Radiological outcomes following surgical fixation with wires versus moulded cast for patients with a dorsally displaced fracture of the distal radius: a radiographic analysis from the DRAFFT2 trial.

Aims: The primary aim of this study was to report the radiological outcomes of patients with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture who were randomized to a moulded cast or surgical fixation with wires following manipulation and closed reduction of their fracture. The secondary aim was to correlate radiological outcomes with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the year following injury. Methods: Participants were recruited as part of DRAFFT2, a UK multicentre clinical trial. Participants were aged 16 years or over with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture, and were eligible for the trial if they needed a manipulation of their fracture, as recommended by their treating surgeon. Participants were randomly allocated on a 1:1 ratio to moulded cast or Kirschner wires after manipulation of the fracture in the operating theatre. Standard posteroanterior and lateral radiographs were performed in the radiology department of participating centres at the time of the patient's initial assessment in the emergency department and six weeks postoperatively. Intraoperative fluoroscopic images taken at the time of fracture reduction were also assessed. Results: Patients treated with surgical fixation with wires had less dorsal angulation of the radius versus those treated in a moulded cast at six weeks after manipulation of the fracture; the mean difference of -4.13° was statistically significant (95% confidence interval 5.82 to -2.45). There was no evidence of a difference in radial shortening. However, there was no correlation between these radiological measurements and PROMs at any timepoint in the 12 months post-injury. Conclusion: For patients with a dorsally displaced distal radius fracture treated with a closed manipulation, surgical fixation with wires leads to less dorsal angulation on radiographs at six weeks compared with patients treated in a moulded plaster cast alone. However, the difference in dorsal angulation was small and did not correlate with patient-reported pain and function.

Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment on COVID-19 vaccine response in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Methotrexate is the first-line treatment for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases and reduces vaccine-induced immunity. We evaluated if a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination improved antibody response against the S1 receptor binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. METHOD: We did a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, superiority trial in secondary-care rheumatology and dermatology clinics in 26 hospitals in the UK. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases taking methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months, who had received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme were eligible. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a centralised validated computer program, to temporarily suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after COVID-19 booster vaccination or continue treatment as usual. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after COVID-19 booster vaccination and was assessed masked to group assignment. All randomly assigned patients were included in primary and safety analyses. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN11442263; following a pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early. FINDING: Between Sept 30, 2021, and March 7, 2022, we screened 685 individuals, of whom 383 were randomly assigned: to either suspend methotrexate (n=191; mean age 58·8 years [SD 12·5], 118 [62%] women and 73 [38%] men) or to continue methotrexate (n=192; mean age 59·3 years [11·9], 117 [61%] women and 75 [39%] men). At 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 25 413 U/mL (95% CI 22 227-29 056) in the suspend methotrexate group and 12 326 U/mL (10 538-14 418) in the continue methotrexate group with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·08 (95% CI 1·59-2·70; p<0·0001). No intervention-related serious adverse events occurred. INTERPRETATION: 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment in people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases enhanced antibody responses after COVID-19 booster vaccination that were sustained at 12 weeks and 26 weeks. There was a temporary increase in inflammatory disease flares, mostly self-managed. The choice to suspend methotrexate should be individualised based on disease status and vulnerability to severe outcomes from COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial evaluating surgical reconstruction versus rehabilitation in patients with long-standing anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Aims: The aim of this study was to estimate the incremental use of resources, costs, and quality of life outcomes associated with surgical reconstruction compared to rehabilitation for long-standing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in the NHS, and to estimate its cost-effectiveness. Methods: A total of 316 patients were recruited and randomly assigned to either surgical reconstruction or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment). Healthcare resource use and health-related quality of life data (EuroQol five-dimension five-level health questionnaire) were collected in the trial at six, 12, and 18 months using self-reported questionnaires and medical records. Using intention-to-treat analysis, differences in costs, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) between treatment arms were estimated adjusting for baseline differences and following multiple imputation of missing data. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated as the difference in costs divided by the difference in QALYs between reconstruction and rehabilitation. Results: At 18 months, patients in the surgical reconstruction arm reported higher QALYs (0.052 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.012 to 0.117); p = 0.177) and higher NHS costs (£1,017 (95% CI 557 to 1,476); p < 0.001) compared to rehabilitation. This resulted in an ICER of £19,346 per QALY with the probability of surgical reconstruction being cost-effective of 51% and 72% at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY, respectively. Conclusion: Surgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with long-standing ACL injury is more effective, but more expensive, at 18 months compared to rehabilitation management. In the UK setting, surgical reconstruction is cost-effective.

Conditional versus non-conditional incentives to maximise return of participant completed questionnaires in clinical trials: a cluster randomised study within a trial.

BACKGROUND: High participant retention enhances the validity of clinical trials. A monetary incentive can increase retention, but it is not known if when it is provided and if it is conditional matters. We aimed to determine whether there was a difference in the number of follow-up trial questionnaires returned when a monetary (gift voucher) incentive was given to participants at recruitment (non-conditional), compared to informing participants at recruitment that the incentive would be given only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned (conditional). METHOD: A cluster randomised study within a trial embedded within the Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness, An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4E) Trial. Matched site pairs (GP practices) were randomised using computer-generated random numbers, to either a non-conditional or conditional monetary voucher incentive (only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned. Sites were matched on previous recruitment levels and practice list size. Analyses were conducted according to randomised groups irrespective of compliance with a two-sided 5% level statistical significance level. The main analysis of the primary outcome (site proportion of diaries returned) was linear regression accounting for site pair (using cluster-robust variance). Additional weighted, paired and non-parametric sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were the site average number of completed pages, time to return diary, and cost related to the incentive (administration and postage). RESULTS: Of the 42 randomised sites (21 for each intervention), only 28 recruited at least one participant with only 10 practice pairs recruiting participants at both constituent sites. Raw diaries return proportions were 0.58 (127/220) and 0.73 (91/125) for non-conditional and conditional incentive groups. Regression analysis adjusted for site pair showed no significant difference in returns, - 0.09, (95% CI, - 0.29, 0.10, p = 0.34); when weighted, there was still no clear difference: 0.15 (95% CI, - 0.02, 0.31, p = 0.07). There was no clear statistical evidence of a difference in time taken to return questionnaires, nor the proportion of pages completed, by the intervention group in the main analyses (all p > 0.05). The conditional incentive was approximately £23 cheaper per diary returned based upon observed data. CONCLUSION: There was no clear evidence of a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participant-completed diaries returned between conditional or non-conditional incentive groups. The time to questionnaire return and completeness of the returned questionnaires were similar in both groups. There was substantial statistical uncertainty in the findings. Some of the sensitivity analyses suggested that a meaningful benefit of a conditional incentive of a magnitude that would be meaningful was plausible. The conditional approach costs less in cash terms.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop.

Background: Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials. Objectives: The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting. Methods: A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019). Results: We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results. Conclusions: These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made. Limitations: This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method. Study registration: The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882. Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Randomised controlled trials are considered the best way to gather evidence about potential NHS treatments. They can be designed from different perspectives depending whether the aim is to show that a new treatment is better than, equal to or no worse than the current best available treatment. The selection of this design relates to the single most important outcome; however, often multiple outcomes can be affected by a treatment. For example, a new treatment may improve disease management but increase side effects. Patients want a treatment to work but not at the price of poor quality of life; therefore, a trade-off must be made, and the recommended treatment depends on this trade-off. Benefit­risk methods can assess the trade-off between multiple outcomes and can include patient preference. These methods could improve the way that decisions are made about treatments in the NHS, but there is currently limited research about the use of these methods in publicly funded trials. The aim of this report is to improve the design of clinical trials by helping researchers to select the most appropriate trial design and to decide when to include a benefit­risk method. The recommendations were created using the opinions of experts within the field and consisted of a survey, review of the literature and a workshop. The project created a list of 19 factors that can assist researchers to select the most appropriate trial design. Furthermore, six key areas were identified in which researchers may consider including a benefit­risk method within a trial. Finally, if a benefit­risk assessment is being used, a checklist of items has been created that identifies the information important to include in reports. This report is, however, limited in its applicability and further research should extend this work, as well as provide more detail on individual methods that are available.

Protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial examining the effects of temporarily pausing Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy to coincide with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination and its impact on immune responses in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

INTRODUCTION: People who are immunocompromised have a poor biological response to vaccinations. This study aims to determine in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) if a 3-week pause in Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy (BTKi) starting 1 week before delivery of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine booster, improves vaccine immune response when compared with continuation of BTKi. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An open-label, randomised controlled superiority trial will be conducted in haematology clinics in approximately 10 UK National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. The sample size is 120, randomised 1:1 to intervention and usual care arms. The primary outcome is anti-spike-receptor binding domain (RBD) antibody level at 3 weeks post-SARS-CoV-2 booster vaccination. Secondary outcomes are RBD antibody levels at 12 weeks postbooster vaccination, participant global assessments of disease activity, blood films, full blood count and lactate dehydrogenase levels, impact on quality of life, self-reported adherence with request to temporarily pause or continue BTKi, T cell response against spike protein and relative neutralising antibody titre against SARS-CoV-2 viral variants. Additionally, there will be an investigation of any effects in those given influenza vaccination contemporaneously versus COVID-19 alone.The primary analysis will be performed on the as randomised groups ('intention to treat'). The difference between the study arms in anti-spike-RBD antibody level will be estimated using a mixed effects regression model, allowing for repeated measures clustered within participants. The model will be adjusted for randomisation factor (first line or subsequent line of therapy), and prior infection status obtained from prerandomisation antinucleocapsid antibodies as fixed effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Leeds East Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority (REC Reference:22/YH/0226, IRAS ID: 319057). Dissemination will be via peer-review publications, newsletters and conferences. Results will be communicated to participants, the CLL patient and clinical communities and health policy-makers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14197181.

Surgical site infection following surgery for hand trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Surgical site infection is the most common healthcare-associated infection. Surgical site infection after surgery for hand trauma is associated with increased antibiotic prescribing, re-operation, hospital readmission and delayed rehabilitation, and in severe cases may lead to amputation. As the risk of surgical site infection after surgery for hand trauma remains unclear, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of all primary studies of hand trauma surgery, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and case series. A total of 8836 abstracts were screened, and 201 full studies with 315,618 patients included. The meta-analysis showed a 10% risk of surgical site infection in randomized control trials, with an overall risk of 5% when all studies were included. These summary statistics can be used clinically for informed consent and shared decision making, and for power calculations for future clinical trials of antimicrobial interventions in hand trauma.

The importance of clinical importance when determining the target difference in sample size calculations.

Recently, it was argued that clinically important differences should play no role in sample size calculations. Instead, it was proposed that sample size calculations should focus on setting realistic estimates of treatment benefit. We disagree, and argue in this article that considering the importance of a target difference is necessary in the context of randomised controlled trials of effectiveness, particularly definitive phase III trials. Ignoring clinical importance could have serious ethical and practical consequences.

Physiotherapy Rehabilitation Post Patellar Dislocation (PRePPeD)-protocol for an external pilot randomised controlled trial and qualitative study comparing supervised versus self-managed rehabilitation for people after acute patellar dislocation.

BACKGROUND: Patellar dislocations mainly affect adolescents and young adults. After this injury, patients are usually referred to physiotherapy for exercise-based rehabilitation. Currently, limited high-quality evidence exists to guide rehabilitation practice and treatment outcomes vary. A full-scale trial comparing different rehabilitation approaches would provide high-quality evidence to inform rehabilitation practice. Whether this full-scale trial is feasible is uncertain: the only previous trial that compared exercise-based programmes in this patient population had high loss to follow-up. This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a future full-scale trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two different rehabilitation approaches for people with an acute patellar dislocation. METHODS: Two-arm parallel external pilot randomised controlled trial and qualitative study. We aim to recruit at least 50 participants aged ≥ 14 years with an acute first-time or recurrent patellar dislocation from at least three English National Health Service hospitals. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to supervised rehabilitation (four to six, one-to-one, physiotherapy sessions of advice and prescription of tailored progressive home exercise over a maximum of 6 months) or self-managed rehabilitation (one physiotherapy session of self-management advice, exercise, and provision of self-management materials). Pilot objectives are (1) willingness to be randomised, (2) recruitment rate, (3) retention, (4) intervention adherence, and (5) intervention and follow-up method acceptability to participants assessed through one-to-one semi-structured interviews (maximum 20 participants). Follow-up data will be collected 3, 6, and 9 months after randomisation. Quantitative pilot and clinical outcomes will be numerically summarised, with 95% confidence intervals generated for the pilot outcomes using Wilson's and exact Poisson methods as appropriate. DISCUSSION: This study will assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale trial comparing supervised versus self-managed rehabilitation for people after acute first-time or recurrent patellar dislocation. This full-scale trial's results would provide high-quality evidence to guide rehabilitation provision for patients with this injury. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN14235231 . Registered on 09 August 2022.

Cost-effectiveness of replacing versus discarding the nail in children with nail bed injury.

Every year in the UK, around 10 000 children need to have operations to mend injuries to the bed of their fingernails. Currently, most children have their fingernail placed back on the injured nail bed after the operation. The NINJA trial found that children were slightly less likely to have an infection if the nail was thrown away rather than being put back, but the difference between groups was small and could have be due to chance. This study looked at whether replacing the nail is cost-effective compared with throwing it away. Using data from the NINJA trial, we compared costs, healthcare use, and quality of life and assessed the cost-effectiveness of replacing the nail. It was found that throwing the nail away after surgery would save the National Health Service (NHS) £75 (€85) per operation compared with placing the nail back on the nail bed. Changing clinical practice could save the NHS in England £720 000 (€819 000) per year.

Effectiveness of nail bed repair in children with or without replacing the fingernail: NINJA multicentre randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for nail bed injuries in children is common. One of the key surgical decisions is whether to replace the nail plate following nail bed repair. The aim of this RCT was to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of nail bed repair with fingernail replacement/substitution compared with repair without fingernail replacement. METHODS: A two-arm 1 : 1 parallel-group open multicentre superiority RCT was performed across 20 secondary-care hospitals in the UK. The co-primary outcomes were surgical-site infection at around 7 days after surgery and cosmetic appearance summary score at a minimum of 4 months. RESULTS: Some 451 children presenting with a suspected nail bed injury were recruited between July 2018 and July 2019; 224 were allocated to the nail-discarded arm, and 227 to the nail-replaced arm. There was no difference in the number of surgical-site infections at around 7 days between the two interventions or in cosmetic appearance. The mean total healthcare cost over the 4 months after surgery was €84 (95 per cent c.i. 34 to 140) lower for the nail-discarded arm than the nail-replaced arm (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: After nail bed repair, discarding the fingernail was associated with similar rates of infection and cosmesis ratings as replacement of the finger nail, but was cost saving. Registration number: ISRCTN44551796 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).

Item response theory may account for unequal item weighting and individual-level measurement error in trials that use PROMs: a psychometric sensitivity analysis of the TOPKAT trial.

OBJECTIVES: To apply item response theory as a framework for studying measurement error in superiority trials which use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS: We reanalyzed data from the The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial, which compared the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) responses of patients undergoing partial or total knee replacement, using traditional sum-scoring, after accounting for OKS item characteristics with expected a posteriori (EAP) scoring, and after accounting for individual-level measurement error with plausible value imputation (PVI). We compared the marginalized mean scores of each group at baseline, 2 months, and yearly for 5 years. We used registry data to estimate the minimal important difference (MID) of OKS scores with sum-scoring and EAP scoring. RESULTS: With sum-scoring, we found statistically significant differences in mean OKS score at 2 months (P = 0.030) and 1 year (P = 0.030). EAP scores produced slightly different results, with statistically significant differences at 1 year (P = 0.041) and 3 years (P = 0.043). With PVI, there were no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSION: Psychometric sensitivity analyses can be readily performed for superiority trials using PROMs and may aid the interpretation of results.

Group sequential designs in pragmatic trials: feasibility and assessment of utility using data from a number of recent surgical RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Assessing the long term effects of many surgical interventions tested in pragmatic RCTs may require extended periods of participant follow-up to assess effectiveness and use patient-reported outcomes that require large sample sizes. Consequently the RCTs are often perceived as being expensive and time-consuming, particularly if the results show the test intervention is not effective. Adaptive, and particularly group sequential, designs have great potential to improve the efficiency and cost of testing new and existing surgical interventions. As a means to assess the potential utility of group sequential designs, we re-analyse data from a number of recent high-profile RCTs and assess whether using such a design would have caused the trial to stop early. METHODS: Many pragmatic RCTs monitor participants at a number of occasions (e.g. at 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery) during follow-up as a means to assess recovery and also to keep participants engaged with the trial process. Conventionally one of the outcomes is selected as the primary (final) outcome, for clinical reasons, with others designated as either early or late outcomes. In such settings, novel group sequential designs that use data from not only the final outcome but also from early outcomes at interim analyses can be used to inform stopping decisions. We describe data from seven recent surgical RCTs (WAT, DRAFFT, WOLLF, FASHION, CSAW, FIXDT, TOPKAT), and outline possible group sequential designs that could plausibly have been proposed at the design stage. We then simulate how these group sequential designs could have proceeded, by using the observed data and dates to replicate how information could have accumulated and decisions been made for each RCT. RESULTS: The results of the simulated group sequential designs showed that for two of the RCTs it was highly likely that they would have stopped for futility at interim analyses, potentially saving considerable time (15 and 23 months) and costs and avoiding patients being exposed to interventions that were either ineffective or no better than standard care. We discuss the characteristics of RCTs that are important in order to use the methodology we describe, particularly the value of early outcomes and the window of opportunity when early stopping decisions can be made and how it is related to the length of recruitment period and follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The results for five of the RCTs tested showed that group sequential designs using early outcome data would have been feasible and likely to provide designs that were at least as efficient, and possibly more efficient, than the original fixed sample size designs. In general, the amount of information provided by the early outcomes was surprisingly large, due to the strength of correlations with the primary outcome. This suggests that the methods described here are likely to provide benefits more generally across the range of surgical trials and more widely in other application areas where trial designs, outcomes and follow-up patterns are structured and behave similarly.

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised surgical trials: a review of existing guidance.

BACKGROUND: The complexities associated with delivering randomised surgical trials, such as clustering effects, by centre or surgeon, and surgical learning, are well known. Despite this, approaches used to manage these complexities, and opinions on these, vary. Guidance documents have been developed to support clinical trial design and reporting. This work aimed to identify and examine existing guidance and consider its relevance to clustering effects and learning curves within surgical trials. METHODS: A review of existing guidelines, developed to inform the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials, is undertaken. Guidelines were identified using an electronic search, within the Equator Network, and by a targeted search of those endorsed by leading UK funding bodies, regulators, and medical journals. Eligible documents were compared against pre-specified key criteria to identify gaps or inconsistencies in recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-eight documents were eligible (12 Equator Network; 16 targeted search). Twice the number of guidance documents targeted design (n/N=20/28, 71%) than analysis (n/N=10/28, 36%). Managing clustering by centre through design was well documented. Clustering by surgeon had less coverage and contained some inconsistencies. Managing the surgical learning curve, or changes in delivery over time, through design was contained within several documents (n/N=8/28, 29%), of which one provided guidance on reporting this and restricted to early phase studies only. Methods to analyse clustering effects and learning were provided in five and four documents respectively (N=28). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first review as to the extent to which existing guidance for designing and analysing randomised surgical trials covers the management of clustering, by centre or surgeon, and the surgical learning curve. Twice the number of identified documents targeted design aspects than analysis. Most notably, no single document exists for use when designing these studies, which may lead to inconsistencies in practice. The development of a single document, with agreed principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios, is needed.

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367. FINDINGS: Between Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5-13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Surgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management. FUNDING: The UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

The Effects of Reconditioning Exercises Following Prolonged Bed Rest on Lumbopelvic Muscle Volume and Accumulation of Paraspinal Muscle Fat.

Reduced muscle size and accumulation of paraspinal muscle fat content (PFC) have been reported in lumbopelvic muscles after spaceflights and head-down tilt (HDT) bed rest. While some information is available regarding reconditioning programs on muscle atrophy recovery, the effects on the accumulation of PFC are unknown. Recently, a device (the Functional Re-adaptive Exercise Device-FRED) has been developed which aims to specifically recruit lumbopelvic muscles. This study aimed to investigate the effects of a standard reconditioning (SR) program and SR program supplemented by FRED (SR + FRED) on the recovery of the lumbopelvic muscles following 60-day HDT bed rest. Twenty-four healthy participants arrived at the facility for baseline data collection (BDC) before the bed rest period. They remained in the facility for 13-day post-HDT bed rest and were randomly allocated to one of two reconditioning programs: SR or SR + FRED. Muscle volumes of the lumbar multifidus (LM), lumbar erector spinae (LES), quadratus lumborum (QL), and psoas major (PM) muscles were measured from axial T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at all lumbar intervertebral disc levels. PFC was determined using a chemical shift-based lipid/water Dixon sequence. Each lumbopelvic muscle was segmented into four equal quartiles (from medial to lateral). MRI of the lumbopelvic region was conducted at BDC, Day-59 of bed rest (HDT59), and Day-13 after reconditioning (R13). Comparing R13 with BDC, the volumes of the LM muscle at L4/L5 and L5/S1, LES at L1/L2, and QL at L3/L4 had not recovered (all-p < 0.05), and the PM muscle remained larger at L1/L2 (p = 0.001). Accumulation of PFC in the LM muscle at the L4/L5 and L5/S1 levels remained higher in the centro-medial regions at R13 than BDC (all-p < 0.05). There was no difference between the two reconditioning programs. A 2-week reconditioning program was insufficient to fully restore all volumes of lumbopelvic muscles and reverse the accumulation of PFC in the muscles measured to BDC values, particularly in the LM muscle at the lower lumbar levels. These findings suggest that more extended reconditioning programs or alternative exercises may be necessary to fully restore the size and properties of the lumbopelvic muscles after prolonged bed rest.

Hand and Wrist Trauma: Antimicrobials and Infection (HAWAII) : a protocol for a multicentre, feasibility study of antimicrobial sutures in hand and wrist trauma surgery.

AIMS: Hand trauma accounts for one in five of emergency department attendances, with a UK incidence of over five million injuries/year and 250,000 operations/year. Surgical site infection (SSI) in hand trauma surgery leads to further interventions, poor outcomes, and prolonged recovery, but has been poorly researched. Antimicrobial sutures have been recognized by both the World Health Organization and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as potentially effective for reducing SSI. They have never been studied in hand trauma surgery: a completely different patient group and clinical pathway to previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of these sutures. Antimicrobial sutures are expensive, and further research in hand trauma is warranted before they become standard of care. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a feasibility study of antimicrobial sutures in patients undergoing hand trauma surgery to establish acceptability, compliance, and retention for a definitive trial. METHODS: A two-arm, multicentre feasibility RCT of 116 adult participants with hand and wrist injuries, randomized to either antimicrobial sutures or standard sutures. Study participants and outcome assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation. Outcome measures will be recorded at baseline (preoperatively), 30 days, 90 days, and six months, and will include SSI, patient-reported outcome measures, and return to work. CONCLUSION: This will inform a definitive trial of antimicrobial sutures in the hand and wrist, and will help to inform future upper limb trauma trials. The results of this research will be shared with the medical community through high impact publication and presentation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):529-535.

Effect of a 2-week interruption in methotrexate treatment versus continued treatment on COVID-19 booster vaccine immunity in adults with inflammatory conditions (VROOM study): a randomised, open label, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressive treatments inhibit vaccine-induced immunity against SARS-CoV-2. We evaluated whether a 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment immediately after the COVID-19 vaccine booster improved antibody responses against the S1 receptor-binding domain (S1-RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with uninterrupted treatment in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. METHODS: We did an open-label, prospective, two-arm, parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled, superiority trial in 26 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults from rheumatology and dermatology clinics who had been diagnosed with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease (eg, rheumatoid arthritis, psoriasis with or without arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, atopic dermatitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and systemic lupus erythematosus) and who were taking low-dose weekly methotrexate (≤25 mg per week) for at least 3 months. Participants also had to have received two primary vaccine doses from the UK COVID-19 vaccination programme. We randomly assigned the participants (1:1), using a centralised validated computer randomisation program, to suspend methotrexate treatment for 2 weeks immediately after their COVID-19 booster (suspend methotrexate group) or to continue treatment as usual (continue methotrexate group). Participants, investigators, clinical research staff, and data analysts were unmasked, while researchers doing the laboratory analyses were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was S1-RBD antibody titres 4 weeks after receiving the COVID-19 booster vaccine dose, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ISRCT, ISRCTN11442263; following the pre-planned interim analysis, recruitment was stopped early. FINDINGS: Between Sept 30, 2021 and March 3, 2022, we recruited 340 participants, of whom 254 were included in the interim analysis and had been randomly assigned to one of the two groups: 127 in the continue methotrexate group and 127 in the suspend methotrexate group. Their mean age was 59·1 years, 155 (61%) were female, 130 (51%) had rheumatoid arthritis, and 86 (34%) had psoriasis with or without arthritis. After 4 weeks, the geometric mean S1-RBD antibody titre was 22 750 U/mL (95% CI 19 314-26 796) in the suspend methotrexate group and 10 798 U/mL (8970-12 997) in the continue methotrexate group, with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 2·19 (95% CI 1·57-3·04; p<0·0001; mixed-effects model). The increased antibody response in the suspend methotrexate group was consistent across methotrexate dose, administration route, type of immune-mediated inflammatory disease, age, primary vaccination platform, and history of SARS-CoV-2 infection. There were no intervention-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: A 2-week interruption of methotrexate treatment for people with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases resulted in enhanced boosting of antibody responses after COVID-19 vaccination. This intervention is simple, low-cost, and easy to implement, and could potentially translate to increased vaccine efficacy and duration of protection for susceptible groups. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

ACL Surgery Necessity in Non-Acute Patients (ACL SNNAP): a statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common injury, primarily affecting young, active individuals. Despite surgical intervention being the more common treatment for patients suffering ACL ruptures, current management is based on limited and generally low-quality evidence. We describe a statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the ACL SNNAP randomised controlled trial, which aims to investigate the necessity of surgical management in patients with ACL injuries. METHODS/DESIGN: ACL SNNAP is a pragmatic, multi-centre, superiority, parallel-group randomised controlled trial in participants with a symptomatic non-acute ACL deficient knee. Participants are allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either non-surgical management (rehabilitation) or surgical management (reconstruction) with the aim of assessing the efficacy and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome of the study is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) at 18 months post-randomisation. The KOOS4 score at 18 months will be evaluated using a linear regression model adjusting for recruitment centre and baseline KOOS4 scores, allowing for intra-centre correlation. A secondary analysis of the primary outcome will be carried out using an area under the curve (AUC) approach using treatment estimates obtained from a mixed model using baseline, 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months post-randomisation outcome data. Secondary outcomes will be measured at 18 months and will include return to activity/level of sport participation, intervention-related complications, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, all 5 individual subscales of the KOOS questionnaire, the ACL-QOL score, expectations of return to activity and cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Missing primary outcome data will be investigated through a sensitivity analysis. Full details of the planned methods for the statistical analysis of clinical outcomes are presented in this paper. The study protocol for the ACL SNNAP trial has been published previously. DISCUSSION: The methods of analysis for the ACL SNNAP trial have been described here to minimise the risk of data-driven results and reporting bias. Any deviations from the analysis methods described in this paper will be described in full and justified in the publications of the trial results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN10110685 . Registered on 16 November 2016.