Watch Me Play!: protocol for a feasibility study of a remotely delivered intervention to promote mental health resilience for children (ages 0-8) across UK early years and children's services.

BACKGROUND: Half of mental health problems are established by the age of 14 years and 75% by 24 years. Early intervention and prevention of mental ill health are therefore vitally important. However, increased demand over recent years has meant that access to child mental health services is often restricted to those in severest need. Watch Me Play! (WMP) is an early intervention designed to support caregiver attunement and attention to the child to promote social-emotional well-being and thereby mental health resilience. Originally developed in the context of a local authority mental health service for children in care, it is now also delivered online as a low intensity, scalable, preventative intervention. Although WMP shows promise and is already used in some services, we do not yet know whether it is effective. METHODS: A non-randomised single group feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. We propose to recruit up to 40 parents/carers of children aged 0-8 years who have been referred to early years and children's services in the UK. WMP involves a parent watching the child play and talking to their child about their play (or for babies, observing and following signals) for up to 20 min per session. Some sessions are facilitated by a trained practitioner who provides prompts where necessary, gives feedback, and discusses the child's play with the caregiver. Services will offer five facilitated sessions, and parents will be asked to do at least 10 additional sessions on their own with their child in a 5-week period. Feasibility outcomes examined are as follows: (i) recruitment, (ii) retention, (iii) adherence, (iv) fidelity of delivery, (v) barriers and facilitators of participation, (vi) intervention acceptability, (vii) description of usual care, and (viii) data collection procedures. Intervention mechanisms will be examined through qualitative interview data. Economic evaluation will be conducted estimating cost of the intervention and cost of service use for child and parents/carers quality-adjusted life years. DISCUSSION: This study will address feasibility questions associated with progression to a future randomised trial of WMP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13644899 . Registered on 14th April 2023.

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.

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.

ASEPTIC: primary antibiotic prophylaxis using co-trimoxazole to prevent SpontanEous bacterial PeritoniTIs in Cirrhosis-study protocol for an interventional randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bacterial infection is a major cause of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a serious and common infection in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Secondary prophylactic antibiotic therapy has been shown to improve outcomes after an episode of SBP but primary prophylaxis to prevent the first episode of SBP remains contentious. The aim of this trial is to assess whether primary antibiotic prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole improves overall survival compared to placebo in adults with cirrhosis and ascites. METHODS: The ASEPTIC trial is a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, and Wales. Patients aged 18 years and older with cirrhosis and ascites requiring diuretic treatment or paracentesis, and no current or previous episodes of SBP, are eligible, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to recruit 432 patients from at least 30 sites. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral co-trimoxazole 960 mg or an identical placebo once daily for 18 months, with 6 monthly follow-up visits thereafter (with a maximum possible follow-up period of 48 months, and a minimum of 18 months). The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include the time to the first incidence of SBP, hospital admission rates, incidence of other infections (including Clostridium difficile) and antimicrobial resistance, patients' health-related quality of life, health and social care resource use, incidence of cirrhosis-related decompensation events, liver transplantation, and treatment-related serious adverse events. DISCUSSION: This trial will investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of co-trimoxazole for patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites to determine whether this strategy improves clinical outcomes. Given there are no treatments that improve survival in decompensated cirrhosis outside of liver transplant, if the trial has a positive outcome, we anticipate widespread adoption of primary antibiotic prophylaxis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT043955365 . Registered on 18 April 2020. Research ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central - Oxford B; REC 19/SC/0311) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Optimal timing of anticoagulation after acute ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (OPTIMAS): Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Atrial fibrillation causes one-fifth of ischemic strokes, with a high risk of early recurrence. Although long-term anticoagulation is highly effective for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation, initiation after stroke is usually delayed by concerns over intracranial hemorrhage risk. Direct oral anticoagulants offer a significantly lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage than other anticoagulants, potentially allowing earlier anticoagulation and prevention of recurrence, but the safety and efficacy of this approach has not been established. AIM: Optimal timing of anticoagulation after acute ischemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (OPTIMAS) will investigate whether early treatment with a direct oral anticoagulant, within four days of stroke onset, is as effective or better than delayed initiation, 7 to 14 days from onset, in atrial fibrillation patients with acute ischemic stroke. METHODS AND DESIGN: OPTIMAS is a multicenter randomized controlled trial with blinded outcome adjudication. Participants with acute ischemic stroke and atrial fibrillation eligible for anticoagulation with a direct oral anticoagulant are randomized 1:1 to early or delayed initiation. As of December 2021, 88 centers in the United Kingdom have opened. STUDY OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is a composite of recurrent stroke (ischemic stroke or symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage) and systemic arterial embolism within 90 days. Secondary outcomes include major bleeding, functional status, anticoagulant adherence, quality of life, health and social care resource use, and length of hospital stay. SAMPLE SIZE TARGET: A total of 3478 participants assuming event rates of 11.5% in the control arm and 8% in the intervention arm, 90% power and 5% alpha. We will follow a non-inferiority gatekeeper analysis approach with a non-inferiority margin of 2 percentage points. DISCUSSION: OPTIMAS aims to provide high-quality evidence on the safety and efficacy of early direct oral anticoagulant initiation after atrial fibrillation-associated ischemic stroke.Trial registrations: ISRCTN: 17896007; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03759938.

Group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) for diverse and disadvantaged women: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Group antenatal care has been successfully implemented around the world with suggestions of improved outcomes, including for disadvantaged groups, but it has not been formally tested in the UK in the context of the NHS. To address this the REACH Pregnancy Circles intervention was developed and a randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. METHODS: The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, parallel group RCT designed to test clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles compared with standard care. Recruitment will be through NHS services. The sample size is 1732 (866 randomised to the intervention and 866 to standard care). The primary outcome measure is a 'healthy baby' composite measured at 1 month postnatal using routine maternity data. Secondary outcome measures will be assessed using participant questionnaires completed at recruitment (baseline), 35 weeks gestation (follow-up 1) and 3 months postnatal (follow-up 2). An integrated process evaluation, to include exploration of fidelity, will be conducted using mixed methods. Analyses will be on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analysis will compare the number of babies born "healthy" in the control and intervention arms and provide an odds ratio. A cost-effectiveness analysis will compare the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years and per additional 'healthy and positive birth' of the intervention with standard care. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically. DISCUSSION: This multi-site randomised trial in England is planned to be the largest trial of group antenatal care in the world to date; as well as the first rigorous test within the NHS of this maternity service change. It has a recruitment focus on ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse and disadvantaged participants, including non-English speakers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration; ISRCTN, ISRCTN91977441 . Registered 11 February 2019 - retrospectively registered. The current protocol is Version 4; 28/01/2020.