Efficacy of tirzepatide 5, 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes: An adjusted indirect treatment comparison.

AIM: To conduct an adjusted indirect treatment comparison (aITC) of the efficacy of tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary analysis was a Bucher aITC of the change from baseline at week 40 in HbA1c (%) and body weight (kg). Aggregate data from the SURPASS-2 study that met the HbA1c inclusion criterion of the SUSTAIN FORTE study and from SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only treated patients were used for primary analysis. RESULTS: The SURPASS-2 refined population comprised 238/245/240 and 240 participants for tirzepatide 5/10/15 mg and semaglutide 1 mg, respectively. The SUSTAIN FORTE metformin-only population comprised 222 and 227 participants for semaglutide 1 and 2 mg, respectively. In this aITC, tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced HbA1c versus semaglutide 2 mg with an estimated treatment difference (ETD) of -0.36% (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.63, -0.09) and -0.4% (95% CI -0.67, -0.13), respectively. Tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg significantly reduced body weight versus semaglutide 2 mg with an ETD of -3.15 kg (95% CI -4.84, -1.46) and -5.15 kg (95% CI -6.85, -3.45), respectively. There were no significant differences between tirzepatide 5 mg and semaglutide 2 mg on change from baseline in HbA1c and body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In this aITC, HbA1c and weight reductions were significantly greater for tirzepatide 10 and 15 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg and were similar for tirzepatide 5 mg versus semaglutide 2 mg. These findings provide comparative effectiveness insights in the absence of a head-to-head clinical trial.

Negative-pressure wound therapy compared with standard dressings following surgical treatment of major trauma to the lower limb: the WHiST RCT.

BACKGROUND: Major trauma is the leading cause of death in people aged < 45 years. Patients with major trauma usually have lower-limb fractures. Surgery to fix the fractures is complicated and the risk of infection may be as high as 27%. The type of dressing applied after surgery could potentially reduce the risk of infection. OBJECTIVES: To assess the deep surgical site infection rate, disability, quality of life, patient assessment of the surgical scar and resource use in patients with surgical incisions associated with fractures following major trauma to the lower limbs treated with incisional negative-pressure wound therapy versus standard dressings. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Twenty-four specialist trauma hospitals representing the UK Major Trauma Network. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1548 adult patients were randomised from September 2016 to April 2018. Exclusion criteria included presentation > 72 hours after injury and inability to complete questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy (n = 785), in which a non-adherent absorbent dressing covered with a semipermeable membrane is connected to a pump to create a partial vacuum over the wound, versus standard dressings not involving negative pressure (n = 763). Trial participants and the treating surgeon could not be blinded to treatment allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Deep surgical site infection at 30 days was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were deep infection at 90 days, the results of the Disability Rating Index, health-related quality of life, the results of the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and resource use collected at 3 and 6 months post surgery. RESULTS: A total of 98% of participants provided primary outcome data. There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of deep surgical site infection at 30 days. The infection rate was 6.7% (50/749) in the standard dressing group and 5.8% (45/770) in the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy group (intention-to-treat odds ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 1.33; p = 0.52). There was no difference in the deep surgical site infection rate at 90 days: 13.2% in the standard dressing group and 11.4% in the incisional negative-pressure wound therapy group (odds ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.19; p = 0.32). There was no difference between the two groups in disability, quality of life or scar appearance at 3 or 6 months. Incisional negative-pressure wound therapy did not reduce the cost of treatment and was associated with a low probability of cost-effectiveness. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the emergency nature of the surgery, we anticipated that some patients who were randomised would subsequently be unable or unwilling to participate. However, the majority of the patients (85%) agreed to participate. Therefore, participants were representative of the population with lower-limb fractures associated with major trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study do not support the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in patients having surgery for major trauma to the lower limbs. FUTURE WORK: Our work suggests that the use of incisional negative-pressure wound therapy dressings in other at-risk surgical wounds requires further investigation. Future research may also investigate different approaches to reduce postoperative infections, for example the use of topical antibiotic preparations in surgical wounds and the role of orthopaedic implants with antimicrobial coatings when fixing the associated fracture. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12702354 and UK Clinical Research Network Portfolio ID20416. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 38. See the NIHR Journals Library for further project information.

WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: We found no evidence of a difference in the rate of surgical site infection between those patients randomised to negative-pressure wound therapy and those patients randomised to standard wound dressings. There was no difference in the rate of other wound healing complications or in the patients' self-report of disability, health-related quality of life or scar healing. Negative-pressure wound therapy is very unlikely to be cost-effective for the NHS. In conclusion, and contrary to previous reports, the findings of this study do not support the use of negative-pressure wound therapy in patients having surgery for major trauma to their legs.

Major trauma is the leading cause of death worldwide in people aged < 45 years and a significant cause of short- and long-term health problems. In 85% of major trauma patients, the injury involves broken bones. Surgery to fix broken bones in the lower limbs is complicated and has risks, one of the main ones being wound infection. In these patients, rates of wound infection have been reported to be as high as 27%. One factor that may affect the risk of infection is the type of dressing applied after surgery. In this trial, we compared standard wound dressings with a new treatment called incisional negative-pressure wound therapy. Negative-pressure wound therapy is a special type of dressing whereby gentle suction is applied to the surface of the wound. A total of 1548 patients from 24 specialist trauma hospitals in the UK agreed to take part and were assigned at random to receive either a standard wound dressing or negative-pressure wound therapy after their surgery. We reviewed the recovery of the patients for 6 months. We recorded how many had an infection in the surgical wound and asked the patients to rate the extent of their disability, their quality of life and the scar healing. We also collected information about the cost of treatment.

Design, analysis and reporting of multi-arm trials and strategies to address multiple testing.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how multiple treatment comparisons are managed in the analysis of multi-arm trials, particularly related to reducing type I (false positive) and type II errors (false negative). METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of clinical-trial protocols that were approved by research ethics committees in the UK, Switzerland, Germany and Canada in 2012. We examined the use of multiple-testing procedures to control the overall type I error rate. We created a decision tool to determine the need for multiple-testing procedures. We compared the result of the decision tool to the analysis plan in the protocol. We also compared the pre-specified analysis plans in trial protocols to their publications. RESULTS: Sixty-four protocols for multi-arm trials were identified, of which 50 involved multiple testing. Nine of 50 trials (18%) used a single-step multiple-testing procedures such as a Bonferroni correction and 17 (38%) used an ordered sequence of primary comparisons to control the overall type I error. Based on our decision tool, 45 of 50 protocols (90%) required use of a multiple-testing procedure but only 28 of the 45 (62%) accounted for multiplicity in their analysis or provided a rationale if no multiple-testing procedure was used. We identified 32 protocol-publication pairs, of which 8 planned a global-comparison test and 20 planned a multiple-testing procedure in their trial protocol. However, four of these eight trials (50%) did not use the global-comparison test. Likewise, 3 of the 20 trials (15%) did not perform the multiple-testing procedure in the publication. The sample size of our study was small and we did not have access to statistical-analysis plans for the included trials in our study. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to reduce type I and type II errors are inconsistently employed in multi-arm trials. Important analytical differences exist between planned analyses in clinical-trial protocols and subsequent publications, which may suggest selective reporting of analyses.

Predicting patient-reported and objectively measured functional outcome 6 months after ankle fracture in people aged 60 years or over in the UK: prognostic model development and internal validation.

OBJECTIVE: To predict functional outcomes 6 months after ankle fracture in people aged ≥60 years using post-treatment and 6-week follow-up data to inform anticipated recovery, and identify people who may benefit from additional monitoring or rehabilitation. DESIGN: Prognostic model development and internal validation. SETTING: 24 National Health Service hospitals, UK. METHODS: Participants were the Ankle Injury Management clinical trial cohort (n=618) (ISRCTN04180738), aged 60-96 years, 459/618 (74%) female, treated surgically or conservatively for unstable ankle fracture. Predictors were injury and sociodemographic variables collected at baseline (acute hospital setting) and 6-week follow-up (clinic). Outcome measures were 6-month postinjury (primary) self-reported ankle function, using the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), and (secondary) Timed Up and Go (TUG) test by blinded assessor. Missing data were managed with single imputation. Multivariable linear regression models were built to predict OMAS or TUG, using baseline variables or baseline and 6-week follow-up variables. Models were internally validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: The OMAS baseline data model included: alcohol per week (units), postinjury EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS), sex, preinjury walking distance and walking aid use, smoking status and perceived health status. The baseline/6-week data model included the same baseline variables, minus EQ-5D-3L VAS, plus five 6-week predictors: radiological malalignment, injured ankle dorsiflexion and plantarflexion range of motion, and 6-week OMAS and EQ-5D-3L. The models explained approximately 23% and 26% of the outcome variation, respectively. Similar baseline and baseline/6 week data models to predict TUG explained around 30% and 32% of the outcome variation, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive accuracy of the prognostic models using commonly recorded clinical data to predict self-reported or objectively measured ankle function was relatively low and therefore unlikely to be beneficial for clinical practice and counselling of patients. Other potential predictors (eg, psychological factors such as catastrophising and fear avoidance) should be investigated to improve predictive accuracy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN04180738; Post-results.

COmmunity-based Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty (CORKA): statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: About 15% of patients fail to achieve a satisfactory clinical outcome following knee replacement, which may indicate the existing model of rehabilitation after surgery is possibly not the most efficacious. The COmmunity-based Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty (CORKA) trial evaluates the effects of a new multi-component community-based rehabilitation programme following knee replacement compared with usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: The CORKA trial is a multi-centre, single-blind, two-arm randomised controlled trial. The primary outcome is the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) overall function score measured at 12 months post-randomisation which will be analysed using a linear mixed effects model. Secondary outcomes are measured at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation and include the LLFDI frequency and limitation total dimension scores, the Oxford Knee Score, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score quality of life subscale, the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L, and several measurements of physical function. Full details of the planned analysis approaches for the primary and secondary outcomes are described here, as are the descriptive statistics which will be reported. This is an update to the CORKA protocol which has already been published in this journal. DISCUSSION: This paper provides details of the planned statistical analyses for this trial and will reduce the risks of outcome reporting bias and data-driven results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, 13517704 . Registered on 12 February 2015. FUNDING/SPONSOR: The trial is funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme under its commissioned research programme (HTA 12/196/08). The trial sponsor is the University of Oxford.

RIVA - a phase IIa study of rituximab and varlilumab in relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Over 12,000 new cases of B-cell malignancies are diagnosed in the UK each year, with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and follicular lymphoma (FL) being the most common subtypes. Standard frontline therapy consists of immunochemotherapy with a CD20 monoclonal antibody (mAb), such as rituximab, delivered in combination with multi-agent chemotherapy. Despite being considered a treatable and potentially curable cancer, approximately 30% of DLBCL cases will relapse after frontline therapy. Advanced stage FL is incurable and typically has a relapsing and remitting course with a frequent need for re-treatment. Based on supportive preclinical data, we hypothesised that the addition of varlilumab (an anti-CD27 mAb) to rituximab (an anti-CD20 mAb) can improve the rate, depth and duration of the response of rituximab monotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. METHODS/DESIGN: Combination treatment of varlilumab plus rituximab, in two different dosing regimens, is being tested in the RIVA trial. RIVA is a two-stage open-label randomised phase IIa design in up to 40 patients with low- or high-grade relapsed or refractory CD20+ B-cell lymphoma. The study is open to recruitment in the UK. Enrolled patients are randomised 1:1 to two different experimental varlilumab to rituximab combinations. The primary objective is to determine the safety and tolerability of the combination and the anti-tumour activity (response) in relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies. Secondary objectives will include an evaluation of the duration of the response and overall survival. Tertiary translational objectives include assessment of B-cell depletion, changes in immune effector cell populations, expression of CD27 as a biomarker of response and pharmacokinetic properties. Analyses will not be powered for formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. DISCUSSION: RIVA will determine whether the combination of rituximab and varlilumab in relapsed or refractory B-cell malignancies is active and safe prior to future phase II/III trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT, 2017-000302-37. Registered on 16 January 2017. ISRCTN, ISRCTN15025004 . Registered on 16 August 2017.

Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) Trial: a randomised controlled trial of a combined physical and psychological intervention for older adults with neurogenic claudication, a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Neurogenic claudication due to spinal stenosis is common in older adults. The effectiveness of conservative interventions is not known. The aim of the study is to estimate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a physiotherapist-delivered, combined physical and psychological intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multicentred, randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomised to a combined physical and psychological intervention (Better Outcomes for Older people with Spinal Trouble (BOOST) programme) or best practice advice (control). Community-dwelling adults, 65 years and over, with neurogenic claudication are identified from community and secondary care services. Recruitment is supplemented using a primary care-based cohort. Participants are registered prospectively and randomised in a 2:1 ratio (intervention:control) using a web-based service to ensure allocation concealment. The target sample size is a minimum of 402. The BOOST programme consists of an individual assessment and twelve 90 min classes, including education and discussion underpinned by cognitive behavioural techniques, exercises and walking circuit. During and after the classes, participants undertake home exercises and there are two support telephone calls to promote adherence with the exercises. Best practice advice is delivered in one to three individual sessions with a physiotherapist. The primary outcome is the Oswestry Disability Index at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include the 6 Minute Walk Test, Short Physical Performance Battery, Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire and Gait Self-Efficacy Scale. Outcomes are measured at 6 and 12 months by researchers who are masked to treatment allocation. The primary statistical analysis will be by 'intention to treat'. There is a parallel health economic evaluation and qualitative study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given on 3 March 2016 (National Research Ethics Committee number: 16/LO/0349). This protocol adheres to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist. The results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines. A plain English summary will be published on the BOOST website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12698674; Pre-results.

Sample size calculations are poorly conducted and reported in many randomized trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis: results of a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To review the methodology and reporting of sample size calculations in a contemporary sample of trials in osteoarthritis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomized trials in hip and/or knee osteoarthritis published in 2016 were identified by searching MEDLINE, Cochrane library, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PEDro, and AMED until March 31, 2017. Data were extracted on study characteristics, methods used to calculate the sample size, and the reporting and justification of components used in the sample size calculation. We attempted to replicate the sample size calculation using the reported information. RESULTS: This review included 116 trials. Seventy-eight (67%, n = 78/116) reported a power calculation. Less than a quarter reported all core components of the sample size calculation (21%, n = 16/78). The sample size calculation was only reproducible in 53% of the trials that reported a power calculation (n = 41/78). The replicated calculation produced a sample size over 10% larger than the reported value in 12% of trials (n = 9/78). Insufficient information was reported to allow the sample size calculation to be replicated in a quarter of trials (27%, n = 21/78). CONCLUSION: Sample size calculations in trials of hip and knee osteoarthritis are not adequately reported, and the calculation frequently cannot be reproduced.

Standard wound management versus negative-pressure wound therapy in the treatment of adult patients having surgical incisions for major trauma to the lower limb-a two-arm parallel group superiority randomised controlled trial: protocol for Wound Healing in Surgery for Trauma (WHIST).

INTRODUCTION: Patients with closed high-energy injuries associated with major trauma have surprisingly high rates of surgical site infection in incisions created during fracture fixation. One factor that may reduce the risk of surgical site infection is the type of dressing applied over the closed surgical incision. In this multicentre randomised clinical trial, negative-pressure wound therapy will be compared with standard dressings with outcomes of deep infection, quality of life, pain and disability. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Adult patients presenting to hospital within 72 hours of sustaining major trauma, requiring a surgical incision to treat a fractured lower limb, are eligible for inclusion. Randomisation, stratified by trial centre, open/closed fracture at presentation and Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≤15 versus ISS ≥16 will be administered via a secure web-based service using minimisation. The random allocation will be to either standard wound management or negative-pressure wound therapy.Trial participants will usually have clinical follow-up at the local fracture clinic for a minimum of 6 months, as per standard National Health Service practice. Diagnosis of deep infection will be recorded at 30 days. Functional, pain and quality of life outcome data will be collected using the Disability Rating Index, Douleur Neuropathique Questionnaire and Euroqol - 5 Dimension - 5 level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires at 3 months and 6 months postinjury. Further data will be captured on resource use and any late postoperative complications.Longer term outcomes will be assessed annually for 5 years and reported separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Research Ethics Committee approved this study on 16 February 2016 16/WM/0006.The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment monograph and a manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal will be submitted on completion of this trial. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the treatment of this injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN12702354; Pre-results.