Clinical effectiveness of the psychological therapy Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy in addition to usual care compared with assessment-enhanced usual care alone: a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical trial in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Mental health difficulties are common in children and young people with chronic health conditions, but many of those in need do not access evidence-based psychological treatments. The study aim was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of integrated mental health treatment for children and young people with epilepsy, a common chronic health condition known to be associated with a particularly high rate of co-occurring mental health difficulties. METHODS: We conducted a parallel group, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial of participants aged 3-18 years, attending epilepsy clinics across England and Northern Ireland who met diagnostic criteria for a common mental health disorder. Participants were randomised (1:1; using an independent web-based system) to receive the Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy (MICE) in addition to usual care, or assessment-enhanced usual care alone (control). Children and young people in both groups received a full diagnostic mental health assessment. MICE was a modular psychological intervention designed to treat common mental health conditions in children and young people using evidence-based approaches such as cognitive behaviour therapy and behavioural parenting strategies. Usual care for mental health disorders varied by site but typically included referral to appropriate services. Participants, along with their caregivers, and clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation but statisticians were masked until the point of analysis. The primary outcome, analysed by modified intention-to-treat, was the parent-report Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at 6 months post-randomisation. The study is complete and registered with ISRCTN (57823197). FINDINGS: 1401 young people were potentially deemed eligible for study inclusion. Following the exclusion of 531 young people, 870 participants were assessed for eligibility and completed the SDQ, and 480 caregivers provided consent for study inclusion between May 20, 2019, and Jan 31, 2022. Between Aug 28, 2019, and Feb 21, 2022, 334 participants (mean ages 10·5 years [SD 3·6] in the MICE group vs 10·3 [4·0] in control group at baseline) were randomly assigned to an intervention using minimisation balanced by age, primary mental health disorder, diagnosis of intellectual disability, and autistic spectrum disorder at baseline. 168 (50%) of the participants were female and 166 (50%) were male. 166 participants were randomly assigned to the MICE group and 168 were randomly assigned to the control group. At 6 months, the mean SDQ difficulties for the 148 participants in the MICE group was 17·6 (SD 6·3) and 19·6 (6·1) for the 148 participants in the control group. The adjusted effect of MICE was -1·7 (95% CI -2·8 to -0·5; p=0·0040; Cohen's d, 0·3). 14 (8%) patients in the MICE group experienced at least one serious adverse event compared with 24 (14%) in the control group. 68% percent of serious adverse events (50 events) were admission due to seizures. INTERPRETATION: MICE was superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving symptoms of emotional and behavioural difficulties in young people with epilepsy and common mental health disorders. The trial therefore shows that mental health comorbidities can be effectively and safely treated by a variety of clinicians, utilising an integrated intervention across ages and in the context of intellectual disability and autism. The evidence from this trial suggests that such a model should be fully embedded in epilepsy services and serves as a model for other chronic health conditions in young people. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and Epilepsy Research UK Endeavour Project Grant.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Total Ankle Replacement Compared with Ankle Arthrodesis for Patients Aged 50-85 Years with End-Stage Ankle Osteoarthritis: The TARVA Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis suffer from reduced mobility and quality of life and the main surgical treatments are total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion (AF). OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to calculate the mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) of TAR compared with AF in patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, over 52 weeks and over the patients' lifetime. METHOD: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of 282 participants from 17 UK centres recruited to a randomised controlled trial (TARVA). QALYs were calculated using index values from EQ-5D-5L. Resource use information was collected from case report forms and self-completed questionnaires. Primary analysis was within-trial analysis from the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective, while secondary analyses were within-trial analysis from wider perspective and long-term economic modelling. Adjustments were made for baseline resource use and index values. RESULTS: Total cost at 52 weeks was higher in the TAR group compared with the AF group, from the NHS and PSS perspective (mean adjusted difference £2539, 95% confidence interval [CI] £1142, £3897). The difference became very small from the wider perspective (£155, 95% CI -  £1947, £2331). There was no significant difference between TAR and AF in terms of QALYs (mean adjusted difference 0.02, 95% CI -  0.015, 0.05) at 52 weeks post-operation. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £131,999 per QALY gained 52 weeks post-operation. Long-term economic modelling resulted in an ICER of £4200 per QALY gained, and there is a 69% probability of TAR being cost effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: TAR does not appear to be cost effective over AF 52 weeks post-operation. A decision model suggests that TAR can be cost effective over the patients' lifetime but there is a need for longer-term prospectively collected data. Clinical trial registration ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555.

Shaping care home COVID-19 testing policy: a protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of asymptomatic testing compared with standard care in care home staff (VIVALDI-CT).

INTRODUCTION: Care home residents have experienced significant morbidity, mortality and disruption following outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of care home staff was introduced to reduce transmission of infection, but it is unclear whether this remains beneficial. This trial aims to investigate whether use of regular asymptomatic staff testing, alongside funding to reimburse sick pay for those who test positive and meet costs of employing agency staff, is a feasible and effective strategy to reduce COVID-19 impact in care homes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The VIVALDI-Clinical Trial is a multicentre, open-label, cluster randomised controlled, phase III/IV superiority trial in up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. All regular and agency staff will be enrolled, excepting those who opt out. Homes will be randomised to the intervention arm (twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2) or the control arm (current national testing guidance). Staff who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 will self-isolate and receive sick pay. Care providers will be reimbursed for costs associated with employing temporary staff to backfill for absence arising directly from the trial.The trial will be delivered by a multidisciplinary research team through a series of five work packages.The primary outcome is the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of outbreaks and home closures. Health economic and modelling analyses will investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost consequences of the testing intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews will be conducted to understand intervention roll out and identify areas for optimisation to inform future intervention scale-up, should the testing approach prove effective and cost-effective. Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to enable the sector to plan for results and their implications and to coproduce recommendations on the use of testing for policy-makers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the London-Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number 22/LO/0846) and the Health Research Authority (22/CAG/0165). The results of the trial will be disseminated regardless of the direction of effect. The publication of the results will comply with a trial-specific publication policy and will include submission to open access journals. A lay summary of the results will also be produced to disseminate the results to participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13296529.

Cardiovascular risk factors in secondary progressive multiple sclerosis: A cross-sectional analysis from the MS-STAT2 randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is increasing evidence that cardiovascular risk (CVR) contributes to disability progression in multiple sclerosis (MS). CVR is particularly prevalent in secondary progressive MS (SPMS) and can be quantified through validated composite CVR scores. The aim was to examine the cross-sectional relationships between excess modifiable CVR, whole and regional brain atrophy on magnetic resonance imaging, and disability in patients with SPMS. METHODS: Participants had SPMS, and data were collected at enrolment into the MS-STAT2 trial. Composite CVR scores were calculated using the QRISK3 software. Prematurely achieved CVR due to modifiable risk factors was expressed as QRISK3 premature CVR, derived through reference to the normative QRISK3 dataset and expressed in years. Associations were determined with multiple linear regressions. RESULTS: For the 218 participants, mean age was 54 years and median Expanded Disability Status Scale was 6.0. Each additional year of prematurely achieved CVR was associated with a 2.7 mL (beta coefficient; 95% confidence interval 0.8-4.7; p = 0.006) smaller normalized whole brain volume. The strongest relationship was seen for the cortical grey matter (beta coefficient 1.6 mL per year; 95% confidence interval 0.5-2.7; p = 0.003), and associations were also found with poorer verbal working memory performance. Body mass index demonstrated the strongest relationships with normalized brain volumes, whilst serum lipid ratios demonstrated strong relationships with verbal and visuospatial working memory performance. CONCLUSIONS: Prematurely achieved CVR is associated with lower normalized brain volumes in SPMS. Future longitudinal analyses of this clinical trial dataset will be important to determine whether CVR predicts future disease worsening.

A qualitative process evaluation using the behaviour change wheel approach: Did a whole genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 within UK hospitals operate as anticipated?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to conduct a process evaluation of a whole-genome sequence report form (SRF) used to reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 through changing infection prevention and control (IPC) behaviours within the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used a three-staged design. Firstly, we described and theorized the purported content of the SRF using the behaviour change wheel (BCW). Secondly, we used inductive thematic analysis of one-to-one interviews (n = 39) to explore contextual accounts of using the SRF. Thirdly, further deductive analysis gauged support for the intervention working as earlier anticipated. RESULTS: It was possible to theorize the SRF using the BCW approach and visualize it within a simple logic model. Inductive thematic analyses identified the SRF's acceptability, ease of use and perceived effectiveness. However, major challenges to embedding it in routine practice during the unfolding COVID-19 crisis were reported. Notwithstanding this insight, deductive analysis showed support for the putative intervention functions 'Education', 'Persuasion' and 'Enablement'; behaviour change techniques '1.2 Problem solving', '2.6 Biofeedback', '2.7 Feedback on outcomes of behaviour' and '7.1 Prompts and cues'; and theoretical domains framework domains 'Knowledge' and 'Behavioural regulation'. CONCLUSIONS: Our process evaluation of the SRF, using the BCW approach to describe and theorize its content, provided granular support for the SRF working to change IPC behaviours as anticipated. However, our complementary inductive thematic analysis highlighted the importance of the local context in constraining its routine use. For SRFs to reach their full potential in reducing nosocomial infections, further implementation research is needed.

Total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis for patients aged 50-85 years with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis: the TARVA RCT.

Background: We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and complication rates of total ankle replacement with those of arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion) in the treatment of end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Methods: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, non-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis who were aged 50-85 years and were suitable for both procedures were recruited from 17 UK hospitals and randomised using minimisation. The primary outcome was the change in the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain scores between the preoperative baseline and 52 weeks post surgery. Results: Between March 2015 and January 2019, 303 participants were randomised using a minimisation algorithm: 152 to total ankle replacement and 151 to ankle fusion. At 52 weeks, the mean (standard deviation) Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score was 31.4 (30.4) in the total ankle replacement arm (n = 136) and 36.8 (30.6) in the ankle fusion arm (n = 140); the adjusted difference in the change was -5.6 (95% confidence interval -12.5 to 1.4; p = 0.12) in the intention-to-treat analysis. By week 52, one patient in the total ankle replacement arm required revision. Rates of wound-healing issues (13.4% vs. 5.7%) and nerve injuries (4.2% vs. < 1%) were higher and the rate of thromboembolic events was lower (2.9% vs. 4.9%) in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. The bone non-union rate (based on plain radiographs) in the ankle fusion arm was 12.1%, but only 7.1% of patients had symptoms. A post hoc analysis of fixed-bearing total ankle replacement showed a statistically significant improvement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score (-11.1, 95% confidence interval -19.3 to -2.9; p = 0.008). We estimate a 69% likelihood that total ankle replacement is cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the patient's lifetime. Limitations: This initial report contains only 52-week data, which must therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, the pragmatic nature of the study means that there was heterogeneity between surgical implants and techniques. The trial was run across 17 NHS centres to ensure that decision-making streams reflected the standard of care in the NHS as closely as possible. Conclusions: Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' quality of life at 1 year, and both appear to be safe. When total ankle replacement was compared with ankle fusion overall, we were unable to show a statistically significant difference between the two arms in terms of our primary outcome measure. The total ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis (TARVA) trial is inconclusive in terms of superiority of total ankle replacement, as the 95% confidence interval for the adjusted treatment effect includes both a difference of zero and the minimal important difference of 12, but it can rule out the superiority of ankle fusion. A post hoc analysis comparing fixed-bearing total ankle replacement with ankle fusion showed a statistically significant improvement of total ankle replacement over ankle fusion in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing domain score. Total ankle replacement appears to be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime based on long-term economic modelling. Future work: We recommend long-term follow-up of this important cohort, in particular radiological and clinical progress. We also recommend studies to explore the sensitivity of clinical scores to detect clinically important differences between arms when both have already achieved a significant improvement from baseline. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN60672307 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02128555. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Each year, over 29,000 patients with ankle osteoarthritis seek a specialist opinion, of whom 4000 undergo NHS surgical treatment. The main surgical treatments for severe ankle osteoarthritis are total ankle replacement or arthrodesis (i.e. ankle fusion). Both are known to be good treatments to relieve pain, and each has its advantages. Total ankle replacement is a more popular patient choice than ankle fusion. When deciding whether to undergo ankle replacement or fusion, patients consult various sources, but the majority of them rely on the advice of their surgeon to make a final decision. To the best of our knowledge, there has never been a high-quality randomised clinical trial comparing these two treatments and there are no published guidelines on the most suitable management. In this study, 303 patients were randomised to a type of ankle surgery: 138 in the total ankle replacement arm and 144 in the ankle fusion arm received surgery. We found that both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion improved patients' walking ability, but we did not find a statistically significant difference between the treatment arms based on our primary outcome measure at 1 year. When we considered the type of total ankle replacement implant, we found that the implant most commonly used in the NHS (a fixed-bearing two-component implant) had better outcomes at 1 year than ankle fusion. Both total ankle replacement and ankle fusion appear to be safe. However, there were more wound-healing issues and nerve injuries in the total ankle replacement arm than in the ankle fusion arm. Twelve per cent of patients experienced bone non-union in the ankle fusion arm, but only 7.1% experienced symptoms. We estimate that there is a 69% chance that total ankle replacement would be cost-effective compared with ankle fusion at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over a patient's lifetime. This study provides the NHS with important information that could help to obtain the best possible outcome for patients with severe ankle arthritis.

Total Ankle Replacement Versus Arthrodesis for End-Stage Ankle Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: End-stage ankle osteoarthritis causes severe pain and disability. There are no randomized trials comparing the 2 main surgical treatments: total ankle replacement (TAR) and ankle fusion (AF). OBJECTIVE: To determine which treatment is superior in terms of clinical scores and adverse events. DESIGN: A multicenter, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: 60672307). SETTING: 17 National Health Service trusts across the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Patients with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis, aged 50 to 85 years, and suitable for either procedure. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned to TAR or AF surgical treatment. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was change in Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire walking/standing (MOXFQ-W/S) domain scores between baseline and 52 weeks after surgery. No blinding was possible. RESULTS: Between 6 March 2015 and 10 January 2019, a total of 303 patients were randomly assigned; mean age was 68 years, and 71% were men. Twenty-one patients withdrew before surgery, and 281 clinical scores were analyzed. At 52 weeks, the mean MOXFQ-W/S scores improved for both groups. The adjusted difference in the change in MOXFQ-W/S scores from baseline was -5.6 (95% CI, -12.5 to 1.4), showing that TAR improved more than AF, but the difference was not considered clinically or statistically significant. The number of adverse events was similar between groups (109 vs. 104), but there were more wound healing issues in the TAR group and more thromboembolic events and nonunion in the AF group. The symptomatic nonunion rate for AF was 7%. A post hoc analysis suggested superiority of fixed-bearing TAR over AF (-11.1 [CI, -19.3 to -2.9]). LIMITATION: Only 52-week data; pragmatic design creates heterogeneity of implants and surgical techniques. CONCLUSION: Both TAR and AF improve MOXFQ-W/S and had similar clinical scores and number of harms. Total ankle replacement had greater wound healing complications and nerve injuries, whereas AF had greater thromboembolism and nonunion, with a symptomatic nonunion rate of 7%. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute for Health and Care Research Heath Technology Assessment Programme.

Effectiveness of rapid SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing in supporting infection control for hospital-onset COVID-19 infection: Multicentre, prospective study.

Background: Viral sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 has been used for outbreak investigation, but there is limited evidence supporting routine use for infection prevention and control (IPC) within hospital settings. Methods: We conducted a prospective non-randomised trial of sequencing at 14 acute UK hospital trusts. Sites each had a 4-week baseline data collection period, followed by intervention periods comprising 8 weeks of 'rapid' (<48 hr) and 4 weeks of 'longer-turnaround' (5-10 days) sequencing using a sequence reporting tool (SRT). Data were collected on all hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs; detected ≥48 hr from admission). The impact of the sequencing intervention on IPC knowledge and actions, and on the incidence of probable/definite hospital-acquired infections (HAIs), was evaluated. Results: A total of 2170 HOCI cases were recorded from October 2020 to April 2021, corresponding to a period of extreme strain on the health service, with sequence reports returned for 650/1320 (49.2%) during intervention phases. We did not detect a statistically significant change in weekly incidence of HAIs in longer-turnaround (incidence rate ratio 1.60, 95% CI 0.85-3.01; p=0.14) or rapid (0.85, 0.48-1.50; p=0.54) intervention phases compared to baseline phase. However, IPC practice was changed in 7.8 and 7.4% of all HOCI cases in rapid and longer-turnaround phases, respectively, and 17.2 and 11.6% of cases where the report was returned. In a 'per-protocol' sensitivity analysis, there was an impact on IPC actions in 20.7% of HOCI cases when the SRT report was returned within 5 days. Capacity to respond effectively to insights from sequencing was breached in most sites by the volume of cases and limited resources. Conclusions: While we did not demonstrate a direct impact of sequencing on the incidence of nosocomial transmission, our results suggest that sequencing can inform IPC response to HOCIs, particularly when returned within 5 days. Funding: COG-UK is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) (grant code: MC_PC_19027), and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. Clinical trial number: NCT04405934.

Optimising recruitment in clinical trials for progressive multiple sclerosis: observational analysis from the MS-SMART and MS-STAT2 randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Slower than planned recruitment is a major factor contributing to the delay or failure of randomised controlled trials to report on time. There is a limited evidence base regarding the optimisation of recruitment strategies. Here we performed an observational review of our experience in recruitment for two large randomised controlled trials for people with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis. We aimed to explicitly determine those factors which can facilitate trial recruitment in progressive neurodegenerative disease. METHODS: Recruitment data from the sequential MS-SMART [NCT01910259] and MS-STAT2 [NCT03387670] UK randomised controlled trials was reviewed from the largest recruiting site, University College London (UCL). The trial population was similar which allowed comparison over the two recruitment periods of 2015-2016 and 2018-2021. This included sources of referral, progress through stages of recruitment, reasons for participant ineligibility and the impact of publicity events upon recruitment. RESULTS: In MS-SMART, 18% of patients contacted were enrolled, compared to 27% for MS-STAT2. Online registration of interest portals provided the greatest number of referrals (76% in MS-SMART, and 51% in MS-STAT2), with publicity in national media outlets producing a demonstrable increase in the number of potential participants. The introduction of an online self-screening questionnaire for MS-STAT2 resulted in 67% of potential participants (3080 of 4605) automatically determining their own ineligibility. In both studies, however, around 60% of those directly telephoned to discuss the study were not eligible, with difficulties related to travel to trial visits, or excluded medication, being the most common issues. Eighty-four percent of those deemed potentially eligible following telephone calls were enrolled in the MS-STAT2 study, compared to only 55% for MS-SMART. CONCLUSIONS: Through a detailed review of recruiting participants at the largest centre into two large randomised controlled trials with similar entry criteria, we have identified a number of approaches that may improve recruitment efficiency. We highlight here the importance of mandatory online self-screening questionnaires, a coordinated publicity campaign, and simple interventions such as eligibility checklists and appointment reminders. Recruitment approaches should be further assessed through a studies within a trial (SWAT) design. TRIAL REGISTRATION: MS-SMART: NCT01910259 ; registered July 2013 and MS-STAT2: NCT03387670 ; registered Jan 2018.

Patient reported outcome measures in ankle replacement versus ankle arthrodesis - A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Compare the functional outcomes of comparative studies of ankle arthrodesis (AA) and total ankle replacements (TAR). DESIGN: Systematic review using PRISMA guidelines. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane and EMBASE databases in July 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that directly compared TAR and AA which reported patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) of pain, function and quality of life. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently reviewed all papers. PROMs were allocated into pain, function or quality of life domains. Two summary statistics were created to allow for analysis of the PROMs. These statistics were the mean difference in post-operative score and the mean difference in the change of score. RESULTS: 1323 papers were assessed of which 20 papers were included. 898 ankle arthrodesis and 1638 ankle replacements were evaluated. The mean follow up was 3.3 years (range 0.5-13.0 years). AA patients had a mean age of 55.7 (range 20-82) and TAR 62.5 (range 21-89). There was major heterogeneity in outcomes used. We were unable to find a significant difference between the reported change in PROMs following TAR and AA. 29.3% of PROMs and their subscores showed TAR had better outcomes, 68.7% showed no significant difference and only 2.0% showed AA to have better outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of published studies found equality in patient reported outcomes following TAR and AA although the quality of the studies was of low-level evidence. There is an urgent need for randomised controlled studies to definitively answer this important clinical question.

Protocol for the COG-UK hospital-onset COVID-19 infection (HOCI) multicentre interventional clinical study: evaluating the efficacy of rapid genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 in limiting the spread of COVID-19 in UK NHS hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Nosocomial transmission of SARS-CoV-2 has been a significant cause of mortality in National Health Service (NHS) hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic. The COG-UK Consortium Hospital-Onset COVID-19 Infections (COG-UK HOCI) study aims to evaluate whether the use of rapid whole-genome sequencing of SARS-CoV-2, supported by a novel probabilistic reporting methodology, can inform infection prevention and control (IPC) practice within NHS hospital settings. DESIGN: Multicentre, prospective, interventional, superiority study. SETTING: 14 participating NHS hospitals over winter-spring 2020/2021 in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients must be admitted to hospital with first-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive test result >48 hour from time of admission, where COVID-19 diagnosis not suspected on admission. The projected sample size is 2380 patients. INTERVENTION: The intervention is the return of a sequence report, within 48 hours in one phase (rapid local lab processing) and within 5-10 days in a second phase (mimicking central lab), comparing the viral genome from an eligible study participant with others within and outside the hospital site. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes are incidence of Public Health England (PHE)/IPC-defined SARS-CoV-2 hospital-acquired infection during the baseline and two interventional phases, and proportion of hospital-onset cases with genomic evidence of transmission linkage following implementation of the intervention where such linkage was not suspected by initial IPC investigation. Secondary outcomes include incidence of hospital outbreaks, with and without sequencing data; actual and desirable changes to IPC actions; periods of healthcare worker (HCW) absence. Health economic analysis will be conducted to determine cost benefit of the intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews with HCWs will be conducted alongside the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN50212645. Pre-results stage. This manuscript is based on protocol V.6.0. 2 September 2021.

Barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial comparing two surgical procedures for ankle arthritis : a qualitative study.

AIMS: A multicentre, randomized, clinician-led, pragmatic, parallel-group orthopaedic trial of two surgical procedures was set up to obtain high-quality evidence of effectiveness. However, the trial faced recruitment challenges and struggled to maintain recruitment rates over 30%, although this is not unusual for surgical trials. We conducted a qualitative study with the aim of gathering information about recruitment practices to identify barriers to patient consent and participation to an orthopaedic trial. METHODS: We collected 11 audio recordings of recruitment appointments and interviews of research team members (principal investigators and research nurses) from five hospitals involved in recruitment to an orthopaedic trial. We analyzed the qualitative data sets thematically with the aim of identifying aspects of informed consent and information provision that was either unclear, disrupted, or hindered trial recruitment. RESULTS: Recruiters faced four common obstacles when recruiting to a surgical orthopaedic trial: patient preferences for an intervention; a complex recruitment pathway; various logistical issues; and conflicting views on equipoise. Clinicians expressed concerns that the trial may not show significant differences in the treatments, validating their equipoise. However, they experienced role conflicts due to their own preference and perceived patient preference for an intervention arm. CONCLUSION: This study provided initial information about barriers to recruitment to an orthopaedic randomized controlled trial. We shared these findings in an all-site investigators' meeting and encouraged researchers to find solutions to identified barriers; this led to the successful completion of recruitment. Complex trials may benefit for using of a mixed-methods approach to mitigate against recruitment failure, and to improve patient participation and informed consent. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):631-637.

Rapid feedback on hospital onset SARS-CoV-2 infections combining epidemiological and sequencing data.

Background: Rapid identification and investigation of healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) is important for suppression of SARS-CoV-2, but the infection source for hospital onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs) cannot always be readily identified based only on epidemiological data. Viral sequencing data provides additional information regarding potential transmission clusters, but the low mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 can make interpretation using standard phylogenetic methods difficult. Methods: We developed a novel statistical method and sequence reporting tool (SRT) that combines epidemiological and sequence data in order to provide a rapid assessment of the probability of HCAI among HOCI cases (defined as first positive test >48 hr following admission) and to identify infections that could plausibly constitute outbreak events. The method is designed for prospective use, but was validated using retrospective datasets from hospitals in Glasgow and Sheffield collected February-May 2020. Results: We analysed data from 326 HOCIs. Among HOCIs with time from admission ≥8 days, the SRT algorithm identified close sequence matches from the same ward for 160/244 (65.6%) and in the remainder 68/84 (81.0%) had at least one similar sequence elsewhere in the hospital, resulting in high estimated probabilities of within-ward and within-hospital transmission. For HOCIs with time from admission 3-7 days, the SRT probability of healthcare acquisition was >0.5 in 33/82 (40.2%). Conclusions: The methodology developed can provide rapid feedback on HOCIs that could be useful for infection prevention and control teams, and warrants further prospective evaluation. The integration of epidemiological and sequence data is important given the low mutation rate of SARS-CoV-2 and its variable incubation period. Funding: COG-UK HOCI funded by COG-UK consortium, supported by funding from UK Research and Innovation, National Institute of Health Research and Wellcome Sanger Institute.

M.I.C.E-Mental Health Intervention for Children with Epilepsy: a randomised controlled, multi-centre clinical trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of MATCH-ADTC in addition to usual care compared to usual care alone for children and young people with common mental health disorders and epilepsy-study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health disorders in the context of long-term conditions in children and young people are currently overlooked and undertreated. Evidence-based psychological treatments for common childhood mental health disorders (anxiety, depression and disruptive behaviour disorders) have not been systematically evaluated in young people with epilepsy despite their high prevalence in this population. The aim of this multi-site randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding a modular psychological intervention to usual care for the mental health disorders in comparison to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. METHODS: In total, 334 participants aged 3-18 years attending epilepsy services will be screened for mental health disorders with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the diagnostic Development and Wellbeing Assessment (DAWBA). Those identified as having a mental health disorder and consenting to the trial will be randomised to either receive up to 22 sessions of the modular psychological intervention (MATCH-ADTC) delivered over the telephone over 6 months by non-mental health professionals in addition to usual care or to assessment-enhanced usual care alone. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 6 months and 12 months post-randomisation. It is hypothesised that MATCH-ADTC plus usual care will be superior to assessment-enhanced usual care in improving emotional and behavioural symptoms. The primary outcome is the SDQ reported by parents at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include parent-reported mental health measures such as the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Scale, quality of life measures such as the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory and physical health measures such as the Hague Seizure Severity Scale. Outcome assessors will be blinded to group assignment. Qualitative process evaluations and a health economic evaluation will also be completed. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine whether a systematic and integrated approach to the identification and treatment of mental health disorders in children and young people with epilepsy is clinically and cost-effective. The findings will contribute to policies and practice with regard to addressing mental health needs in children and young people with other long-term conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN57823197 . Registered on 25 February 2019.