First-in-man study of the PSMA Minibody IR800-IAB2M for molecularly targeted intraoperative fluorescence guidance during radical prostatectomy.

PURPOSE: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is increasingly used to image prostate cancer in clinical practice. We sought to develop and test a humanised PSMA minibody IAB2M conjugated to the fluorophore IRDye 800CW-NHS ester in men undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) to image prostate cancer cells during surgery. METHODS: The minibody was evaluated pre-clinically using PSMA positive/negative xenograft models, following which 23 men undergoing RARP between 2018 and 2020 received between 2.5 mg and 20 mg of IR800-IAB2M intravenously, at intervals between 24 h and 17 days prior to surgery. At every step of the procedure, the prostate, pelvic lymph node chains and extra-prostatic surrounding tissue were imaged with a dual Near-infrared (NIR) and white light optical platform for fluorescence in vivo and ex vivo. Histopathological evaluation of intraoperative and postoperative microscopic fluorescence imaging was undertaken for verification. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were evaluated to optimise both the dose of the reagent and the interval between injection and surgery and secure the best possible specificity of fluorescence images. Six cases are presented in detail as exemplars. Overall sensitivity and specificity in detecting non-lymph-node extra-prostatic cancer tissue were 100% and 65%, and 64% and 64% respectively for lymph node positivity. There were no side-effects associated with administration of the reagent. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative imaging of prostate cancer tissue is feasible and safe using IR800-IAB2M. Further evaluation is underway to assess the benefit of using the technique in improving completion of surgical excision during RARP. REGISTRATION: ISCRCTN10046036: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10046036 .

Diabetic autonomic neuropathy does not impede improvement in hypoglycaemia awareness in adults: Sub-study results from the HypoCOMPaSS trial.

AIMS: Impaired awareness of hypoglycaemia (IAH) increases the risk of severe hypoglycaemia in people with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). IAH can be reversed through meticulous avoidance of hypoglycaemia. Diabetic autonomic neuropathy (DAN) has been proposed as an underlying mechanism contributing to IAH; however, data are inconsistent. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) on IAH reversibility inT1DM. METHODS: Participants with T1DM and IAH (Gold score ≥4) recruited to the HypoCOMPaSS (24-week 2 × 2 factorial randomised controlled) trial were included. All underwent screening for cardiac autonomic function testing at baseline and received comparable education and support aimed at avoiding hypoglycaemia and improving hypoglycaemia awareness. Definite CAN was defined as the presence of ≥2 abnormal cardiac reflex tests. Participants were grouped according to their CAN status, and changes in Gold score were compared. RESULTS: Eighty-three participants (52 women [62.7%]) were included with mean age (SD) of 48 (12) years and mean HbA1c of 66 (13) mmol/mol (8.2 [3.3] %). The mean duration of T1DM was 29 (13) years. The prevalence of CAN was low with 5/83 (6%) participants having definite autonomic neuropathy with 11 (13%) classified with possible/early neuropathy. All participants, regardless of the autonomic function status, showed a mean improvement in Gold score of ≥1 (mean improvement -1.2 [95% CI -0.8, -1.6]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IAH can be improved in people with T1DM, and a long duration of disease, with and without cardiac autonomic dysfunction. These data suggest that CAN is not a prime driver for modulating IAH reversibility.

Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS: We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS: Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).

Feasibility and safety of radical prostatectomy for oligo-metastatic prostate cancer: the Testing Radical prostatectomy in men with prostate cancer and oligo-Metastases to the bone (TRoMbone) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of randomisation to radical prostatectomy (RP) plus pelvic lymphadenectomy in addition to standard-of-care (SOC) systemic therapy in men with newly diagnosed oligo-metastatic prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomised, non-blinded, feasibility clinical trial with an embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment was conducted in nine nationwide tertiary care centres undertaking high-volume robotic surgery. We aimed to randomise 50 men with synchronous oligo-metastatic prostate cancer within an 18-month recruitment period to SOC systemic therapy vs SOC plus RP (intervention arm). The main outcome measures were: ability to randomise patients, optimised by a QRI; EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires to capture quality-of-life (QoL) data at baseline and 3 months post-randomisation; routine clinicopathological assessment to capture adverse events and prostate-specific antigen in both arms, plus standard perioperative parameters in the surgical arm. RESULTS: A total of 51 men were randomised within 14 months (one was subsequently deemed ineligible), with 60-83% accrual rate in centres that recruited at least two patients. All patients completed the trial follow-up; one patient in the intervention arm subsequently did not undergo the surgical intervention and one in the SOC arm refused all therapies. The QRI positively impacted recruitment. QoL data showed similarly high functioning in both study arms. Surgery for men with oligo-metastatic prostate cancer was found to be safe and had similar impact on early functional outcomes as surgery for standard indication. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to randomise men with synchronous oligo-metastatic prostate cancer to a surgical intervention in addition to standard systemic therapies. While surgery appeared safe with no substantial impact on QoL in this feasibility study, a large randomised controlled trial is now warranted to examine treatment effectiveness of this additional component in the multimodality management of oligo-metastatic prostate cancer.

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and is the treatment of choice for patients at high operative risk. The role of TAVI in patients at lower risk is unclear. Objective: To determine whether TAVI is noninferior to surgery in patients at moderately increased operative risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 34 UK centers, 913 patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity were enrolled between April 2014 and April 2018 and followed up through April 2019. Interventions: TAVI using any valve with a CE mark (indicating conformity of the valve with all legal and safety requirements for sale throughout the European Economic Area) and any access route (n = 458) or surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery; n = 455). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that TAVI was noninferior to surgery, with a noninferiority margin of 5% for the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the absolute between-group difference in mortality. There were 36 secondary outcomes (30 reported herein), including duration of hospital stay, major bleeding events, vascular complications, conduction disturbance requiring pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation. Results: Among 913 patients randomized (median age, 81 years [IQR, 78 to 84 years]; 424 [46%] were female; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score, 2.6% [IQR, 2.0% to 3.4%]), 912 (99.9%) completed follow-up and were included in the noninferiority analysis. At 1 year, there were 21 deaths (4.6%) in the TAVI group and 30 deaths (6.6%) in the surgery group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of -2.0% (1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 1.2%; P < .001 for noninferiority). Of 30 prespecified secondary outcomes reported herein, 24 showed no significant difference at 1 year. TAVI was associated with significantly shorter postprocedural hospitalization (median of 3 days [IQR, 2 to 5 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6 to 13 days] in the surgery group). At 1 year, there were significantly fewer major bleeding events after TAVI compared with surgery (7.2% vs 20.2%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.45]) but significantly more vascular complications (10.3% vs 2.4%; adjusted HR, 4.42 [95% CI, 2.54 to 7.71]), conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (14.2% vs 7.3%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.94]), and mild (38.3% vs 11.7%) or moderate (2.3% vs 0.6%) aortic regurgitation (adjusted odds ratio for mild, moderate, or severe [no instance of severe reported] aortic regurgitation combined vs none, 4.89 [95% CI, 3.08 to 7.75]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN57819173.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of splints for thumb base osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness, efficacy and cost effectiveness of splints (orthoses) in people with symptomatic basal thumb joint OA (BTOA). METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre parallel group randomized controlled trial at 17 National Health Service (NHS) hospital departments recruited adults with symptomatic BTOA and at least moderate hand pain and dysfunction. We randomized participants (1:1:1) using a computer-based minimization system to one of three treatment groups: a therapist supported self-management programme (SSM), a therapist supported self-management programme plus a verum thumb splint (SSM+S), or a therapist supported self-management programme plus a placebo thumb splint (SSM+PS). Participants were blinded to group allocation, received 90 min therapy over 8 weeks and were followed up for 12 weeks from baseline. Australian/Canadian (AUSCAN) hand pain at 8 weeks was the primary outcome, using intention to treat analysis. We calculated costs of treatment. RESULTS: We randomized 349 participants to SSM (n = 116), SSM+S (n = 116) or SSM+PS (n = 117) and 292 (84%) provided AUSCAN Osteoarthritis Hand Index hand pain scores at the primary end point (8 weeks). All groups improved, with no mean treatment difference between groups: SSM+S vs SSM -0.5 (95% CI: -1.4, 0.4), P = 0.255; SSM+PS vs SSM -0.1 (95% CI: -1.0, 0.8), P = 0.829; and SSM+S vs SSM+PS -0.4 (95% CI: -1.4, 0.5), P = 0.378. The average 12-week costs were: SSM £586; SSM+S £738; and SSM+PS £685. CONCLUSION: There was no additional benefit of adding a thumb splint to a high-quality evidence-based, supported self-management programme for thumb OA delivered by therapists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 54744256 (http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN54744256).

Obtaining EQ-5D-5L utilities from the disease specific quality of life Alzheimer's disease scale: development and results from a mapping study.

PURPOSE: The Quality of Life Alzheimer's Disease Scale (QoL-AD) is commonly used to assess disease specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as rated by patients and their carers. For cost-effectiveness analyses, utilities based on the EQ-5D are often required. We report a new mapping algorithm to obtain EQ-5D indices when only QoL-AD data are available. METHODS: Different statistical models to estimate utility directly, or responses to individual EQ-5D questions (response mapping) from QoL-AD, were trialled for patient-rated and proxy-rated questionnaires. Model performance was assessed by root mean square error and mean absolute error. RESULTS: The response model using multinomial regression including age and sex, performed best in both the estimation dataset and an independent dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The recommended mapping algorithm allows researchers for the first time to estimate EQ-5D values from QoL-AD data, enabling cost-utility analyses using datasets where the QoL-AD but no utility measures were collected.

Current practice in analysing and reporting binary outcome data-a review of randomised controlled trial reports.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) need to be reported so that their results can be unambiguously and robustly interpreted. Binary outcomes yield unique challenges, as different analytical approaches may produce relative, absolute, or no treatment effects, and results may be particularly sensitive to the assumptions made about missing data. This review of recently published RCTs aimed to identify the methods used to analyse binary primary outcomes, how missing data were handled, and how the results were reported. METHODS: Systematic review of reports of RCTs published in January 2019 that included a binary primary outcome measure. We identified potentially eligible English language papers on PubMed, without restricting by journal or medical research area. Papers reporting the results from individually randomised, parallel-group RCTs were included. RESULTS: Two hundred reports of RCTs were included in this review. We found that 64% of the 200 reports used a chi-squared-style test as their primary analytical method. Fifty-five per cent (95% confidence interval 48% to 62%) reported at least one treatment effect measure, and 38% presented only a p value without any treatment effect measure. Missing data were not always adequately described and were most commonly handled using available case analysis (69%) in the 140 studies that reported missing data. Imputation and best/worst-case scenarios were used in 21% of studies. Twelve per cent of articles reported an appropriate sensitivity analysis for missing data. CONCLUSIONS: The statistical analysis and reporting of treatment effects in reports of randomised trials with a binary primary endpoint requires substantial improvement. Only around half of the studied reports presented a treatment effect measure, hindering the understanding and dissemination of the findings. We also found that published trials often did not clearly describe missing data or sensitivity analyses for these missing data. Practice for secondary endpoints or observational studies may differ.

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference -1·3 points (95% CI -3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5-5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8-6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). INTERPRETATION: Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. FUNDING: Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England).

Multiple imputation for patient reported outcome measures in randomised controlled trials: advantages and disadvantages of imputing at the item, subscale or composite score level.

BACKGROUND: Missing data can introduce bias in the results of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), but are typically unavoidable in pragmatic clinical research, especially when patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used. Traditionally applied to the composite PROMs score of multi-item instruments, some recent research suggests that multiple imputation (MI) at the item level may be preferable under certain scenarios. This paper presents practical guidance on the choice of MI models for handling missing PROMs data based on the characteristics of the trial dataset. The comparative performance of complete cases analysis, which is commonly used in the analysis of RCTs, is also considered. METHODS: Realistic missing at random data were simulated using follow-up data from an RCT considering three different PROMs (Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L), 12-item Short Form Survey (SF-12)). Data were multiply imputed at the item (using ordinal logit and predicted mean matching models), sub-scale and score level; unadjusted mean outcomes, as well as treatment effects from linear regression models were obtained for 1000 simulations. Performance was assessed by root mean square errors (RMSE) and mean absolute errors (MAE). RESULTS: Convergence problems were observed for MI at the item level. Performance generally improved with increasing sample sizes and lower percentages of missing data. Imputation at the score and subscale level outperformed imputation at the item level in small sample sizes (n ≤ 200). Imputation at the item level is more accurate for high proportions of item-nonresponse. All methods provided similar results for large sample sizes (≥500) in this particular case study. CONCLUSIONS: Many factors, including the prevalence of missing data in the study, sample size, the number of items within the PROM and numbers of levels within the individual items, and planned analyses need consideration when choosing an imputation model for missing PROMs data.

Correction to: multiple imputation for patient reported outcome measures in randomised controlled trials: advantages and disadvantages of imputing at the item, subscale or composite score level.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors reported that the following notation wasn't used consistently.

Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision. RESULTS: A total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n = 166; control n = 158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials (n = 94; n = 103). Over a third (39%; n = 127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic (n = 43; n = 50), pragmatic (n = 20; n = 16) and cluster (n = 10; n = 9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01891448 [registered 24 May 2013].

The current practice of handling and reporting missing outcome data in eight widely used PROMs in RCT publications: a review of the current literature.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are designed to assess patients' perceived health states or health-related quality of life. However, PROMs are susceptible to missing data, which can affect the validity of conclusions from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). This review aims to assess current practice in the handling, analysis and reporting of missing PROMs outcome data in RCTs compared to contemporary methodology and guidance. METHODS: This structured review of the literature includes RCTs with a minimum of 50 participants per arm. Studies using the EQ-5D-3L, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-12 and SF-36 were included if published in 2013; those using the less commonly implemented HUI, OHS, OKS and PDQ were included if published between 2009 and 2013. RESULTS: The review included 237 records (4-76 per relevant PROM). Complete case analysis and single imputation were commonly used in 33 and 15 % of publications, respectively. Multiple imputation was reported for 9 % of the PROMs reviewed. The majority of publications (93 %) failed to describe the assumed missing data mechanism, while low numbers of papers reported methods to minimise missing data (23 %), performed sensitivity analyses (22 %) or discussed the potential influence of missing data on results (16 %). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable discrepancy exists between approved methodology and current practice in handling, analysis and reporting of missing PROMs outcome data in RCTs. Greater awareness is needed for the potential biases introduced by inappropriate handling of missing data, as well as the importance of sensitivity analysis and clear reporting to enable appropriate assessments of treatment effects and conclusions from RCTs.

Randomized feasibility study of an autologous protein solution versus corticosteroids injection for treating subacromial pain in the primary care setting - the SPiRIT trial.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of recruiting and retaining patients to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing corticosteroid injection (CSI) to autologous protein solution (APS) injection for the treatment of subacromial shoulder pain in a community care setting. The study focused on recruitment rates and retention of participants throughout, and collected data on the interventions' safety and efficacy. Methods: Participants were recruited from two community musculoskeletal treatment centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if aged 18 years or older, and had a clinical diagnosis of subacromial impingement syndrome which the treating clinician thought was suitable for treatment with a subacromial injection. Consenting patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to a patient-blinded subacromial injection of CSI (standard care) or APS. The primary outcome measures of this study relate to rates of recruitment, retention, and compliance with intervention and follow-up to determine feasibility. Secondary outcome measures relate to the safety and efficacy of the interventions. Results: A total of 53 patients were deemed eligible, and 50 patients (94%) recruited between April 2022 and October 2022. Overall, 49 patients (98%) complied with treatment. Outcome data were collected in 100% of participants at three months and 94% at six months. There were no significant adverse events. Both groups demonstrated improvement in patient-reported outcome measures over the six-month period. Conclusion: Our study shows that it is feasible to recruit to a patient-blinded randomized controlled trial comparing APS and CSI for subacromial pain in terms of clinical outcomes and health-resource use in the UK. Safety and efficacy data are presented.

The protocol of a clinical effectiveness trial comparing standard step-up care, early combination DMARD therapy and early use of TNF inhibitors for the treatment of moderate to severe psoriatic arthritis: the 3-arm parallel group SPEED randomized controlled trial.

Objectives: The aim of the Severe Psoriatic arthritis - Early intervEntion to control Disease trial is to compare outcomes in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) patients with poor prognostic factors treated with standard step-up conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), combination csDMARDs or a course of early biologics. Design: This multicentre UK trial was embedded within the MONITOR-PsA cohort, which uses a trial within cohort design. Methods and analysis: Patients with newly diagnosed PsA and at least one poor prognostic factor (polyarthritis, C-reactive protein >5 mg/dL, health assessment questionnaire >1, radiographic erosions) were randomized equally and open-label to either standard care with 'step-up' csDMARD therapy, initial therapy with combination csDMARDs (methotrexate with either sulfasalazine or leflunomide) or to early biologics induction therapy (adalimumab plus methotrexate). The primary outcome is the PsA disease activity score at week 24. Ethics: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the South Central Research Ethics Committee (ref 18/SC/0107). Discussion: Treatment recommendations for PsA suggest more intensive therapy for those with poor prognostic factors but there are no studies that have previously used prognostic factors to guide therapy. Applying initial intensive therapy has shown improved outcomes in other inflammatory arthritides but has never been tried in PsA. Combination csDMARDs have shown some superiority over single therapies but there are limited data and concerns about side effects. Early use of biologics has also been shown to be superior to methotrexate but these drugs are costly and not usually funded first line. However, if a short course of biologics can rapidly suppress inflammation allowing treatment to be withdrawn and response maintained on methotrexate, this may be a cost-effective model for early use. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03739853) and EudraCT (2017-004542-24).

Late Treatment With Autologous Expanded Regulatory T-cell Therapy After Alemtuzumab Induction Is Safe and Facilitates Immunosuppression Minimization in Living Donor Renal Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The TWO Study (Transplantation Without Overimmunosuppression) aimed to investigate a novel approach to regulatory T-cell (Treg) therapy in renal transplant patients, using a delayed infusion protocol at 6 mo posttransplant to promote a Treg-skewed lymphocyte repopulation after alemtuzumab induction. We hypothesized that this would allow safe weaning of immunosuppression to tacrolimus alone. The COVID-19 pandemic led to the suspension of alemtuzumab use, and therefore, we report the unique cohort of 7 patients who underwent the original randomized controlled trial protocol. This study presents a unique insight into Treg therapy combined with alemtuzumab and is therefore an important proof of concept for studies in other diseases that are considering lymphodepletion. METHODS: Living donor kidney transplant recipients were randomized to receive autologous polyclonal Treg at week 26 posttransplantation, coupled with weaning doses of tacrolimus, (Treg therapy arm) or standard immunosuppression alone (tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil). Primary outcomes were patient survival and rejection-free survival. RESULTS: Successful cell manufacturing and cryopreservation until the 6-mo infusion were achieved. Patient and transplant survival was 100%. Acute rejection-free survival was 100% in the Treg-treated group at 18 mo after transplantation. Although alemtuzumab caused a profound depletion of all lymphocytes, including Treg, after cell therapy infusion, there was a transient increase in peripheral Treg numbers. CONCLUSIONS: The study establishes that delayed autologous Treg therapy is both feasible and safe, even 12 mo after cell production. The findings present a new treatment protocol for Treg therapy, potentially expanding its applications to other indications.

Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST): protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing three splints for finger flexor tendon repairs.

BACKGROUND: Without surgical repair, flexor tendon injuries do not heal and patients' ability to bend fingers and grip objects is impaired. However, flexor tendon repair surgery also requires optimal rehabilitation. There are currently three custom-made splints used in the rehabilitation of zone I/II flexor tendon repairs, each with different assumed harm/benefit profiles: the dorsal forearm and hand-based splint (long), the Manchester short splint (short), and the relative motion flexion splint (mini). There is, however, no robust evidence as to which splint, if any, is most clinical or cost effective. The Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST) was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: FIRST is a parallel group, superiority, analyst-blind, multi-centre, individual participant-randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1:1 to receive either the long, short, or mini splint. We aim to recruit 429 participants undergoing rehabilitation following zone I/II flexor tendon repair surgery. Potential participants will initially be identified prior to surgery, in NHS hand clinics across the UK, and consented and randomised at their splint fitting appointment post-surgery. The primary outcome will be the mean post-randomisation score on the patient-reported wrist and hand evaluation measure (PRWHE), assessed at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include blinded grip strength and active range of movement (AROM) assessments, adverse events, adherence to the splinting protocol (measured via temperature sensors inserted into the splints), quality of life assessment, and further patient-reported outcomes. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of each splint, and a qualitative sub-study will evaluate participants' preferences for, and experiences of wearing, the splints. Furthermore, a mediation analysis will determine the relationship between patient preferences, splint adherence, and splint effectiveness. DISCUSSION: FIRST will compare the three splints with respect to clinical efficacy, complications, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. FIRST is a pragmatic trial which will recruit from 26 NHS sites to allow findings to be generalisable to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant insights into patient experiences of splint wear and how adherence to splinting may impact outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 10236011.

Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment on COVID-19 vaccine response in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is the first-line treatment for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and reduces vaccine-induced immunity. We evaluated if a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination improved antibody response against the S1 receptor binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. METHOD: We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, superiority trial in secondary-care rheumatology and dermatology clinics in 26 hospitals in the UK. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases taking methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months, who had received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralised validated computer program, to temporarily suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination or continue treatment as usual. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after COVID-19 booster vaccination and was assessed masked to group assignment. All randomly assigned patients were included in primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN11442263; following a pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early. FINDING: Between Sept 30, 2021, and March 7, 2022, we screened 685 individuals, of whom 383 were randomly assigned: to either suspend methotrexate (n=191; mean age 58·8 years [SD 12·5], 118 [62%] women and 73 [38%] men) or to continue methotrexate (n=192; mean age 59·3 years [11·9], 117 [61%] women and 75 [39%] men). At 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 25 413 U/mL (95% CI 22 227-29 056) in the suspend methotrexate group and 12 326 U/mL (10 538-14 418) in the continue methotrexate group with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·08 (95% CI 1·59-2·70; p<0·0001). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases enhanced antibody responses after COVID-19 booster vaccination that were sustained at 12 weeks and 26 weeks. There was a temporary increase in inflammatory disease flares, mostly self-managed. The choice to suspend methotrexate should be individualised based on disease status and vulnerability to severe outcomes from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Where next for partial randomisation of research funding? The feasibility of RCTs and alternatives.

We outline essential considerations for any study of partial randomisation of research funding, and consider scenarios in which randomised controlled trials (RCTs) would be feasible and appropriate. We highlight the interdependence of target outcomes, sample availability and statistical power for determining the cost and feasibility of a trial. For many choices of target outcome, RCTs may be less practical and more expensive than they at first appear (in large part due to issues pertaining to sample size and statistical power). As such, we briefly discuss alternatives to RCTs. It is worth noting that many of the considerations relevant to experiments on partial randomisation may also apply to other potential experiments on funding processes (as described in The Experimental Research Funder's Handbook. RoRI, June 2022).