Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST): protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing three splints for finger flexor tendon repairs.

BACKGROUND: Without surgical repair, flexor tendon injuries do not heal and patients' ability to bend fingers and grip objects is impaired. However, flexor tendon repair surgery also requires optimal rehabilitation. There are currently three custom-made splints used in the rehabilitation of zone I/II flexor tendon repairs, each with different assumed harm/benefit profiles: the dorsal forearm and hand-based splint (long), the Manchester short splint (short), and the relative motion flexion splint (mini). There is, however, no robust evidence as to which splint, if any, is most clinical or cost effective. The Flexor Injury Rehabilitation Splint Trial (FIRST) was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: FIRST is a parallel group, superiority, analyst-blind, multi-centre, individual participant-randomised controlled trial. Participants will be assigned 1:1:1 to receive either the long, short, or mini splint. We aim to recruit 429 participants undergoing rehabilitation following zone I/II flexor tendon repair surgery. Potential participants will initially be identified prior to surgery, in NHS hand clinics across the UK, and consented and randomised at their splint fitting appointment post-surgery. The primary outcome will be the mean post-randomisation score on the patient-reported wrist and hand evaluation measure (PRWHE), assessed at 6, 12, 26, and 52 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcome measures include blinded grip strength and active range of movement (AROM) assessments, adverse events, adherence to the splinting protocol (measured via temperature sensors inserted into the splints), quality of life assessment, and further patient-reported outcomes. An economic evaluation will assess the cost-effectiveness of each splint, and a qualitative sub-study will evaluate participants' preferences for, and experiences of wearing, the splints. Furthermore, a mediation analysis will determine the relationship between patient preferences, splint adherence, and splint effectiveness. DISCUSSION: FIRST will compare the three splints with respect to clinical efficacy, complications, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. FIRST is a pragmatic trial which will recruit from 26 NHS sites to allow findings to be generalisable to current clinical practice in the UK. It will also provide significant insights into patient experiences of splint wear and how adherence to splinting may impact outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 10236011.

Safety and efficacy of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation with low-dose cyclophosphamide mobilisation and reduced intensity conditioning versus standard of care in refractory Crohn's disease (ASTIClite): an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous controlled trial of autologous haematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT) in patients with refractory Crohn's disease did not meet its primary endpoint and reported high toxicity. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of HSCT with an immune-ablative regimen of reduced intensity versus standard of care in this patient population. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial was conducted in nine National Health Service hospital trusts across the UK. Adults (aged 18-60 years) with active Crohn's disease on endoscopy (Simplified Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease [SES-CD] ulcer sub-score of ≥2) refractory to two or more classes of biological therapy, with no perianal or intra-abdominal sepsis or clinically significant comorbidity, were recruited. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (2:1) to either HSCT with a reduced dose of cyclophosphamide (intervention group) or standard care (control group). Randomisation was stratified by trial site by use of random permuted blocks of size 3 and 6. Patients in the intervention group underwent stem-cell mobilisation (cyclophosphamide 1 g/m2 with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) 5 µg/kg) and stem-cell harvest (minimum 2·0 × 106 CD34+ cells per kg), before conditioning (fludarabine 125 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 120 mg/kg, and rabbit anti-thymocyte globulin [thymoglobulin] 7·5 mg/kg in total) and subsequent stem-cell reinfusion supported by G-CSF. Patients in the control group continued any available conventional, biological, or nutritional therapy. The primary outcome was absence of endoscopic ulceration (SES-CD ulcer sub-score of 0) without surgery or death at week 48, analysed in the intention-to-treat population by central reading. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 17160440. FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2018, and Nov 8, 2019, 49 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 23 (47%) were randomly assigned: 13 (57%) to the intervention group and ten (43%) to the control group. In the intervention group, ten (77%) participants underwent HSCT and nine (69%) reached 48-week follow-up; in the control group, nine (90%) reached 48-week follow-up. The trial was halted in response to nine reported suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions in six (46%) patients in the intervention group, including renal failure due to proven thrombotic microangiopathy in three participants and one death due to pulmonary veno-occlusive disease. At week 48, absence of endoscopic ulceration without surgery or death was reported in three (43%) of seven participants in the intervention group and in none of six participants in the control group with available data. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the intervention group (38 in 13 [100%] patients) than in the control group (16 in four [40%] patients). A second patient in the intervention group died after week 48 of respiratory and renal failure. INTERPRETATION: Although HSCT with an immune-ablative regimen of reduced intensity decreased endoscopic disease activity, significant adverse events deem this regimen unsuitable for future clinical use in patients with refractory Crohn's disease. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Clinician and Patient Experience of Internet-Mediated Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing Therapy.

Many eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapists moved their practice online during COVID-19. We conducted surveys and interviews to understand the implementation and acceptability of online EMDR therapy. From 17 June to 2nd August 2021 an online survey was open to EMDR therapists from the EMDR Association UK & Ireland and EMDR International Association email lists, and, through them, their clients. Questions related to determinants of implementation (for therapists) and acceptability (for clients) of online EMDR. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of therapist respondents to provide a deeper understanding of survey responses. Survey responses were received from therapists (n = 562) from five continents, and their clients (n = 148). 88% of clients responded as being extremely or very comfortable receiving EMDR therapy online. At the initial point of 'social distancing', 54% of therapists indicated strong or partial reluctance to deliver online EMDR therapy compared to 11% just over one year later. Four fifths of therapists intended to continue offering online therapy after restrictions were lifted. Free-text responses and interview data showed that deprivation and clinical severity could lead to exclusion from online EMDR. Internet connectivity could disrupt sessions, lead to cancellations, or affect the therapy process. Therapists benefited from training in online working. Online EMDR is generally acceptable to therapists and clients, with reservations about digital exclusion, case severity, poor internet connectivity and the need for training. Further research is needed to confirm that online EMDR is clinically non-inferior to in-person working. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40737-022-00260-0.

Are treatment effects consistent with hypothesized mechanisms of action proposed for postoperative delirium interventions? Reanalysis of systematic reviews.

Aim: Postoperative delirium (POD) is associated with increased morbidity and is poorly understood. The aim of this review was to identify putative mechanisms through re-analysis of randomized trials on treatment or prevention of POD. Materials & methods: A systematic review was performed to identify systematic reviews of treatments for POD. Constituent randomized controlled trials were identified, and interventions were grouped according to hypothesized mechanisms of action. Effects were meta-analyzed by hypothesized mechanism and timing of intervention. Results: A total of 116 randomized controlled trials described 47 individual interventions for POD, with nine mechanisms identified. The largest effects were observed for postoperative inflammation reduction, and preoperative reinforcement of sleep-wake cycle. Conclusion: This approach identifies treatments focused on mechanisms of action that may be front runners for future trials and interventions.