been commonly used in previous non-randomised studies. Results from the INFORM trial will also benefit clinicians and NHS managers by enabling the comparison of these key interventions in terms of patients' complication rates, health and social resource use and their overall cost-effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10956306 (registered on 29 January 2015); UKCRN ID 18159.