Mapping the Oxford Shoulder Score onto the EQ-5D utility index.

PURPOSE: In order to enable cost-utility analysis of shoulder pain conditions and treatments, this study aimed to develop and evaluate mapping algorithms to estimate the EQ-5D health index from the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) when health outcomes are only assessed with the OSS. METHODS: 5437 paired OSS and EQ-5D questionnaire responses from four national multicentre randomised controlled trials investigating different shoulder pathologies and treatments were split into training and testing samples. Separate EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L analyses were undertaken. Transfer to utility (TTU) regression (univariate linear, polynomial, spline, multivariable linear, two-part logistic-linear, tobit and adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models) and response mapping (ordered logistic regression and seemingly unrelated regression (SUR)) models were developed on the training sample. These were internally validated, and their performance evaluated on the testing sample. Model performance was evaluated over 100-fold repeated training-testing sample splits. RESULTS: For the EQ-5D-3L analysis, the multivariable linear and splines models had the lowest mean square error (MSE) of 0.0415. The SUR model had the lowest mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.136. Model performance was greatest in the mid-range and best health states, and lowest in poor health states. For the EQ-5D-5L analyses, the multivariable linear and splines models had the lowest MSE (0.0241-0.0278) while the SUR models had the lowest MAE (0.105-0.113). CONCLUSION: The developed models now allow accurate estimation of the EQ-5D health index when only the OSS responses are available as a measure of patient-reported health outcome.

Management of adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care (UK FROST): a multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release are costly and invasive treatments for frozen shoulder, but their effectiveness remains uncertain. We compared these two surgical interventions with early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection. METHODS: In this multicentre, pragmatic, three-arm, superiority randomised trial, patients referred to secondary care for treatment of primary frozen shoulder were recruited from 35 hospital sites in the UK. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation (≥50%) in the affected shoulder. Participants were randomly assigned (2:2:1) to receive manipulation under anaesthesia, arthroscopic capsular release, or early structured physiotherapy. In manipulation under anaesthesia, the surgeon manipulated the affected shoulder to stretch and tear the tight capsule while the participant was under general anaesthesia, supplemented by a steroid injection. Arthroscopic capsular release, also done under general anaesthesia, involved surgically dividing the contracted anterior capsule in the rotator interval, followed by manipulation, with optional steroid injection. Both forms of surgery were followed by postprocedural physiotherapy. Early structured physiotherapy involved mobilisation techniques and a graduated home exercise programme supplemented by a steroid injection. Both early structured physiotherapy and postprocedural physiotherapy involved 12 sessions during up to 12 weeks. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS; 0-48) at 12 months after randomisation, analysed by initial randomisation group. We sought a target difference of 5 OSS points between physiotherapy and either form of surgery, or 4 points between manipulation and capsular release. The trial registration is ISRCTN48804508. FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and Dec 31, 2017, we screened 914 patients, of whom 503 (55%) were randomly assigned. At 12 months, OSS data were available for 189 (94%) of 201 participants assigned to manipulation (mean estimate 38·3 points, 95% CI 36·9 to 39·7), 191 (94%) of 203 participants assigned to capsular release (40·3 points, 38·9 to 41·7), and 93 (94%) of 99 participants assigned to physiotherapy (37·2 points, 35·3 to 39·2). The mean group differences were 2·01 points (0·10 to 3·91) between the capsular release and manipulation groups, 3·06 points (0·71 to 5·41) between capsular release and physiotherapy, and 1·05 points (-1·28 to 3·39) between manipulation and physiotherapy. Eight serious adverse events were reported with capsular release and two with manipulation. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, manipulation under anaesthesia had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0·8632, compared with 0·1366 for physiotherapy and 0·0002 for capsular release). INTERPRETATION: All mean differences on the assessment of shoulder pain and function (OSS) at the primary endpoint of 12 months were less than the target differences. Therefore, none of the three interventions were clinically superior. Arthoscopic capsular release carried higher risks, and manipulation under anaesthesia was the most cost-effective. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effective clinical trial design: Application of a Bayesian sequential model to the ProFHER pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: There is growing interest in the use of adaptive designs to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. We apply a Bayesian decision-theoretic model of a sequential experiment using cost and outcome data from the ProFHER pragmatic trial. We assess the model's potential for delivering value-based research. METHODS: Using parameter values estimated from the ProFHER pragmatic trial, including the costs of carrying out the trial, we establish when the trial could have stopped, had the model's value-based stopping rule been used. We use a bootstrap analysis and simulation study to assess a range of operating characteristics, which we compare with a fixed sample size design which does not allow for early stopping. RESULTS: We estimate that application of the model could have stopped the ProFHER trial early, reducing the sample size by about 14%, saving about 5% of the research budget and resulting in a technology recommendation which was the same as that of the trial. The bootstrap analysis suggests that the expected sample size would have been 38% lower, saving around 13% of the research budget, with a probability of 0.92 of making the same technology recommendation decision. It also shows a large degree of variability in the trial's sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Benefits to trial cost stewardship may be achieved by monitoring trial data as they accumulate and using a stopping rule which balances the benefit of obtaining more information through continued recruitment with the cost of obtaining that information. We present recommendations for further research investigating the application of value-based sequential designs.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People: The REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention Trial Findings.

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. Multifaceted interventions may be effective in preventing falls and related fractures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness alongside the REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) trial. METHODS: REFORM was a pragmatic multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland; 1,010 participants (> 65 years) were randomised to receive either a podiatry intervention (n = 493), including foot and ankle strengthening exercises, foot orthoses, new footwear if required, and a falls prevention leaflet, or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet (n = 517). PRIMARY OUTCOME: incidence of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: proportion of fallers and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) which was converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each participant. Differences in mean costs and QALYs at 12 months were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in accordance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reference case standards, using a regression-based approach with costs expressed in GBP (2015 price). The base case analysis used an intention-to-treat approach on the imputed data set using multiple imputation. RESULTS: There was a small, non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-1.05, p = 0.16). Participants allocated to the intervention group accumulated on average marginally higher QALYs than the usual care participants (mean difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314). The intervention costs were on average GBP 252 more per participant compared to the usual care participants (95% CI GBP -69 to GBP 589). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between GBP 19,494 and GBP 20,593 per QALY gained, below the conventional National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds of GBP 20,000 to GBP 30,000 per additional QALY. The probability that the podiatry intervention is cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained was 0.65. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: The benefits of the intervention justified the moderate cost. The intervention could be a cost-effective option for falls prevention when compared with usual care in the UK.

Lateral compression type 1 fracture fixation in the elderly (L1FE): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (with internal pilot) comparing the effects of INFIX surgery and non-surgical management for treating patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC-1) fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Lateral compression type1 (LC-1) fragility fractures are a common, painful injury in older adults resulting in reduced mobility. The incidence of these fractures is increasing with the growing older adult population. The current standard of care is non-surgical management; however, patients with this injury are at risk of long-term immobility and related complications. INFIX is a pelvic fixation device used in younger patients with high-energy fractures. The device is fitted via a percutaneous technique with no external pin sites and has good purchase even in osteoporotic bone. It therefore has the potential to be well tolerated in patients with LC-1 fragility fractures. INFIX could improve patients' ability to mobilise and reduce the risk of immobility-related complications. However, there is a risk of complications related to surgery, and robust evidence is required on patient outcomes. This study will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical fixation with INFIX compared to non-surgical management of LC-1 fragility fractures in older adults. METHODS: A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of 600 patients allocated 1:1 to non-surgical management or INFIX surgery. The study will have a 12-month internal pilot to assess recruitment and trial feasibility. The primary outcome will be the patient quality of life over 6 months, measured by the patient-reported EQ-5D-5L. The secondary outcomes will include physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, imaging assessment, resource use, and complications. DISCUSSION: The L1FE study aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical management of people aged 60 years and older with LC-1 fragility fractures. The trial is sufficiently powered and rigorously designed to inform future clinical and patient decision-making and allocation of NHS resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN16478561. Registered on 8 April 2019.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty versus hemiarthroplasty versus non-surgical treatment for older adults with acute 3- or 4-part fractures of the proximal humerus: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (PROFHER-2: PROximal Fracture of Humerus Evaluation by Randomisation - Trial Number 2).

BACKGROUND: Proximal humerus fractures (PHF) are common and painful injuries, with the majority resulting from falls from a standing height. As with other fragility fractures, its age-specific incidence is increasing. Surgical treatment with hemiarthroplasty (HA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been increasingly used for displaced 3- and 4-part fractures despite a lack of good quality evidence as to whether one type of arthroplasty is superior to the other, and whether surgery is better than non-surgical management. The PROFHER-2 trial has been designed as a pragmatic, multicentre randomised trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of RSA vs HA vs Non-Surgical (NS) treatment in patients with 3- and 4-part PHF. METHODS: Adults over 65 years of age presenting with acute radiographically confirmed 3- or 4-part fractures, with or without associated glenohumeral joint dislocation, who consent for trial participation will be recruited from around 40 National Health Service (NHS) Hospitals in the UK. Patients with polytrauma, open fractures, presence of axillary nerve palsy, pathological (other than osteoporotic) fractures, and those who are unable to adhere to trial procedures will be excluded. We will aim to recruit 380 participants (152 RSA, 152 HA, 76 NS) using 2:2:1 (HA:RSA:NS) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fractures without joint dislocation, and 1:1 (HA:RSA) randomisation for 3- or 4-part fracture dislocations. The primary outcome is the Oxford Shoulder Score at 24 months. Secondary outcomes include quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), pain, range of shoulder motion, fracture healing and implant position on X-rays, further procedures, and complications. Independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring Committee will oversee the trial conduct, including the reporting of adverse events and harms. DISCUSSION: The PROFHER-2 trial is designed to provide a robust answer to guide the treatment of patients aged 65 years or over who sustain 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures. The pragmatic design and recruitment from around 40 UK NHS hospitals will ensure immediate applicability and generalisability of the trial findings. The full trial results will be made available in a relevant open-access peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN76296703. Prospectively registered on 5th April 2018.

Health economic decision-making: a comparison between UK and Spain.

OBJECTIVE: This review examines the impact of economic evaluation in informing national or local policies within both jurisdictions. We focus on the factors that have made the economic evaluation evolves differently in both settings. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Economic evaluation facilitates decision-making regarding the efficiency of interventions. The existence of national or local bodies regulating the process has contributed to increasing its use in decision-making and the development of its methods. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Cost-effectiveness approach is based on the assumption of health maximization subject to a budget constraint. Decision-makers are not only interested in health maximization alone. This may result in policy-makers failing to consider economic evaluations into their allocation decisions. AREAS TO DEVELOP RESEARCH: Methods that incorporate wider decision-makers goals (mainly local) and research to study the real impact of economic evaluation in terms of improved efficiency and equity are particularly required.

Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the effectiveness compared with alternative treatment(s) plays an important role in many jurisdictions in determining the reimbursement status of pharmaceuticals. This type of assessment is often referred to as a relative effectiveness assessment (REA) and is carried out by many jurisdictions. Increased sharing of information across jurisdictions may save costs and reduce duplication. The objective of this study was to explore the main similarities and differences in the major methodological aspects of REA in multiple jurisdictions. METHODS: Data were gathered with a standardized data extraction form by searching publicly available information and by eliciting information from representatives at relevant organizations. RESULTS: Of the initially included 35 jurisdictions, data were gathered for 29 jurisdictions. There seem to be substantial similarities on the choice of the comparator, the role of indirect comparisons, and preferred end points in REAs (except for the use of health state utilities). Jurisdictions, however, differ in whether effectiveness (usual circumstances of health care practice) is estimated in case no (comparative) effectiveness data are available and how this is done. CONCLUSION: Some important methodological aspects for REA are approached in a similar way in many jurisdictions, indicating that collaboration on assessments may be feasible. Enhanced collaboration in the development of methods and best practices for REA between jurisdictions will be a necessary first step. Important topics for developing best practice are indirect comparisons and how to handle the gap between efficacy and effectiveness data in case good quality comparative effectiveness data are not yet available at the time of reimbursement decisions.

Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST)-avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: a cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to introduce change in the NHS.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives to implement large-scale change in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK, specifically for improving outcomes in patients undergoing primary, elective total hip or knee replacement. METHODS: We undertook a two-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing the roll-out of two preoperative pathways: methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) decolonisation (infection arm) and anaemia screening and treatment (anaemia arm). NHS Trusts are public sector organisations that provide healthcare within a geographical area. NHS Trusts (n = 41) in England providing primary, elective total hip and knee replacements, but that did not have a preoperative anaemia screening or MSSA decolonisation pathway in place, were randomised to one of the two parallel collaboratives. Collaboratives took place from May 2018 to November 2019. Twenty-seven Trusts completed the trial (11 anaemia, 16 infection). Outcome data were collected for procedures performed between November 2018 and November 2019. Co-primary outcomes were perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) and deep surgical site infection (SSI) caused by MSSA (within 90 days post-surgery) for the anaemia and infection trial arms, respectively. Secondary outcomes were deep and superficial SSIs (any organism), length of hospital stay, critical care admissions and unplanned readmissions. Process measures included the proportion of eligible patients receiving each preoperative initiative. RESULTS: There were 19,254 procedures from 27 NHS Trusts included in the results (6324 from 11 Trusts in the anaemia arm, 12,930 from 16 Trusts in the infection arm). There were no improvements observed for blood transfusion (anaemia arm 183 (2.9%); infection arm 302 (2.3%) transfusions; adjusted odds ratio 1.20, 95% CI 0.52-2.75, p = 0.67) or MSSA deep SSI (anaemia arm 8 (0.13%); infection arm 18 (0.14%); adjusted odds ratio 1.01, 95% CI 0.42-2.46, p = 0.98). There were no significant improvements in any secondary outcome. This is despite process measures showing the preoperative pathways were implemented for 73.7% and 61.1% of eligible procedures in the infection and anaemia arms, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement collaboratives did not result in improved patient outcomes in this trial; however, there was some evidence they may support successful implementation of new preoperative pathways in the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered on 15 February 2018, ISRCTN11085475.

Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatments compared with early structured physiotherapy in secondary care for adults with primary frozen shoulder : an economic evaluation of the UK FROST trial.

AIMS: A pragmatic multicentre randomized controlled trial, UK FROzen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), was conducted in the UK NHS comparing the cost-effectiveness of commonly used treatments for adults with primary frozen shoulder in secondary care. METHODS: A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR), and early structured physiotherapy plus steroid injection (ESP) in costs (2018 GBP price base) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at one year were used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of the treatments using regression methods. RESULTS: ACR was £1,734 more costly than ESP ((95% confidence intervals (CIs) £1,529 to £1,938)) and £1,457 more costly than MUA (95% CI £1,283 to £1,632). MUA was £276 (95% CI £66 to £487) more expensive than ESP. Overall, ACR had worse QALYs compared with MUA (-0.0293; 95% CI -0.0616 to 0.0030) and MUA had better QALYs compared with ESP (0.0396; 95% CI -0.0008 to 0.0800). At a £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold, MUA had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.8632) then ESP (0.1366) and ACR (0.0002). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: While ESP was less costly, MUA was the most cost-effective option. ACR was not cost-effective. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):685-695.

Evaluating 'Enhancing Pragmatic Language skills for Young children with Social communication impairments' (E-PLAYS): a feasibility cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This article reports the results from a feasibility study of an intervention ('E-PLAYS') aimed at supporting children who experience difficulties with social communication. E-PLAYS is based around a dyadic computer game, which aims to develop collaborative and communication skills. A pilot study found that when E-PLAYS was delivered by researchers, improvements on communication test scores and on collaborative behaviours were observed. The aim of this study was to ascertain the feasibility of running a full-scale trial to test the effectiveness of E-PLAYS in a National Health Service (NHS) setting with delivery by speech and language therapists and teaching assistants. METHODS: The study was a two-arm feasibility cluster-randomised controlled trial of the E-PLAYS intervention with a treatment as usual control arm. Data relating to recruitment and retention, treatment fidelity, acceptability to participants, suitability of outcomes and feasibility of collecting health economic measures and of determining cost-effectiveness were collected. Speech and language therapists selected suitable children (ages 4-7 years old) from their caseload. E-PLAYS intervention (experimental group) was then delivered by teaching assistants overseen by speech and language therapists. The control group received usual care. Assessments included blinded language measures and observations, non-blinded teacher-reported measures of peer relations and classroom behaviour and non-blinded parent-reported use of health and education resources and quality of life. RESULTS: Planned recruitment was for 70 children, in the event, 50 children were recruited which was sufficient for feasibility purposes. E-PLAYS was very highly rated by children, teaching assistants and speech and language therapists and treatment fidelity did not pose any issues. We were able to collect health economic data which suggests that E-PLAYS would be a low-cost intervention. CONCLUSION: Based on recruitment, retention and adherence rates and our outcome measures, a full-scale randomised controlled trial estimated appears feasible and warranted to assess the effectiveness of E-PLAYS for use by the NHS and schools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 14818949 (retrospectively registered).

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.

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.

Yoga for older adults with multimorbidity (the Gentle Years Yoga Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity is common in older adults and associated with high levels of illness burden and healthcare expenditure. The evidence base for how to manage older adults with multimorbidity is weak. Yoga might be a useful intervention because it has the potential to improve health-related quality of life, physical functioning, and several medical conditions. The British Wheel of Yoga's Gentle Years Yoga© (GYY) programme was developed specifically for older adults, including those with chronic medical conditions. Data from a pilot trial suggested feasibility of using GYY in this population, but its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain uncertain. METHODS: This is a multi-site, individually randomised, superiority trial with an embedded process evaluation and an economic analysis of cost-effectiveness. The trial will compare an experimental strategy of offering a 12-week GYY programme against a control strategy of no offer in community-dwelling adults aged 65 or over who have multimorbidity, defined as having two or more chronic conditions from a predefined list. The primary outcome is health-related quality of life measured using the EQ-5D-5L, the primary endpoint being the overall difference over 12 months. Both groups will continue to be able to access their usual care from primary, secondary, community, and social services. Participants, care providers, and yoga teachers will not be blinded to the allocated intervention. Outcome measures are primarily self-reported. The analysis will follow intention-to-treat principles. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will demonstrate if the GYY programme is an effective, cost-effective, and viable addition to the management of older adults with multimorbidity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN13567538 . Registered on 18 March 2019.

A multicentre, randomized, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of external frame versus internal locking plate for complete articular pilon fracture fixation in adults.

AIMS: A pilon fracture is a severe ankle joint injury caused by high-energy trauma, typically affecting men of working age. Although relatively uncommon (5% to 7% of all tibial fractures), this injury causes among the worst functional and health outcomes of any skeletal injury, with a high risk of serious complications and long-term disability, and with devastating consequences on patients' quality of life and financial prospects. Robust evidence to guide treatment is currently lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical interventions that are most commonly used to treat pilon fractures. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 334 adult patients diagnosed with a closed type C pilon fracture will be conducted. Internal locking plate fixation will be compared with external frame fixation. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Disability Rating Index (a patient self-reported assessment of physical disability) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, three, six, and 24 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes include the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), the five-level EuroQol five-dimenison score (EQ-5D-5L), complications (including bone healing), resource use, work impact, and patient treatment preference. The acceptability of the treatments and study design to patients and health care professionals will be explored through qualitative methods. DISCUSSION: The two treatments being compared are the most commonly used for this injury, however there is uncertainty over which is most clinically and cost-effective. The Articular Pilon Fracture (ACTIVE) Trial is a sufficiently powered and rigorously designed study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of adults with this injury. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(3):150-163.

Scaling up Quality Improvement for Surgical Teams (QIST) - avoiding surgical site infection and anaemia at the time of surgery: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Measures shown to improve outcomes for patients often fail to be adopted into routine practice in the NHS. The Institute for Health Improvement Breakthrough Series Collaborative (BSC) model is designed to support implementation at scale. This trial aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) based on the BSC method for introducing service improvements at scale in the NHS. METHODS: Forty Trusts will be randomised (1:1) to introduce one of two protocols already shown to improve outcomes in patients undergoing elective total hip and knee replacement surgery. The intervention is improvement collaboratives based on the BSC model, a learning system that brings together a large number of teams to seek improvement focussed on a proven intervention. Collaboratives aim to deliver at scale, maximise local engagement and leadership and are designed to build capacity, enable learning and prepare for sustainability. Collaboratives involve Learning Sessions, Action Periods, and a summative congress. Trusts will be supported to introduce either: decolonisation for Methicillin Sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) to reduce post-operative infection (QIST: Infection), or an anaemia optimisation programme to reduce peri-operative blood transfusions (QIST: Anaemia). Trusts will continue with their usual practice for whichever protocol they are not introducing. Anonymised data related to both infection and anaemia outcomes for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty at all sites will mean that the two groups act as controls for each other. The primary outcome for the QIST: Infection collaborative is deep MSSA surgical site infection within 90 days of surgery, and for the QIST: Anaemia collaborative is blood transfusion within 7 days of surgery. Patient-level secondary outcomes include length of hospital stay and readmission, which will also inform the economic costings. Qualitative interviews will evaluate the support provided to teams. DISCUSSION: The scale of this trial brings considerable challenges and potential barriers to delivery. Anticipated challenges relate to recruiting and sustaining up to 40 organisations, each with its own culture and context. This complex project with multiple stakeholders across a large geographical area will be managed by experienced senior-level project leaders with a proven track record in advanced project management. The team should ensure effective project governance and communications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN11085475. Prospectively registered on 15 February 2018.

Pragmatic randomised evaluation of stable thoracolumbar fracture treatment outcomes (PRESTO): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial combined with a qualitative study and survey.

BACKGROUND: A thoracolumbar fracture is the most common fracture of the spinal column. Where the fracture is not obviously stable or unstable, the optimal management is uncertain. There are variations between surgeons, treating centres and within the evidence base as to whether surgical or non-surgical approaches should be used. In addition, the boundaries of this zone of uncertainty for stability are unclear.This study has been designed in response to an NIHR HTA commissioning brief to assess the feasibility of undertaking a large-scale trial to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatments for thoracolumbar fractures without neurological deficit. METHODS: Assessment of feasibility will be addressed through three elements: a randomised external feasibility study, a national survey of surgeons and a qualitative study.The external feasibility study is a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial comparing surgical fixation (intervention) versus non-surgical management (control). Recruitment will take place in three secondary care centres in the UK.The primary outcome is recruitment rate, defined as the proportion of eligible participants who are randomised. Further outcomes related to recruitment, randomisation, drop-out, cross-over, loss to follow-up, completeness of outcome data, study processes and details of the interventions delivered will be collected.The survey of surgeons and qualitative study of clinicians, recruiting staff and patients will enhance the feasibility study, enabling a broad overview of current practice in the field in addition to perceived facilitators and barriers to running a full-scale trial. DISCUSSION: PRESTO is a feasibility study which aims to inform methodology for a definitive trial comparing surgical fixation with non-surgical management for patients with stable thoracolumbar fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN12094890). Date of registration was 22/02/2018 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12094890).

Surgical treatments compared with early structured physiotherapy in secondary care for adults with primary frozen shoulder: the UK FROST three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Frozen shoulder causes pain and stiffness. It affects around 10% of people in their fifties and is slightly more common in women. Costly and invasive surgical interventions are used, without high-quality evidence that these are effective. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three treatments in secondary care for adults with frozen shoulder; to qualitatively explore the acceptability of these treatments to patients and health-care professionals; and to update a systematic review to explore the trial findings in the context of existing evidence for the three treatments. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label, three-arm, randomised superiority trial with unequal allocation (2 : 2 : 1). An economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study were also carried out. SETTING: The orthopaedic departments of 35 hospitals across the UK were recruited from April 2015, with final follow-up in December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with unilateral frozen shoulder, characterised by restriction of passive external rotation in the affected shoulder to < 50% of the opposite shoulder, and with plain radiographs excluding other pathology. INTERVENTIONS: The inventions were early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection, manipulation under anaesthesia with a steroid injection and arthroscopic capsular release followed by manipulation. Both of the surgical interventions were followed with post-procedural physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome and end point was the Oxford Shoulder Score at 12 months post randomisation. A difference of 5 points between early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia or arthroscopic capsular release or of 4 points between manipulation under anaesthesia and arthroscopic capsular release was judged clinically important. RESULTS: The mean age of the 503 participants was 54 years; 319 were female (63%) and 150 had diabetes (30%). The primary analyses comprised 473 participants (94%). At the primary end point of 12 months, participants randomised to arthroscopic capsular release had, on average, a statistically significantly higher (better) Oxford Shoulder Score than those randomised to manipulation under anaesthesia (2.01 points, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 3.91 points; p = 0.04) or early structured physiotherapy (3.06 points, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 5.41 points; p = 0.01). Manipulation under anaesthesia did not result in statistically significantly better Oxford Shoulder Score than early structured physiotherapy (1.05 points, 95% confidence interval -1.28 to 3.39 points; p = 0.38). No differences were deemed of clinical importance. Serious adverse events were rare but occurred in participants randomised to surgery (arthroscopic capsular release,n = 8; manipulation under anaesthesia,n = 2). There was, however, one serious adverse event in a participant who received non-trial physiotherapy. The base-case economic analysis showed that manipulation under anaesthesia was more expensive than early structured physiotherapy, with slightly better utilities. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for manipulation under anaesthesia was £6984 per additional quality-adjusted life-year, and this intervention was probably 86% cost-effective at the threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Arthroscopic capsular release was more costly than early structured physiotherapy and manipulation under anaesthesia, with no statistically significant benefit in utilities. Participants in the qualitative study wanted early medical help and a quicker pathway to resolve their shoulder problem. Nine studies were identified from the updated systematic review, including UK FROST, of which only two could be pooled, and found that arthroscopic capsular release was more effective than physiotherapy in the long-term shoulder functioning of patients, but not to the clinically important magnitude used in UK FROST. LIMITATIONS: Implementing physiotherapy to the trial standard in clinical practice might prove challenging but could avoid theatre use and post-procedural physiotherapy. There are potential confounding effects of waiting times in the trial. CONCLUSIONS: None of the three interventions was clearly superior. Early structured physiotherapy with a steroid injection is an accessible and low-cost option. Manipulation under anaesthesia is the most cost-effective option. Arthroscopic capsular release carries higher risks and higher costs. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation in a randomised controlled trial is recommended to address the increasing popularity of hydrodilatation despite the paucity of high-quality evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48804508. 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. 24, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Frozen shoulder occurs when the soft tissue envelope around the shoulder joint becomes inflamed, scarred and contracted, making movement painful and stiff. It affects around 1 in 10 people and is more common in women. Most patients are treated in the community. Those who do not improve are offered treatments in hospital. This includes costly and invasive surgical options. It is unclear which treatment provides the best patient outcomes and is cost-effective. UK FROST (UK FROzen Shoulder Trial) comprised 503 patients (from 35 UK hospitals) who randomly received one of three commonly offered treatments for frozen shoulder: early physiotherapy to restore movement, including a steroid injection for pain reliefmanipulation under anaesthesia, to stretch and tear the tight capsule to restore movement, and a steroid injection followed by physiotherapyarthroscopic capsular release, which uses keyhole surgery, including manipulation, to restore movement, followed by physiotherapy with pain medication. No important differences were found between the three treatments in shoulder function or pain at 12 months. Fewer patients who received arthroscopic capsular release required further treatment, and patients who received arthroscopic capsular release had slightly better shoulder function and pain outcomes than those who received the manipulation procedure or early physiotherapy. This improvement, however, was unlikely to be of clinical benefit to patients. Arthroscopic capsular release had slightly higher risks and substantially higher costs. Six serious complications were reported in patients who received arthroscopic capsular release (mostly owing to co-existing health problems) and two were reported in patients who received manipulation under anaesthesia. Physiotherapy was the least expensive treatment, but patients who received manipulation under anaesthesia had slightly better general health than those who received physiotherapy. Early physiotherapy with steroid injection could be accessed quicker than the surgical alternatives. Manipulation under anaesthesia cost more than physiotherapy but provided the best value for money. Patients in the study wanted early access to medical help to improve their shoulder problems.

The impact of surgeon and patient treatment preferences in an orthopaedic trauma surgery trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgeon and patient treatment preferences are important threats to the internal and external validity of surgical trials such as PROFHER, which compared surgical versus non-surgical treatment for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus in adults. We explored the treatment preferences expressed by surgeons and patients in the trial and how these impacted on patient selection, trial conduct and patient outcome. METHODS: A series of exploratory secondary analyses of the PROFHER trial data were undertaken. We reviewed the extent of surgeon and patient treatment preferences (surgery or not surgery) at screening (n = 1250) as well as prior preference (including no preference) of randomised patients (n = 250), and assessed their impact on recruitment and adherence to follow-up and rehabilitation. Changes in treatment after 2 years' follow-up were explored. Patient preference and characteristics associated with trial inclusion or treatment preference (t test, chi-squared test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test) were included as treatment interaction terms in the primary trial analysis of shoulder functioning (Oxford Shoulder Score, OSS). RESULTS: Surgeons excluded 17% of otherwise eligible patients based on lack of equipoise; these patients had less complex fractures (p < 0.001) and tended to be older (p = 0.062). Surgeons were more likely to recommend surgery for patients under 65 years of age (p = 0.059) and who had injured their right shoulder (p = 0.052). Over half of eligible patients (56%) did not consent to take part in the trial; these patients tended to be older (p = 0.022), with a preference for not surgery (74%; which was associated with older age, p = 0.039). There were no differential treatment effects (p value of interaction) for shoulder functioning (OSS) based on subgroups of patient preference (p = 0.751), age group (p = 0.264), fracture type (p = 0.954) and shoulder dominance (p = 0.850). Patients who were randomised to their preferred treatment had better follow-up rates (94 vs 84% at 2 years) and treatment adherence (90 vs 83% reported completing home exercises). Patients who were not randomised to their preferred treatment were more likely to change their treatment preference at 24 months (60 vs 26%). CONCLUSIONS: The robustness of the PROFHER trial findings was confirmed against possible bias introduced by surgeon and patient preferences. The importance of collecting preference data is highlighted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN50850043 . Registered on 25 March 2008.