A protocol for the conduct of a multicentre, prospective, randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures.

Aims: Fractures of the humeral shaft represent 3% to 5% of all fractures. The most common treatment for isolated humeral diaphysis fractures in the UK is non-operative using functional bracing, which carries a low risk of complications, but is associated with a longer healing time and a greater risk of nonunion than surgery. There is an increasing trend to surgical treatment, which may lead to quicker functional recovery and lower rates of fracture nonunion than functional bracing. However, surgery carries inherent risk, including infection, bleeding, and nerve damage. The aim of this trial is to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of functional bracing compared to surgical fixation for the treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Methods: The HUmeral SHaft (HUSH) fracture study is a multicentre, prospective randomized superiority trial of surgical versus non-surgical interventions for humeral shaft fractures in adult patients. Participants will be randomized to receive either functional bracing or surgery. With 334 participants, the trial will have 90% power to detect a clinically important difference for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire score, assuming 20% loss to follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include function, pain, quality of life, complications, cost-effectiveness, time off work, and ability to drive. Discussion: The results of this trial will provide evidence regarding clinical and cost-effectiveness between surgical and non-surgical treatment of humeral shaft fractures. Ethical approval has been obtained from East of England - Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee. Publication is anticipated to occur in 2024.

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.

Results of a randomised Phase II trial of olaparib, chemotherapy or olaparib and cediranib in patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: OCTOVA compared the efficacy of olaparib (O) versus weekly paclitaxel (wP) or olaparib + cediranib (O + C) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). AIMS: The main aim of the OCTOVA trial was to determine the progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus the oral combination of olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) and weekly paclitaxel (wP) in recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: In total, 139 participants who had relapsed within 12 months of platinum therapy were randomised to O (300 mg twice daily), wP (80 mg/m2 d1,8,15, q28) or O + C (300 mg twice daily/20 mg daily, respectively). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) of olaparib (O) versus olaparib plus cediranib (O + C) or weekly paclitaxel (wP). The sample size was calculated to observe a PFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.64 in favour of O + C compared to O (20% one-sided type I error, 80% power). RESULTS: The majority had platinum-resistant disease (90%), 22% prior PARPi, 34% prior anti-angiogenic therapy, 30% germline BRCA1/2 mutations. The PFS was increased for O + C vs O (O + C 5.4 mo (2.3, 9.6): O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.73; 60% CI: 0.59, 0.89; P = 0.1) and no different between wP and O (wP 3.9 m (1.9, 9.1); O 3.7 mo (1.8, 7.6) HR = 0.89, 60% CI: 0.72, 1.09; P = 0.69). The main treatment-related adverse events included manageable diarrhoea (4% Grade 3) and hypertension (4% Grade 3) in the O + C arm. DISCUSSION: OCTOVA demonstrated the activity of O + C in women with recurrent disease, offering a potential non-chemotherapy option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14784018, registered on 19th January 2018 http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN14784018 .

Physical activity and health-related quality of life of patients with chronic knee pain after total knee replacement: Analysis of the PEP-TALK trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain is a major challenge for some people after total knee replacement (TKR). The changing impact of this complication during the first post-operative year remains unclear. This analysis aimed to examine how physical activity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) evolved over the first year after TKR for patients with and without post-operative chronic knee pain. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a randomised controlled trial (PEP-TALK), which tested the effectiveness of a behaviour change physiotherapy intervention compared with usual rehabilitation after TKR. Mean UCLA Activity Score and EQ-5D-5L for participants with and without chronic knee pain (14 points or lower in the Oxford Knee Score Pain Subscale (OKS-PS) at six months post-TKR) were compared at six and 12 months post-TKR. RESULTS: Data from 83 participants were analysed. For those with chronic knee pain, UCLA Activity Score remained unchanged between baseline to six months (mean: 3.8 to 3.8), decreasing at 12 months (3.0). Those without post-operative chronic knee pain reported improved physical activity from baseline to six months (4.0 vs 4.9), plateauing at 12 months (4.9). Participants with chronic knee pain reported lower baseline HRQoL (0.28 vs 0.48). Both groups improved health utility over one year. Of those without chronic pain at six months, 8.5% returned to chronic pain by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring clinical outcomes after six months may be indicated for those at risk of chronic pain post-TKR. Further, sufficiently powered analyses are warranted to increase the generalisability of this exploratory analyses' results.

Early Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery or Intrapleural Enzyme Therapy in Pleural Infection: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial. The Third Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial-MIST-3.

Rationale: Assessing the early use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or intrapleural enzyme therapy (IET) in pleural infection requires a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT). Objectives: To establish the feasibility of randomization in a surgery-versus-nonsurgery trial as well as the key outcome measures that are important to identify relevant patient-centered outcomes in a subsequent RCT. Methods: The MIST-3 (third Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial) was a prospective multicenter RCT involving eight U.K. centers combining on-site and off-site surgical services. The study enrolled all patients with a confirmed diagnosis of pleural infection and randomized those with ongoing pleural sepsis after an initial period (as long as 24 h) of standard care to one of three treatment arms: continued standard care, early IET, or a surgical opinion with regard to early VATS. The primary outcome was feasibility based on >50% of eligible patients being successfully randomized, >95% of randomized participants retained to discharge, and >80% of randomized participants retained to 2 weeks of follow-up. The analysis was performed per intention to treat. Measurements and Main Results: Of 97 eligible patients, 60 (62%) were randomized, with 100% retained to discharge and 84% retained to 2 weeks. Baseline demographic, clinical, and microbiological characteristics of the patients were similar across groups. Median times to intervention were 1.0 and 3.5 days in the IET and surgery groups, respectively (P = 0.02). Despite the difference in time to intervention, length of stay (from randomization to discharge) was similar in both intervention arms (7 d) compared with standard care (10 d) (P = 0.70). There were no significant intergroup differences in 2-month readmission and further intervention, although the study was not adequately powered for this outcome. Compared with VATS, IET demonstrated a larger improvement in mean EuroQol five-dimension health utility index (five-level edition) from baseline (0.35) to 2 months (0.83) (P = 0.023). One serious adverse event was reported in the VATS arm. Conclusions: This is the first multicenter RCT of early IET versus early surgery in pleural infection. Despite the logistical challenges posed by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the study met its predefined feasibility criteria, demonstrated potential shortening of length of stay with early surgery, and signals toward earlier resolution of pain and a shortened recovery with IET. The study findings suggest that a definitive phase III study is feasible but highlights important considerations and significant modifications to the design that would be required to adequately assess optimal initial management in pleural infection.The trial was registered on ISRCTN (number 18,192,121).

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.

Tailored exercise management (TEMPO) versus usual care for people aged 80 years or older with hip/knee osteoarthritis: study protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Exercise is recommended for all people with osteoarthritis. However, these recommendations are based on randomised clinical trials including people with an average age between 60 and 70 years, and these findings cannot reliably be generalised to people aged 80 years or older. Rapid loss of muscle occurs after 70 years of age, and older people are more likely to also have other health conditions that contribute to difficulties with daily activities and impact on their response to exercise. To improve care for people aged 80 or older with osteoarthritis, it is thought that a tailored exercise intervention targeting both osteoarthritis and any other health conditions they have, may be needed. The aim of this study will be to test if it is possible to conduct a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for people over 80 years of age with hip/knee osteoarthritis of a tailored exercise intervention. METHODS: A multicentre, parallel, 2-group, feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study, conducted in ≥ 3 UK NHS physiotherapy outpatient services. Participants (n ≥ 50) with clinical knee and/or hip osteoarthritis and ≥ 1 comorbidity will be recruited by screening referrals to participating NHS physiotherapy outpatient services, via screening of general practice records and via identification of eligible individuals from a cohort study run by our research group. Participants will be randomised (computer-generated: 1:1) to receive either: a 12-week education and tailored exercise intervention (TEMPO); or usual care and written information. The primary feasibility objectives are to estimate: (1) ability to screen and recruit eligible participants; (2) retention of participants, measured by the proportion of participants who provide outcome data at 14-week follow-up. Secondary quantitative objectives are to estimate: (1) participant engagement assessed by physiotherapy session attendance and home exercise adherence; (2) sample size calculation for a definitive RCT. One-to-one semi-structured interviews will explore the experiences of trial participants and physiotherapists delivering the TEMPO programme. DISCUSSION: Progression criteria will be used to determine whether a definitive trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the TEMPO programme is considered feasible with or without modifications to the intervention or trial design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN75983430. Registered 3/12/2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN75983430.

Getting Recovery Right After Neck Dissection (GRRAND-F): Mixed-methods feasibility study to design a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Objective: To determine the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rehabilitation intervention following neck dissection (ND) after head and neck cancer (HNC). Design: Two-arm, open, pragmatic, parallel, multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial. Setting: Two UK NHS hospitals. Participants: People who had HNC in whom a ND was part of their care. We excluded those with a life expectancy of six months or less, pre-existing, long-term neurological disease affecting the shoulder and cognitive impairment. Intervention: Usual care (standard care supplemented with a booklet on postoperative self-management) was received by all participants. The GRRAND intervention programme consisted of usual care plus up to six individual physiotherapy sessions including neck and shoulder range of motion and progressive resistance exercises, advice and education. Between sessions, participants were advised to complete a home exercise programme. Randomisation: 1:1 randomisation. Allocation was based on minimisation, stratified by hospital site and spinal accessory nerve sacrifice. It was not possible to mask treatment received. Main outcome measures: Primary: Participant recruitment, retention and fidelity to the study protocol and interventions from study participants and staff at six months post-randomisation (and 12 months for those reaching that time-point). Secondary: clinical measures of pain, function, physical performance, health-related quality of life, health utilisation and adverse events. Results: 36 participants were recruited and enrolled. The study achieved five of its six feasibility targets. These included consent - 70% of eligible participants were consented; intervention fidelity - 78% participants discharged completed the intervention sessions; contamination - none - no participants in the control arm received the GRRAND-F intervention and retention - 8% of participants were lost to follow-up. The only feasibility target that was not achieved was the recruitment target where only 36 of the planned 60 participants were recruited over 18 months. This was principally due to the COVID-19 pandemic which caused all research activity to be paused or reduced, with a subsequent reduction in. Conclusions: Based on the findings a full-trial can now be designed to better understand whether this proposed intervention is effective. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN1197999, identifier ISRCTN11979997.

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.

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.

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].

Progressive exercise versus best practice advice for adults aged 50 years or over after ankle fracture: the AFTER pilot randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the Ankle Fracture Treatment: Enhancing Rehabilitation (AFTER) study, a multicentre external pilot parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT), was to assess feasibility of a definitive trial comparing rehabilitation approaches after ankle fracture. SETTING: Five UK National Health Service hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were aged 50 years and over with an ankle fracture requiring immobilisation for at least 4 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated 1:1 via a central web-based randomisation system to: (1) best practice advice (one session of physiotherapy, up to two optional additional advice sessions) or (2) progressive exercise (up to six sessions of physiotherapy). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility: (1) participation rate, (2) intervention adherence and (3) retention. RESULTS: Sixty-one of 112 (54%) eligible participants participated, exceeding progression criteria for participation of 25%. Recruitment progression criteria was 1.5 participants per site per month and 1.4 was observed. At least one intervention session was delivered for 28/30 (93%) of best practice advice and 28/31 (90%) of progressive exercise participants, exceeding the 85% progression criteria. For those providing follow-up data, the proportion of participants reporting performance of home exercises in the best practice advice and the progressive exercise groups at 3 months was 20/23 (87%) and 21/25 (84%), respectively. Mean time from injury to starting physiotherapy was 74.1 days (95% CI 53.9 to 94.1 days) for the best practice advice and 72.7 days (95% CI 54.7 to 88.9) for the progressive exercise group. Follow-up rate (6-month Olerud and Molander Ankle Score) was 28/30 (93%) for the best practice advice group and 26/31 (84%) in the progressive exercise group with an overall follow-up rate of 89%. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot RCT demonstrated that a definitive trial would be feasible. The main issues to address for a definitive trial are intervention modifications to enable earlier provision of rehabilitation and ensuring similar rates of follow-up in each group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16612336.

Assessing a 12-month course of oral alendronate for adults with avascular necrosis of the hip: MANTIS RCT with internal pilot.

BACKGROUND: People with avascular necrosis of the hip have very limited treatment options currently available to stop the progression of this disease; this often results in the need for a hip replacement. There is some weak evidence that a class of drugs called bisphosphonates may delay the course of the disease, and this trial was commissioned and set up to provide robust evidence regarding the use of bisphosphonates in adults aged ≥ 18 years with this condition. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the Managing Avascular Necrosis Treatments: an Interventional Study ( MANTIS ) trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 12-month course of alendronate in the treatment of avascular necrosis. DESIGN: This was a 66-month, definitive, multisite, two-arm, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot phase. SETTING: Eight secondary care NHS hospitals across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Planned trial size - 280 adult patients with avascular necrosis. INTERVENTION: Participants in the intervention group received 70 mg of alendronate (an oral bisphosphonate) weekly for 12 months. MAIN OUTCOMES: The main outcomes were Oxford Hip Score at 12 months (short-term outcome) and the time to decision that a hip replacement is required at 36 months (long-term outcome). RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were recruited and randomised to receive either the intervention drug, alendronate, or a placebo-matched tablet. LIMITATIONS: This trial was principally limited by low disease prevalence. Other limitations included the late disease stage at which participants were identified and the rapid progression of the disease. FUTURE WORK: This trial was limited by a low recruitment rate. Avascular necrosis of the hip should be treated as a rare disease. Future trials would need to recruit many more sites and recruit over a longer time period, and, for this reason, a registry may provide a more effective means of collecting data pertaining to this disease. CONCLUSIONS: The MANTIS trial was terminated at the end of the pilot phase, because it did not meet its go/no-go criteria. The main issue was a poor recruitment rate, owing to a lower than expected disease prevalence and difficulties in identifying the condition at a sufficiently early stage. Those patients who were identified and screened either were too advanced in their disease progression or were already taking medication. We would not recommend that a short-term interventional study is conducted on this condition until its prevalence, geographic foci and natural history and better understood. The difficulty of acquiring this understanding is likely to be a barrier in most health-care markets. One means of developing this understanding would be the introduction of a database/registry for patients suffering from avascular necrosis of the hip. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered as ISRCTN14015902. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 43. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?: The Managing Avascular Necrosis Treatments: an Interventional Study ( MANTIS ) trial was designed to compare ways of treating patients with avascular necrosis who are seeking to slow down the deterioration of their condition. Alendronate is a drug routinely available across the NHS in both tablet and injection form, and doctors and scientists believe that it might prevent ongoing hip deterioration and result in fewer patients requiring a total hip replacement. WHAT DID WE DO?: This trial attempted to compare alendronate taken as a tablet with an identical-looking tablet that did not contain any of the drug (a placebo) to find out if alendronate reduced the number of patients requiring a hip replacement and having pain (compared with patients who did not get alendronate). WHAT DID WE FIND?: Patients were willing to participate in the trial but we were able to recruit only a small number to the study. The main reason for this was difficulty in identifying potentially suitable patients and approaching them at the right point in their medical care. This was more challenging than anticipated, particularly because the NHS sites and professionals that patients with this condition seek out are extremely variable in the UK. It was also difficult to locate and identify patients with the condition at an early enough stage, and before they had already started taking the drug. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?: More information on patients with this rare condition, such as NHS referral pathways, and an understanding of how the condition progresses may help to improve our understanding of this patient group. This information could also help us determine whether or not there is scope to carry out the study in a different way that might enable these patients to be more easily identified.

Platelet-rich plasma injection for acute Achilles tendon rupture : two-year follow-up of the PATH-2 randomized, placebo-controlled, superiority trial.

AIMS: To determine whether platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection improves outcomes two years after acute Achilles tendon rupture. METHODS: A randomized multicentre two-arm parallel-group, participant- and assessor-blinded superiority trial was undertaken. Recruitment commenced on 28 July 2015 and two-year follow-up was completed in 21 October 2019. Participants were 230 adults aged 18 years and over, with acute Achilles tendon rupture managed with non-surgical treatment from 19 UK hospitals. Exclusions were insertion or musculotendinous junction injuries, major leg injury or deformity, diabetes, platelet or haematological disorder, medication with systemic corticosteroids, anticoagulation therapy treatment, and other contraindicating conditions. Participants were randomized via a central online system 1:1 to PRP or placebo injection. The main outcome measure was Achilles Tendon Rupture Score (ATRS) at two years via postal questionnaire. Other outcomes were pain, recovery goal attainment, and quality of life. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: A total of 230 participants were randomized, 114 to PRP and 116 to placebo. Two-year questionnaires were sent to 216 participants who completed a six-month questionnaire. Overall, 182/216 participants (84%) completed the two-year questionnaire. Participants were aged a mean of 46 years (SD 13.0) and 25% were female (57/230). The majority of participants received the allocated intervention (219/229, 96%). Mean ATRS scores at two years were 82.2 (SD 18.3) in the PRP group (n = 85) and 83.8 (SD 16.0) in the placebo group (n = 92). There was no evidence of a difference in the ATRS at two years (adjusted mean difference -0.752, 95% confidence interval -5.523 to 4.020; p = 0.757) or in other secondary outcomes, and there were no re-ruptures between 24 weeks and two years. CONCLUSION: PRP injection did not improve patient-reported function or quality of life two years after acute Achilles tendon rupture compared with placebo. The evidence from this study indicates that PRP offers no patient benefit in the longer term for patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1256-1265.

Hormone replacement therapy (conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene) for post-menopausal women with symptomatic hand osteoarthritis: primary report from the HOPE-e randomised, placebo-controlled, feasibility study.

Background: Symptomatic hand osteoarthritis is more common in women than in men, and its incidence increases around the age of menopause, implicating oestrogen deficiency. No randomised controlled trials of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have been done in people with hand osteoarthritis. We aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a form of HRT (conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene) in post-menopausal women with painful hand osteoarthritis. Methods: The HOPE-e feasibility study was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, for which we recruited women aged 40-65 years, for whom 1-10 years had passed after their final menstrual period, with definite hand osteoarthritis and at least two painful hand joints. Participants were recruited across three primary or secondary care sites and from the community and were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive conjugated oestrogens plus bazedoxifene or placebo, orally once every day for 24 weeks, before weaning for 4 weeks until the end of the study. The primary feasibility outcomes were rates of identification, recruitment, randomisation, retention, and compliance of eligible participants, and the likelihood of unmasking. The secondary objective was to generate proof-of-concept quantitative and qualitative data on the acceptability of proposed clinical outcomes for a full trial and adverse events. We used an intention-to-treat analysis, and criteria for progression to a full trial were pre-defined as recruitment of at least 30 participants across all sites in 18 months; a dropout rate of less than or equal to 30% of randomised individuals; and acceptability to the majority of participants, including acceptable rates of adverse events. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the recruitment window was reduced to 12-15 months. A proportionately reduced minimum sample size of 22 was judged to be sufficient to test feasibility. This trial was registered at ISRCTN, ISRCTN12196200. Findings: From May 9, 2019 to Dec 31, 2020, 434 enquiries or referrals were received. We did 96 telephone pre-screens; of the 35 eligible participants, seven were excluded as ineligible at the telephone or face-to-face screening and 28 (80% [95% CI 63-92]) were randomly assigned. Of the 406 who were not randomly assigned, 250 (62%) were ineligible (with contraindicated medications accounting for 50 [20%] of these), 101 (25%) did not respond to further enquiries, and 55 (14%) chose not to proceed (with the most common reason being not wanting to take a hormone-based drug). All 28 randomised participants completed all follow-up assessments with high compliance and outcome measure completeness. All three adverse event-related treatment withdrawals were in the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported. Participants and investigators were successfully masked (participant Bang's blinding index placebo group 0·50 [95% CI 0·25-0·75]). The trial met the prespecified criteria for progression to a full trial. Interpretation: This first-ever feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of HRT for post-menopausal women with painful hand osteoarthritis met its progression criteria, although it was not powered to detect a clinical effect. This outcome indicates that a full trial of an HRT in this population is feasible and acceptable and identifies potential refinements with regard to the design of such a trial. Funding: Research for Patient Benefit programme, National Institute for Health Research.

Inclusion of progression criteria in external randomised pilot trials: a cross-sectional study of funding applications submitted to the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme.

BACKGROUND: External randomised pilot trials aim to assess whether a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is feasible. Pre-specified progression criteria help guide the interpretation of pilot trial findings to decide whether, and how, a definitive trial should be conducted. We aimed to examine how researchers report and plan to assess progression criteria in external pilot trial funding applications submitted to the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit Programme. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of progression criteria inclusion in Stage 1 (outline) and corresponding Stage 2 (full) funding applications for external randomised external pilot trials submitted to NIHR RfPB between July 2017 and July 2019. RESULTS: Of the 100 Stage 1 outline applications assessed, 95 were eligible for inclusion (of these, 52 were invited to Stage 2 full application; 43 were rejected) and 49/52 were eligible for inclusion at Stage 2 full application (of these, 35 were awarded funding; 14 were rejected). Over half of applications assessed at Stage 1 (48/95, 51%), and 73% of those assessed at Stage 2 (36/49) included progression criteria in their research plans. Progression criteria were most often reported in a stop-go format, often with additional specified factors that should be considered when determining feasibility (Stage 1 33/48, 69%; Stage 2 21/36, 58%). Recruitment and retention were the most frequent indicators of feasibility to inform progression criteria. One-third of applications provided some justification or rationale for their targets (Stage 1 16/48, 33%; Stage 2 12/36, 33%). Funding committee feedback mentioned progression criteria in over 20% of applications (Stage 1 22/95, 23%; Stage 2 11/49, 22%) to either request the addition of progression criteria or provide justification for the criteria stipulated. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that researchers do not always include progression criteria in external randomised pilot trial applications submitted to research funders. This can result in a lack of transparency in the assessment of randomised pilot trial feasibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/89ap7, registered 29th June 2021.

Radiological malunion after ankle fractures in older adults : definitions and new thresholds derived from clinical outcome data from the AIM trial.

AIMS: The rationale for exacting restoration of skeletal anatomy after unstable ankle fracture is to improve outcomes by reducing complications from malunion; however, current definitions of malunion lack confirmatory clinical evidence. METHODS: Radiological (absolute radiological measurements aided by computer software) and clinical (clinical interpretation of radiographs) definitions of malunion were compared within the Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial cohort, including people aged ≥ 60 years with an unstable ankle fracture. Linear regressions were used to explore the relationship between radiological malunion (RM) at six months and changes in function at three years. Function was assessed with the Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), with a minimal clinically important difference set as six points, as per the AIM trial. Piecewise linear models were used to investigate new radiological thresholds which better explain symptom impact on ankle function. RESULTS: Previously described measures of RM and surgeon opinion of clinically significant malunion (CSM) were shown to be related but with important differences. CSM was more strongly related to outcome (-13.9 points on the OMAS; 95% confidence interval (CI) -21.9 to -5.4) than RM (-5.5 points; 95% CI -9.8 to -1.2). Existing malunion thresholds for talar tilt and tibiofibular clear space were shown to be slightly conservative; new thresholds which better explain function were identified (talar tilt > 2.4°; tibiofibular clear space > 6 mm). Based on this new definition the presence of RM had an impact on function, which was statistically significant, but the clinical significance was uncertain (-9.1 points; 95% CI -13.8 to -4.4). In subsequent analysis, RM of a posterior malleolar fracture was shown to have a statistically significant impact on OMAS change scores, but the clinical significance was uncertain (-11.6 points; 95% CI -21.9 to -0.6). CONCLUSION: These results provide clinical evidence which supports the previously accepted definitions. Further research to investigate more conservative clinical thresholds for malunion is indicated.Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):841-849.

Anti-tumour necrosis factor therapy for early-stage Dupuytren's disease (RIDD): a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Background: Dupuytren's disease is a common fibrotic condition that causes the fingers to flex irreversibly into the palm. Treatments for late-stage disease all have limitations, and there is no approved treatment for early-stage disease. We identified tumour necrosis factor as a therapeutic target in Dupuytren's disease, and in a dose ranging trial found 40 mg adalimumab in 0·4 mL to be most efficacious. Here we aimed to assess the effects of intranodular injection of adalimumab in early-stage disease. Methods: In this phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial adults with early-stage Dupuytren's disease and an established clinically distinct nodule with a clear history of progression in the preceding 6 months were recruited from two clinical centres in the UK and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four injections of adalimumab or saline every 3 months. Participants and assessors were masked. The primary outcome was nodule hardness measured with a durometer at 12 months. Data were analysed by linear mixed effects regression models in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing primary outcome data. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 27786905 and is complete. Findings: Between Feb 17, 2017, and Jan 11, 2019, 284 participants were screened in the UK and 140 were enrolled. 47 (34%) participants were female and 93 (66%) were male. Mean age of participants was 59·7 years (SD 10·0). Primary outcome data were available from 113 participants. Nodule hardness was lower (-4·6 AU [95% CI -7·1 to -2·2], p=0·0002) in the adalimumab compared with the saline group at 12 months. There were no related serious adverse events; the most common adverse events were minor injection site reactions. Interpretation: Intranodular injections of adalimumab in participants with early-stage Dupuytren's disease resulted in softening and reduction in size of the nodules. Longer follow-up would be required to assess the effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibition on disease progression, extension deficit and hand function.