A cross-over, randomised feasibility study of digitally-printed versus hand-painted artificial eyes in adults: PERSONAL-EYE-S.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Over 60,000 patients in the United Kingdom are estimated to have artificial eyes. Manufacturing and hand-painting of artificial eyes have not changed significantly since 1948. Delays and colour-matching issues may severely impact a patient's rehabilitation pathway. Technology advances mean alternatives are now possible. This cross-over, randomised feasibility trial aimed to determine the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of digitally-printed artificial eyes compared to hand-painted. SUBJECTS/METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years who were longstanding artificial eye users requiring a replacement were randomised to receive either a hand-painted or digitally-printed eye first followed by the other type of eye. Participants were asked to approach a close contact (CC) willing to participate alongside them. A subset of participants, their CCs, and staff were interviewed about their opinions on trial procedures, artificial eyes, delivery times and satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-five participants were randomised and 10 CCs consented. Participant retention at final follow-up was 85.7%. Outcome data completion rates ranged from 91-100%. EQ-5D-5L completion ranged from 83-97%. Resource-use completion ranged from 0-94% with total costs at £347 for hand-painted and £404 for digitally-printed eye. There were two adverse events. Twelve participants, five CCs, and five staff were interviewed. There were positive and negative features of both types of eyes. We identified that social and psychological wellbeing is affected, often for many years after eye removal. Participation in the feasibility study was well accepted. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility study outcomes indicate that a full trial is achievable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN85921622.

Cost-effectiveness of a two-layer compression bandage versus standard bandage following total knee arthroplasty.

Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a two-layer compression bandage versus a standard wool and crepe bandage following total knee arthroplasty, using patient-level data from the Knee Replacement Bandage Study (KReBS). Methods: A cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside KReBS, a pragmatic, two-arm, open label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, in terms of the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Overall, 2,330 participants scheduled for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were randomized to either a two-layer compression bandage or a standard wool and crepe bandage. Costs were estimated over a 12-month period from the UK NHS perspective, and health outcomes were reported as QALYs based on participants' EuroQol five-dimesion five-level questionnaire responses. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data and sensitivity analyses included a complete case analysis and testing of costing assumptions, with a secondary analysis exploring the inclusion of productivity losses. Results: The base case analysis found participants in the compression bandage group accrued marginally fewer QALYs, on average, compared with those in the standard bandage group (reduction of 0.0050 QALYs (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.0051 to -0.0049)), and accumulated additional mean costs (incremental cost of £52.68 per participant (95% CI 50.56 to 54.80)). Findings remained robust to assumptions tested in sensitivity analyses, although considerable uncertainty surrounded the outcome estimates. Conclusion: Use of a two-layer compression bandage is marginally less effective in terms of health-related quality of life, and more expensive when compared with a standard bandage following TKA, so therefore is unlikely to provide a cost-effective option.

Pain Reduction With Oral Methotrexate in Knee Osteoarthritis : A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for osteoarthritis (OA) are limited. Previous small studies suggest that the antirheumatic drug methotrexate may be a potential treatment for OA pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess symptomatic benefits of methotrexate in knee OA (KOA). DESIGN: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done between 13 June 2014 and 13 October 2017. (ISRCTN77854383; EudraCT: 2013-001689-41). SETTING: 15 secondary care musculoskeletal clinics in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 207 participants with symptomatic, radiographic KOA and knee pain (severity ≥4 out of 10) on most days in the past 3 months with inadequate response to current medication were approached for inclusion. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to oral methotrexate once weekly (6-week escalation 10 to 25 mg) or matched placebo over 12 months and continued usual analgesia. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was average knee pain (numerical rating scale [NRS] 0 to 10) at 6 months, with 12-month follow-up to assess longer-term response. Secondary end points included knee stiffness and function outcomes and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 155 participants (64% women; mean age, 60.9 years; 50% Kellgren-Lawrence grade 3 to 4) were randomly assigned to methotrexate (n = 77) or placebo (n = 78). Follow-up was 86% (n = 134; methotrexate: 66, placebo: 68) at 6 months. Mean knee pain decreased from 6.4 (SD, 1.80) at baseline to 5.1 (SD, 2.32) at 6 months in the methotrexate group and from 6.8 (SD, 1.62) to 6.2 (SD, 2.30) in the placebo group. The primary intention-to-treat analysis showed a statistically significant pain reduction of 0.79 NRS points in favor of methotrexate (95% CI, 0.08 to 1.51; P = 0.030). There were also statistically significant treatment group differences in favor of methotrexate at 6 months for Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index stiffness (0.60 points [CI, 0.01 to 1.18]; P = 0.045) and function (5.01 points [CI, 1.29 to 8.74]; P = 0.008). Treatment adherence analysis supported a dose-response effect. Four unrelated serious AEs were reported (methotrexate: 2, placebo: 2). LIMITATION: Not permitting oral methotrexate to be changed to subcutaneous delivery for intolerance. CONCLUSION: Oral methotrexate added to usual medications demonstrated statistically significant reduction in KOA pain, stiffness, and function at 6 months. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Versus Arthritis.

The performance of a Bayesian value-based sequential clinical trial design in the presence of an equivocal cost-effectiveness signal: evidence from the HERO trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the capacity of adaptive designs to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. However, relatively little work has investigated how economic considerations - including the costs of the trial - might inform the design and conduct of adaptive clinical trials. METHODS: We apply a recently published Bayesian model of a value-based sequential clinical trial to data from the 'Hydroxychloroquine Effectiveness in Reducing symptoms of hand Osteoarthritis' (HERO) trial. Using parameters estimated from the trial data, including the cost of running the trial, and using multiple imputation to estimate the accumulating cost-effectiveness signal in the presence of missing data, we assess when the trial would have stopped had the value-based model been used. We used re-sampling methods to compare the design's operating characteristics with those of a conventional fixed length design. RESULTS: In contrast to the findings of the only other published retrospective application of this model, the equivocal nature of the cost-effectiveness signal from the HERO trial means that the design would have stopped the trial close to, or at, its maximum planned sample size, with limited additional value delivered via savings in research expenditure. CONCLUSION: Evidence from the two retrospective applications of this design suggests that, when the cost-effectiveness signal in a clinical trial is unambiguous, the Bayesian value-adaptive design can stop the trial before it reaches its maximum sample size, potentially saving research costs when compared with the alternative fixed sample size design. However, when the cost-effectiveness signal is equivocal, the design is expected to run to, or close to, the maximum sample size and deliver limited savings in research costs.

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

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