Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT): a randomised controlled trial of treatments for whiplash injuries.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the clinical effectiveness of a stepped care approach over a 12-month period after an acute whiplash injury; to estimate the costs and cost-effectiveness of each strategy including treatments and subsequent health-care costs; and to gain participants' perspective on experiencing whiplash injury, NHS treatment, and recovery within the context of the Managing Injuries of the Neck Trial (MINT). DESIGN: Two linked, pragmatic, randomised controlled trials. In Step 1, emergency departments (EDs) were cluster randomised to usual care advice (UCA) or The Whiplash Book advice (WBA)/active management advice. In Step 2, participants were individually randomised to either a single session of advice from a physiotherapist or a physiotherapy package of up to six sessions. An economic evaluation and qualitative study were run in parallel with the trial. SETTING: Twelve NHS trusts in England comprising 15 EDs. PARTICIPANTS: People who attended EDs with an acute whiplash injury of whiplash-associated disorder grades I-III were eligible for Step 1. People who had attended EDs with whiplash injuries and had persistent symptoms 3 weeks after ED attendance were eligible for Step 2. INTERVENTIONS: In Step 1, the control intervention was UCA and the experimental intervention was a psycho-educational intervention (WBA/active management advice). In Step 2 the control treatment was reinforcement of the advice provided in Step 1 and the experimental intervention was a package of up to six physiotherapy treatments. MAIN OUTCOME: The primary outcome was the Neck Disability Index (NDI), which measures severity and frequency of pain and symptoms, and a range of activities including self-care, driving, reading, sleeping and recreation. Secondary outcomes included the mental and physical health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) subscales of the Short Form questionnaire-12 items (SF-12) and the number of work days lost. RESULTS: A total of 3851 patients were recruited to Step 1 of the trial. 1598 patients attending EDs were randomised to UCA, and 2253 were randomised to WBA/active management. Outcome data were obtained at 12 months for 70% and 80% of participants at Step 1 and Step 2, respectively. The majority of people recovered from the injury. Eighteen per cent of the Step 1 cohort had late whiplash syndrome. There was no statistically or clinically significant difference observed in any of the outcomes for participants attending EDs randomised to UCA or active management advice [difference in NDI 0.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.8 to 2.8]. In Step 2 the physiotherapy package resulted in improvements in neck disability at 4 months compared with a single advice session, but these effects were small at the population level (difference in NDI -3.2, 95% CI -5.8 to -0.7). The physiotherapy package was accompanied by a significant reduction in the number of work days lost at 4-month follow-up (difference -40.2, 95% CI -44.3 to -35.8). CONCLUSIONS: MINT suggests that enhanced psycho-educational interventions in EDs are no more effective than UCA in reducing the burden of acute whiplash injuries. A physiotherapy package provided to people who have persisting symptoms within the first 6 weeks of injury produced additional short-term benefits in neck disability compared with a single physiotherapy advice session. However, from a health-care perspective, the physiotherapy package was not cost-effective at current levels of willingness to pay. Both experimental treatments were associated with increased cost with no discernible gain in health-related quality of life. However, an important benefit of the physiotherapy package was a reduction in work days lost; consequently, the intervention may prove cost-effective at the societal level. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN33302125. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 16, No. 49. See the HTA programme website for further project information.

A multicentred randomised controlled trial of a primary care-based cognitive behavioural programme for low back pain. The Back Skills Training (BeST) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the clinical effectiveness of active management (AM) in general practice versus AM plus a group-based, professionally led cognitive behavioural approach (CBA) for subacute and chronic low back pain (LBP) and to measure the cost of each strategy over a period of 12 months and estimate cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Pragmatic multicentred randomised controlled trial with investigator-blinded assessment of outcomes. SETTING: Fifty-six general practices from seven English regions. PARTICIPANTS: People with subacute and chronic LBP who were experiencing symptoms that were at least moderately troublesome. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised (in a ratio of 2:1) to receive either AM+CBA or AM alone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMQ) and the Modified Von Korff Scale (MVK), which measure LBP and disability. Secondary outcomes included mental and physical health-related quality of life (Short Form 12-item health survey), health status, fear avoidance beliefs and pain self-efficacy. Cost-utility of CBA was considered from both the UK NHS perspective and a broader health-care perspective, including both NHS costs and costs of privately purchased goods and services related to LBP. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were calculated from the five-item EuroQoL. RESULTS: Between April 2005 and April 2007, 701 participants were randomised: 233 to AM and 468 to AM+CBA. Of these, 420 were female. The mean age of participants was 54 years and mean baseline RMQ was 8.7. Outcome data were obtained for 85% of participants at 12 months. Benefits were seen across a range of outcome measures in favour of CBA with no evidence of group or therapist effects. CBA resulted in at least twice as much improvement as AM. Mean additional improvement in the CBA arm was 1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4 to 1.7], 1.4 (95% CI 0.7 to 2.1) and 1.3 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.1) change points in the RMQ at 3, 6 and 12 months respectively. Additional improvement in MVK pain was 6.8 (95% CI 3.5 to 10.2), 8.0 (95% CI 4.3 to 11.7) and 7.0 (95% CI 3.2 to 10.7) points, and in MVK disability was 4.3 (95% CI 0.4 to 8.2), 8.1 (95% CI 4.1 to 12.0) and 8.4 (95% CI 4.4 to 12.4) points at 3, 6 and 12 months respectively. At 12 months, 60% of the AM+CBA arm and 31% of the AM arm reported some or complete recovery. Mean cost of attending a CBA course was 187 pounds per participant with an additional benefit in QALYs of 0.099 and an additional cost of 178.06 pounds. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 1786.00 pounds. Probability of CBA being cost-effective reached 90% at about 3000 pounds and remained at that level or above; at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 20,000 pounds the CBA group had an almost 100% probability of being considered cost-effective. User perspectives on the acceptability of group treatments were sought through semi-structured interviews. Most were familiar with key messages of AM; most who had attended any group sessions had retained key messages from the sessions and two-thirds talked about a reduction in fear avoidance and changes in their behaviour. Group sessions appeared to provide reassurance, lessen isolation and enable participants to learn strategies from each other. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CBA in treating subacute and chronic LBP was shown, making this intervention attractive to patients, clinicians and purchasers. Short-term (3-month) clinical effects were similar to those found in high-quality studies of other therapies and benefits were maintained and increased over the long term (12 months). Cost per QALY was about half that of competing interventions for LBP and because the intervention can be delivered by existing NHS staff following brief training, the back skills training programme could be implemented within the NHS with relative ease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN37807450. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of mechanical support for severe ankle sprains: design of a randomised controlled trial in the emergency department [ISRCTN 37807450].

BACKGROUND: The optimal management for severe sprains (Grades II and III) of the lateral ligament complex of the ankle is unclear. The aims of this randomised controlled trial are to estimate (1) the clinical effectiveness of three methods of providing mechanical support to the ankle (below knee cast, Aircast brace and Bledsoe boot) in comparison to Tubigrip, and (2) to compare the cost of each strategy, including subsequent health care costs. METHODS/DESIGN: Six hundred and fifty people with a diagnosis of severe sprain are being identified through emergency departments. The study has been designed to complement routine practice in the emergency setting. Outcomes are recovery of mobility (primary outcome) and usual activity, residual symptoms and need for further medical, rehabilitation or surgical treatment. Parallel economic and qualitative studies are being conducted to aid interpretation of the results and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. DISCUSSION: This paper highlights the design, methods and operational aspects of a clinical trial of acute injury management in the emergency department.