PERI-operative biologic DMARD management: Stoppage or COntinuation during orthoPaEdic operations (the PERISCOPE trial) - a study protocol for a pragmatic, UK multicentre, superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic evaluation and nested qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) have revolutionised the treatment of inflammatory arthritis (IA). However, many people with IA still require planned orthopaedic surgery to reduce pain and improve function. Currently, bDMARDs are withheld during the perioperative period due to potential infection risk. However, this predisposes patients to IA flares and loss of disease control. The question of whether to stop or continue bDMARDs in the perioperative period has not been adequately addressed in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PERISCOPE is a multicentre, superiority, pragmatic RCT investigating the stoppage or continuation of bDMARDs. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to either stop or continue their bDMARDs during the perioperative period. We aim to recruit 394 adult participants with IA. Potential participants will be identified in secondary care hospitals in the UK, screened by a delegated clinician. If eligible and consenting, baseline data will be collected and randomisation completed. The primary outcome will be the self-reported PROMIS-29 (Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) over the first 12 weeks postsurgery. Secondary outcome measures are as follows: PROMIS - Health Assessment Questionnaire (PROMIS-HAQ), EQ-5D-5L, Disease activity: generic global Numeric Rating Scale (patient and clinician), Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction scale, Health care resource use and costs, Medication use, Surgical site infection, delayed wound healing, Adverse events (including systemic infections) and disease-specific outcomes (according to IA diagnosis). The costs associated with stopping and continuing bDMARDs will be assessed. A qualitative study will explore the patients' and clinicians' acceptability and experience of continuation/stoppage of bDMARDs in the perioperative period and the impact postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was received from the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee on 25 April 2023 (REC Ref: 23/WS/0049). The findings from PERISCOPE will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and feed directly into practice guidelines for the use of bDMARDs in the perioperative period. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17691638.

Cost-utility analysis of Social Stories™ for children with autism spectrum disorder in mainstream primary schools: results from a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: One in 57 children are diagnosed with autism in the UK, and the estimated cost for supporting these children in education is substantial. Social Stories™ is a promising and widely used intervention for supporting children with autism in schools and families. It is believed that Social Stories™ can provide meaningful social information to children that can improve social understanding and may reduce anxiety. However, no economic evaluation of Social Stories has been conducted. AIMS: To assess the cost-effectiveness of Social Stories through Autism Spectrum Social Stories in Schools Trial 2, a multi-site, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial. METHOD: Children with autism who were aged 4-11 years were recruited and randomised (N = 249). Costs measured from the societal perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) measured by the EQ-5D-Y-3L proxy were collected at baseline and at 6-month follow-up for primary analysis. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, and the uncertainty around incremental cost-effectiveness ratios was captured by non-parametric bootstrapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the primary findings. RESULTS: Social Stories is likely to result in a small cost savings (-£191 per child, 95% CI -767.7 to 337.7) and maintain similar QALY improvements compared with usual care. The probability of Social Stories being a preferred option is 75% if society is willing to pay £20 000 per QALY gained. The sensitivity analysis results aligned with the main study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, Social Stories did not lead to an increase in costs and maintained similar QALY improvements for primary-aged children with autism.

Smoking, nicotine and pregnancy 2 (SNAP2) trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve adherence to nicotine replacement therapy during pregnancy.

INTRODUCTION: Smoking during pregnancy is harmful to unborn babies, infants and women. Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) is offered as the usual stop-smoking support in the UK. However, this is often used in insufficient doses, intermittently or for too short a time to be effective. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) explores whether a bespoke intervention, delivered in pregnancy, improves adherence to NRT and is effective and cost-effective for promoting smoking cessation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm parallel-group RCT was conducted for pregnant women aged ≥16 years and who smoke ≥1 daily cigarette (pre-pregnancy smoked ≥5) and who agree to use NRT in an attempt to quit. Recruitment is from antenatal care settings and via social media adverts. Participants are randomised using blocked randomisation with varying block sizes, stratified by gestational age (<14 or ≥14 weeks) to receive: (1) usual care (UC) for stop smoking support or (2) UC plus an intervention to increase adherence to NRT, called 'Baby, Me and NRT' (BMN), comprising adherence counselling, automated tailored text messages, a leaflet and website. The primary outcome is biochemically validated smoking abstinence at or around childbirth, measured from 36 weeks gestation. Secondary outcomes include NRT adherence, other smoking measures and birth outcomes. Questionnaires collect follow-up data augmented by medical record information. We anticipate quit rates of 10% and 16% in the control and intervention groups, respectively (risk ratio=1.6). By recruiting 1320 participants, the trial should have 90% power (alpha=5%) to detect this intervention effect. An economic analysis will use the Economics of Smoking in Pregnancy model to determine cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was granted by Bloomsbury National Health Service's Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0123). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Findings will be disseminated to the public, funders, relevant practice/policy representatives, researchers and participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16830506. PROTOCOL VERSION: 5.0, 10 Oct 2023.

Examining the effectiveness of the Gateway conditional caution on health and well-being of young adults committing low-level offences: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Young adults who commit low-level offences commonly have a range of health and social needs and are significantly over-represented in the criminal justice system. These young adults may need to attend court and potentially receive penalties including imprisonment. Alternative routes exist, which can help address the underlying causes of offending. Some feel more should be done to help young adults entering the criminal justice system. The Gateway programme was a type of out-of-court disposal developed by Hampshire Constabulary, which aimed to address the complex needs of young adults who commit low-level crimes. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Gateway programme, issued as a conditional caution, compared with usual process. METHODS: The Gateway study was a pragmatic, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial that recruited young adults who had committed a low-level offence from four sites covering Hampshire and Isle of Wight. The primary outcome was mental health and well-being measured using the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, alcohol and drug use, and recidivism. Outcomes were measured at 4, 16 and 52 weeks postrandomisation. RESULTS: Due to issues with retention of participants and low data collection rates, recruitment ended early, with 191 eligible participants randomised (Gateway 109; usual process 82). The primary outcome was obtained for 93 (48.7%) participants at 4 weeks, 93 (48.7%) at 16 weeks and 43 (22.5%) at 1 year. The high attrition rates meant that effectiveness could not be assessed as planned. CONCLUSIONS: Gateway is the first trial in a UK police setting to have a health-related primary outcome requiring individual data collection, rather than focusing solely on recidivism. We demonstrated that it is possible to recruit and randomise from the study population, however follow-up rates were low. Further work is needed to identify ways to facilitate engagement between researchers and vulnerable populations to collect data. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11888938.

Surgical versus non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture in adults 60 years and older: the L1FE RCT.

Background: Lateral compression type-1 pelvic fractures are a common fragility fracture in older adults. Patients who do not mobilise due to ongoing pain are at greater risk of immobility-related complications. Standard treatment in the United Kingdom is provision of pain relief and early mobilisation, unlike fragility hip fractures, which are usually treated surgically based on evidence that early surgery is associated with better outcomes. Currently there is no evidence on whether patients with lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures would have a better recovery with surgery than non-surgical management. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical fixation with internal fixation device compared to non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures in older adults. Design: Pragmatic, randomised controlled superiority trial, with 12-month internal pilot; target sample size was 600 participants. Participants were randomised between surgical and non-surgical management (1 : 1 allocation ratio). An economic evaluation was planned. Setting: UK Major Trauma Centres. Participants: Patients aged 60 years or older with a lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture, arising from a low-energy fall and unable to mobilise independently to a distance of 3 m and back due to pelvic pain 72 hours after injury. Interventions: Internal fixation device surgical fixation and non-surgical management. Participants, surgeons and outcome assessors were not blinded to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome - average patient health-related quality of life, over 6 months, assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score. Secondary outcomes (over the 6 months following injury) - self-rated health, physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, displacement of pelvis, mortality, complications and adverse events, and resource use data for the economic evaluation. Results: The trial closed early, at the end of the internal pilot, due to low recruitment. The internal pilot was undertaken in two separate phases because of a pause in recruitment due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The planned statistical and health economic analyses were not conducted. Outcome data were summarised descriptively. Eleven sites opened for recruitment for a combined total of 92 months. Three-hundred and sixteen patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were eligible (13.6%). The main reason for ineligibility was that the patient was able to mobilise independently to 3 m and back (n = 161). Of the 43 eligible participants, 36 (83.7%) were approached for consent, of whom 11 (30.6%) provided consent. The most common reason for eligible patients not consenting to take part was that they were unwilling to be randomised to a treatment (n = 10). There were 11 participants, 5 randomised to surgical management with internal fixation device and 6 to non-surgical management. The average age of participants was 83.0 years (interquartile range 76.0, 89.0) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score at 6 months post randomisation (n = 8) was 0.32 (standard deviation 0.37). A limitation of the trial was that study objectives were not addressed due to poor recruitment. Conclusions: It was not feasible to recruit to this trial in the current context. Further research to understand the treatment and recovery pathways of this group of patients, along with their outcomes, would be needed prior to undertaking a future trial. Future work: Exploration of equipoise across different healthcare professional groups. Investigate longer-term patient outcomes. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16478561. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/57) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

When older adults with weak bones fall onto their side, they can fracture the pelvis in a certain way known as a 'lateral compression type-1 fracture'; this summary will use 'pelvic fracture'. Pelvic fractures can heal without surgery; patients are offered pain relief and encouraged to move as much as they can after the injury. Pelvic fractures can be painful, and some people are not able to get up and walk for weeks. These fractures can cause health problems such as chest infections, urinary tract infections, pressure sores and blood clots. To avoid these problems, we are trying to find treatments to help people recover sooner. Pelvic surgeons think patients may benefit from surgery with an internal fixation device (a bar and screws) to stabilise the pelvis; however, there can be risks and complications with any surgery. This study aimed to find out which treatment is better for patients and better value for money for the National Health Service. This required 600 people aged over 60, in hospital with a pelvic fracture and having difficulty walking to take part. Three hundred would receive surgery and 300 would receive non-surgical treatment. Over 6 months, participants would complete questionnaires, a walking assessment and have X-rays to check healing. The trial had a 12-month run-in period to see if enough people would take part. The trial closed early as we were unable to recruit sufficient people into the study. Fewer older patients with pelvic fractures were identified than expected, 51% were able to walk after a few days and therefore were not eligible to be included in the study. Of the patients, 13.6% were eligible and 30.6% of those consented to take part. Restrictions on visitors during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic made it difficult to discuss the study with patients' families and fewer patients were admitted to hospital where the study was taking place. The research question could not be answered by this study at the present time.

Undertaking Studies Within A Trial to evaluate recruitment and retention strategies for randomised controlled trials: lessons learnt from the PROMETHEUS research programme.

Background: Randomised controlled trials ('trials') are susceptible to poor participant recruitment and retention. Studies Within A Trial are the strongest methods for testing the effectiveness of strategies to improve recruitment and retention. However, relatively few of these have been conducted. Objectives: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to facilitate at least 25 Studies Within A Trial evaluating recruitment or retention strategies. We share our experience of delivering the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme, and the lessons learnt for undertaking randomised Studies Within A Trial. Design: A network of 10 Clinical Trials Units and 1 primary care research centre committed to conducting randomised controlled Studies Within A Trial of recruitment and/or retention strategies was established. Promising recruitment and retention strategies were identified from various sources including Cochrane systematic reviews, the Study Within A Trial Repository, and existing prioritisation exercises, which were reviewed by patient and public members to create an initial priority list of seven recruitment and eight retention interventions. Host trial teams could apply for funding and receive support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to undertake Studies Within A Trial. We also tested the feasibility of undertaking co-ordinated Studies Within A Trial, across multiple host trials simultaneously. Setting: Clinical trials unit-based trials recruiting or following up participants in any setting in the United Kingdom were eligible. Participants: Clinical trials unit-based teams undertaking trials in any clinical context in the United Kingdom. Interventions: Funding of up to £5000 and support from the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial team to design, implement and report Studies Within A Trial. Main outcome measures: Number of host trials funded. Results: Forty-two Studies Within A Trial were funded (31 host trials), across 12 Clinical Trials Units. The mean cost of a Study Within A Trial was £3535. Twelve Studies Within A Trial tested the same strategy across multiple host trials using a co-ordinated Study Within A Trial design, and four used a factorial design. Two recruitment and five retention strategies were evaluated in more than one host trial. PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial will add 18% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane systematic review of recruitment strategies, and 79% more Studies Within A Trial to the Cochrane review of retention strategies. For retention, we found that pre-notifying participants by card, letter or e-mail before sending questionnaires was effective, as was the use of pens, and sending personalised text messages to improve questionnaire response. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others planning Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient and public involvement partners; prioritising and selecting strategies to evaluate and elements to consider when designing a Study Within A Trial; obtaining governance approvals; implementing Studies Within A Trial, including individual and co-ordinated Studies Within A Trials; and reporting Study Within A Trials. Limitations: The COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted five Studies Within A Trial, being either delayed (n = 2) or prematurely terminated (n = 3). Conclusions: PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial significantly increased the evidence base for recruitment and retention strategies. When provided with both funding and practical support, host trial teams successfully implemented Studies Within A Trial. Future work: Future research should identify and target gaps in the evidence base, including widening Study Within A Trial uptake, undertaking more complex Studies Within A Trial and translating Study Within A Trial evidence into practice. Study registration: All Studies Within A Trial in the PROMoting THE Use of Studies Within A Trial programme had to be registered with the Northern Ireland Network for Trials Methodology Research Study Within A Trial Repository. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/55/80) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 2. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

A Study Within A Trial is a research study nested inside a larger 'host trial', promoting the use of Studies Within A Trial aimed to do Study Within A Trial routine practice in clinical trial units by funding and supporting at least 25 Studies Within A Trial. The best way to test health and social care treatments is to do a randomised controlled trial ('trial'), where some patients get the treatment being tested and some do not. The results of different groups are compared to see if the treatment improves care. Recruiting patients and keeping them involved in trials is often very difficult. Research teams often do not know how best to recruit and keep patients engaged as the methods have not been tested to see if they work. The best way to test these methods is by doing a Study Within A Trial. We test a programme of Studies Within A Trial for recruiting and keeping patients engaged in trials. Trial teams were able to apply for funding of up to £5000 and receive support from Promoting the use of Study Within A Trial team to do Studies Within A Trial. We used our experience of doing Studies Within A Trial to outline lessons learnt for doing Studies Within A Trial. We funded 42 Studies Within A Trial and gave teams necessary advice to do them. We significantly increased the knowledge for both recruitment and retention strategies, and found 'pre-notifying' before sending questionnaires, sending pens and personalised text messages were all effective for increasing responses by participants. We tested Studies Within A Trial across several different trials at the same time to find out more quickly whether their methods worked. We highlight key lessons learnt to guide others doing Studies Within A Trial, including involving patient partners; picking the right strategy to test; getting ethical approvals; how to do and report Studies Within A Trial. Promoting the use of studies within a trial was successful and supported more Studies Within A Trial than planned. We hope our experience will support those doing Studies Within A Trial in the future.

Behaviour change intervention for toothbrushing (lesson and text messages) to prevent dental caries in secondary school pupils: The BRIGHT randomized control trial.

OBJECTIVES: This multicentre, assessor-blinded, two-arm cluster randomized trial evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a behaviour change intervention promoting toothbrushing for preventing dental caries in UK secondary schools. METHODS: Pupils aged 11-13 years with their own mobile telephone attending secondary schools with above average free school meals eligibility were randomized (at year-group level) to receive a lesson and twice-daily text messages or to usual care. Year-groups (n = 84) from 42 schools including 4680 pupils (intervention, n = 2262; control, n = 2418) were randomized. RESULTS: In 2383 participants with valid data at baseline and 2.5 years, the primary outcome of presence of at least one treated or untreated carious lesion (D4-6 MFT [Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth] in permanent teeth using International Caries Detection and Assessment System) was 44.6% in the intervention group and 43.0% in control (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% CI 0.85-1.26, p = .72). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes of presence of at least one treated or untreated carious lesion (D1-6 MFT), number of D4-6 MFT and D1-6 MFT, plaque and bleeding scores or health-related- (Child Health Utility 9D) or oral health-related- quality of life (CARIES-QC). However, twice-daily toothbrushing, reported by 77.6% of pupils at baseline, increased at 6 months (intervention, 86.9%; control, 83.0%; OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.63, p = .03), but returned to no difference at 2.5 years (intervention, 81.0%; control, 79.9%; OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.84-1.30, p = .69). Estimated incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the intervention, relative to control, were £1.02 (95% CI -1.29 to 3.23) and -0.003 (95% CI -0.009 to 0.002), respectively, with a 7% chance of being cost-effective (£20 000/QALY gained threshold). CONCLUSION: There was no evidence of statistically significant difference for caries prevalence at 2.5-years. The intervention's positive 6-month toothbrushing behaviour change did not translate into caries reduction. (ISRCTN 12139369). COVID-19 pandemic adversly affected follow-up.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop.

Background: Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives: The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods: A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results: We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions: These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations: This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration: The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Randomised controlled trials are considered the best way to gather evidence about potential NHS treatments. They can be designed from different perspectives depending whether the aim is to show that a new treatment is better than, equal to or no worse than the current best available treatment. The selection of this design relates to the single most important outcome; however, often multiple outcomes can be affected by a treatment. For example, a new treatment may improve disease management but increase side effects. Patients want a treatment to work but not at the price of poor quality of life; therefore, a trade-off must be made, and the recommended treatment depends on this trade-off. Benefit­risk methods can assess the trade-off between multiple outcomes and can include patient preference. These methods could improve the way that decisions are made about treatments in the NHS, but there is currently limited research about the use of these methods in publicly funded trials. The aim of this report is to improve the design of clinical trials by helping researchers to select the most appropriate trial design and to decide when to include a benefit­risk method. The recommendations were created using the opinions of experts within the field and consisted of a survey, review of the literature and a workshop. The project created a list of 19 factors that can assist researchers to select the most appropriate trial design. Furthermore, six key areas were identified in which researchers may consider including a benefit­risk method within a trial. Finally, if a benefit­risk assessment is being used, a checklist of items has been created that identifies the information important to include in reports. This report is, however, limited in its applicability and further research should extend this work, as well as provide more detail on individual methods that are available.

Children Learning About Secondhand Smoke (CLASS III): a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based smoke-free intervention in Bangladesh and Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION: Secondhand smoke (SHS) exposure is a major cause of premature death and disease, especially among children. Children in economically developing countries are particularly affected as smoke-free laws are typically only partially implemented and private homes and cars remain a key source of SHS exposure. Currently, firm conclusions cannot be drawn from the available evidence on the effectiveness of non-legislative interventions designed to protect children from SHS exposure. Following the success of two feasibility studies and a pilot trial, we plan to evaluate a school-based approach to protect children from SHS exposure in Bangladesh and Pakistan-countries with a strong commitment to smoke-free environments but with high levels of SHS exposure in children. We will conduct a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial in Bangladesh and Pakistan to assess the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a school-based smoke-free intervention (SFI) in reducing children's exposure to SHS and the frequency and severity of respiratory symptoms. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We plan to recruit 68 randomly selected schools from two cities-Dhaka in Bangladesh and Karachi in Pakistan. From each school, we will recruit approximately 40 students in a year (9-12 years old) with a total of 2720 children. Half of the schools will be randomly allocated to the intervention arm receiving SFI and the other half will receive usual education. Salivary cotinine concentration-a highly sensitive and specific biomarker of SHS exposure-is the primary outcome, which will be measured at month 3 post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include frequency and severity of respiratory symptoms, healthcare contacts, school absenteeism, smoking uptake and quality of life. Embedded economic and process evaluations will also be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has received ethics approval from the Research Governance Committee at the University of York. Approvals have also been obtained from Bangladesh Medical Research Council and Pakistan Health Research Council. If SFI is found effective, we will use a variety of channels to share our findings with both academic and non-academic audiences. We will work with the education departments in Bangladesh and Pakistan and advocate for including SFI within the curriculum. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN28878365.

A randomised controlled, feasibility study to establish the acceptability of early outpatient review and early cardiac rehabilitation compared to standard practice after cardiac surgery and viability of a future large-scale trial (FARSTER).

OBJECTIVE: To determine the acceptability and feasibility of delivering early outpatient review following cardiac surgery and early cardiac rehabilitation (CR), compared to standard practice to establish if a future large-scale trial is achievable. METHODS: A randomised controlled, feasibility trial with embedded health economic evaluation and qualitative interviews, recruited patients aged 18-80 years from two UK cardiac centres who had undergone elective or urgent cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy. Eligible, consenting participants were randomised 1:1 by a remote, centralised randomisation service to postoperative outpatient review 6 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by CR commencement from 8 weeks (control), or postoperative outpatient review 3 weeks after hospital discharge, followed by commencement of CR from 4 weeks (intervention). The primary outcome measures related to trial feasibility including recruitment, retention, CR adherence, and acceptability to participants/staff. Secondary outcome measures included health-rated quality of life using EQ-5D-5L, NHS resource-use, Incremental Shuttle Walk Test (ISWT) distance, 30- and 90-day mortality, surgical site complications and hospital readmission rates. RESULTS: Fifty participants were randomised (25 per group) and 92% declared fit for CR. Participant retention at final follow-up was 74%; completion rates for outcome data time points ranged from 28 to 92% for ISWT and 68 to 94% for follow-up questionnaires. At each time point, the mean ISWT distance walked was greater in the intervention group compared to the control. Mean utility scores increased from baseline to final follow-up by 0.202 for the intervention (0.188 control). Total costs were £1519 for the intervention (£2043 control). Fifteen participants and a research nurse were interviewed. Many control participants felt their outpatient review and CR could have happened sooner; intervention participants felt the timing was right. The research nurse found obtaining consent for willing patients challenging due to discharge timings. CONCLUSION: Recruitment and retention rates showed that it would be feasible to undertake a full-scale trial subject to some modifications to maximise recruitment. Lower than expected recruitment and issues with one of the clinical tests were limitations of the study. Most study procedures proved feasible and acceptable to participants, and professionals delivering early CR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN80441309 (prospectively registered on 24/01/2019).

The CALM trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of a guided self-help cognitive behavioural therapy intervention to reduce dental anxiety in children.

BACKGROUND: Globally, around 13% of children experience dental anxiety (DA). This group of patients frequently miss dental appointments, have greater reliance on treatment under general anaesthesia (GA) and have poorer oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) than their non-dentally anxious peers. Recently, a low-intensity cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)-based, self-help approach has been recommended for management of childhood anxiety disorders. A feasibility study conducted in secondary care found this guided self-help CBT resource reduced DA and a randomised controlled trial was recommended. The present study aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a guided self-help CBT intervention to reduce DA in children attending primary dental care sites compared to usual care. METHODS: This 4-year randomised controlled trial will involve 600 children (aged 9-16 years) and their parent/carers in 30 UK primary dental care sites. At least two dental professionals will participate in each site. They will be assigned, using random allocation, to receive the CBT training and deliver the intervention or to deliver usual care. Children with DA attending these sites, in need of treatment, will be randomly allocated to be treated either by the intervention (CBT) or control (usual care) dental professional. Children will complete questionnaires relating to DA, OHRQoL and HRQoL before treatment, immediately after treatment completion and 12 months post-randomisation. Attendance, need for sedation/GA and costs of the two different approaches will be compared. The primary outcome, DA, will be measured using the Modified Child Dental Anxiety Scale. Scores will be compared between groups using a linear mixed model. DISCUSSION: Treating dentally anxious patients can be challenging and costly. Consequently, these children are frequently referred to specialist services for pharmacological interventions. Longer waiting times and greater travel distances may then compound existing healthcare inequalities. This research will investigate whether the intervention has the potential to reduce DA and improve oral health outcomes in children over their life-course, as well as upskilling primary dental healthcare professionals to better manage this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial has been registered with an international registry and has been allocated an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN27579420).

Set up and assessment of progression criteria for internal pilots: the Brushing RemInder 4 Good oral HealTh (BRIGHT) trial example.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries is common in young people and has wide-ranging ramifications for health and quality of life. Text messaging interventions show promise as a means to promote oral health behaviour change among young people. This paper reports the internal pilot of the Brushing RemInder 4 Good oral HealTh (BRIGHT) trial, which is evaluating an intervention comprising an oral health classroom lesson and text messages about toothbrushing, on caries in young people. Pilot trial objectives were to evaluate the feasibility and appropriateness of recruitment and data collection methods, the randomisation strategy, and intervention delivery against progression criteria for the main trial. METHODS: This is an internal pilot trial embedded within an assessor-blinded, two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial. Participants were pupils aged 11-13 years (in year 7/S1 or year 8/S2) in secondary schools in England, Scotland, and Wales with above average pupil eligibility for free school meals. Following completion of pupil baseline questionnaires and dental assessments, year groups within schools were randomised to the intervention or control arm. Approximately 12 weeks later, participants completed a follow-up questionnaire, which included questions about sources of oral health advice to assess intervention contamination between year groups. At the end of the pilot phase, trial conduct was reviewed against pre-specified progression criteria. RESULTS: Ten schools were recruited for the pilot, with 20 year groups and 1073 pupils randomised (average of 54 pupils per year group). Data collection methods and intervention delivery were considered feasible, the response rate to the follow-up questionnaire was over 80%, there was an indication of a positive effect on self-reported toothbrushing, and interest was obtained from 80% of the schools required for the main trial. Despite partial intervention contamination between year groups, within-school randomisation at the level of the year-group was considered appropriate for the main trial, and the sample size was revised to account for partial contamination. Facilitators and barriers to recruitment and data collection were identified and strategies refined for the main trial. CONCLUSIONS: Progression to the main trial of BRIGHT, with some design refinements, was concluded. The internal pilot was an efficient way to determine trial feasibility and optimise trial processes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12139369 , registered 10/05/2017.

Effect of financial voucher incentives provided with UK stop smoking services on the cessation of smoking in pregnant women (CPIT III): pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine effectiveness, cost effectiveness, generalisability, and acceptability of financial incentives for smoking cessation during pregnancy in addition to variously organised UK stop smoking services. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, single blinded, phase 3, randomised controlled trial (Cessation in Pregnancy Incentives Trial phase 3 (CPIT III)). SETTING: Seven UK stop smoking services provided in primary and secondary care facilities in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and England. PARTICIPANTS: 944 pregnant women (age ≥16 years) who self-reported as being smokers (at least one cigarette in the past week) when asked at first maternity visit, less than 24 weeks' gestation, and notified to the trial team by routine stop smoking services. INTERVENTIONS: Participants in the control group were offered the standard stop smoking services, which includes the offer of counselling by specially trained workers using withdrawal orientated therapy and the offer of free nicotine replacement therapy. The intervention was the offer of usual support from the stop smoking services and the addition of up to £400 ($440; €455) of LoveToShop financial voucher incentives for engaging with current stop smoking services or to stop smoking, or both, during pregnancy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported smoking cessation in late pregnancy (between 34 and 38 weeks' gestation) corroborated by saliva cotinine (and anabasine if using nicotine replacement products). Results were adjusted for age, smoking years, index of multiple deprivation, Fagerström score, before or after covid, and recruitment site. Secondary outcomes included point and continuous abstinence six months after expected date of delivery, engagement with stop smoking services, biochemically validated abstinence from smoking at four weeks after stop smoking date, birth weight of baby, cost effectiveness, generalisability documenting formats of stop smoking services, and acceptability to pregnant women and their carers. RESULTS: From 9 January 2018 to 4 April 2020, of 4032 women screened by stop smoking services, 944 people were randomly assigned to the intervention group (n=471) or the control group (n=470). Three people asked for their data to be removed. 126 (27%) of 471 participants stopped smoking from the intervention group and 58 (12%) of 470 from the control group (adjusted odds ratio 2.78 (1.94 to 3.97) P<0.001). Serious adverse events were miscarriages and other expected pregnancy events requiring hospital admission; all serious adverse events were unrelated to the intervention. Most people who stopped smoking from both groups relapsed after their baby was born. CONCLUSIONS: The offer of up to £400 of financial voucher incentives to stop smoking during pregnancy as an addition to current UK stop smoking services is highly effective. This bolt-on intervention supports new guidance from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which includes the addition of financial incentives to support pregnant women to stop smoking. Continuing incentives to 12 months after birth is being examined to prevent relapse. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15236311.

Behavioural Activation for Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial (Behavioural activation to mitigate depression and loneliness among older people with long-term conditions): Protocol for a fully-powered pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Depression is a leading mental health problem worldwide. People with long-term conditions are at increased risk of experiencing depression. The COVID-19 pandemic led to strict social restrictions being imposed across the UK population. Social isolation can have negative consequences on the physical and mental wellbeing of older adults. In the Behavioural Activation in Social IsoLation (BASIL+) trial we will test whether a brief psychological intervention (based on Behavioural Activation), delivered remotely, can mitigate depression and loneliness in older adults with long-term conditions during isolation. METHODS: We will conduct a two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial across several research sites, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the BASIL+ intervention. Participants will be recruited via participating general practices across England and Wales. Participants must be aged ≥65 with two or more long-term conditions, or a condition that may indicate they are within a 'clinically extremely vulnerable' group in relation to COVID-19, and have scored ≥5 on the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9), to be eligible for inclusion. Randomisation will be 1:1, stratified by research site. Intervention participants will receive up to eight intervention sessions delivered remotely by trained BASIL+ Support Workers and supported by a self-help booklet. Control participants will receive usual care, with additional signposting to reputable sources of self-help and information, including advice on keeping mentally and physically well. A qualitative process evaluation will also be undertaken to explore the acceptability of the BASIL+ intervention, as well as barriers and enablers to integrating the intervention into participants' existing health and care support, and the impact of the intervention on participants' mood and general wellbeing in the context of the COVID-19 restrictions. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted with intervention participants, participant's caregivers/supportive others and BASIL+ Support Workers. Outcome data will be collected at one, three, and 12 months post-randomisation. Clinical and cost-effectiveness will be evaluated. The primary outcome is depressive symptoms at the three-month follow up, measured by the PHQ9. Secondary outcomes include loneliness, social isolation, anxiety, quality of life, and a bespoke health services use questionnaire. DISCUSSION: This study is the first large-scale trial evaluating a brief Behavioural Activation intervention in this population, and builds upon the results of a successful external pilot trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier ISRCTN63034289, registered on 5th February 2021.

Healthcare resource use and costs for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus with and without severe mental illness in England: longitudinal matched-cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 60 000 people in England have coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and severe mental illness (SMI). They are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and require more complex care pathways compared with those with T2DM alone. Despite increasing prevalence, little is known about the healthcare resource use and costs for people with both conditions. AIMS: To assess the impact of SMI on healthcare resource use and service costs for adults with T2DM, and explore the predictors of healthcare costs and lifetime costs for people with both conditions. METHOD: This was a matched-cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for 1620 people with comorbid SMI and T2DM and 4763 people with T2DM alone. Generalised linear models and the Bang and Tsiatis method were used to explore cost predictors and mean lifetime costs respectively. RESULTS: There were higher average annual costs for people with T2DM and SMI (£1930 higher) than people with T2DM alone, driven primarily by mental health and non-mental health-related hospital admissions. Key predictors of higher total costs were older age, comorbid hypertension, use of antidepressants, use of first-generation antipsychotics, and increased duration of living with both conditions. Expected lifetime costs were approximately £35 000 per person with both SMI and T2DM. Extrapolating nationally, this would generate total annual costs to the National Health Service of around £250 m per year. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates of resource use and costs for people with both T2DM and SMI will aid policymakers and commissioners in service planning and resource allocation.

Surgery versus conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fracture: the PRESTO feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is informal consensus that simple compression fractures of the body of the thoracolumbar vertebrae between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra without neurological complications can be managed conservatively and that obvious unstable fractures require surgical fixation. However, there is a zone of uncertainty about whether surgical or conservative management is best for stable fractures. OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation with initial conservative management of stable thoracolumbar fractures without spinal cord injury. DESIGN: External randomised feasibility study, qualitative study and national survey. SETTING: Three NHS hospitals. METHODS: A feasibility randomised controlled trial using block randomisation, stratified by centre and type of injury (high- or low-energy trauma) to allocate participants 1 : 1 to surgery or conservative treatment; a costing analysis; a national survey of spine surgeons; and a qualitative study with clinicians, recruiting staff and patients. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 16 years with a high- or low-energy fracture of the body of a thoracolumbar vertebra between the 10th thoracic vertebra and the second lumbar vertebra, confirmed by radiography, computerised tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, with at least one of the following: kyphotic angle > 20° on weight-bearing radiographs or > 15° on a supine radiograph or on computerised tomography; reduction in vertebral body height of 25%; a fracture line propagating through the posterior wall of the vertebra; involvement of two contiguous vertebrae; or injury to the posterior longitudinal ligament or annulus in addition to the body fracture. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical fixation: open spinal surgery (with or without spinal fusion) or minimally invasive stabilisation surgery. Conservative management: mobilisation with or without a brace. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Recruitment rate (proportion of eligible participants randomised). RESULTS: Twelve patients were randomised (surgery, n = 8; conservative, n = 4). The proportion of eligible patients recruited was 0.43 (95% confidence interval 0.24 to 0.63) over a combined total of 30.7 recruitment months. Of 211 patients screened, 28 (13.3%) fulfilled the eligibility criteria. Patients in the qualitative study (n = 5) expressed strong preferences for surgical treatment, and identified provision of information about treatment and recovery and when and how they are approached for consent as important. Nineteen surgeons and site staff participated in the qualitative study. Key themes were the lack of clinical consensus regarding the implementation of the eligibility criteria in practice and what constitutes a stable fracture, alongside lack of equipoise regarding treatment. Based on the feasibility study eligibility criteria, 77% (50/65) and 70% (46/66) of surgeons participating in the survey were willing to randomise for high- and low-energy fractures, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the small number of participants, there is substantial uncertainty around the recruitment rate. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive trial is unlikely to be feasible currently, mainly because of the small number of patients meeting the eligibility criteria. The recruitment and follow-up rates were slightly lower than anticipated; however, there is room to increase these based on information gathered and the support within the surgical community for a future trial. FUTURE WORK: Development of consensus regarding the population of interest for a trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12094890. 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. 62. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Fractures occurring in the mid- to low back region (or thoracolumbar fractures) are the most common back fractures. When the fracture is stable with no spinal nerve injury, there is uncertainty whether treatment with surgery or non-surgical treatment (e.g. stabilising the spine with a brace) results in the best outcome for patients. The Pragmatic Randomised Evaluation of Stable Thoracolumbar fracture treatment Outcomes (PRESTO) study aimed to explore whether or not it would be feasible to carry out a full-scale study to find out which of these two treatments works best. Adults aged ≥ 16 years being treated for these fractures in three hospitals were invited to take part in the study. Over the course of 1 year, we assessed how many patients were treated, the number who met the study entry criteria and the proportion of eligible patients who agreed to take part. Staff and patients were interviewed about the study processes and their experiences of taking part. Spine surgeons from around the UK were also asked to complete an online survey, which asked questions about the treatment of patients with this fracture. There were fewer patients than expected who met the study entry criteria and, of these, fewer patients who agreed to take part. There were differences among surgeons about the definition of a stable fracture, and we found that surgeons have strong views about whether or not surgery is appropriate when fractures are stable. We also found that more support would be required for the staff involved in inviting patients to take part in a bigger study, and that the format and content of information provided to patients needs to be improved. The findings of the PRESTO study showed that a large trial is unlikely to be successful at this time; however, we have provided important information for future research into the treatment of these fractures.

Behavioural activation to prevent depression and loneliness among socially isolated older people with long-term conditions: The BASIL COVID-19 pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults, including those with long-term conditions (LTCs), are vulnerable to social isolation. They are likely to have become more socially isolated during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, often due to advice to "shield" to protect them from infection. This places them at particular risk of depression and loneliness. There is a need for brief scalable psychosocial interventions to mitigate the psychological impacts of social isolation. Behavioural activation (BA) is a credible candidate intervention, but a trial is needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We undertook an external pilot parallel randomised trial (ISRCTN94091479) designed to test recruitment, retention and engagement with, and the acceptability and preliminary effects of the intervention. Participants aged ≥65 years with 2 or more LTCs were recruited in primary care and randomised by computer and with concealed allocation between June and October 2020. BA was offered to intervention participants (n = 47), and control participants received usual primary care (n = 49). Assessment of outcome was made blind to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was depression severity (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9)). We also measured health-related quality of life (measured by the Short Form (SF)-12v2 mental component scale (MCS) and physical component scale (PCS)), anxiety (measured by the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7 (GAD-7)), perceived social and emotional loneliness (measured by the De Jong Gierveld Scale: 11-item loneliness scale). Outcome was measured at 1 and 3 months. The mean age of participants was aged 74 years (standard deviation (SD) 5.5) and they were mostly White (n = 92, 95.8%), and approximately two-thirds of the sample were female (n = 59, 61.5%). Remote recruitment was possible, and 45/47 (95.7%) randomised to the intervention completed 1 or more sessions (median 6 sessions) out of 8. A total of 90 (93.8%) completed the 1-month follow-up, and 86 (89.6%) completed the 3-month follow-up, with similar rates for control (1 month: 45/49 and 3 months 44/49) and intervention (1 month: 45/47and 3 months: 42/47) follow-up. Between-group comparisons were made using a confidence interval (CI) approach, and by adjusting for the covariate of interest at baseline. At 1 month (the primary clinical outcome point), the median number of completed sessions for people receiving the BA intervention was 3, and almost all participants were still receiving the BA intervention. The between-group comparison for the primary clinical outcome at 1 month was an adjusted between-group mean difference of -0.50 PHQ-9 points (95% CI -2.01 to 1.01), but only a small number of participants had completed the intervention at this point. At 3 months, the PHQ-9 adjusted mean difference (AMD) was 0.19 (95% CI -1.36 to 1.75). When we examined loneliness, the adjusted between-group difference in the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale at 1 month was 0.28 (95% CI -0.51 to 1.06) and at 3 months -0.87 (95% CI -1.56 to -0.18), suggesting evidence of benefit of the intervention at this time point. For anxiety, the GAD adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.20 (-1.33, 1.73) and at 3 months 0.31 (-1.08, 1.70). For the SF-12 (physical component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 0.34 (-4.17, 4.85) and at 3 months 0.11 (-4.46, 4.67). For the SF-12 (mental component score), the adjusted between-group difference at 1 month was 1.91 (-2.64, 5.15) and at 3 months 1.26 (-2.64, 5.15). Participants who withdrew had minimal depressive symptoms at entry. There were no adverse events. The Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation (BASIL) study had 2 main limitations. First, we found that the intervention was still being delivered at the prespecified primary outcome point, and this fed into the design of the main trial where a primary outcome of 3 months is now collected. Second, this was a pilot trial and was not designed to test between-group differences with high levels of statistical power. Type 2 errors are likely to have occurred, and a larger trial is now underway to test for robust effects and replicate signals of effectiveness in important secondary outcomes such as loneliness. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that BA is a credible intervention to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 isolation for older adults. We demonstrated that it is feasible to undertake a trial of BA. The intervention can be delivered remotely and at scale, but should be reserved for older adults with evidence of depressive symptoms. The significant reduction in loneliness is unlikely to be a chance finding, and replication will be explored in a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN94091479.

Hearing dogs for people with severe and profound hearing loss: a wait-list design randomised controlled trial investigating their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss increases the risk of poor outcomes across a range of life domains. Where hearing loss is severe or profound, audiological interventions and rehabilitation have limited impact. Hearing dogs offer an alternative, or additional, intervention. They live permanently with recipients, providing sound support and companionship. METHODS: A single-centre, randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated the impacts of a hearing dog on mental well-being, anxiety, depression, problems associated with hearing loss (responding to sounds, fearfulness/social isolation), and perceived dependency on others. Participants were applicants to the UK charity 'Hearing Dogs for Deaf People'. Eligibility criteria were as follows: first-time applicant; applying for a hearing dog (as opposed to other support provided by the charity). Participants were randomised 1:1 to the following: receive a hearing dog sooner than usual [HD], or within the usual application timeframe (wait-list [WL] comparator). The primary outcome was mental well-being (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale) 6 months (T1) after HD received a hearing dog. The cost-effectiveness analysis took a health and social care perspective. RESULTS: In total, 165 participants were randomised (HD n = 83, WL n = 82). A total of 112 (67.9%) were included in the primary analysis (HD n = 55, WL n = 57). At T1, mental well-being was significantly higher in the HD arm (adjusted mean difference 2.53, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.79, p < 0.001). Significant improvements in anxiety, depression, functioning, fearfulness/social isolation, and perceived dependency, favouring the HD arm, were also observed. On average, HD participants had used fewer statutory health and social care resources. In a scenario whereby costs of provision were borne by the public sector, hearing dogs do not appear to be value for money. If the public sector made a partial contribution, it is possible that hearing dogs would be cost-effective from a public sector perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Hearing dogs appear to benefit recipients across a number of life domains, at least in the short term. Within the current funding model (costs entirely borne by the charity), hearing dogs are cost-effective from the public sector perspective. Whilst it would not be cost-effective to fully fund the provision of hearing dogs by the public sector, a partial contribution could be explored. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) registry on 28.1.2019: ISRCTN36452009 .

Dupuytren's interventions surgery versus collagenase (DISC) trial: study protocol for a pragmatic, two-arm parallel-group, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dupuytren's contracture is a fibro-proliferative disease of the hands affecting over 2 million UK adults, particularly the white, male population. Surgery is the traditional treatment; however, recent studies have indicated that an alternative to surgery-collagenase clostridium histolyticum (collagenase)-is better than a placebo in the treatment of Dupuytren's contracture. There is however no robust randomised controlled trial that provides a definitive answer on the clinical effectiveness of collagenase compared with limited fasciectomy surgery. Dupuytren's intervention surgery vs collagenase trial (DISC) trial was therefore designed to fill this evidence gap. METHODS/DESIGN: The DISC trial is a multi-centre pragmatic two-arm parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1 to receive either collagenase injection or surgery (limited fasciectomy). We aim to recruit 710 adult participants with Dupuytren's contracture. Potential participants will be identified in primary and secondary care, screened by a delegated clinician and if eligible and consenting, baseline data will be collected and randomisation completed. The primary outcome will be the self-reported patient evaluation measure assessed 1 year after treatment. Secondary outcome measures include the Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main Scale, the Michigan Hand Questionnaire, EQ-5D-5L, resource use, further procedures, complications, recurrence, total active movement and extension deficit, and time to return to function. Given the limited evidence comparing recurrence rates following collagenase injection and limited fasciectomy, and the importance of a return to function as soon as possible for patients, the associated measures for each will be prioritised to allow treatment effectiveness in the context of these key elements to be assessed. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of treatments, and a qualitative sub-study will assess participants' experiences and preferences of the treatments. DISCUSSION: The DISC trial is the first randomised controlled trial, to our knowledge, to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of collagenase compared to limited fasciectomy surgery for patients with Dupuytren's contracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical.Trials.gov ISRCTN18254597 . Registered on April 11, 2017.