Return to Activities of Daily Living after Breast Cancer Surgery: An Observational Prospective Questionnaire-Based Study of Patients Undergoing Mastectomy with or without Immediate Reconstruction.

Background: Patients often ask about the time taken to return to activities of daily living (ADLs) after breast surgery, but there is a lack of data to give accurate guidance. We aimed to assess the feasibility of a study to determine the time taken to return to ADLs after mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction. Materials and Methods: A prospective multicentre, self-reported questionnaire-based feasibility study of women who had undergone mastectomy ± reconstruction was performed, between Jan 2017 and Dec 2019. Women were asked to self-report when they returned to 15 ADLs with a 5-option time scale for "return to activity." Results: The questionnaire was returned by 42 patients (median [range] age: 64 [31-84]). Of these, 22 had simple mastectomy, seven mastectomy and implant reconstruction, seven mastectomy and autologous reconstruction (DIEP), and six did not specify. Overall, over 90% could manage stairs and brush hair by two weeks and 84% could get in and out of the bath by four weeks. By 1-2 months, 92% could do their own shopping and 86% could drive. 68% of women employed returned to work within four months. Compared to simple mastectomy, patients undergoing reconstruction took a longer time to return to getting in/out of bath (<2 vs. 2-4 weeks), vacuuming (2-4 weeks vs. 1-2 months), and fitness (1-2 vs. 3-4 months). There was a slower return to shopping (1-2 months vs. 2-4 weeks), driving and work (both 3-4 vs. 1-2 months), and sports (3-4 vs. 1-2 months) in autologous reconstruction compared to implant reconstruction. Conclusion: This study is feasible. It highlights slower return to specific activities (particularly strength-based) in reconstruction patients, slower in autologous compared with implant reconstruction. The impact on return to ADLs should be discussed as part of the preoperative counselling as it will inform patients and help guide their decision making. A larger study is required to confirm these results.

Are we leaving money on the table in infertility RCTs? Trialists should statistically adjust for prespecified, prognostic covariates to increase power.

Infertility randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are often too small to detect realistic treatment effects. Large observational studies have been proposed as a solution. However, this strategy threatens to weaken the evidence base further, because non-random assignment to treatments makes it impossible to distinguish effects of treatment from confounding factors. Alternative solutions are required. Power in an RCT can be increased by adjusting for prespecified, prognostic covariates when performing statistical analysis, and if stratified randomization or minimization has been used, it is essential to adjust in order to get the correct answer. We present data showing that this simple, free and frequently necessary strategy for increasing power is seldom employed, even in trials appearing in leading journals. We use this article to motivate a pedagogical discussion and provide a worked example. While covariate adjustment cannot solve the problem of underpowered trials outright, there is an imperative to use sound methodology to maximize the information each trial yields.

Flash glucose monitoring with the FreeStyle Libre 2 compared with self-monitoring of blood glucose in suboptimally controlled type 1 diabetes: the FLASH-UK randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Optimising glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes (T1D) remains challenging. Flash glucose monitoring with FreeStyle Libre 2 (FSL2) is a novel alternative to the current standard of care self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG). No randomised controlled trials to date have explored the potential benefits of FSL2 in T1D. We aim to assess the impact of FSL2 in people with suboptimal glycaemic control T1D in comparison with SMBG. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised (via stochastic minimisation), parallel design study conducted at eight UK secondary and primary care centres will aim to recruit 180 people age ≥16 years with T1D for >1 year and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) 7.5%-11%. Eligible participants will be randomised to 24 weeks of FSL2 (intervention) or SMBG (control) periods, after 2-week of blinded sensor wear. Participants will be assessed virtually or in-person owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. HbA1c will be measured at baseline, 12 and 24 weeks (primary outcome). Participants will be contacted at 4 and 12 weeks for glucose optimisation. Control participants will wear a blinded sensor during the last 2 weeks. Psychosocial outcomes will be measured at baseline and 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes include sensor-based metrics, insulin doses, adverse events and self-report psychosocial measures. Utility, acceptability, expectations and experience of using FSL2 will be explored. Data on health service resource utilisation will be collected. ANALYSIS: Efficacy analyses will follow intention-to-treat principle. Outcomes will be analysed using analysis of covariance, adjusted for the baseline value of the corresponding outcome, minimisation factors and other known prognostic factors. Both within-trial and life-time economic evaluations, informed by modelling from the perspective of the National Health Service setting, will be performed. ETHICS: The study was approved by Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (reference 19/NW/0081). Informed consent will be sought from all participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03815006. PROTOCOL VERSION: 4.0 dated 29 June 2020.