High-dose dual-antibiotic loaded cement for hip hemiarthroplasty in the UK (WHiTE 8): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture is the most common injury requiring treatment in hospital. Controversy exists regarding the use of antibiotic loaded bone cement in hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty. We aimed to compare the rate of deep surgical site infection in patients receiving high-dose dual-antibiotic loaded cement versus standard care single-antibiotic loaded cement. METHODS: We included people aged 60 years and older with a hip fracture attending 26 UK hospitals in this randomised superiority trial. Participants undergoing cemented hemiarthroplasty were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either a standard care single-antibiotic loaded cement or high-dose dual-antibiotic loaded cement. Participants and outcome assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was deep surgical site infection at 90 days post-randomisation as defined by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in an as-randomised population of consenting participants with available data at 120 days. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, mortality, antibiotic use, mobility, and residential status at day 120. The trial is registered with ISRCTN15606075. FINDINGS: Between Aug 17, 2018, and Aug 5, 2021, 4936 participants were randomly assigned to either standard care single-antibiotic loaded cement (2453 participants) or high-dose dual-antibiotic loaded cement (2483 participants). 38 (1·7%) of 2183 participants with follow-up data in the single-antibiotic loaded cement group had a deep surgical site infection by 90 days post-randomisation, as did 27 (1·2%) of 2214 participants in the high-dose dual-antibiotic loaded cement group (adjusted odds ratio 1·43; 95% CI 0·87-2·35; p=0·16). INTERPRETATION: In this trial, the use of high-dose dual-antibiotic loaded cement did not reduce the rate of deep surgical site deep infection among people aged 60 years or older receiving a hemiarthroplasty for intracapsular fracture of the hip. FUNDING: Heraeus Medical. Supported by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

A randomized trial of normothermic preservation in liver transplantation.

Liver transplantation is a highly successful treatment, but is severely limited by the shortage in donor organs. However, many potential donor organs cannot be used; this is because sub-optimal livers do not tolerate conventional cold storage and there is no reliable way to assess organ viability preoperatively. Normothermic machine perfusion maintains the liver in a physiological state, avoids cooling and allows recovery and functional testing. Here we show that, in a randomized trial with 220 liver transplantations, compared to conventional static cold storage, normothermic preservation is associated with a 50% lower level of graft injury, measured by hepatocellular enzyme release, despite a 50% lower rate of organ discard and a 54% longer mean preservation time. There was no significant difference in bile duct complications, graft survival or survival of the patient. If translated to clinical practice, these results would have a major impact on liver transplant outcomes and waiting list mortality.

Immobilisation of torus fractures of the wrist in children (FORCE): a randomised controlled equivalence trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The most common fractures in children are torus (buckle) fractures of the wrist. Controversy exists over treatment, which ranges from splint immobilisation and discharge to cast immobilisation, follow-up, and repeat imaging. This study compared pain and function in affected children offered a soft bandage and immediate discharge with those receiving rigid immobilisation and follow-up as per treating centre protocol. METHODS: In this randomised controlled equivalence trial we included 965 children (aged 4-15 years) with a distal radius torus fracture from 23 hospitals in the UK. Children were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the offer of bandage group or rigid immobilisation group using bespoke web-based randomisation software. Treating clinicians, participants, and their families could not be masked to treatment allocation. Exclusion criteria included multiple injuries, diagnosis at more than 36 h after injury, and inability to complete follow-up. The primary outcome was pain at 3-days post-randomisation measured using Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale. We performed a modified intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis. The trial was registered with ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13955395. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2019, and July 13, 2020, 965 children were randomly allocated to a group, 489 to the offer of a bandage group and 476 to the rigid immobilisation group, 379 (39%) were girls and 586 (61%) were boys. Primary outcome data was collected for 908 (94%) of participants, all of whom were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Pain was equivalent at 3 days with 3·21 points (SD 2·08) in the offer of bandage group versus 3·14 points (2·11) in the rigid immobilisation group. With reference to a prespecified equivalence margin of 1·0, the adjusted difference in the intention-to-treat population was -0·10 (95% CI -0·37 to 0·17) and-0·06 (95% CI -0·34 to 0·21) in the per-protocol population. INTERPRETATION: This trial found equivalence in pain at 3 days in children with a torus fracture of the distal radius assigned to the offer of a bandage group or the rigid immobilisation group, with no between-group differences in pain or function during the 6 weeks of follow-up. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Economic costs, health-related quality of life outcomes and cost-utility of a physical and psychological group intervention targeted at older adults with neurogenic claudication.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that structured and progressive exercise underpinned by a cognitive behavioural approach can improve functional outcomes in patients with neurogenic claudication (NC). However, evidence surrounding its economic benefits is lacking. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the economic costs, health-related quality of life outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a physical and psychological group intervention (BOOST programme) versus best practice advice (BPA) in older adults with NC. METHODS: An economic evaluation was conducted based on data from a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial. The base-case economic evaluation took the form of an intention-to-treat analysis conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services (PSS) perspective and separately from a societal perspective. Costs (£ 2018-2019 prices) were collected prospectively over a 12 month follow-up period. A bivariate regression of costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with multiple imputation of missing data, was conducted to estimate the incremental cost per QALY gained and the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of the BOOST programme in comparison to BPA. Sensitivity and pre-specified subgroup analyses explored uncertainty and heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness estimates. RESULTS: Participants (N = 435) were randomised to the BOOST programme (n = 292) or BPA (n = 143). Mean (standard error [SE]) NHS and PSS costs over 12 months were £1,974 (£118) in the BOOST arm versus £1,827 (£169) in the BPA arm (p = 0.474). Mean (SE) QALY estimates were 0.620 (0.009) versus 0.599 (0.006), respectively (p = 0.093). The probability that the BOOST programme is cost-effective ranged between 67 and 83% (NHS and PSS perspective) and 79-89% (societal perspective) at cost-effectiveness thresholds between £15,000 and £30,000 per QALY gained. INMBs ranged between £145 and £464 at similar cost-effectiveness thresholds. The cost-effectiveness results remained robust to sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The BOOST programme resulted in modest QALY gains over the 12 month follow-up period. Future studies with longer intervention and follow-up periods are needed to address uncertainty around the health-related quality of life impacts and cost-effectiveness of such programmes. Trial registration This study has been registered in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, reference number ISRCTN12698674. Registered on 10 November 2015.

Progressive exercise compared with best practice advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, for the treatment of patients with rotator cuff disorders (GRASP): a multicentre, pragmatic, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid injections and physiotherapy exercise programmes are commonly used to treat rotator cuff disorders but the treatments' effectiveness is uncertain. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme with a single session of best practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial (2 × 2 factorial), we recruited patients from 20 UK National Health Service trusts. We included patients aged 18 years or older with a rotator cuff disorder (new episode within the past 6 months). Patients were excluded if they had a history of significant shoulder trauma (eg, dislocation, fracture, or full-thickness tear requiring surgery), neurological disease affecting the shoulder, other shoulder conditions (eg, inflammatory arthritis, frozen shoulder, or glenohumeral joint instability), received corticosteroid injection or physiotherapy for shoulder pain in the past 6 months, or were being considered for surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (centralised computer-generated system, 1:1:1:1) to progressive exercise (≤6 sessions), best practice advice (one session), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise, or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (statistical significance set at 1%). The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ISRCTN16539266, and EuDRACT, 2016-002991-28. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2017, and May 2, 2019, we screened 2287 patients. 708 patients were randomly assigned to progressive exercise (n=174), best practice advice (n=174), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n=182), or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (n=178). Over 12 months, SPADI data were available for 166 (95%) patients in the progressive exercise group, 164 (94%) in the best practice advice group, 177 (97%) in the corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise group, and 175 (98%) in the corticosteroid injection then best practice advice group. We found no evidence of a difference in SPADI score between progressive exercise and best practice advice when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -0·66 [99% CI -4·52 to 3·20]). We also found no evidence of a difference between corticosteroid injection compared with no injection when analysed over 12 months (-1·11 [-4·47 to 2·26]). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best practice advice session with a physiotherapist in improving shoulder pain and function. Subacromial corticosteroid injection provided no long-term benefit in patients with rotator cuff disorders. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment Programme.

Intravenous iron to treat anaemia following critical care: a multicentre feasibility randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia is common and associated with poor outcomes in survivors of critical illness. However, the optimal treatment strategy is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, feasibility RCT to compare either a single dose of ferric carboxymaltose 1000 mg i.v. or usual care in patients being discharged from the ICU with moderate or severe anaemia (haemoglobin ≤100 g L-1). We collected data on feasibility (recruitment, randomisation, follow-up), biological efficacy, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Ninety-eight participants were randomly allocated (49 in each arm). The overall recruitment rate was 34% with 6.5 participants recruited on average per month. Forty-seven of 49 (96%) participants received the intervention. Patient-reported outcome measures were available for 79/93 (85%) survivors at 90 days. Intravenous iron resulted in a higher mean (standard deviation [sd]) haemoglobin at 28 days (119.8 [13.3] vs 106.7 [14.9] g L-1) and 90 days (130.5 [15.1] vs 122.7 [17.3] g L-1), adjusted mean difference (10.98 g L-1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.96-17.01; P<0.001) over 90 days after randomisation. Infection rates were similar in both groups. Hospital readmissions at 90 days post-ICU discharge were lower in the i.v. iron group (7/40 vs 15/39; risk ratio=0.46; 95% CI, 0.21-0.99; P=0.037). The median (inter-quartile range) post-ICU hospital stay was shorter in the i.v. iron group but did not reach statistical significance (5.0 [3.0-13.0] vs 9.0 [5.0-16.0] days, P=0.15). CONCLUSION: A large, multicentre RCT of i.v. iron to treat anaemia in survivors of critical illness appears feasible and is necessary to determine the effects on patient-centred outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13721808 (www.isrctn.com).

Plaster cast versus functional brace for non-surgical treatment of Achilles tendon rupture (UKSTAR): a multicentre randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Achilles tendon rupture who have non-operative treatment have traditionally been treated with immobilisation of the tendon in plaster casts for several weeks. Functional bracing is an alternative non-operative treatment that allows earlier mobilisation, but evidence on its effectiveness and safety is scarce. The aim of the UKSTAR trial was to compare functional and quality-of-life outcomes and resource use in patients treated non-operatively with plaster cast versus functional brace. METHODS: UKSTAR was a pragmatic, superiority, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at 39 hospitals in the UK. Patients (aged ≥16 years) who were being treated non-operatively for a primary Achilles tendon rupture at the participating centres were potentially eligible. The exclusion criteria were presenting more than 14 days after injury, previous rupture of the same Achilles tendon, or being unable to complete the questionnaires. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a plaster cast or functional brace using a centralised web-based system. Because the interventions were clearly visible, neither patients nor clinicians could be masked. Participants wore the intervention for 8 weeks. The primary outcome was patient-reported Achilles tendon rupture score (ATRS) at 9 months, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (all patients in the groups to which they were allocated, excluding participants who withdrew or died before providing any outcome data). The main safety outcome was the incidence of tendon re-rupture. Resource use was recorded from a health and personal social care perspective. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN62639639. FINDINGS: Between Aug 15, 2016, and May 31, 2018, 1451 patients were screened, of whom 540 participants (mean age 48·7 years, 79% male) were randomly allocated to receive plaster cast (n=266) or functional brace (n=274). 527 (98%) of 540 were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, and 13 (2%) were excluded because they withdrew or died before providing any outcome data. There was no difference in ATRS at 9 months post injury (cast group n=244, mean ATRS 74∙4 [SD 19∙8]; functional brace group n=259, ATRS 72∙8 [20∙4]; adjusted mean difference -1∙38 [95% CI -4∙9 to 2∙1], p=0·44). There was no difference in the rate of re-rupture of the tendon (17 [6%] of 266 in the plaster cast group vs 13 [5%] of 274 in the functional brace group, p=0·40). The mean total health and personal social care cost was £1181 for the plaster cast group and £1078 for the functional bract group (mean between-group difference -£103 [95% CI -289 to 84]). INTERPRETATION: Traditional plaster casting was not found to be superior to early weight-bearing in a functional brace, as measured by ATRS, in the management of patients treated non-surgically for Achilles tendon rupture. Clinicians may consider the use of early weight-bearing in a functional brace as a safe and cost-effective alternative to plaster casting. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

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).

Characteristics of L-PRP preparations for treating Achilles tendon rupture within the PATH-2 study.

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous preparation that has been claimed to improve healing and mechanobiological properties of tendons both in vitro and in vivo. In this sub-study from the PATH-2 (PRP in Achilles Tendon Healing-2) trial, we report the cellular and growth factor content and quality of the Leukocyte-rich PRP (L-PRP) (N = 103) prepared using a standardized commercial preparation method across 19 different UK centers. Baseline whole blood cell counts (red cells, leukocyte and platelets) demonstrated that the two groups were well-matched. L-PRP analysis gave a mean platelet count of 852.6 x 109/L (SD 438.96), a mean leukocyte cell count of 15.13 x 109/L (SD 10.28) and a mean red blood cell count of 0.91 x 1012/L (SD 1.49). The activation status of the L-PRP gave either low or high expression levels of the degranulation marker CD62p before and after ex-vivo platelet activation respectively. TGF-ß, VEGF, PDGF, IGF and FGFb mean concentrations were 131.92 ng/ml, 0.98 ng/ml, 55.34 ng/ml, 78.2 ng/ml and 111.0 pg/ml respectively with expected correlations with both platelet and leukocyte counts. While PATH-2 results demonstrated that there was no evidence L-PRP is effective for improving clinical outcomes at 24 weeks after Achilles tendon rupture, our findings support that the majority of L-PRP properties were within the method specification and performance.

Effect of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy vs Standard Wound Dressing on Deep Surgical Site Infection After Surgery for Lower Limb Fractures Associated With Major Trauma: The WHIST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Following surgery to treat major trauma-related fractures, deep wound infection rates are high. It is not known if negative pressure wound therapy can reduce infection rates in this setting. Objective: To assess outcomes in patients who have incisions resulting from surgery for lower limb fractures related to major trauma and were treated with either incisional negative pressure wound therapy or standard wound dressing. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial conducted at 24 trauma hospitals representing the UK Major Trauma Network that included 1548 patients aged 16 years or older who underwent surgery for a lower limb fracture caused by major trauma from July 7, 2016, through April 17, 2018, with follow-up to December 11, 2018. Interventions: Incisional negative pressure wound therapy (n = 785), which involved a specialized dressing used to create negative pressure over the wound, vs standard wound dressing not involving negative pressure (n = 763). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was deep surgical site infection at 30 days diagnosed according to the criteria from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. A preplanned secondary analysis of the primary outcome was performed at 90 days. The secondary outcomes were patient-reported disability (Disability Rating Index), health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5-level EQ-5D), surgical scar assessment (Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale), and chronic pain (Douleur Neuropathique Questionnaire) at 3 and 6 months, as well as other local wound healing complications at 30 days. Results: Among 1548 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 49.8 [20.3] years; 561 [36%] were aged ≤40 years; 583 [38%] women; and 881 [57%] had multiple injuries), 1519 (98%) had data available for the primary outcome. At 30 days, deep surgical site infection occurred in 5.84% (45 of 770 patients) of the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group and in 6.68% (50 of 749 patients) of the standard wound dressing group (odds ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.57 to 1.33]; absolute risk difference, -0.77% [95% CI, -3.19% to 1.66%]; P = .52). There was no significant difference in the deep surgical site infection rate at 90 days (11.4% [72 of 629 patients] in the incisional negative pressure wound therapy group vs 13.2% [78 of 590 patients] in the standard wound dressing group; odds ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.19]; absolute risk difference, -1.76% [95% CI, -5.41% to 1.90%]; P = .32). For the 5 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, there were no significant differences at any time point. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who underwent surgery for major trauma-related lower limb fractures, use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy, compared with standard wound dressing, resulted in no significant difference in the rate of deep surgical site infection. The findings do not support the use of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in this setting, although the event rate at 30 days was lower than expected. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN12702354.

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). CONCLUSION: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Single arm NCRI phase II study of CHOP in combination with Ofatumumab in induction and maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed Richter's syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Transformation of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (B-CLL) to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Richter's syndrome (RS)) is a rare (2-15% of patients) but catastrophic complication of B-CLL. Dose-intense chemotherapy regimens investigated in small single institution trials, but with the exception of bone marrow transplantation for a minority of patients, little has improved the median overall survival of patients with RS beyond eight months. Patients are often elderly, immunosuppressed, possess co-morbidities and have a deteriorating performance status. TP53 disruption is a common molecular abnormality noted in RS and contributes to the tumour's chemotherapy resistance. Ofatumumab is a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal IgG1κ antibody that targets a unique epitope on B lymphocytes. It has displayed increased binding affinity and a longer dissociation time when compared to rituximab resulting in improved complement dependent cellular cytotoxicity (CDCC); a mechanism with the potential to overcome apoptosis-resistance in TP53 disruption. Given the prevalence of TP53 disruption in RS, Ofatumumab was considered a relatively non-toxic agent with a sound rationale to test in a prospective multicentre trial as an adjunct to CHOP induction and subsequent ofatumumab maintenance therapy in responding patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The CHOP-OR study is a prospective phase II study to evaluate the safety, feasibility and activity of a CHOP chemotherapy in combination with ofatumumab in induction and subsequent maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed RS. The primary objective will be the overall response rate (ORR) in patients with RS after six cycles of CHOP-O. The secondary objectives include feasibility of recruitment, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The study will be accompanied by exploratory analysis of the genomic landscape of RS in newly diagnosed patients. DISCUSSION: The CHOP-OR trial evaluates the safety, feasibility and activity of CHOP plus Ofatumumab induction and Ofatumumab maintenance in new RS patients. The study is currently recruiting and has met the interim analysis criteria, with more than 7 of the first 25 participants achieving a CR or PR after six cycles of CHOP-O. The study has the potential to identify predictive biomarkers for this treatment modality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01171378.

Gefitinib for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy (COG): a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. METHODS: For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0-2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. FINDINGS: Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23-4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97-4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74-1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference -8·61, 95% CI -14·49 to -2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI -2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (-3·18, 95% CI -8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (-4·11, 95% CI -9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23-1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07-1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). INTERPRETATION: The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

FOXFIRE protocol: an open-label, randomised, phase III trial of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and folinic acid (OxMdG) with or without interventional Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common malignancy in Europe and a leading cause of cancer-related death. Almost 50% of patients with CRC develop liver metastases, which heralds a poor prognosis unless metastases can be downsized to surgical resection or ablation. The FOXFIRE trial examines the hypothesis that combining radiosensitising chemotherapy (OxMdG: oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and folic acid) with Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT or radioembolisation) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres®; Sirtex Medical Limited, North Sydney, Australia) as a first-line treatment for liver-dominant metastatic CRC will improve clinical outcomes when compared to OxMdG chemotherapy alone. METHODS/DESIGN: FOXFIRE is an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of OxMdG with or without the addition of SIRT (1:1 randomisation). Eligible adult patients have histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma, liver metastases measurable on computed tomography scan and untreatable by either surgical resection or local ablation, and they may have limited extra-hepatic disease, defined as ≤5 nodules in the lung and/or one other metastatic site which is amenable to future definitive treatment. Eligible patients may have received adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of the primary tumour, but are not permitted to have previously received chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and must have a life expectancy of ≥3 months and a WHO performance status of 0-1. The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include progression free survival (PFS), liver-specific PFS, patient-reported outcomes, safety, response rate, resection rate and cost-effectiveness. FOXFIRE shares a combined statistical analysis plan with an international sister trial called SIRFLOX. DISCUSSION: This trial is establishing a network of SIRT centres and 'feeder' chemotherapy-only centres to standardise the delivery of SIRT across the whole of the UK and to provide greater equity of access to this highly specialised liver-directed therapy. The FOXFIRE trial will establish the potential role of adding SIRT to first-line chemotherapy for unresectable liver metastatic colorectal cancer, and the impact on current treatment paradigms for metastatic CRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN83867919.

A phase II clinical trial of 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) and methotrexate in patients with BRCA defective tumours: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are critical in homologous recombination DNA repair and have been implicated in familial breast and ovarian cancer tumorigenesis. Tumour cells with these mutations demonstrate increased sensitivity to cisplatin and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 6MP was identified in a screen for novel drugs and found to selectively kill BRCA-defective cells in a xenograft model as effectively as the PARP inhibitor AGO14699, even after these cells had acquired resistance to a PARP inhibitor or cisplatin. Exploiting the genetic basis of these tumours enables us to develop a more tailored approach to therapy for patients with BRCA mutated cancers. METHODS: This multi-centre phase II single arm trial was designed to investigate the activity and safety of 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) 55 mg/m² per day, and methotrexate 15 mg/m² per week in patients with advanced breast or ovarian cancer, ECOG PS 0-2, progressing after ≥ one prior regimen and known to bear a BRCA1/2 germ line mutation. Accrual was planned in two stages, with treatment continuing until progression or unacceptable toxicity; in the first, if less than 3/30 evaluable patients respond at 8 weeks after commencing treatment, the trial will be stopped for futility; if not, then accrual would proceed to a second stage, in which if more than 9/65 evaluable patients are found to respond at 8 weeks, the treatment will be regarded as potentially effective and a phase III trial considered subject to satisfactory safety and tolerability. The primary outcome is objective response at 8 weeks, defined by RECISTS v1.1 as complete response, partial response or stable disease. Secondary outcomes include safety, progression- free and overall survival, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This study aims to investigate whether 6MP might be an effective treatment for BRCA deficient tumours even after the development of resistance to PARP inhibitors or platinum drugs. The study has surpassed the first stage analysis criteria of more than 3 out of 30 evaluable patients responding at 8 weeks, and is currently in the second stage of recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01432145 http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov.

Good Statistical Practice-development of tailored Good Clinical Practice training for statisticians.

BACKGROUND: Statisticians are fundamental in ensuring clinical research, including clinical trials, are conducted with quality, transparency, reproducibility and integrity. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is an international quality standard for the conduct of clinical trials research. Statisticians are required to undertake training on GCP but existing training is generic and, crucially, does not cover statistical activities. This results in statisticians undertaking training mostly unrelated to their role and variation in awareness and implementation of relevant regulatory requirements with regards to statistical conduct. The need for role-relevant training is recognised by the UK NHS Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). METHODS: The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project was instigated by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Registered Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) Statisticians Operational Group and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), to develop materials to enable role-specific GCP training tailored to statisticians. Review of current GCP training was undertaken by survey. Development of training materials were based on MHRA GCP. Critical review and piloting was conducted with UKCRC CTU and NIHR researchers with comment from MHRA. Final review was conducted through the UKCRC CTU Statistics group. RESULTS: The survey confirmed the need and desire for the development of dedicated GCP training for statisticians. An accessible, comprehensive, piloted training package was developed tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. The training materials cover legislation and guidance for best practice across all clinical trial processes with statistical involvement, including exercises and real-life scenarios to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Comprehensive feedback was incorporated. The training materials are freely available for national and international adoption. CONCLUSION: All research staff should have training in GCP yet the training undertaken by most academic statisticians does not cover activities related to their role. The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project has developed and extensively piloted new, role-specific, comprehensive, accessible GCP training tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. This role-specific training will encourage best practice, leading to transparent and reproducible statistical activity, as required by regulatory authorities and funders.

Effectiveness of supervised versus self-directed rehabilitation for adults aged 50 years and over with ankle fractures: protocol for the AFTER trial.

Aims: Ankle fractures are common, mainly affecting adults aged 50 years and over. To aid recovery, some patients are referred to physiotherapy, but referral patterns vary, likely due to uncertainty about the effectiveness of this supervised rehabilitation approach. To inform clinical practice, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of supervised versus self-directed rehabilitation in improving ankle function for older adults with ankle fractures. Methods: This will be a multicentre, parallel-group, individually randomized controlled superiority trial. We aim to recruit 344 participants aged 50 years and older with an ankle fracture treated surgically or non-surgically from at least 20 NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomized 1:1 using a web-based service to supervised rehabilitation (four to six one-to-one physiotherapy sessions of tailored advice and prescribed home exercise over three months), or self-directed rehabilitation (provision of advice and exercise materials that participants will use to manage their recovery independently). The primary outcome is participant-reported ankle-related symptoms and function six months after randomization, measured by the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score. Secondary outcomes at two, four, and six months measure health-related quality of life, pain, physical function, self-efficacy, exercise adherence, complications, and resource use. Due to the nature of the interventions, participants and intervention providers will be unblinded to treatment allocation. Conclusion: This study will assess whether supervised rehabilitation is more effective than self-directed rehabilitation for adults aged 50 years and older after ankle fracture. The results will provide evidence to guide clinical practice. At the time of submission, the trial is currently completing recruitment, and follow-up will be completed in 2024.

Determining external randomised pilot trial feasibility in preparation for a definitive trial: a web-based survey of corresponding authors of external pilot trial publications.

BACKGROUND: External randomised pilot trials aim to determine whether a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) should be conducted, and if so, how. However, not every pilot trial that suggests that a definitive trial will be feasible will progress to a definitive study. In this study, we surveyed corresponding authors of external randomised pilot trial publications to assess pilot trial outcomes in terms of feasibility and progression. METHODS: Web-based surveys were sent to corresponding authors of external randomised pilot trial publications, open for four weeks between January and February 2022. Four surveys were produced depending on whether the corresponding author had published a trial protocol or results publication, and whether progression criteria were reported. Surveys asked whether a future RCT was considered feasible, whether progression criteria were met (if applicable), what other factors informed the assessment of pilot trial feasibility, and whether the pilot trial has progressed to further research. Data was analysed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. RESULTS: 98 of 276 corresponding authors completed the survey (average response rate of 36% across all surveys). Of these, 89 respondents indicated that their trial had completed. Ninety per cent of respondents who were corresponding authors of completed pilot trials stated that their pilot trial was either feasible (42/89, 47%) or feasible with changes to the trial design (38/89, 43%), yet only 66% (59/89) reported the intention to conduct a future definitive trial. Availability of funding for a future definitive trial and changing priorities of the Chief Investigator were the most common barriers to progression identified. Qualitative research findings was the most frequent factor considered both by corresponding authors who reported and who did not report progression criteria when determining trial feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: Just under one quarter (21/89, 24%) of respondents who considered their external randomised pilot trial to be feasible, or feasible with changes, did not intend to conduct a definitive trial highlighting research inefficiency and waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/d28hr [20 December 2021].

Recommendations for progression criteria during external randomised pilot trial design, conduct, analysis and reporting.

BACKGROUND: External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) is feasible. Prespecified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive RCT should be conducted. This commentary presents a set of proposed recommendations for progression criteria to guide researchers when (i) designing, (ii) conducting, (iii) analysing and (iv) reporting external randomised pilot trials. METHODS: Recommendations were developed following a mixed methods approach. This involved (i) a methodological review of pilot trial publications, (ii) a cross-sectional study of pilot trial research funding applications, (iii) qualitative interviews with pilot trial researchers and (iv) a survey of corresponding authors of identified pilot trial publications. Initial recommendations were refined following two consultation stakeholder workshops held in July 2022. Recommendations for progression criteria for external randomised pilot trials: i. DESIGN: consider progression criteria from the earliest opportunity; map progression criteria to feasibility objectives; consider quantitative and qualitative interpretations of feasibility; provide justification; develop guidelines rather than rules; seek input from relevant stakeholders. ii. Conduct: regularly monitor pilot trial data against progression criteria. iii. ANALYSIS: avoid considering each progression criterion in isolation; engage in discussion with relevant stakeholders; consider context and other factors external to the pilot trial; consider feasibility (can we?) and progression (will we?). iv. Reporting: we propose a reporting checklist in relation to progression criteria and recommend reporting in a table format for clarity. CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide a helpful resource for researchers to consider progression criteria at different stages of external randomised pilot trials. We have produced a simple infographic tool to summarise these recommendations for researchers to refer to. Further research is needed to evaluate whether these proposed recommendations should inform future development, or update, of established guidelines for the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of external randomised pilot trials.