Clinical outcomes and adverse events of bariatric surgery in adults with severe obesity in Scotland: the SCOTS observational cohort study.

Background: Bariatric surgery is a common procedure worldwide for the treatment of severe obesity and associated comorbid conditions but there is a lack of evidence as to medium-term safety and effectiveness outcomes in a United Kingdom setting. Objective: To establish the clinical outcomes and adverse events of different bariatric surgical procedures, their impact on quality of life and the effect on comorbidities. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Setting: National Health Service secondary care and private practice in Scotland, United Kingdom. Participants: Adults (age >16 years) undergoing their first bariatric surgery procedure. Main outcome measures: Change in weight, hospital length of stay, readmission and reoperation rate, mortality, diabetes outcomes (HbA1c, medications), quality of life, anxiety, depression. Data sources: Patient-reported outcome measures, hospital records, national electronic health records (Scottish Morbidity Record 01, Scottish Care Information Diabetes, National Records Scotland, Prescription Information System). Results: Between December 2013 and February 2017, 548 eligible patients were approached and 445 participants were enrolled in the study. Of those, 335 had bariatric surgery and 1 withdrew from the study. Mean age was 46.0 (9.2) years, 74.7% were female and the median body mass index was 46.4 (42.4; 52.0) kg/m2. Weight was available for 128 participants at 3 years: mean change was -19.0% (±14.1) from the operation and -24.2% (±12.8) from the start of the preoperative weight-management programme. One hundred and thirty-nine (41.4%) participants were readmitted to hospital in the same or subsequent 35 months post surgery, 18 (5.4% of the operated cohort) had a reoperation or procedure considered to be related to bariatric surgery gastrointestinal complications or revisions. Fewer than five participants (<2%) died during follow-up. HbA1c was available for 93/182 and diabetes medications for 139/182 participants who had type 2 diabetes prior to surgery; HbA1c mean change was -5.72 (±16.71) (p = 0.001) mmol/mol and 65.5% required no diabetes medications (p < 0.001) at 3 years post surgery. Physical quality of life, available for 101/335 participants, improved in the 3 years post surgery, mean change in Rand 12-item Short Form Survey physical component score 8.32 (±8.95) (p < 0.001); however, there was no change in the prevalence of anxiety or depression. Limitations: Due to low numbers of bariatric surgery procedures in Scotland, recruitment was stopped before achieving the intended 2000 participants and follow-up was reduced from 10 years to 3 years. Conclusions: Bariatric surgery is a safe and effective treatment for obesity. Patients in Scotland, UK, appear to be older and have higher body mass than international comparators, which may be due to the small number of procedures performed. Future work: Intervention studies are required to identify the optimal pre- and post surgery pathway to maximise safety and cost-effectiveness. Study registration: This study is registered as ISRCTN47072588. Funding details: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 10/42/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Bariatric surgery is performed on the stomach and small bowel to help people living with obesity lose weight. Our research study has looked at who is getting bariatric surgery, if they are having problems afterwards, how much weight they lose and if their medical conditions improve. A total of 444 people who were attending bariatric surgery services in Scotland, UK, agreed to take part and 336 had surgery. One hundred and eighty-nine of them completed a questionnaire before their surgery and 85 of them after 3 years, to tell us about how they were feeling physically and mentally. We looked at their computer hospital records to see how long they spent in hospital, any medical problems and changes to diabetes medicines and tests. One in five people taking part did not have surgery after all; they changed their mind or the hospital teams did not think it would be safe or work well for the patient. Those who had surgery lost 19% of their body weight and those with type 2 diabetes needed less or no medication 3 years after the surgery. The effect of physical symptoms on day-to-day activities improved but mental health did not. Compared to other countries, the people taking part were older, heavier and sicker. They spent longer in hospital after surgery and were more likely to be readmitted to hospital. How many appointments they had or what type of health professional they saw before or after surgery did not change these results. We had hoped to have far more people in this study and be able to answer more questions, but not enough people were getting bariatric surgery in Scotland for us to ask them to take part. Further research is needed to find the best ways to care for people living with obesity who would benefit from bariatric surgery.

Clinical effectiveness of an online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme for adults with post-covid-19 condition (REGAIN study): multicentre randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured online supervised group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme can improve health related quality of life compared with usual care in adults with post-covid-19 condition (long covid). DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. SETTING: England and Wales, with home based interventions delivered remotely online from a single trial hub. PARTICIPANTS: 585 adults (26-86 years) discharged from NHS hospitals at least three months previously after covid-19 and with ongoing physical and/or mental health sequelae (post-covid-19 condition), randomised (1:1.03) to receive the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) intervention (n=298) or usual care (n=287). INTERVENTIONS: Best practice usual care was a single online session of advice and support with a trained practitioner. The REGAIN intervention was delivered online over eight weeks and consisted of weekly home based, live, supervised, group exercise and psychological support sessions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was health related quality of life using the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) preference (PROPr) score at three months. Secondary outcomes, measured at three, six, and 12 months, included PROMIS subscores (depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain interference, physical function, social roles/activities, and cognitive function), severity of post-traumatic stress disorder, general health, and adverse events. RESULTS: Between January 2021 and July 2022, 39 697 people were invited to take part in the study and 725 were contacted and eligible. 585 participants were randomised. Mean age was 56 (standard deviation (SD) 12) years, 52% were female participants, mean health related quality of life PROMIS-PROPr score was 0.20 (SD 0.17), and mean time from hospital discharge was 323 (SD 144) days. Compared with usual care, the REGAIN intervention led to improvements in health related quality of life (adjusted mean difference in PROPr score 0.03 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.05), P=0.02) at three months, driven predominantly by greater improvements in the PROMIS subscores for depression (1.39 (0.06 to 2.71), P=0.04), fatigue (2.50 (1.19 to 3.81), P<0.001), and pain interference (1.80 (0.50 to 3.11), P=0.01). Effects were sustained at 12 months (0.03 (0.01 to 0.06), P=0.02). Of 21 serious adverse events, only one was possibly related to the REGAIN intervention. In the intervention group, 141 (47%) participants fully adhered to the programme, 117 (39%) partially adhered, and 40 (13%) did not receive the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In adults with post-covid-19 condition, an online, home based, supervised, group physical and mental health rehabilitation programme was clinically effective at improving health related quality of life at three and 12 months compared with usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN11466448.

The STAR care pathway for patients with chronic pain after total knee replacement: four-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Support and Treatment After Replacement (STAR) care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective intervention found to improve pain outcomes over one year for people with chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). We followed up STAR trial participants to evaluate the longer-term clinical- and cost-effectiveness of this care pathway. METHODS: Participants who remained enrolled on the trial at one year were contacted by post at a median of four years after randomisation and invited to complete a questionnaire comprising the same outcomes collected during the trial. We captured pain (co-primary outcome using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) pain severity and interference scales; scored 0-10, best to worst), function, neuropathic characteristics, emotional aspects of pain, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction. Electronic hospital informatics data on hospital resource use for the period of one to four years post-randomisation were collected from participating hospital sites. The economic evaluation took an National Health Service (NHS) secondary care perspective, with a four-year time horizon. RESULTS: Overall, 226/337 (67%) of participants returned completed follow-up questionnaires, yielding adjusted between-group differences in BPI means of -0.42 (95% confidence interval, CI (-1.07, 0.23); p = 0.20) for pain severity and - 0.64 (95% CI -1.41, 0.12); p = 0.10) for pain interference. Analysis using a multiple imputed data set (n = 337) showed an incremental net monetary benefit in favour of the STAR care pathway of £3,525 (95% CI -£990 to £8,039) at a £20,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, leading to a probability that the intervention was cost-effective of 0.94. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the longer-term benefits of the STAR care pathway are uncertain due to attrition of trial participants; however, there is a suggestion of some degree of sustained clinical benefit at four years. The care pathway remained cost-effective at four years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 92,545,361.

Pain with neuropathic characteristics after surgically treated lower limb fractures: Cost analysis and pain medication use.

Introduction: Neuropathic pain is prevalent among people after lower limb fracture surgery and is associated with lower health-related quality of life and greater disability. This study estimates the financial cost and pain medication use associated with neuropathic pain in this group. Methods: A secondary analysis using pain data collected over six postoperative months from participants randomised in the Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHiST) trial. Pain states were classified as pain-free, chronic non-neuropathic pain (NNP) or chronic neuropathic pain (NP). Cost associated with each pain state from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective were estimated by multivariate models based on multiple imputed data. Pain medication usage was analysed by pain state. Results: A total of 934 participants who provided either 3- or 6-months pain data were included. Compared to participants with NP, those with NNP (adjusted mean difference -£730, p = 0.38, 95% CI -2368 to 908) or were pain-free (adjusted mean difference -£716, p = 0.53, 95% CI -2929 to 1497) had lower costs from the NHS and PSS perspective in the first three postoperative months. Over the first three postoperative months, almost a third of participants with NP were prescribed opioids and 8% were prescribed NP medications. Similar trends were observed by 6 months postoperatively. Conclusion: This study found healthcare costs were higher amongst those with chronic NP compared to those who were pain-free or had chronic NNP. Opioids, rather than neuropathic pain medications, were commonly prescribed for NP over the first six postoperative months, contrary to clinical guidelines.

UK robotic arthroplasty clinical and cost effectiveness randomised controlled trial for hips (RACER-Hip): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The number of robotic-assisted hip replacement procedures has expanded globally with the intended aim of improving outcomes. Intraoperative robotic-arm systems add additional costs to total hip replacement (THR) surgery but may improve surgical precision and could contribute to diminished pain and improved function. Additionally, these systems may reduce the need for expensive revision surgery. Surgery with conventional instruments may be just as successful, quick and affordable. There is timely demand for a robust evaluation of this technology. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Robotic Arthroplasty Clinical and cost Effectiveness Randomised controlled trial for Hips (RACER-Hip) is a multicentre (minimum of six UK sites), participant-assessor blinded, randomised controlled trial. 378 participants with hip osteoarthritis requiring THR will be randomised (1:1) to receive robotic-assisted THR, or THR using conventional surgical instruments. The primary outcome is the Forgotten Joint Score at 12 months post-randomisation; a patient-reported outcome measure assessing participants' awareness of their joint when undertaking daily activities. Secondary outcomes will be collected post-operatively (pain, blood loss and opioid usage) and at 3, 6, 12, 24 months, then 5 and 10 years postrandomisation (including function, pain, health-related quality of life, reoperations and satisfaction). Allocation concealment will be accomplished using a computer-based randomisation procedure on the day of surgery. Blinding methods include the use of sham incisions for marker clusters and blinded operation notes. The primary analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle. Results will adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statements. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by an ethics committee (Solihull Research Ethics Committee, 30 June 2021, IRAS: 295831). Participants will provide informed consent before agreeing to participate. Results will be disseminated using peer-reviewed journal publications, presentations at international conferences and through the use of social media. We will develop plans to disseminate to patients and public with our patient partners. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13374625.

Experiences of recovery and a new care pathway for people with pain after total knee replacement: qualitative research embedded in the STAR trial.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of people experience chronic postsurgical pain after total knee replacement. The STAR randomised controlled trial (ISCRTN92545361) evaluated the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new multifaceted and personalised care pathway, compared with usual care, for people with pain at three months after total knee replacement. We report trial participants' experiences of postoperative pain and the acceptability of the STAR care pathway, which consisted of an assessment clinic at three months, and up to six follow-up telephone calls over 12 months. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 people (10 men, 17 women) between February 2018 and January 2020. Participants were sampled purposively from the care pathway intervention group and interviewed after completion of the final postoperative trial questionnaire at approximately 15 months after knee replacement. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Many participants were unprepared for the severity and impact of postoperative pain, which they described as extreme and constant and that tested their physical and mental endurance. Participants identified 'low points' during their recovery, triggered by stiffening, pain or swelling that caused feelings of anxiety, depression, and pain catastrophising. Participants described the STAR assessment clinic as something that seemed "perfectly normal" suggesting it was seamlessly integrated into NHS care. Even in the context of some ongoing pain, the STAR care pathway had provided a source of support and an opportunity to discuss concerns about their ongoing recovery. CONCLUSIONS: People who have knee replacement may be unprepared for the severity and impact of postoperative pain, and the hard work of recovery afterwards. This highlights the challenges of preparing patients for total knee replacement and suggests that clinical attention is needed if exercise and mobilising is painful beyond the three month postoperative period. The STAR care pathway is acceptable to people with pain after total knee replacement.

Exercise to prevent shoulder problems after breast cancer surgery: the PROSPER RCT.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb problems are common after breast cancer treatment. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a structured exercise programme compared with usual care on upper limb function, health-related outcomes and costs in women undergoing breast cancer surgery. DESIGN: This was a two-arm, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative research, process evaluation and parallel economic analysis; the unit of randomisation was the individual (allocated ratio 1 : 1). SETTING: Breast cancer centres, secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged ≥ 18 years who had been diagnosed with breast cancer and were at higher risk of developing shoulder problems. Women were screened to identify their risk status. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received usual-care information leaflets. Those randomised to exercise were referred to physiotherapy for an early, structured exercise programme (three to six face-to-face appointments that included strengthening, physical activity and behavioural change strategies). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was upper limb function at 12 months as assessed using the Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were function (Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire subscales), pain, complications (e.g. wound-related complications, lymphoedema), health-related quality of life (e.g. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form questionnaire-12 items), physical activity and health service resource use. The economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit gained from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group assignment, but data collectors were blinded. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2017, we randomised 392 participants from 17 breast cancer centres across England: 196 (50%) to the usual-care group and 196 (50%) to the exercise group. Ten participants (10/392; 3%) were withdrawn at randomisation and 32 (8%) did not provide complete baseline data. A total of 175 participants (89%) from each treatment group provided baseline data. Participants' mean age was 58.1 years (standard deviation 12.1 years; range 28-88 years). Most participants had undergone axillary node clearance surgery (327/392; 83%) and 317 (81%) had received radiotherapy. Uptake of the exercise treatment was high, with 181 out of 196 (92%) participants attending at least one physiotherapy appointment. Compliance with exercise was good: 143 out of 196 (73%) participants completed three or more physiotherapy sessions. At 12 months, 274 out of 392 (70%) participants returned questionnaires. Improvement in arm function was greater in the exercise group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 16.3 (standard deviation 17.6)] than in the usual-care group [mean Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of 23.7 (standard deviation 22.9)] at 12 months for intention-to-treat (adjusted mean difference Disabilities of Arm, Hand and Shoulder questionnaire score of -7.81, 95% confidence interval -12.44 to -3.17; p = 0.001) and complier-average causal effect analyses (adjusted mean difference -8.74, 95% confidence interval -13.71 to -3.77; p ≤ 0.001). At 12 months, pain scores were lower and physical health-related quality of life was higher in the exercise group than in the usual-care group (Short Form questionnaire-12 items, mean difference 4.39, 95% confidence interval 1.74 to 7.04; p = 0.001). We found no differences in the rate of adverse events or lymphoedema over 12 months. The qualitative findings suggested that women found the exercise programme beneficial and enjoyable. Exercise accrued lower costs (-£387, 95% CI -£2491 to £1718) and generated more quality-adjusted life years (0.029, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.056) than usual care over 12 months. The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that exercise was more cost-effective and that the results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Exercise was relatively cheap to implement (£129 per participant) and associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. Benefits may accrue beyond the end of the trial. LIMITATIONS: Postal follow-up was lower than estimated; however, the study was adequately powered. No serious adverse events directly related to the intervention were reported. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provided robust evidence that referral for early, supported exercise after breast cancer surgery improved shoulder function in those at risk of shoulder problems and was associated with lower health-care costs than usual care and improved health-related quality of life. FUTURE WORK: Future work should focus on the implementation of exercise programmes in clinical practice for those at highest risk of shoulder problems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN35358984. 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. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women. Women now live longer because the detection and treatment of cancer has improved over the last 40 years. The side effects of breast cancer treatments can lead to complications, such as difficulties with arm movements, arm swelling (lymphoedema), pain and poor quality of life. These problems can last for many years after the cancer has been treated. Usual care after breast cancer surgery is to give patients an information leaflet explaining arm exercises that they can undertake after their operation. Offering exercise support from a physiotherapist may be a better way to help those at risk of developing shoulder problems after breast cancer treatment than providing a leaflet only. WHAT DID WE DO?: We compared two strategies to prevent shoulder problems in women having breast cancer treatment: information leaflets and an exercise programme. We invited women with a new diagnosis of breast cancer who were at higher risk of developing shoulder problems than other women with a new diagnosis of breast cancer. We recruited 392 women aged 28­88 years from 17 breast cancer units across England. Women were allocated to one of two groups by chance using a computer. Everyone was given information leaflets that explained what type of exercises to do after surgery. Half of the women (n = 196) were then invited to take part in an exercise programme, supported by a trained physiotherapist. These women followed a programme of shoulder mobility, stretching and strengthening exercises for up to 1 year. We measured changes in arm function, pain, arm swelling (lymphoedema) and physical and mental quality of life, and the cost of treatments during the whole first year of recovery, in everyone. We also spoke to the women and physiotherapists to find out whether or not these treatment strategies were acceptable to them. WHAT DID WE FIND OUT?: Women doing the exercise programme had better arm function, less pain and better quality of life than the women given an information leaflet only. Women said that the exercise programme helped with their recovery during cancer treatment. Exercise was cheap to deliver (£129 per person) and led to improved overall quality of life at 1 year after breast cancer surgery.

Exercise versus usual care after non-reconstructive breast cancer surgery (UK PROSPER): multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a structured exercise programme improved functional and health related quality of life outcomes compared with usual care for women at high risk of upper limb disability after breast cancer surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre, pragmatic, superiority, randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. SETTING: 17 UK National Health Service cancer centres. PARTICIPANTS: 392 women undergoing breast cancer surgery, at risk of postoperative upper limb morbidity, randomised (1:1) to usual care with structured exercise (n=196) or usual care alone (n=196). INTERVENTIONS: Usual care (information leaflets) only or usual care plus a physiotherapy led exercise programme, incorporating stretching, strengthening, physical activity, and behavioural change techniques to support adherence to exercise, introduced at 7-10 days postoperatively, with two further appointments at one and three months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability of Arm, Hand and Shoulder (DASH) questionnaire at 12 months, analysed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes included DASH subscales, pain, complications, health related quality of life, and resource use, from a health and personal social services perspective. RESULTS: Between 26 January 2016 and 31 July 2017, 951 patients were screened and 392 (mean age 58.1 years) were randomly allocated, with 382 (97%) eligible for intention to treat analysis. 181 (95%) of 191 participants allocated to exercise attended at least one appointment. Upper limb function improved after exercise compared with usual care (mean DASH 16.3 (SD 17.6) for exercise (n=132); 23.7 (22.9) usual care (n=138); adjusted mean difference 7.81, 95% confidence interval 3.17 to 12.44; P=0.001). Secondary outcomes favoured exercise over usual care, with lower pain intensity at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on numerical rating scale -0.68, -1.23 to -0.12; P=0.02) and fewer arm disability symptoms at 12 months (adjusted mean difference on Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast+4 (FACT-B+4) -2.02, -3.11 to -0.93; P=0.001). No increase in complications, lymphoedema, or adverse events was noted in participants allocated to exercise. Exercise accrued lower costs per patient (on average -£387 (€457; $533) (95% confidence interval -£2491 to £1718; 2015 pricing) and was cost effective compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: The PROSPER exercise programme was clinically effective and cost effective and reduced upper limb disability one year after breast cancer treatment in patients at risk of treatment related postoperative complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN35358984.

Fall prevention interventions in primary care to reduce fractures and falls in people aged 70 years and over: the PreFIT three-arm cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: Falls and fractures are a major problem. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions. DESIGN: Three-arm, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel economic analysis. The unit of randomisation was the general practice. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: People aged ≥ 70 years. INTERVENTIONS: All practices posted an advice leaflet to each participant. Practices randomised to active intervention arms (exercise and multifactorial falls prevention) screened participants for falls risk using a postal questionnaire. Active treatments were delivered to participants at higher risk of falling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was fracture rate over 18 months, captured from Hospital Episode Statistics, general practice records and self-report. Secondary outcomes were falls rate, health-related quality of life, mortality, frailty and health service resource use. Economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2014, we randomised 63 general practices (9803 participants): 21 practices (3223 participants) to advice only, 21 practices (3279 participants) to exercise and 21 practices (3301 participants) to multifactorial falls prevention. In the active intervention arms, 5779 out of 6580 (87.8%) participants responded to the postal fall risk screener, of whom 2153 (37.3%) were classed as being at higher risk of falling and invited for treatment. The rate of intervention uptake was 65% (697 out of 1079) in the exercise arm and 71% (762 out of 1074) in the multifactorial falls prevention arm. Overall, 379 out of 9803 (3.9%) participants sustained a fracture. There was no difference in the fracture rate between the advice and exercise arms (rate ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.59) or between the advice and multifactorial falls prevention arms (rate ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.71). There was no difference in falls rate over 18 months (exercise arm: rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.14; multifactorial falls prevention arm: rate ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.30). A lower rate of falls was observed in the exercise arm at 8 months (rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.96), but not at other time points. There were 289 (2.9%) deaths, with no differences by treatment arm. There was no evidence of effects in prespecified subgroup comparisons, nor in nested intention-to-treat analyses that considered only those at higher risk of falling. Exercise provided the highest expected quality-adjusted life-years (1.120), followed by advice and multifactorial falls prevention, with 1.106 and 1.114 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively. NHS costs associated with exercise (£3720) were lower than the costs of advice (£3737) or of multifactorial falls prevention (£3941). Although incremental differences between treatment arms were small, exercise dominated advice, which in turn dominated multifactorial falls prevention. The incremental net monetary benefit of exercise relative to treatment valued at £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is modest, at £191, and for multifactorial falls prevention is £613. Exercise is the most cost-effective treatment. No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The rate of fractures was lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Screen-and-treat falls prevention strategies in primary care did not reduce fractures. Exercise resulted in a short-term reduction in falls and was cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Exercise is the most promising intervention for primary care. Work is needed to ensure adequate uptake and sustained effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71002650. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Falls are a major problem for older people. Current practice is to give people advice leaflets. Another approach is exercise, especially balance and strength training. A third alternative is to invite older people to attend a falls assessment with a health-care professional, either a doctor or a trained nurse. This usually involves a careful check of prescribed tablets, blood pressure, eyesight and other problems that might cause falls. WHAT DID WE DO?: We compared three strategies. We recruited 9803 people aged 70­101 years from 63 general practices across England. We randomly allocated practices in clusters into three treatment groups. The participants in one group were given a Staying Steady advice leaflet (Age UK. Staying Steady. London: Age UK; 2009). Participants in the second group received the same leaflet and were assessed to see if they were at higher risk of falling. Those participants identified as being at higher risk (about 1000 people) were invited to take part in an exercise programme, supported by an exercise therapist. These people did balance and strength training at home for up to 6 months. In the third group, we again identified participants who were at higher risk of falling (about 1000 people) and invited them for a detailed falls assessment with a trained nurse or doctor. This last group of participants were referred for other treatments if any health problems were found. In all groups we counted fractures and falls and measured changes in quality of life, frailty and the cost of the treatments over 18 months of follow-up. WHAT DID WE FIND OUT?: We found no difference in the number of fractures over 18 months between the different treatments. The exercise programme reduced falls in the short term but not over the longer term. The exercise programme was cheaper and led to a slightly better overall quality of life.

Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN' (REGAIN): a structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective is to determine which of two interventions: 1) an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme (REGAIN); or 2) a single online session of advice (best-practice usual care); is the most clinically and cost-effective treatment for people with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge. TRIAL DESIGN: Multi-centre, 2-arm (1:1 ratio) parallel group, randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation and health economic evaluation. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with ongoing COVID-19 sequelae more than three months after hospital discharge Inclusion criteria: 1) Adults ≥18 years; 2) ≥ 3 months after any hospital discharge related to COVID-19 infection, regardless of need for critical care or ventilatory support; 3) substantial (as defined by the participant) COVID-19 related physical and/or mental health problems; 4) access to, and able/supported to use email and internet audio/video; 4) able to provide informed consent; 5) able to understand spoken and written English, Bengali, Gujarati, Urdu, Punjabi or Mandarin, themselves or supported by family/friends. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: 1) exercise contraindicated; 2) severe mental health problems preventing engagement; 3) previous randomisation in the present study; 4) already engaged in, or planning to engage in an alternative NHS rehabilitation programme in the next 12 weeks; 5) a member of the same household previously randomised in the present study. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention 1: The Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After covid-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) programme: an eight week, online, home-based, supervised, group rehabilitation programme. Intervention 2: A thirty-minute, on-line, one-to-one consultation with a REGAIN practitioner (best-practice usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) - PROMIS® 29+2 Profile v2.1 (PROPr) - measured at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include dyspnoea, cognitive function, health utility, physical activity participation, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptom severity, depressive and anxiety symptoms, work status, health and social care resource use, death - measured at three, six and 12 months post-randomisation. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised to best practice usual care or the REGAIN programme on a 1:1.03 basis using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, performed by minimisation and stratified by age, level of hospital care, and case level mental health symptomatology. Once consent and baseline questionnaires have been completed by the participant online at home, randomisation will be performed automatically by a bespoke web-based system. BLINDING (MASKING): To ensure allocation concealment from both participant and REGAIN practitioner at baseline, randomisation will be performed only after the baseline questionnaires have been completed online at home by the participant. After randomisation has been performed, participants and REGAIN practitioners cannot be blind to group allocation. Follow-up outcome assessments will be completed by participants online at home. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A total of 535 participants will be randomised: 263 to the best-practice usual care arm, and 272 participants to the REGAIN programme arm. TRIAL STATUS: Current protocol: Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) Recruitment will begin in December 2020 and is anticipated to complete by September 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN:11466448 , 23rd November 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol Version 3.0 (27th October 2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interests of 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. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines.

Screening and Intervention to Prevent Falls and Fractures in Older People.

BACKGROUND: Community screening and therapeutic prevention strategies may reduce the incidence of falls in older people. The effects of these measures on the incidence of fractures, the use of health resources, and health-related quality of life are unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, three-group, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, we estimated the effect of advice sent by mail, risk screening for falls, and targeted interventions (multifactorial fall prevention or exercise for people at increased risk for falls) as compared with advice by mail only. The primary outcome was the rate of fractures per 100 person-years over 18 months. Secondary outcomes were falls, health-related quality of life, frailty, and a parallel economic evaluation. RESULTS: We randomly selected 9803 persons 70 years of age or older from 63 general practices across England: 3223 were assigned to advice by mail alone, 3279 to falls-risk screening and targeted exercise in addition to advice by mail, and 3301 to falls-risk screening and targeted multifactorial fall prevention in addition to advice by mail. A falls-risk screening questionnaire was sent to persons assigned to the exercise and multifactorial fall-prevention groups. Completed screening questionnaires were returned by 2925 of the 3279 participants (89%) in the exercise group and by 2854 of the 3301 participants (87%) in the multifactorial fall-prevention group. Of the 5779 participants from both these groups who returned questionnaires, 2153 (37%) were considered to be at increased risk for falls and were invited to receive the intervention. Fracture data were available for 9802 of the 9803 participants. Screening and targeted intervention did not result in lower fracture rates; the rate ratio for fracture with exercise as compared with advice by mail was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.59), and the rate ratio with multifactorial fall prevention as compared with advice by mail was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.71). The exercise strategy was associated with small gains in health-related quality of life and the lowest overall costs. There were three adverse events (one episode of angina, one fall during a multifactorial fall-prevention assessment, and one hip fracture) during the trial period. CONCLUSIONS: Advice by mail, screening for fall risk, and a targeted exercise or multifactorial intervention to prevent falls did not result in fewer fractures than advice by mail alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN71002650.).

Cohort profile: Oxford Pain, Activity and Lifestyle (OPAL) Study, a prospective cohort study of older adults in England.

PURPOSE: The 'Oxford Pain, Activity and Lifestyle' (OPAL) Cohort is a longitudinal, prospective cohort study of adults, aged 65 years and older, living in the community which is investigating the determinants of health in later life. Our focus was on musculoskeletal pain and mobility, but the cohort is designed with flexibility to include new elements over time. This paper describes the study design, data collection and baseline characteristics of participants. We also compared the OPAL baseline characteristics with nationally representative data sources. PARTICIPANTS: We randomly selected eligible participants from two stratified age bands (65-74 and 75 and over years). In total, 5409 individuals (42.1% of eligible participants) from 35 general practices in England agreed to participate between 2016 and 2018. The majority of participants (n=5367) also consented for research team to access their UK National Health Service (NHS) Digital and primary healthcare records. FINDINGS TO DATE: Mean participant age was 74.9 years (range 65-100); 51.5% (n=2784/5409) were women. 94.9% of participants were white, and 28.8% lived alone. Over 83.0% reported pain in at least one body area in the previous 6 weeks. Musculoskeletal symptoms were more prevalent in women (86.4%). One-third of participants reported having one or more falls in the last year. Most participants were confident in their ability to walk outside. The characteristics of OPAL Cohort participants were broadly similar to the general population of the same age. FUTURE PLANS: Postal follow-up of the cohort is being undertaken at annual intervals, with data collection ongoing. Linkage to NHS hospital admission data is planned. This English prospective cohort offers a large and rich resource for research on the longitudinal associations between demographic, clinical, and social factors and health trajectories and outcomes in community-dwelling older people.

Negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressings following surgical treatment of major trauma to the lower limb: the WHiST RCT.

BACKGROUND: Major trauma is the leading cause of death in people aged < 45 years. Patients with major trauma usually have lower-limb fractures. Surgery to fix the fractures is complicated and the risk of infection may be as high as 27%. The type of dressing applied after surgery could potentially reduce the risk of infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the deep surgical site infection rate, disability, quality of life, patient assessment of the surgical scar and resource use in patients with surgical incisions associated with fractures following major trauma to the lower limbs treated with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-four specialist trauma hospitals representing the UK Major Trauma Network. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1548 adult patients were randomised from September 2016 to April 2018. Exclusion criteria included presentation > 72 hours after injury and inability to complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (n = 785), in which a non-adherent absorbent dressing covered with a semipermeable membrane is connected to a pump to create a partial vacuum over the wound, versus standard dressings not involving negative pressure (n = 763). Trial participants and the treating surgeon could not be blinded to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Deep surgical site infection at 30 days was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were deep infection at 90 days, the results of the Disability Rating Index, health-related quality of life, the results of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and resource use collected at 3 and 6 months post surgery. RESULTS: A total of 98% of participants provided primary outcome data. There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of deep surgical site infection at 30 days. The infection rate was 6.7% (50/749) in the standard dressing group and 5.8% (45/770) in the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy group (intention-to-treat odds ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.33; p = 0.52). There was no difference in the deep surgical site infection rate at 90 days: 13.2% in the standard dressing group and 11.4% in the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.19; p = 0.32). There was no difference between the two groups in disability, quality of life or scar appearance at 3 or 6 months. Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy did not reduce the cost of treatment and was associated with a low probability of cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the emergency nature of the surgery, we anticipated that some patients who were randomised would subsequently be unable or unwilling to participate. However, the majority of the patients (85%) agreed to participate. Therefore, participants were representative of the population with lower-limb fractures associated with major trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study do not support the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in patients having surgery for major trauma to the lower limbs. FUTURE WORK: Our work suggests that the use of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy dressings in other at-risk surgical wounds requires further investigation. Future research may also investigate different approaches to reduce postoperative infections, for example the use of topical antibiotic preparations in surgical wounds and the role of orthopaedic implants with antimicrobial coatings when fixing the associated fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12702354 and UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio ID20416. 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. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information.

WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: We found no evidence of a difference in the rate of surgical site infection between those patients randomised to negative-pressure wound therapy and those patients randomised to standard wound dressings. There was no difference in the rate of other wound healing complications or in the patients' self-report of disability, health-related quality of life or scar healing. Negative-pressure wound therapy is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. In conclusion, and contrary to previous reports, the findings of this study do not support the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in patients having surgery for major trauma to their legs.

Major trauma is the leading cause of death worldwide in people aged < 45 years and a significant cause of short- and long-term health problems. In 85% of major trauma patients, the injury involves broken bones. Surgery to fix broken bones in the lower limbs is complicated and has risks, one of the main ones being wound infection. In these patients, rates of wound infection have been reported to be as high as 27%. One factor that may affect the risk of infection is the type of dressing applied after surgery. In this trial, we compared standard wound dressings with a new treatment called incisional negative-pressure wound therapy. Negative-pressure wound therapy is a special type of dressing whereby gentle suction is applied to the surface of the wound. A total of 1548 patients from 24 specialist trauma hospitals in the UK agreed to take part and were assigned at random to receive either a standard wound dressing or negative-pressure wound therapy after their surgery. We reviewed the recovery of the patients for 6 months. We recorded how many had an infection in the surgical wound and asked the patients to rate the extent of their disability, their quality of life and the scar healing. We also collected information about the cost of treatment.

Supervised pulmonary hypertension exercise rehabilitation (SPHERe): study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Supervised cardio-pulmonary rehabilitation may be safe and beneficial for people with pulmonary hypertension (PH) in groups 1 (pulmonary arterial hypertension) and 4 (chronic thromboembolic disease), particularly as a hospital in-patient. It has not been tested in the most common PH groups; 2 (left heart disease), 3 (lung disease), or 5 (other disorders). Further it has not been evaluated in the UK National Health Service (NHS) out-patient setting, or with long-term follow-up. The aim of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention with psychosocial support compared to best practice usual care for people with PH in the community/outpatient setting. METHODS: This multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm RCT with embedded process evaluation aims to recruit 352 clinically stable adults with PH (groups 1-5) and WHO functional class II-IV. Participants will be randomised to either the Supervised Pulmonary Hypertension Exercise Rehabilitation (SPHERe) intervention or control. The SPHERe intervention consists of 1) individual assessment and familiarisation sessions; 2) 8-week, twice-weekly, supervised out-patient exercise training; 3) psychosocial/motivational support and education; 4) guided home exercise plan. The control intervention consists of best practice usual care with a single one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on physical activity. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 4 months (post-intervention) and 12 months by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is the incremental shuttle walk test at 4 months. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life (HRQoL), time to clinical worsening and health and social care use. A purposive sample of participants (n = 20 intervention and n = 20 control) and practitioners (n = 20) will be interviewed to explore experiences of the trial, outcomes and interventions. DISCUSSION: The SPHERe study is the first multi-centre clinical RCT to assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of a supervised exercise rehabilitation intervention compared to usual care, delivered in the UK NHS, for people in all PH groups. Results will inform clinicians and commissioners as to whether or not supervised exercise rehabilitation is effective and should be routinely provided for people with PH. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN no. 10608766, prospectively registered on 18th March 2019.

Persistent postoperative pain and healthcare costs associated with instrumented and non-instrumented spinal surgery: a case-control study.

PURPOSE: To compare rates of persistent postoperative pain (PPP) after lumbar spine surgery-commonly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome-and healthcare costs for instrumented lumbar spinal fusion versus decompression/discectomy. METHODS: The UK population-based healthcare data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database from NHS Digital and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were queried to identify patients with PPP following lumbar spinal surgery. Rates of PPP were calculated by type of surgery (instrumented and non-instrumented). Total healthcare costs associated with the surgery and covering the 24-month period after index hospital discharge were estimated using standard methods for classifying health care encounters into major categories of health care resource utilization (i.e., inpatient hospital stays, outpatient clinic visits, accident and emergency attendances, primary care encounters, and medications prescribed in primary care) and applying the appropriate unit costs (expressed in 2013 GBP). RESULTS: Increasing the complexity of surgery with instrumentation was not associated with an increased rate of PPP. However, 2-year healthcare costs following discharge after surgery are significantly higher among patients who underwent instrumented surgery compared with decompression/discectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a not insubstantial risk of ongoing pain following spine surgery, with 1-in-5 patients experiencing PPP within 2 years of surgery, the underlying indications for surgical modality and related choice of surgical procedure do not, by itself, appear to be a driving factor.

Systematic review of economic evaluations of exercise and physiotherapy for patients treated for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Treatments for breast cancer can lead to chronic musculoskeletal problems. This study aimed to systematically review the evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions aimed at reducing the risk of physical symptoms and functional limitations due to breast cancer treatment. METHODS: A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions during and following treatment for breast cancer was undertaken according to PRISMA guidelines. Literature searches were carried out in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Web of Science, EconLit, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Cost-effectiveness evidence was summarised in a descriptive manner and studies were assessed using quality appraisal tools. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO. RESULTS: A total of 7783 articles were identified and seven were included in the final review. Five studies undertook trial-based economic evaluations, whereas two studies conducted economic evaluation based on decision models. One study was a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), three undertook stand-alone cost-utility analyses (CUA) and three studies were combined CEAs and CUAs. Three studies reported favourable cost-effectiveness results for different exercise or physiotherapy interventions. In contrast, four studies found that exercise and physiotherapy interventions were not cost-effective on the basis of quality-adjusted life year outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of exercise and physiotherapy interventions for the treatment of breast cancer remains sparse with contrasting conclusions. Future research should particularly aim to broaden the evidence base by disentangling the contributing effects of frequency, intensity, time and type of exercise and physiotherapy interventions on cost-effectiveness outcomes.

Reoperation following lumbar spinal surgery: costs and outcomes in a UK population cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) and Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

PURPOSE: To assess the likelihood of persistent postoperative pain (PPP) following reoperation after lumbar surgery and to estimate associated healthcare costs. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using two linked UK databases: Hospital Episode Statistics and UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Costs and outcomes associated with reoperation were evaluated over a 2-year postoperative period using multivariate logistic regression for cases who underwent reoperation and controls who did not, based on demographics, index surgery type, smoking status, and pre-index comorbidities using propensity score matching. RESULTS: Risk factors associated with reoperation included younger age and the presence of diabetes with complications or rheumatic disease. The rate of PPP after reoperation was much higher than after index surgery, with 79 of 200 (39.5%; 95% CI 32.5%, 46.5%) participants experiencing ongoing pain compared with 983 of 5022 (19.5%; 95% CI 18.5%, 20.7%) after index surgery. Mean costs in the 2 years following reoperation were £1889 higher (95% CI £2, £3809) than for patients with PPP who did not undergo repeat surgery over an equivalent follow-up period. With the cost of reoperation itself included, the mean cost difference for patients who underwent reoperation compared with matched controls rose to £7221 (95% CI £5273, £9206). CONCLUSIONS: High rates of PPP and associated healthcare costs suggest that returning to the operating room is a complex and challenging decision. Spinal surgeons should review whether the potential benefits of additional surgery are justified when other approaches to managing and relieving chronic pain have demonstrated superior outcomes. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings for adults with an open lower limb fracture: the WOLLF RCT.

BACKGROUND: Open fractures of the lower limb occur when a broken bone penetrates the skin and is exposed to the outside environment. These are life-changing injuries. The risk of deep infection may be as high as 27%. The type of dressing applied after surgical debridement could potentially reduce the risk of infection in the open-fracture wound. OBJECTIVES: To assess the disability, rate of deep infection, quality of life and resource use in patients with severe open fracture of the lower limb treated with negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) versus standard wound management after the first surgical debridement of the wound. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-four specialist trauma hospitals in the UK Major Trauma Network. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 460 patients aged ≥ 16 years with a severe open fracture of the lower limb were recruited from July 2012 through to December 2015. Patients were excluded if they presented more than 72 hours after their injury or were unable to complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Negative-pressure wound therapy (n = 226) where an 'open-cell' solid foam or gauze was placed over the surface of the wound and connected to a suction pump which created a partial vacuum over the dressing versus standard dressings not involving negative pressure (n = 234). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disability Rating Index (DRI) - a score of 0 (no disability) to 100 (completely disabled) at 12 months was the primary outcome measure, with a minimal clinically important difference of 8 points. The secondary outcomes were deep infection, quality of life and resource use collected at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post randomisaton. RESULTS: There was no evidence of a difference in the patients' DRI at 12 months. The mean DRI in the NPWT group was 45.5 points [standard deviation (SD) 28.0 points] versus 42.4 points (SD 24.2 points) in the standard dressing group, giving a difference of -3.9 points (95% confidence interval -8.9 to 1.2 points) in favour of standard dressings (p = 0.132). There was no difference in HRQoL and no difference in the number of surgical site infections or other complications at any point in the 12 months after surgery. NPWT did not reduce the cost of treatment and it was associated with a low probability of cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the emergency nature of the interventions, we anticipated that some patients who were randomised into the trial would subsequently be unable or unwilling to take part. Such post-randomisation withdrawal of patients could have posed a risk to the external validity of the trial. However, the great majority of these patients (85%) were found to be ineligible after randomisation. Therefore, we can be confident that the patients who took part were representative of the population with severe open fractures of the lower limb. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the existing literature and current clinical guidelines, NPWT dressings do not provide a clinical or an economic benefit for patients with an open fracture of the lower limb. FUTURE WORK: Future work should investigate alternative strategies to reduce the incidence of infection and improve outcomes for patients with an open fracture of the lower limb. Two specific areas of potentially great benefit are (1) the use of topical antibiotic preparations in the open-fracture wound and (2) the role of orthopaedic implants with antimicrobial coatings when fixing the associated fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33756652 and UKCRN Portfolio ID 11783. 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. 22, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) Trial: a randomised controlled trial of a combined physical and psychological intervention for older adults with neurogenic claudication, a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis is common in older adults. The effectiveness of conservative interventions is not known. The aim of the study is to estimate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physiotherapist-delivered, combined physical and psychological intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multicentred, randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomised to a combined physical and psychological intervention (Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) programme) or best practice advice (control). Community-dwelling adults, 65 years and over, with neurogenic claudication are identified from community and secondary care services. Recruitment is supplemented using a primary care-based cohort. Participants are registered prospectively and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (intervention:control) using a web-based service to ensure allocation concealment. The target sample size is a minimum of 402. The BOOST programme consists of an individual assessment and twelve 90 min classes, including education and discussion underpinned by cognitive behavioural techniques, exercises and walking circuit. During and after the classes, participants undertake home exercises and there are two support telephone calls to promote adherence with the exercises. Best practice advice is delivered in one to three individual sessions with a physiotherapist. The primary outcome is the Oswestry Disability Index at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the 6 Minute Walk Test, Short Physical Performance Battery, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Gait Self-Efficacy Scale. Outcomes are measured at 6 and 12 months by researchers who are masked to treatment allocation. The primary statistical analysis will be by 'intention to treat'. There is a parallel health economic evaluation and qualitative study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given on 3 March 2016 (National Research Ethics Committee number: 16/LO/0349). This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist. The results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. A plain English summary will be published on the BOOST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12698674; Pre-results.

Standard wound management versus negative-pressure wound therapy in the treatment of adult patients having surgical incisions for major trauma to the lower limb-a two-arm parallel group superiority randomised controlled trial: protocol for Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHIST).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with closed high-energy injuries associated with major trauma have surprisingly high rates of surgical site infection in incisions created during fracture fixation. One factor that may reduce the risk of surgical site infection is the type of dressing applied over the closed surgical incision. In this multicentre randomised clinical trial, negative-pressure wound therapy will be compared with standard dressings with outcomes of deep infection, quality of life, pain and disability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult patients presenting to hospital within 72 hours of sustaining major trauma, requiring a surgical incision to treat a fractured lower limb, are eligible for inclusion. Randomisation, stratified by trial centre, open/closed fracture at presentation and Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≤15 versus ISS ≥16 will be administered via a secure web-based service using minimisation. The random allocation will be to either standard wound management or negative-pressure wound therapy.Trial participants will usually have clinical follow-up at the local fracture clinic for a minimum of 6 months, as per standard National Health Service practice. Diagnosis of deep infection will be recorded at 30 days. Functional, pain and quality of life outcome data will be collected using the Disability Rating Index, Douleur Neuropathique Questionnaire and Euroqol - 5 Dimension - 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at 3 months and 6 months postinjury. Further data will be captured on resource use and any late postoperative complications.Longer term outcomes will be assessed annually for 5 years and reported separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Research Ethics Committee approved this study on 16 February 2016 16/WM/0006.The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment monograph and a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal will be submitted on completion of this trial. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the treatment of this injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12702354; Pre-results.