In-person cognitive behavioural therapy vs. usual care after surgical management of extremity fractures: an unsuccessful feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Extremity fractures are common, and most are managed operatively; however, despite successful reduction, up to half of patients report persistent post-surgical pain. Furthermore, psychological factors such as stress, distress, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and fear-avoidance behaviors have been associated with the development of chronic pain. The purpose of this pilot study was to examine the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of in-person cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) vs. usual care on persistent post-surgical pain among patients with a surgically managed extremity fracture. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to either in-person CBT or usual care. We used four criteria to judge the composite measure of feasibility: 1) successful implementation of CBT at each clinical site, 2) 40 patients recruited within 6 months, 3) treatment compliance in a minimum 36 of 40 participants (90%), and 4) 32 of 40 participants (80%) achieving follow-up at one year. The primary clinical outcome was persistent post-surgical pain at one year after surgery. RESULTS: Only two of the four participating sites were able to implement the CBT regimen due to difficulties with identifying certified therapists who had the capacity to accommodate additional patients into their schedule within the required timeframe (i.e., 8 weeks of their fracture). Given the challenges associated with CBT implementation, only one site was able to actively recruit patients. This site screened 86 patients and enrolled 3 patients (3.5%) over a period of three months. Participants were unable to comply with the in-person CBT, with no participants attending an in-person CBT session. Follow-up at one year could not be assessed as the pilot study was stopped early, three months into the study, due to failure to achieve the other three feasibility criteria. CONCLUSION: Our pilot trial failed to demonstrate the feasibility of a trial of in-person CBT versus usual care to prevent persistent pain after surgical repair of traumatic long-bone fractures and re-enforces the importance of establishing feasibility before embarking on definitive trials. Protocol modifications to address the identified barriers include the delivery of our intervention as a therapist-guided, remote CBT program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier NCT03196258); Registered June 22, 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03196258.

Oral Fluvoxamine With Inhaled Budesonide for Treatment of Early-Onset COVID-19 : A Randomized Platform Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have demonstrated the effects of fluvoxamine alone and inhaled budesonide alone for prevention of disease progression among outpatients with COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of fluvoxamine and inhaled budesonide would increase treatment effects in a highly vaccinated population. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04727424). SETTING: 12 clinical sites in Brazil. PARTICIPANTS: Symptomatic adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) plus inhaled budesonide (800 mcg twice daily for 10 days) or matching placebos. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of emergency setting retention for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours, hospitalization, and/or suspected complications due to clinical progression of COVID-19 within 28 days of randomization. Secondary outcomes included health care attendance (defined as hospitalization for any cause or emergency department visit lasting >6 hours), time to hospitalization, mortality, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse drug reactions. RESULTS: Randomization occurred from 15 January to 6 July 2022. A total of 738 participants were allocated to oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide, and 738 received placebo. The proportion of patients observed in an emergency setting for COVID-19 for more than 6 hours or hospitalized due to COVID-19 was lower in the treatment group than the placebo group (1.8% [95% credible interval {CrI}, 1.1% to 3.0%] vs. 3.7% [95% CrI, 2.5% to 5.3%]; relative risk, 0.50 [95% CrI, 0.25 to 0.92]), with a probability of superiority of 98.7%. No relative effects were found between groups for any of the secondary outcomes. More adverse events occurred in the intervention group than the placebo group, but no important differences between the groups were detected. LIMITATION: Low event rate overall, consistent with contemporary trials in vaccinated populations. CONCLUSION: Treatment with oral fluvoxamine plus inhaled budesonide among high-risk outpatients with early COVID-19 reduced the incidence of severe disease requiring advanced care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Latona Foundation, FastGrants, and Rainwater Charitable Foundation.

Early Treatment with Pegylated Interferon Lambda for Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda in preventing clinical events among outpatients with acute symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled, adaptive platform trial involving predominantly vaccinated adults with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in Brazil and Canada. Outpatients who presented with an acute clinical condition consistent with Covid-19 within 7 days after the onset of symptoms received either pegylated interferon lambda (single subcutaneous injection, 180 µg) or placebo (single injection or oral). The primary composite outcome was hospitalization (or transfer to a tertiary hospital) or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 933 patients were assigned to receive pegylated interferon lambda (2 were subsequently excluded owing to protocol deviations) and 1018 were assigned to receive placebo. Overall, 83% of the patients had been vaccinated, and during the trial, multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants had emerged. A total of 25 of 931 patients (2.7%) in the interferon group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 57 of 1018 (5.6%) in the placebo group, a difference of 51% (relative risk, 0.49; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.30 to 0.76; posterior probability of superiority to placebo, >99.9%). Results were generally consistent in analyses of secondary outcomes, including time to hospitalization for Covid-19 (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.33 to 0.95) and Covid-19-related hospitalization or death (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.35 to 0.97). The effects were consistent across dominant variants and independent of vaccination status. Among patients with a high viral load at baseline, those who received pegylated interferon lambda had lower viral loads by day 7 than those who received placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among predominantly vaccinated outpatients with Covid-19, the incidence of hospitalization or an emergency department visit (observation for >6 hours) was significantly lower among those who received a single dose of pegylated interferon lambda than among those who received placebo. (Funded by FastGrants and others; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

The impact of COVID-19 restrictions on participant enrollment in the PREPARE trial.

Background: At the initiation of the COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions forced researchers to decide whether to continue their ongoing clinical trials. The PREPARE (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Alcohol Skin Solutions in Fractured Extremities) trial is a pragmatic cluster-randomized crossover trial in patients with open and closed fractures. PREPARE was enrolling over 200 participants per month at the initiation of the pandemic. We aim to describe how the COVID-19 research restrictions affected participant enrollment. Methods: The PREPARE protocol permitted telephone consent, however, sites were obtaining consent in-person. To continue enrollment after the initiation of the restrictions participating sites obtained ethics approval for telephone consent scripts and the waiver of a signature on the consent form. We recorded the number of sites that switched to telephone consent, paused enrollment, and the length of the pause. We used t-tests to compare the differences in monthly enrollment between July 2019 and November 2020. Results: All 19 sites quickly implement telephone consent. Fourteen out of nineteen (73.6%) sites paused enrollment due to COVID-19 restrictions. The median length of enrollment pause was 46.5 days (range, 7-121 days; interquartile range, 61 days). The months immediately following the implementation of restrictions had significantly lower enrollment. Conclusion: A pragmatic design allowed sites to quickly adapt their procedures for obtaining informed consent via telephone and allowed for minimal interruptions to enrollment during the pandemic.

Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of ivermectin in preventing hospitalization or extended observation in an emergency setting among outpatients with acutely symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), the disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive platform trial involving symptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive adults recruited from 12 public health clinics in Brazil. Patients who had had symptoms of Covid-19 for up to 7 days and had at least one risk factor for disease progression were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (400 µg per kilogram of body weight) once daily for 3 days or placebo. (The trial also involved other interventions that are not reported here.) The primary composite outcome was hospitalization due to Covid-19 within 28 days after randomization or an emergency department visit due to clinical worsening of Covid-19 (defined as the participant remaining under observation for >6 hours) within 28 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 3515 patients were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin (679 patients), placebo (679), or another intervention (2157). Overall, 100 patients (14.7%) in the ivermectin group had a primary-outcome event, as compared with 111 (16.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.90; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.70 to 1.16). Of the 211 primary-outcome events, 171 (81.0%) were hospital admissions. Findings were similar to the primary analysis in a modified intention-to-treat analysis that included only patients who received at least one dose of ivermectin or placebo (relative risk, 0.89; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.69 to 1.15) and in a per-protocol analysis that included only patients who reported 100% adherence to the assigned regimen (relative risk, 0.94; 95% Bayesian credible interval, 0.67 to 1.35). There were no significant effects of ivermectin use on secondary outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19. (Funded by FastGrants and the Rainwater Charitable Foundation; TOGETHER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04727424.).

Perpetrators of Gender-Based and Sexual Harassment in the Field of Orthopaedic Surgery.

The prevalence of gender-based and sexual harassment in the field of orthopaedic surgery in Canada is high. Previous research in other jurisdictions has identified the most common perpetrators of harassment to be senior surgeons or directors. We aimed to identify the most frequent perpetrators of gender-based and sexual harassment in orthopaedic surgery in Canada. METHODS: We conducted a Canada-wide survey of all orthopaedic surgeons registered with the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the Canadian Orthopaedic Residents' Association. The development of our 116-item questionnaire was informed by a review of the literature and other published gender-based and sexual harassment surveys. Descriptive analyses, including frequency counts with associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs), are reported for all data. RESULTS: Of the 465 survey respondents, the median age was 43 years (interquartile range, 35 to 59) and respondents were most commonly male (72%), White (81%), married (77%), and staff orthopaedic surgeons (68%). Peers were identified as the most common perpetrators of gender-based harassment (55%, 95% CI, 50 to 59), and patients were identified as the most common perpetrators of sexual harassment (48%, 95% CI, 43 to 52). Women were more likely to report direct supervisors or patients as the perpetrators of gender-based and sexual harassment, and men reported peers as the most common perpetrators. CONCLUSION: Orthopaedic surgery peers and patients are the most commonly reported perpetrators of gender-based and sexual harassment in Canada. The results of this study may be helpful to institutions in designing and focusing educational programs and/or policies and procedures to help reduce harassment incidents in the training and work environment.

Prevalence of gender-based and sexual harassment within orthopedic surgery in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Gender-based and sexual harassment are prevalent in the medical profession. We aimed to quantify the prevalence of such behaviours within orthopedic surgery in Canada and to identify any risk factors for experiencing gender-based or sexual harassment in the workplace. METHODS: In collaboration with the Canadian Orthopaedic Association, we conducted a Canada-wide email questionnaire survey in June 2019 of all orthopedic surgeons registered with the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the Canadian Orthopaedic Residents' Association. The development of our questionnaire was informed by a review of the literature and published surveys on gender-based and sexual harassment, and consultation with researchers in intimate partner violence. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors for harassment. RESULTS: Of the 1783 surgeons invited to participate, 465 returned the questionnaire (response rate 26.1%); the response rate was 48.1% for females and 22.1% for males. Overall, 331/433 respondents (76.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 72%-80%) and 315/423 respondents (74.5%, 95% CI 70%-78%) reported having experienced at least 1 occurrence of gender-based and sexual harassment, respectively. Women were significantly more likely than men to have experienced both gender-based and sexual harassment (odds ratio [OR] 16.2, 95% CI 4.8-54.0, and OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.0, respectively). Respondents who identified as nonwhite were significantly less likely than those who identified as white to have experienced gender-based harassment (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.99). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of gender-based and sexual harassment is high within Canadian orthopedic surgery, and women are at highest risk for experiencing harassment. The results may provide the impetus for orthopedic societies to develop action plans and to re-examine and enforce policies to address these damaging behaviours appropriately.

Resilient Clinical Trial Infrastructure in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from the TOGETHER Randomized Platform Clinical Trial.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical research groups across the world developed trial protocols to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treatments for COVID-19. Despite this initial enthusiasm, only a small portion of these protocols were implemented. Of those implemented, a fraction successfully recruited their target sample size to analyze and disseminate findings. More than a year and a half into the COVID-19 pandemic, only a few clinical trials evaluating treatments for COVID-19 have generated new evidence. Productive randomized platform clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 treatments may attribute their success to intentional investments in developing resilient clinical trial infrastructures. Health system resiliency discourse provides a conceptual framework for characterizing attributes for withstanding shocks. This framework may also be useful for contextualizing the attributes of productive clinical trials evaluating COVID-19 therapies. We characterize the successful attributes and lessons learned in developing the TOGETHER Trial infrastructure using a health system resiliency framework. This framework may be considered by clinical trialists aiming to build resilient trial infrastructures capable of responding rapidly and efficiently to global health threats.

Comparison of Prophylactic Intravenous Antibiotic Regimens After Endoprosthetic Reconstruction for Lower Extremity Bone Tumors: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The use of perioperative, prophylactic, intravenous antibiotics is standard practice to reduce the risk of surgical site infection after oncologic resection and complex endoprosthetic reconstruction for lower extremity bone tumors. However, evidence guiding the duration of prophylactic treatment remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a 5-day regimen of postoperative, prophylactic, intravenous antibiotics compared with a 1-day regimen on the rate of surgical site infections within 1 year after surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This randomized clinical superiority trial was performed at 48 clinical sites in 12 countries from January 1, 2013, to October 29, 2019. The trial included patients with a primary bone tumor or a soft tissue sarcoma that had invaded the femur or tibia or oligometastatic bone disease of the femur or tibia with expected survival of at least 1 year who required surgical management by excision and endoprosthetic reconstruction. A total of 611 patients were enrolled, and 7 were excluded for ineligibility. INTERVENTIONS: A 1- or 5-day regimen of postoperative prophylactic intravenous cephalosporin (cefazolin or cefuroxime) that began within 8 hours after skin closure and was administered every 8 hours thereafter. Those randomized to the 1-day regimen received identical saline doses every 8 hours for the remaining 4 days; patients, care providers, and outcomes assessors were blinded to treatment regimen. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome in this superiority trial was a surgical site infection (superficial incisional, deep incisional, or organ space) classified according to the criteria established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes included antibiotic-related complications, unplanned additional operations, oncologic and functional outcomes, and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 604 patients included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age, 41.2 [21.9] years; 361 [59.8%] male; 114 [18.9%] Asian, 43 [7.1%] Black, 34 [5.6%] Hispanic, 15 [2.5%] Indigenous, 384 [63.8%] White, and 12 [2.0%] other), 293 were randomized to a 5-day regimen and 311 to a 1-day regimen. A surgical site infection occurred in 44 patients (15.0%) allocated to the 5-day regimen and in 52 patients (16.7%) allocated to the 1-day regimen (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.62-1.40; P = .73). Antibiotic-related complications occurred in 15 patients (5.1%) in the 5-day regimen and in 5 patients (1.6%) allocated to the 1-day regimen (hazard ratio, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.17-8.98; P = .02). Other secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This randomized clinical trial did not confirm the superiority of a 5-day regimen of postoperative intravenous antibiotics over a 1-day regimen in preventing surgical site infections after surgery for lower extremity bone tumors that required an endoprosthesis. The 5-day regimen group had significantly more antibiotic-related complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01479283.

Effect of early treatment with fluvoxamine on risk of emergency care and hospitalisation among patients with COVID-19: the TOGETHER randomised, platform clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence indicates a potential therapeutic role of fluvoxamine for COVID-19. In the TOGETHER trial for acutely symptomatic patients with COVID-19, we aimed to assess the efficacy of fluvoxamine versus placebo in preventing hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital due to COVID-19. METHODS: This placebo-controlled, randomised, adaptive platform trial done among high-risk symptomatic Brazilian adults confirmed positive for SARS-CoV-2 included eligible patients from 11 clinical sites in Brazil with a known risk factor for progression to severe disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) or placebo (or other treatment groups not reported here). The trial team, site staff, and patients were masked to treatment allocation. Our primary outcome was a composite endpoint of hospitalisation defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 up to 28 days post-random assignment on the basis of intention to treat. Modified intention to treat explored patients receiving at least 24 h of treatment before a primary outcome event and per-protocol analysis explored patients with a high level adherence (>80%). We used a Bayesian analytic framework to establish the effects along with probability of success of intervention compared with placebo. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04727424) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The study team screened 9803 potential participants for this trial. The trial was initiated on June 2, 2020, with the current protocol reporting randomisation to fluvoxamine from Jan 20 to Aug 5, 2021, when the trial arms were stopped for superiority. 741 patients were allocated to fluvoxamine and 756 to placebo. The average age of participants was 50 years (range 18-102 years); 58% were female. The proportion of patients observed in a COVID-19 emergency setting for more than 6 h or transferred to a teritary hospital due to COVID-19 was lower for the fluvoxamine group compared with placebo (79 [11%] of 741 vs 119 [16%] of 756); relative risk [RR] 0·68; 95% Bayesian credible interval [95% BCI]: 0·52-0·88), with a probability of superiority of 99·8% surpassing the prespecified superiority threshold of 97·6% (risk difference 5·0%). Of the composite primary outcome events, 87% were hospitalisations. Findings for the primary outcome were similar for the modified intention-to-treat analysis (RR 0·69, 95% BCI 0·53-0·90) and larger in the per-protocol analysis (RR 0·34, 95% BCI, 0·21-0·54). There were 17 deaths in the fluvoxamine group and 25 deaths in the placebo group in the primary intention-to-treat analysis (odds ratio [OR] 0·68, 95% CI: 0·36-1·27). There was one death in the fluvoxamine group and 12 in the placebo group for the per-protocol population (OR 0·09; 95% CI 0·01-0·47). We found no significant differences in number of treatment emergent adverse events among patients in the fluvoxamine and placebo groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with fluvoxamine (100 mg twice daily for 10 days) among high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed COVID-19 reduced the need for hospitalisation defined as retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting or transfer to a tertiary hospital. FUNDING: FastGrants and The Rainwater Charitable Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the Portuguese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Effect of early treatment with metformin on risk of emergency care and hospitalization among patients with COVID-19: The TOGETHER randomized platform clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have postulated a therapeutic role of metformin in treating COVID-19. We conducted an adaptive platform clinical trial to determine whether metformin is an effective treatment for high-risk patients with early COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. METHODS: The TOGETHER Trial is a placebo-controled, randomized, platform clinical trial conducted in Brazil. Eligible participants were symptomatic adults with a positive antigen test for SARS-CoV-2. We enroled eligible patients over the age of 50 years or with a known risk factor for disease severity. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or metformin (750 mg twice daily for 10 days or placebo, twice daily for 10 days). The primary outcome was hospitalization defined as either retention in a COVID-19 emergency setting for > 6 h or transfer to tertiary hospital due to COVID-19 at 28 days post randomization. Secondary outcomes included viral clearance at day 7, time to hospitalization, mortality, and adverse drug reactions. We used a Bayesian framework to determine probability of success of the intervention compared to placebo. FINDINGS: The TOGETHER Trial was initiated June 2, 2020. We randomized patients to metformin starting January 15, 2021. On April 3, 2021, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping enrollment into the metformin arm due to futility. We recruited 418 participants, 215 were randomized to the metformin arm and 203 to the placebo arm. More than half of participants (56.0%) were over the age of 50 years and 57.2% were female. Median age was 52 years. The proportion of patients with the primary outcome at 28 days was not different between the metformin and placebo group (relative risk [RR] 1.14[95% Credible Interval 0.73; 1.81]), probability of superiority 0.28. We found no significant differences between the metformin and placebo group on viral clearance through to day 7 (Odds ratio [OR], 0.99, 95% Confidence Intervals 0.88-1.11) or other secondary outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In this randomized trial, metformin did not provide any clinical benefit to ambulatory patients with COVID-19 compared to placebo, with respect to reducing the need for retention in an emergency setting or hospitalization due to worsening COVID-19. There were also no differences between metformin and placebo observed for other secondary clinical outcomes.

Implementing stakeholder engagement to explore alternative models of consent: An example from the PREP-IT trials.

INTRODUCTION: Cluster randomized crossover trials are often faced with a dilemma when selecting an optimal model of consent, as the traditional model of obtaining informed consent from participant's before initiating any trial related activities may not be suitable. We describe our experience of engaging patient advisors to identify an optimal model of consent for the PREP-IT trials. This paper also examines surrogate measures of success for the selected model of consent. METHODS: The PREP-IT program consists of two multi-center cluster randomized crossover trials that engaged patient advisors to determine an optimal model of consent. Patient advisors and stakeholders met regularly and reached consensus on decisions related to the trial design including the model for consent. Patient advisors provided valuable insight on how key decisions on trial design and conduct would be received by participants and the impact these decisions will have. RESULTS: Patient advisors, together with stakeholders, reviewed the pros and cons and the requirements for the traditional model of consent, deferred consent, and waiver of consent. Collectively, they agreed upon a deferred consent model, in which patients may be approached for consent after their fracture surgery and prior to data collection. The consent rate in PREP-IT is 80.7%, and 0.67% of participants have withdrawn consent for participation. DISCUSSION: Involvement of patient advisors in the development of an optimal model of consent has been successful. Engagement of patient advisors is recommended for other large trials where the traditional model of consent may not be optimal.

Managing work flow in high enrolling trials: The development and implementation of a sampling strategy in the PREPARE trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pragmatic trials in comparative effectiveness research assess the effects of different treatment, therapeutic, or healthcare options in clinical practice. They are characterized by broad eligibility criteria and large sample sizes, which can lead to an unmanageable number of participants, increasing the risk of bias and affecting the integrity of the trial. We describe the development of a sampling strategy tool and its use in the PREPARE trial to circumvent the challenge of unmanageable work flow. METHODS: Given the broad eligibility criteria and high fracture volume at participating clinical sites in the PREPARE trial, a pragmatic sampling strategy was needed. Using data from PREPARE, descriptive statistics were used to describe the use of the sampling strategy across clinical sites. A Chi-square test was performed to explore whether use of the sampling strategy was associated with a reduction in the number of missed eligible patients. RESULTS: 7 of 20 clinical sites (35%) elected to adopt a sampling strategy. There were 1539 patients excluded due to the use of the sampling strategy, which represents 30% of all excluded patients and 20% of all patients screened for participation. Use of the sampling strategy was associated with lower odds of missed eligible patients (297/4545 (6.5%) versus 341/3200 (10.7%) p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a sampling strategy in the PREPARE trial has helped to limit the number of missed eligible patients. This sampling strategy represents a simple, easy to use tool for managing work flow at clinical sites and maintaining the integrity of a large trial.

Correction to: Cluster identification, selection, and description in Cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Cluster identification, selection, and description in cluster randomized crossover trials: the PREP-IT trials.

BACKGROUND: In cluster randomized crossover (CRXO) trials, groups of participants (i.e., clusters) are randomly allocated to receive a sequence of interventions over time (i.e., cluster periods). CRXO trials are becoming more comment when they are feasible, as they require fewer clusters than parallel group cluster randomized trials. However, CRXO trials have not been frequently used in orthopedic fracture trials and represent a novel methodological application within the field. To disseminate the early knowledge gained from our experience initiating two cluster randomized crossover trials, we describe our process for the identification and selection of the orthopedic practices (i.e., clusters) participating in the PREP-IT program and present data to describe their key characteristics. METHODS: The PREP-IT program comprises two ongoing pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trials (Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE) which compare the effect of iodophor versus chlorhexidine solutions on surgical site infection and unplanned fracture-related reoperations in patients undergoing operative fracture management. We describe the process we used to identify and select orthopedic practices (clusters) for the PREP-IT trials, along with their characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 58 potential orthopedic practices for inclusion in the PREP-IT trials. After screening each practice for eligibility, we selected 30 practices for participation and randomized each to a sequence of interventions (15 for Aqueous-PREP and 20 for PREPARE). The majority of orthopedic practices included in the Aqueous-PREP and PREPARE trials were situated in level I trauma centers (100% and 87%, respectively). Orthopedic practices in the Aqueous-PREP trial operatively treated a median of 149 open fracture patients per year, included a median of 11 orthopedic surgeons, and had access to a median of 5 infection preventionists. Orthopedic practices in the PREPARE trial treated a median of 142 open fracture and 1090 closed fracture patients per year, included a median of 7.5 orthopedic surgeons, and had access to a median of 6 infection preventionists. CONCLUSIONS: The PREP-IT trials provide an example of how to follow the reporting standards for cluster randomized crossover trials by providing a clear definition of the cluster unit, a thorough description of the cluster identification and selection process, and sufficient description of key cluster characteristics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Both trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (A-PREP: NCT03385304 December 28, 2017, and PREPARE: NCT03523962 May 14, 2018).

Effectiveness of Iodophor vs Chlorhexidine Solutions for Surgical Site Infections and Unplanned Reoperations for Patients Who Underwent Fracture Repair: The PREP-IT Master Protocol.

Importance: The risk of developing a surgical site infection after extremity fracture repair is nearly 5 times greater than in most elective orthopedic surgical procedures. For all surgical procedures, it is standard practice to prepare the operative site with an antiseptic solution; however, there is limited evidence to guide the choice of solution used for orthopedic fracture repair. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of iodophor vs chlorhexidine solutions to reduce surgical site infections and unplanned fracture-related reoperations for patients who underwent fracture repair. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PREP-IT (Program of Randomized Trials to Evaluate Pre-operative Antiseptic Skin Solutions in Orthopaedic Trauma) master protocol will be followed to conduct 2 multicenter pragmatic cluster randomized crossover trials, Aqueous-PREP (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Aqueous Antiseptic Skin Solution in Open Fractures) and PREPARE (Pragmatic Randomized Trial Evaluating Pre-Operative Alcohol Skin Solutions in Fractured Extremities). The Aqueous-PREP trial will compare 4% aqueous chlorhexidine vs 10% povidone-iodine for patients with open extremity fractures. The PREPARE trial will compare 2% chlorhexidine in 70% isopropyl alcohol vs 0.7% iodine povacrylex in 74% isopropyl alcohol for patients with open extremity fractures and patients with closed lower extremity or pelvic fractures. Both trials will share key aspects of study design and trial infrastructure. The studies will follow a pragmatic cluster randomized crossover design with alternating treatment periods of approximately 2 months. The primary outcome will be surgical site infection and the secondary outcome will be unplanned fracture-related reoperations within 12 months. The Aqueous-PREP trial will enroll a minimum of 1540 patients with open extremity fractures from at least 12 hospitals; PREPARE will enroll a minimum of 1540 patients with open extremity fractures and 6280 patients with closed lower extremity and pelvic fractures from at least 18 hospitals. The primary analyses will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle and account for potential between-cluster and between-period variability. The patient-centered design, implementation, and dissemination of results are guided by a multidisciplinary team that includes 3 patients and other relevant stakeholders. Discussion: The PREP-IT master protocol increases efficiency through shared trial infrastructure and study design components. Because prophylactic skin antisepsis is used prior to all surgical procedures and the application, cost, and availability of all study solutions are similar, the results of the PREP-IT trials are poised to inform clinical guidelines and bring about an immediate change in clinical practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT03385304 and NCT03523962.

International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care: Coordinating a Large-Scale Multicenter Global Prospective Cohort Study.

Traditionally, the orthopaedic trauma literature has been dominated by small studies that were largely single-center initiatives. More recently, there has been a paradigm shift toward larger, multicenter studies because the orthopaedic community embraced the concepts of evidence-based medicine and the need for high-quality research to guide clinical practice. The International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care is a large multicenter international cohort study in musculoskeletal trauma in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. This is the first study of this magnitude within the global orthopaedic trauma community. The International Orthopaedic Multicenter Study in Fracture Care study has provided an opportunity to form new international collaborative relationships and to develop new research capacity and global collaborative relationships that will provide the foundation for future studies in injury prevention and management. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Are large clinical trials in orthopaedic trauma justified?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the necessity of large clinical trials using FLOW trial data. METHODS: The FLOW pilot study and definitive trial were factorial trials evaluating the effect of different irrigation solutions and pressures on re-operation. To explore treatment effects over time, we analyzed data from the pilot and definitive trial in increments of 250 patients until the final sample size of 2447 patients was reached. At each increment we calculated the relative risk (RR) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) for the treatment effect, and compared the results that would have been reported at the smaller enrolments with those seen in the final, adequately powered study. RESULTS: The pilot study analysis of 89 patients and initial incremental enrolments in the FLOW definitive trial favored low pressure compared to high pressure (RR: 1.50, 95% CI: 0.75-3.04; RR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.60-3.23, respectively), which is in contradiction to the final enrolment, which found no difference between high and low pressure (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.81-1.33). In the soap versus saline comparison, the FLOW pilot study suggested that re-operation rate was similar in both the soap and saline groups (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.50-1.92), whereas the FLOW definitive trial found that the re-operation rate was higher in the soap treatment arm (RR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.04-1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that studies with smaller sample sizes would have led to erroneous conclusions in the management of open fracture wounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01069315 (FLOW Pilot Study) Date of Registration: February 17, 2010, NCT00788398 (FLOW Definitive Trial) Date of Registration: November 10, 2008.

Factors Associated With Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Open Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze FLOW data to identify baseline patient, injury, fracture, and treatment factors associated with lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 12-month postfracture. DESIGN: Prognostic study using data from a prospective randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty-one clinical centers in the United States, Canada, Australia, and India. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: One thousand four hundred twenty-seven patients with open fracture from the FLOW trial with complete 12-month Short Form-12 (SF-12) follow-up assessment and no missing data for selected baseline factors. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENT: Physical Component Score (PCS) and the Mental Component Score (MCS) of the SF-12 at 12-month postfracture. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred twenty-seven patients were included in the SF-12 PCS and MCS linear regression models. Smoking, lower preinjury SF-12 PCS and MCS, and work-related injuries were significantly associated with lower SF-12 PCS and MCS at 12-month postfracture. A lower extremity fracture and a wound that was not closed at initial irrigation and debridement were significantly associated with lower 12-month SF-12 PCS but not MCS. Only the adjusted mean difference for lower extremity fractures approached the minimally important difference for the SF-12 PCS. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a number of statistically significant baseline factors associated with lower HRQoL; however, only the presence of a lower extremity fracture approached clinical significance. More research is needed to quantify the impact of these factors on patients and to determine whether changes to modifiable factors at baseline will lead to clinically significant improvements in HRQoL after open fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Moving Forward Through Consensus: A Modified Delphi Approach to Determine the Top Research Priorities in Orthopaedic Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Several challenges presently impede the conduct of prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology, including limited financial resources to support their associated costs and inadequate patient volume at most single institutions. This study was conducted to prioritize research questions within the field so that the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS), and other relevant professional societies, can direct the limited human and fiscal resources available to address the priorities that the stakeholders involved believe will have the most meaningful impact on orthopaedic oncology patient care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to use a formal consensus-based approach involving clinician-scientists and other stakeholders to identify the top priority research questions for future international prospective clinical studies in orthopaedic oncology. METHODS: A three-step modified Delphi process involving multiple stakeholder groups (including orthopaedic oncologists, research personnel, funding agency representation, and patient representation) was conducted. First, we sent an electronic questionnaire to all participants to solicit clinically relevant research questions (61 participants; 54% of the original 114 individuals invited to participate returned the questionnaires). Then, participants rated the candidate research questions using a 5-point Likert scale for five criteria (60 participants; 53% of the original group participated in this portion of the process). Research questions that met a priori consensus thresholds progressed for consideration to an in-person consensus meeting, which was attended by 44 participants (39% of the original group; 12 countries were represented at this meeting). After the consensus panel's discussion, members individually assigned scores to each question using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions that met preset criteria advanced to final ranking, and panel members individually ranked their top three priority research questions, resulting in a final overall ranking of research priorities. RESULTS: A total of 73 candidate research questions advanced to the consensus meeting. In the end, the consensus panel identified four research priorities: (1) Does less intensive surveillance of patients with sarcoma affect survival? (2) What are the survival outcomes over time for orthopaedic oncology implants? (3) Does resection versus stabilization improve oncologic and functional outcomes in oligometastatic bone disease? (4) What is the natural history of untreated fibromatosis? CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will assist in developing a long-term research strategy for the MSTS and, possibly, the orthopaedic oncology field as a whole. Furthermore, the results of this study can assist researchers in guiding their research efforts and in providing a justified rationale to funding agencies when requesting the resources necessary to support future collaborative research studies that address the identified orthopaedic oncology priorities.