Surgical versus non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture in adults 60 years and older: the L1FE RCT.

Background: Lateral compression type-1 pelvic fractures are a common fragility fracture in older adults. Patients who do not mobilise due to ongoing pain are at greater risk of immobility-related complications. Standard treatment in the United Kingdom is provision of pain relief and early mobilisation, unlike fragility hip fractures, which are usually treated surgically based on evidence that early surgery is associated with better outcomes. Currently there is no evidence on whether patients with lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures would have a better recovery with surgery than non-surgical management. Objectives: To assess the clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical fixation with internal fixation device compared to non-surgical management of lateral compression type-1 fragility fractures in older adults. Design: Pragmatic, randomised controlled superiority trial, with 12-month internal pilot; target sample size was 600 participants. Participants were randomised between surgical and non-surgical management (1 : 1 allocation ratio). An economic evaluation was planned. Setting: UK Major Trauma Centres. Participants: Patients aged 60 years or older with a lateral compression type-1 pelvic fracture, arising from a low-energy fall and unable to mobilise independently to a distance of 3 m and back due to pelvic pain 72 hours after injury. Interventions: Internal fixation device surgical fixation and non-surgical management. Participants, surgeons and outcome assessors were not blinded to treatment allocation. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome - average patient health-related quality of life, over 6 months, assessed by the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score. Secondary outcomes (over the 6 months following injury) - self-rated health, physical function, mental health, pain, delirium, displacement of pelvis, mortality, complications and adverse events, and resource use data for the economic evaluation. Results: The trial closed early, at the end of the internal pilot, due to low recruitment. The internal pilot was undertaken in two separate phases because of a pause in recruitment due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The planned statistical and health economic analyses were not conducted. Outcome data were summarised descriptively. Eleven sites opened for recruitment for a combined total of 92 months. Three-hundred and sixteen patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 43 were eligible (13.6%). The main reason for ineligibility was that the patient was able to mobilise independently to 3 m and back (n = 161). Of the 43 eligible participants, 36 (83.7%) were approached for consent, of whom 11 (30.6%) provided consent. The most common reason for eligible patients not consenting to take part was that they were unwilling to be randomised to a treatment (n = 10). There were 11 participants, 5 randomised to surgical management with internal fixation device and 6 to non-surgical management. The average age of participants was 83.0 years (interquartile range 76.0, 89.0) and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility score at 6 months post randomisation (n = 8) was 0.32 (standard deviation 0.37). A limitation of the trial was that study objectives were not addressed due to poor recruitment. Conclusions: It was not feasible to recruit to this trial in the current context. Further research to understand the treatment and recovery pathways of this group of patients, along with their outcomes, would be needed prior to undertaking a future trial. Future work: Exploration of equipoise across different healthcare professional groups. Investigate longer-term patient outcomes. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16478561. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/167/57) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

When older adults with weak bones fall onto their side, they can fracture the pelvis in a certain way known as a 'lateral compression type-1 fracture'; this summary will use 'pelvic fracture'. Pelvic fractures can heal without surgery; patients are offered pain relief and encouraged to move as much as they can after the injury. Pelvic fractures can be painful, and some people are not able to get up and walk for weeks. These fractures can cause health problems such as chest infections, urinary tract infections, pressure sores and blood clots. To avoid these problems, we are trying to find treatments to help people recover sooner. Pelvic surgeons think patients may benefit from surgery with an internal fixation device (a bar and screws) to stabilise the pelvis; however, there can be risks and complications with any surgery. This study aimed to find out which treatment is better for patients and better value for money for the National Health Service. This required 600 people aged over 60, in hospital with a pelvic fracture and having difficulty walking to take part. Three hundred would receive surgery and 300 would receive non-surgical treatment. Over 6 months, participants would complete questionnaires, a walking assessment and have X-rays to check healing. The trial had a 12-month run-in period to see if enough people would take part. The trial closed early as we were unable to recruit sufficient people into the study. Fewer older patients with pelvic fractures were identified than expected, 51% were able to walk after a few days and therefore were not eligible to be included in the study. Of the patients, 13.6% were eligible and 30.6% of those consented to take part. Restrictions on visitors during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic made it difficult to discuss the study with patients' families and fewer patients were admitted to hospital where the study was taking place. The research question could not be answered by this study at the present time.

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

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

The limited efficacy of psychological interventions for depression in people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis (IPD-MA).

BACKGROUND: People with either Type 1/Type 2 diabetes experiencing anxiety or depression experience worse clinical and social outcomes. Efficacy of available psychological and pharmacological treatments for anxiety and depression is unclear. Aggregate data meta-analyses (AD-MAs) have failed to consider the clinical relevance of any change these treatments elicit. Thus, we sought to complete an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) to evaluate this. METHODS: Eligible RCTs of psychological treatments (PTs) and pharmacological treatments (PhTs) were systematically identified and assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool-2. IPD was requested and Jacobson's methodology was used to determine the clinical relevance of symptom-change. Traditional effect sizes were calculated to permit comparison of trials providing and not providing IPD and to compare with AD-MAs. RESULTS: Sufficient data was obtained to conduct an IPD-MA for PTs (12/25) but not PhTs (1/5). Across PT trials, rates of 'recovery' for depression post-intervention were low. Whilst significantly more treated patients did recover (17% [95% CI 0.10, 0.25]) than controls (9% [95% CI 0.03, 0.17]), the difference was small (6% [95% CI 0.02, 0.10]). LIMITATIONS: Only 50% of eligible trials provided IPD; we were also only able to examine outcomes immediately following the end of an intervention. CONCLUSION: Current psychological interventions offer limited benefit in treating anxiety and depression in people with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes (83% remain depressed). More efficacious interventions are urgently needed.

Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial.

Background: Poor response rates to follow-up questionnaires can adversely affect the progress of a randomised controlled trial and the validity of its results. This embedded 'study within a trial' aimed to investigate the impact of including a pen with the postal 3-month questionnaire completed by the trial participants on the response rates to this questionnaire. Methods: This study was a two-armed randomised controlled trial nested in the Gentle Years Yoga (GYY) trial. Participants in the intervention group of the GYY trial were allocated 1:1 using simple randomisation to either receive a pen (intervention) or no pen with their 3-month questionnaire (control). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants sent a 3-month questionnaire who returned it. Secondary outcomes were time taken to return the questionnaire, proportion of participants sent a reminder to return the questionnaire, and completeness of the questionnaire. Binary outcomes were analysed using logistic regression, time to return by Cox Proportional Hazards regression and number of items completed by linear regression. Results: There were 111 participants randomised to the pen group and 118 to the no pen group who were sent a 3-month questionnaire. There was no evidence of a difference in return rates between the two groups (pen 107 (96.4%), no pen 117 (99.2%); OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.19, p=0.20). Furthermore, there was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in terms of time to return the questionnaire (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.18, p=0.47), the proportion of participants sent a reminder (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.53, p=0.60) nor the number of items completed (mean difference 0.51, 95% CI -0.04 to 1.06, p=0.07). Conclusion: The inclusion of a pen with the postal 3-month follow-up questionnaire did not have a statistically significant effect on response rate.

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

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

A 2x2 randomised factorial SWAT of the use of a pen and small, financial incentive to improve recruitment in a randomised controlled trial of yoga for older adults with multimorbidity.

Background: Monetary and other incentives may increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. Methods: This was a 2x2 factorial 'study within a trial' of including a pen and/or £5 with a postal recruitment pack to improve randomisation rate (primary outcome) into the host Gentle Years Yoga trial in older adults with multimorbidity. Secondary outcomes: return, and time to return, of screening form, and the cost per additional participant recruited. Binary data were analysed using logistic regression and time to return data using Cox proportional hazards regression.  Results: 818 potential host trial participants included. Between those sent a pen (n=409) and not sent a pen (n=409), there was no evidence of a difference in the likelihood of being randomised (15 (3.7%) versus 11 (2.7%); OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.63-3.04), in returning a screening form (66 (16.1%) versus 61 (14.9%); OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.75-1.61) nor in time to return the screening form (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77-1.55). There was evidence of improved screening return rates (77 (18.8%) versus 50 (12.2%); OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.13-2.45) and time to return screening form (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09-2.22) but not randomisation (14 (3.4%) versus 12 (2.9%); OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.54-2.57) in those sent £5 (n=409) compared with those not sent £5 (n=409). No significant interaction effects between the interventions were observed. The cost per additional participant recruited was £32 for the pen and £1000 for the £5 incentive. Conclusion: Including a small, monetary incentive encouraged increased and faster response to the recruitment invitation but did not result in more participants being randomised into the host trial. Since it is relatively costly, we do not recommend this intervention for use to increase recruitment in this population. Pens are cheaper but did not provide evidence of benefit. Further studies may be required.

Children and young people's concerns and needs relating to their use of health technology to self-manage long-term conditions: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The use of patient-facing health technologies to manage long-term conditions is increasing; however, children and young people may have particular concerns or needs before deciding to use different health technologies. AIMS: To identify children and young people's reported concerns or needs in relation to using health technologies to self-manage long-term conditions. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL in February 2019. Searches were limited to papers published between January 2008 and February 2019. We included any health technology used to manage long-term conditions. A thematic synthesis of the data from the included studies was undertaken. We engaged children with long-term conditions (and parents) to support review design, interpretation of findings and development of recommendations. RESULTS: Thirty-eight journal articles were included, describing concerns or needs expressed by n=970 children and/or young people aged 5-18 years. Most included studies were undertaken in high-income countries with children aged 11 years and older. Studies examined concerns with mobile applications (n=14), internet (n=9), social media (n=3), interactive online treatment programmes (n=3), telehealth (n=1), devices (n=3) or a combination (n=5). Children and young people's main concerns were labelling and identity; accessibility; privacy and reliability; and trustworthiness of information. DISCUSSION: This review highlights important concerns that children and young people may have before using technology to self-manage their long-term condition. In future, research should involve children and young people throughout the development of technology, from identifying their unmet needs through to design and evaluation of interventions.