Rehabilitation following rotator cuff repair: A multi-centre pilot & feasibility randomised controlled trial (RaCeR).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early patient-directed rehabilitation versus standard rehabilitation following surgical repair of the rotator cuff of the shoulder. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-centre pilot and feasibility randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five National Health Service hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (n = 73) with non-traumatic rotator cuff tears scheduled for repair were recruited and randomly allocated remotely prior to surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Early patient-directed rehabilitation (n = 37); advised to remove their sling as soon as able and move as symptoms allow. Standard rehabilitation (n = 36); sling immobilisation for four weeks. MEASURES: (1) Randomisation of 20% or more eligible patients. (2) Difference in time out of sling of 40% or more between groups. (3) Follow-up greater than 70%. RESULTS: 73/185 (39%) potentially eligible patients were randomised. Twenty participants were withdrawn, 11 due to not receiving rotator cuff repair. The between-group difference in proportions of participants who exceeded the cut-off of 222.6 hours out of the sling was 50% (80% CI = 29%, 72%), with the early patient-directed rehabilitation group reporting greater time out of sling. 52/73 (71%) and 52/53 (98%) participants were followed-up at 12 weeks when withdrawals were included and excluded respectively. Eighteen full-thickness re-tears were reported (early patient-directed rehabilitation = 7, standard rehabilitation = 11). Five serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: A main randomised controlled trial is feasible but would require allocation of participants following surgery to counter the issue of withdrawal due to not receiving surgery.

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention with and without telephone support in primary care (SupportBack 2): a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is prevalent and a leading cause of disability. We aimed to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an accessible, scalable internet intervention for supporting behavioural self-management (SupportBack). METHODS: Participants in UK primary care with low back pain without serious spinal pathology were randomly assigned 1:1:1 using computer algorithms stratified by disability level and telephone-support centre to usual care, usual care and SupportBack, or usual care and SupportBack with physiotherapist telephone-support (three brief calls). The primary outcome was low back pain-related disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire [RMDQ] score) at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months using a repeated measures model, analysed by intention to treat using 97·5% CIs. A parallel economic evaluation from a health services perspective was used to estimate cost-effectiveness. People with lived experience of low back pain were involved in this trial from the outset. This completed trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14736486. FINDINGS: Between Nov 29, 2018, and Jan 12, 2021, 825 participants were randomly assigned (274 to usual care, 275 to SupportBack only, 276 to SupportBack with telephone-support). Participants had a mean age of 54 (SD 15), 479 (58%) of 821 were women and 342 (42%) were men, and 591 (92%) of 641 were White. Follow-up rates were 687 (83%) at 6 weeks, 598 (73%) at 3 months, 589 (72%) at 6 months, and 652 (79%) at 12 months. For the primary analysis, 736 participants were analysed (249 usual care, 245 SupportBack, and 242 SupportBack with telephone support). At a significance level of 0·025, there was no difference in RMDQ over 12 months with SupportBack versus usual care (adjusted mean difference -0·5 [97·5% CI -1·2 to 0·2]; p=0·085) or SupportBack with telephone-support versus usual care (-0·6 [-1·2 to 0·1]; p=0·048). There were no treatment-related serious adverse events. The economic evaluation showed that the SupportBack group dominated usual care, being both more effective and less costly. Both interventions were likely to be cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality adjusted life year compared with usual care. INTERPRETATION: The SupportBack internet interventions did not significantly reduce low back pain-related disability over 12 months compared with usual care. They were likely to be cost-effective and safe. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and safety should be considered together when determining whether to apply these interventions in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (16/111/78).

A person-centred consultation intervention to improve shared decision-making about, and uptake of, osteoporosis medicines (iFraP): a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial protocol.

Background: Good quality shared decision-making (SDM) conversations involve people with, or at risk of osteoporosis and clinicians collaborating to decide, where appropriate, which evidence-based medicines best fit the person's life, beliefs, and values. We developed the improving uptake of Fracture Prevention drug treatments (iFraP) intervention comprising a computerised Decision Support Tool (DST), clinician training package and information resources, for use in UK Fracture Liaison Service consultations.Two primary objectives to determine (1) the effect of the iFraP intervention on patient-reported ease in decision-making about osteoporosis medicines, and (2) cost-effectiveness of iFraP intervention compared to usual NHS care. Secondary objectives are to determine the iFraP intervention effect on patient reported outcome and experience measures, clinical effectiveness (osteoporosis medicine adherence), and to explore intervention acceptability, mechanisms, and processes underlying observed effects, and intervention implementation. Methods: The iFraP trial is a pragmatic, parallel-group, individual randomised controlled trial in patients referred to a Fracture Liaison Service, with nested mixed methods process evaluation and health economic analysis. Participants aged ≥50 years (n=380) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to one of two arms: (1) iFraP intervention (iFraP-i) or (2) comparator usual NHS care (iFraP-u) and are followed up at 2-weeks and 3-months. The primary outcome is ease of decision-making assessed 2 weeks after the consultation using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The primary objectives will be addressed by comparing the mean DCS score in each trial arm (using analysis of covariance) for patients given an osteoporosis medicine recommendation, alongside a within-trial cost-effectiveness and value of information (VoI) analysis. Process evaluation data collection includes consultation recordings, semi-structured interviews, and DST analytics. Discussion: The iFraP trial will answer important questions about the effectiveness of the new 'iFraP' osteoporosis DST, coupled with clinician training, on SDM and informed initiation of osteoporosis medicines. Trial registration ISRCTN: 10606407, 21/11/2022 https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN10606407.

Background: For people with osteoporosis, broken bones (called 'fragility fractures') can occur from low or no trauma and cause significant disability. Medicines can strengthen bone and lower the chance of fragility fractures. However, many people who experience a fragility fracture do not start or continue taking osteoporosis medicines. People commonly choose not to take osteoporosis medicines because they are unsure what medicines are for, confused about fracture 'risk' and/or worried about side-effects. To address this, we developed the 'iFraP intervention': 1. The iFraP 'decision-support tool': to support patients and healthcare professionals talk together to make decisions about medicines2. iFraP training for healthcare professionals to:a. use the tool in appointments with patientsb. give understandable, clear and consistent information c. listen to and address patient concerns This trial investigates whether the iFraP intervention makes decision-making about osteoporosis medicines easier, and whether it is cost-effective, acceptable and practical to deliver. Methods: 380 patients will take part who will be 50 years and older and referred to a fracture prevention service, because they have broken a bone. Patients taking part will be allocated to receive either a usual NHS appointment or an appointment using the iFraP intervention. Patients will complete a questionnaire before their appointment, and 2 weeks and 3 months afterwards. Some patients will be asked if they consent to have their appointment recorded and/or be interviewed, to understand how the decision-support tool is being used, and patient's views of the iFraP intervention. Outputs: If successful, the iFraP intervention will benefit patients and the NHS by helping patients make decisions about osteoporosis medicine. If the iFraP intervention increases the number of people with osteoporosis that start and continue taking osteoporosis medicines, iFraP will lower the number of future fractures, and reduce the negative outcomes that result from fractures (e.g. significant disability).

A comparison of patient and tumour characteristics in two UK bladder cancer cohorts separated by 20 years.

OBJECTIVES: To compare patient and tumour characteristics at presentation from two large bladder cancer cohorts, with recruitment separated by 15-20 years To identify significant differences in the West Midlands' urothelial cancer of the bladder (UCB) population during this period. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected prospectively from 1478 patients newly diagnosed with UCB in the West Midlands from January 1991 to June 1992 (Cohort 1), and from 1168 patients newly diagnosed with UBC within the same region from December 2005 to April 2011 (Cohort 2). Gender, age, smoking history, and tumour grade, stage, type, multiplicity and size at presentation were compared using a Pearson chi-square test or Cochran-Armitage trend test, as appropriate. RESULT: Cohort 2 had a higher proportion of male patients (P = 0.021), elderly patients (P < 0.001), grade 3 tumours (P < 0.001), Ta/T1 tumours (P = 0.008), multiple tumours (P < 0.001), and tumours of ≤2 cm in diameter (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences between the cohorts. These differences are potentially explained by an ageing population, changes in grading practices, improved awareness of important symptoms, improved cystoscopic technology, and reductions in treatment delays. Regional cohorts remain important for identifying changes in tumour and patient characteristics that may influence disease management in the UK and beyond.

Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention in primary care: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness (SupportBack 2).

INTRODUCTION: Self-management and remaining physically active are first-line recommendations for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). With a lifetime prevalence of up to 85%, novel approaches to support behavioural self-management are needed. Internet interventions may provide accessible support for self-management of LBP in primary care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the 'SupportBack' internet intervention, with or without physiotherapist telephone support in reducing LBP-related disability in primary care patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-parallel arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare three arms: (1) usual primary care for LBP; (2) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention; (3) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support. Patients with current LBP and no indicators of serious spinal pathology are identified and invited via general practice list searches and mailouts or opportunistic recruitment following LBP consultations. Participants undergo a secondary screen for possible serious spinal pathology and are then asked to complete baseline measures online after which they are randomised to an intervention arm. Follow-ups occur at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is physical function (using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) over 12 months (repeated measures design). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, troublesome days in pain over the last month, pain self-efficacy, catastrophising, kinesophobia, health-related quality of life and cost-related measures for a full health economic analysis. A full mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 18/SC/0388). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, communication with practices and patient groups. Patient representatives will support the implementation of our full dissemination strategy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14736486.

Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as adjuvant therapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The National Epirubicin Adjuvant Trial (NEAT) and the BR9601 trial examined the efficacy of anthracyclines in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. METHODS: In NEAT, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) with six cycles of CMF alone. In the BR9601 trial, we compared four cycles of epirubicin followed by four cycles of CMF, with eight cycles of CMF alone every 3 weeks. The primary end points were relapse-free and overall survival. The secondary end points were adverse effects, dose intensity, and quality of life. RESULTS: The two trials included 2391 women with early breast cancer; the median follow-up was 48 months. Relapse-free and overall survival rates were significantly higher in the epirubicin-CMF groups than in the CMF-alone groups (2-year relapse-free survival, 91% vs. 85%; 5-year relapse-free survival, 76% vs. 69%; 2-year overall survival, 95% vs. 92%; 5-year overall survival, 82% vs. 75%; P<0.001 by the log-rank test for all comparisons). Hazard ratios for relapse (or death without relapse) (0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.82; P<0.001) and death from any cause (0.67; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.82; P<0.001) favored epirubicin plus CMF over CMF alone. Independent prognostic factors were nodal status, tumor grade, tumor size, and estrogen-receptor status (P<0.001 for all four factors) and the presence or absence of vascular or lymphatic invasion (P=0.01). These factors did not significantly interact with the effect of epirubicin plus CMF. The overall incidence of adverse effects was significantly higher with epirubicin plus CMF than with CMF alone but did not significantly affect the delivered-dose intensity or the quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Epirubicin plus CMF is superior to CMF alone as adjuvant treatment for early breast cancer. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00003577 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Comparative costs and activity from a sample of UK clinical trials units.

BACKGROUND: The costs of medical research are a concern. Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) need to better understand variations in the costs of their activities. METHODS: Representatives of ten CTUs and two grant-awarding bodies pooled their experiences in discussions over 1.5 years. Five of the CTUs provided estimates of, and written justification for, costs associated with CTU activities required to implement an identical protocol. The protocol described a 5.5-year, nonpharmacological randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted at 20 centres. Direct and indirect costs, the number of full time equivalents (FTEs) and the FTEs attracting overheads were compared and qualitative methods (unstructured interviews and thematic analysis) were used to interpret the results. Four members of the group (funding-body representatives or award panel members) reviewed the justification statements for transparency and information content. Separately, 163 activities common to trials were assigned to roles used by nine CTUs; the consistency of role delineation was assessed by Cohen's κ. RESULTS: Median full economic cost of CTU activities was £769,637 (range: £661,112 to £1,383,323). Indirect costs varied considerably, accounting for between 15% and 59% (median 35%) of the full economic cost of the grant. Excluding one CTU, which used external statisticians, the total number of FTEs ranged from 2.0 to 3.0; total FTEs attracting overheads ranged from 0.3 to 2.0. Variation in directly incurred staff costs depended on whether CTUs: supported particular roles from core funding rather than grants; opted not to cost certain activities into the grant; assigned clerical or data management tasks to research or administrative staff; employed extensive on-site monitoring strategies (also the main source of variation in non-staff costs). Funders preferred written justifications of costs that described both FTEs and indicative tasks for funded roles, with itemised non-staff costs. Consistency in role delineation was fair (κ = 0.21-0.40) for statisticians/data managers and poor for other roles (κ < 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Some variation in costs is due to factors outside the control of CTUs such as access to core funding and levels of indirect costs levied by host institutions. Research is needed on strategies to control costs appropriately, especially the implementation of risk-based monitoring strategies.

A Comparative Analysis of the Influence of Gender, Pathway Delays, and Risk Factor Exposures on the Long-term Outcomes of Bladder Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between pathway delays and bladder cancer-specific survival is complex because of the influence of tumour- and patient-specific factors. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of tumour factors, patient factors, carcinogen exposure, and pathway delays on the long-term outcome of urothelial bladder cancer (UBC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of 1537 UBC patients were enrolled between January 1, 1991 and June 30, 1992 and followed up for 17.7 yr. The period from the onset of symptoms to first treatment (transurethral resection of bladder tumour, TURBT) was divided into three components of potential delay. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Associations between patient factors, tumour factors, and delay times were analysed using the Pearson χ2 test and the Mann-Whitney U test. Survival was calculated from date of TURBT to date of death or censor date (December 31, 2010). Competing risks of death were assessed with the cumulative incidence function (CIF); CIF comparisons were performed using the Gray test. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At censor, reliable data were available for 1478 patients, of whom 75% had died. Females presented more commonly with muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC; 30% vs 26%) and less frequently with pT1 disease (18% vs 24%; p=0.06) and had a longer total delay time (median 120 d vs 106 d, p=0.02), and those with MIBC had a significantly higher cumulative incidence of death due to UBC (80% vs 67% at 17 yr; p<0.02). Cox regression identified age, smoking status, and tumour stage, grade, and size as the most significant determinants of poor outcome. We did not capture downstream delays associated with cystectomy or radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Female UBC patients present later than males, and our data suggest that delay in referral may be contributory. The relationship between gender, outcomes, delays, and UBC aetiology is complex. PATIENT SUMMARY: We followed a large group of bladder cancer patients for more than 17 yr. The relationship between pathway delays and survival is complex. However, female patients present later than male patients, and our data suggest that delay in referral from general practice may be contributory.

Socio-economic deprivation and survival in bladder cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between deprivation, delay and survival from bladder cancer in the West Midlands, as socio-economic deprivation is associated with worse survival in many malignancies, and it has been suggested that treatment differences and delay in seeking care are major contributing causes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on 1537 newly diagnosed cases of urothelial cancer presenting in the West Midlands between January 1991 and June 1992. Survival was censored at 31 July 2000, when 785 (51%) patients had died. The influence of deprivation on survival was explored using cause-specific and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Patients in less affluent groups had significantly worse survival than patients in more affluent groups when considering deaths from all causes (P = 0.02), which held true when adjusting for independent prognostic factors (age, smoking history, and tumour grade, stage, type and size). Bladder cancer-specific mortality showed no significant difference between socio-economic groups (P = 0.30). CONCLUSION: Socio-economic deprivation is a significant predictor of survival when death from all causes is considered. However, this does not hold true for bladder cancer-specific death. The perceived differences in treatment and delay between socio-economic groups do not seem to occur for bladder cancer in the West Midlands.