Do video or telephone consultations impact attendance rates in an addiction medicine specialist outpatient clinic?

BACKGROUND: Effective alcohol and other drugs (AODs) treatment has been proven to increase productivity and reduce costs to the community. Telehealth has previously been proven effective at delivering AOD treatment in the right settings. Yet, Australia's current Medicare funding restricts telephone consultations. AIM: We hypothesise that treatment modality influences attendance rates. Specifically, telephone consultations can remove barriers to accessing treatment and, therefore, can increase attendance. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective audit on our addiction medicine specialist outpatient service from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to analyse factors associated with attendance rates. RESULTS: There were 576 participants in the study, and 3354 appointments were booked over the 12-month study period. Of these, 2695 were face-to-face, 541 were telephone and 118 were video. The unadjusted raw attendance rate was highest in the telephone group (87.24%), followed by face-to-face (73.02%) and video (44.92%). After adjusting for covariates, telephone consultation was associated with significantly increased odds of attending compared to face-to-face (odds ratio (OR) = 2.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.90-3.54, P < 0.001). Video consultation was associated with a 69% reduction in the odds of attending compared to face-to-face (OR = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.019-0.49, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While physical attendance may be required for specific clinical care, telephone consultations are associated with increased attendance and can form an important adjunct to delivering addiction treatment. Given the substantial costs of substance use disorders, this could inform government policies and funding priorities to further improve access and treatment outcomes.

Comparison of surgical or non-surgical management for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury: the ACL SNNAP RCT.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament injury of the knee is common and leads to decreased activity and risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. Management of patients with a non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury can be non-surgical (rehabilitation) or surgical (reconstruction). However, insufficient evidence exists to guide treatment. Objective(s): To determine in patients with non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury and symptoms of instability whether a strategy of surgical management (reconstruction) without prior rehabilitation was more clinically and cost-effective than non-surgical management (rehabilitation). Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial with two-arm parallel groups and 1:1 allocation. Due to the nature of the interventions, no blinding could be carried out. Setting: Twenty-nine NHS orthopaedic units in the United Kingdom. Participants: Participants with a symptomatic (instability) non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Interventions: Patients in the surgical management arm underwent surgical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as soon as possible and without any further rehabilitation. Patients in the rehabilitation arm attended physiotherapy sessions and only were listed for reconstructive surgery on continued instability following rehabilitation. Surgery following initial rehabilitation was an expected outcome for many patients and within protocol. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 at 18 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes included return to sport/activity, intervention-related complications, patient satisfaction, expectations of activity, generic health quality of life, knee-specific quality of life and resource usage. Results: Three hundred and sixteen participants were recruited between February 2017 and April 2020 with 156 randomised to surgical management and 160 to rehabilitation. Forty-one per cent (n = 65) of those allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent reconstruction within 18 months with 38% (n = 61) completing rehabilitation and not undergoing surgery. Seventy-two per cent (n = 113) of those allocated to surgery underwent reconstruction within 18 months. Follow-up at the primary outcome time point was 78% (n = 248; surgical, n = 128; rehabilitation, n = 120). Both groups improved over time. Adjusted mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 4 scores at 18 months had increased to 73.0 in the surgical arm and to 64.6 in the rehabilitation arm. The adjusted mean difference was 7.9 (95% confidence interval 2.5 to 13.2; p = 0.005) in favour of surgical management. The per-protocol analyses supported the intention-to-treat results, with all treatment effects favouring surgical management at a level reaching statistical significance. There was a significant difference in Tegner Activity Score at 18 months. Sixty-eight per cent (n = 65) of surgery patients did not reach their expected activity level compared to 73% (n = 63) in the rehabilitation arm. There were no differences between groups in surgical complications (n = 1 surgery, n = 2 rehab) or clinical events (n = 11 surgery, n = 12 rehab). Of surgery patients, 82.9% were satisfied compared to 68.1% of rehabilitation patients. Health economic analysis found that surgical management led to improved health-related quality of life compared to non-surgical management (0.052 quality-adjusted life-years, p = 0.177), but with higher NHS healthcare costs (£1107, p < 0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the surgical management programme versus rehabilitation was £19,346 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Using £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year thresholds, surgical management is cost-effective in the UK setting with a probability of being the most cost-effective option at 51% and 72%, respectively. Limitations: Not all surgical patients underwent reconstruction, but this did not affect trial interpretation. The adherence to physiotherapy was patchy, but the trial was designed as pragmatic. Conclusions: Surgical management (reconstruction) for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients was superior to non-surgical management (rehabilitation). Although physiotherapy can still provide benefit, later-presenting non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients benefit more from surgical reconstruction without delaying for a prior period of rehabilitation. Future work: Confirmatory studies and those to explore the influence of fidelity and compliance will be useful. Trial registration: This trial is registered as Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10110685; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980367. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/140/63) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 27. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The study aimed to find out whether it is better to offer surgical reconstruction or rehabilitation first to patients with a more long-standing injury of their anterior cruciate ligament in their knee. This injury causes physical giving way of the knee and/or sensations of it being wobbly (instability). The instability can affect daily activities, work, sport and can lead to arthritis. There are two main treatment options for this problem: non-surgical rehabilitation (prescribed exercises and advice from physiotherapists) or an operation by a surgeon to replace the damaged ligament (anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction). Although studies have highlighted the best option for a recently injured knee, the best management was not known for patients with a long-standing injury, perhaps occurring several months previously. Because the surgery is expensive to the NHS (around £100 million per year), it was also important to look at the costs involved. We carried out a study recruiting 316 non-acute anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients from 29 different hospitals and allocated each patient to either surgery or rehabilitation as their treatment option. We measured how well they did with special function and activity scores, patient satisfaction and costs of treatment. Patients in both groups improved substantially. It was expected that some patients in the rehabilitation group would want surgery if non-surgical management was unsuccessful. Forty-one per cent of patients who initially underwent rehabilitation subsequently elected to have reconstructive surgery. Overall, the patients allocated to the surgical reconstruction group had better results in terms of knee function and stability, activity level and satisfaction with treatment than patients allocated to the non-operative rehabilitation group. There were few problems or complications with either treatment option. Although the surgery was a more expensive treatment option, it was found to be cost-effective in the UK setting. The evidence can be discussed in shared decision-making with anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients. Both strategies of management led to improvement. Although a rehabilitation strategy can be beneficial, especially for recently injured patients, it is advised that later-presenting non-acute and more long-standing anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients undergo surgical reconstruction without necessarily delaying for a period of rehabilitation.

A proposal for using benefit-risk methods to improve the prominence of adverse event results when reporting trials.

Adverse events suffer from poor reporting within randomised controlled trials, despite them being crucial to the evaluation of a treatment. A recent update to the CONSORT harms checklist aims to improve reporting by providing structure and consistency to the information presented. We propose an extension wherein harms would be reported in conjunction with effectiveness outcome(s) rather than in silo to provide a more complete picture of the evidence acquired within a trial. Benefit-risk methods are designed to simultaneously consider both benefits and risks, and therefore, we believe these methods could be implemented to improve the prominence of adverse events when reporting trials. The aim of this article is to use case studies to demonstrate the practical utility of benefit-risk methods to present adverse events results alongside effectiveness results. Two randomised controlled trials have been selected as case studies, the Option-DM trial and the SANAD II trial. Using a previous review, a shortlist of 17 benefit-risk methods which could potentially be used for reporting RCTs was created. From this shortlist, three benefit-risk methods are applied across the two case studies. We selected these methods for their usefulness to achieve the aim of this paper and which are commonly used in the literature. The methods selected were the Benefit-Risk Action Team (BRAT) Framework, net clinical benefit (NCB), and the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 3 × 3 table. Results using the benefit-risk method added further context and detail to the clinical summaries made from the trials. In the case of the SANAD II trial, the clinicians concluded that despite the primary outcome being improved by the treatment, the increase in adverse events negated the improvement and the treatment was therefore not recommended. The benefit-risk methods applied to this case study outlined the data that this decision was based on in a clear and transparent way. Using benefit-risk methods to report the results of trials can increase the prominence of adverse event results by presenting them alongside the primary efficacy/effectiveness outcomes. This ensures that all the factors which would be used to determine whether a treatment would be recommended are transparent to the reader.

Reporting completeness of nutrition and diet-related randomised controlled trials protocols.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a need to consolidate reporting guidance for nutrition randomised controlled trial (RCT) protocols. The reporting completeness in nutrition RCT protocols and study characteristics associated with adherence to SPIRIT and TIDieR reporting guidelines are unknown. We, therefore, assessed reporting completeness and its potential predictors in a random sample of published nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols. METHODS: We conducted a meta-research study of 200 nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols published in 2019 and 2021 (aiming to consider periods before and after the start of the COVID pandemic). Data extraction included bibliometric information, general study characteristics, compliance with 122 questions corresponding to items and subitems in the SPIRIT and TIDieR checklists combined, and mention to these reporting guidelines in the publications. We calculated the proportion of protocols reporting each item and the frequency of items reported for each protocol. We investigated associations between selected publication aspects and reporting completeness using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The majority of protocols included adults and elderly as their study population (n = 73; 36.5%), supplementation as intervention (n = 96; 48.0%), placebo as comparator (n = 89; 44.5%), and evaluated clinical status as the outcome (n = 80; 40.0%). Most protocols described a parallel RCT (n = 188; 94.0%) with a superiority framework (n = 141; 70.5%). Overall reporting completeness was 52.0% (SD = 10.8%). Adherence to SPIRIT items ranged from 0% (n = 0) (data collection methods) to 98.5% (n = 197) (eligibility criteria). Adherence to TIDieR items ranged from 5.5% (n = 11) (materials used in the intervention) to 98.5% (n = 197) (description of the intervention). The multivariable regression analysis suggests that a higher number of authors [ß = 0.53 (95%CI: 0.28-0.78)], most recent published protocols [ß = 3.19 (95%CI: 0.24-6.14)], request of reporting guideline checklist during the submission process by the journal [ß = 6.50 (95%CI: 2.56-10.43)] and mention of SPIRIT by the authors [ß = 5.15 (95%CI: 2.44-7.86)] are related to higher reporting completeness scores. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting completeness in a random sample of 200 diet or nutrition-related RCT protocols was low. Number of authors, year of publication, self-reported adherence to SPIRIT, and journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines seem to be positively associated with reporting completeness in nutrition and diet-related RCT protocols.

Reframing wildlife disease management problems with decision analysis.

Contemporary wildlife disease management is complex because managers need to respond to a wide range of stakeholders, multiple uncertainties, and difficult trade-offs that characterize the interconnected challenges of today. Despite general acknowledgment of these complexities, managing wildlife disease tends to be framed as a scientific problem, in which the major challenge is lack of knowledge. The complex and multifactorial process of decision-making is collapsed into a scientific endeavor to reduce uncertainty. As a result, contemporary decision-making may be oversimplified, rely on simple heuristics, and fail to account for the broader legal, social, and economic context in which the decisions are made. Concurrently, scientific research on wildlife disease may be distant from this decision context, resulting in information that may not be directly relevant to the pertinent management questions. We propose reframing wildlife disease management challenges as decision problems and addressing them with decision analytical tools to divide the complex problems into more cognitively manageable elements. In particular, structured decision-making has the potential to improve the quality, rigor, and transparency of decisions about wildlife disease in a variety of systems. Examples of management of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, white-nose syndrome, avian influenza, and chytridiomycosis illustrate the most common impediments to decision-making, including competing objectives, risks, prediction uncertainty, and limited resources.

Replanteamiento del manejo de problemas por enfermedades de fauna mediante el análisis de decisiones Resumen El manejo actual de las enfermedades de la fauna es complejo debido a que los gestores necesitan responder a una amplia gama de actores, varias incertidumbres y compensaciones difíciles que caracterizan los retos interconectados del día de hoy. A pesar de que en general se reconocen estas complejidades, el manejo de las enfermedades tiende a plantearse como un problema científico en el que el principal obstáculo es la falta de conocimiento. El proceso complejo y multifactorial de la toma decisiones está colapsado dentro de un esfuerzo científico para reducir la incertidumbre. Como resultado de esto, las decisiones contemporáneas pueden estar simplificadas en exceso, depender de métodos heurísticos simples y no considerar el contexto legal, social y económico más amplio en el que se toman las decisiones. De manera paralela, las investigaciones científicas sobre las enfermedades de la fauna pueden estar lejos de este contexto de decisiones, lo que deriva en información que puede no ser directamente relevante para las preguntas pertinentes de manejo. Proponemos replantear los obstáculos para el manejo de enfermedades de fauna como problemas de decisión y abordarlos con herramientas analíticas de decisión para dividir los problemas complejos en elementos más manejables de manera cognitiva. En particular, las decisiones estructuradas tienen el potencial de mejorar la calidad, el rigor y la transparencia de las decisiones sobre las enfermedades de la fauna en una variedad de sistemas. Ejemplos como el manejo del coronavirus del síndrome de respiración agudo tipo 2, el síndrome de nariz blanca, la influenza aviar y la quitridiomicosis ilustran los impedimentos más comunes para la toma de decisiones, incluyendo los objetivos en competencia, riesgos, incertidumbre en las predicciones y recursos limitados.

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.

Reconstruction of Broad Lower Lip Defects Using Karapandzic-Type Flaps.

BACKGROUND: Reconstruction of lower lip defects is challenging because of the functional and aesthetic demands of the lower face. We review the functional and aesthetic outcomes of the Karapandzic-type flaps for reconstructing lower lip defects. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent repair using Karapandzic-type flaps. RESULTS: Fifty patients with lower lip defects ranging from 20% to 95% (mean 59.2% ± 20%) were included. Eighteen patients (36%) were repaired using a bilateral flap, and 32 (64%) were reconstructed using a unilateral flap design. All patients had preservation of oral competency and a satisfactory aesthetic result. No patient complained of microstomia. A complication rate of 8% was noted ( n = 4) with postoperative wound infection and small areas of dehiscence. There was no statistically significant difference in complication rates in patients older than 75 years, in patients with a history of head/neck radiation, or in defects greater than 70% of lower lip breadth. CONCLUSION: Karapandzic-type flaps are versatile and reliable for the reconstruction of a broad range of lower lip defects. This one-stage procedure can produce superior functional and aesthetic results as compared with other local and distant flaps with minimal risk of functional microstomia.

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.

Editorial Commentary: Evidence for Patch Augmentation of Rotator Cuff Repair Is Weak.

Rotator cuff repair has a substantial failure rate despite various attempts to improve outcome and prevent a retear. Patch augmentation is an intuitively appealing approach to seek to reduce failure rate and improve outcomes for patients. Two main augmentation approaches are used: "on-lay" and "bridging." The literature is heterogeneous, and the best approach is uncertain. The evidence on patch augmentation for rotator cuff repair is both disparate and weak. Large randomized trials and registry data are required to move the field, ensure patient safety, and avoid wasting precious resources.

Immune responses and clinical outcomes after COVID-19 vaccination in patients with liver disease and liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Comparative assessments of immunogenicity following different COVID-19 vaccines in patients with distinct liver diseases are lacking. SARS-CoV-2-specific T-cell and antibody responses were evaluated longitudinally after one to three vaccine doses, with long-term follow-up for COVID-19-related clinical outcomes. METHODS: A total of 849 participants (355 with cirrhosis, 74 with autoimmune hepatitis [AIH], 36 with vascular liver disease [VLD], 257 liver transplant recipients [LTRs] and 127 healthy controls [HCs]) were recruited from four countries. Standardised immune assays were performed pre and post three vaccine doses (V1-3). RESULTS: In the total cohort, there were incremental increases in antibody titres after each vaccine dose (p <0.0001). Factors associated with reduced antibody responses were age and LT, whereas heterologous vaccination, prior COVID-19 and mRNA platforms were associated with greater responses. Although antibody titres decreased between post-V2 and pre-V3 (p = 0.012), patients with AIH, VLD, and cirrhosis had equivalent antibody responses to HCs post-V3. LTRs had lower and more heterogenous antibody titres than other groups, including post-V3 where 9% had no detectable antibodies; this was heavily influenced by intensity of immunosuppression. Vaccination increased T-cell IFNγ responses in all groups except LTRs. Patients with liver disease had lower functional antibody responses against nine Omicron subvariants and reduced T-cell responses to Omicron BA.1-specific peptides compared to wild-type. 122 cases of breakthrough COVID-19 were reported of which 5/122 (4%) were severe. Of the severe cases, 4/5 (80%) occurred in LTRs and 2/5 (40%) had no serological response post-V2. CONCLUSION: After three COVID-19 vaccines, patients with liver disease generally develop robust antibody and T-cell responses to vaccination and have mild COVID-19. However, LTRs have sustained no/low antibody titres and appear most vulnerable to severe disease. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Standardised assessments of the immune response to different COVID-19 vaccines in patients with liver disease are lacking. We performed antibody and T-cell assays at multiple timepoints following up to three vaccine doses in a large cohort of patients with a range of liver conditions. Overall, the three most widely available vaccine platforms were immunogenic and appeared to protect against severe breakthrough COVID-19. This will provide reassurance to patients with chronic liver disease who were deemed at high risk of severe COVID-19 during the pre-vaccination era, however, liver transplant recipients had the lowest antibody titres and remained vulnerable to severe breakthrough infection. We also characterise the immune response to multiple SARS-CoV-2 variants and describe the interaction between disease type, severity, and vaccine platform. These insights may prove useful in the event of future viral infections which also require rapid vaccine development and delivery to patients with liver disease.

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.

How surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives achieve success: a mixed methods study to develop trainee engagement strategies.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the role of surgical Trainee Research Collaboratives (TRCs) in conducting randomised controlled trials and identify strategies to enhance trainee engagement in trials. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. We used observation of TRC meetings, semi-structured interviews and an online survey to explore trainees' motivations for engagement in trials and TRCs, including barriers and facilitators. Interviews were analysed thematically, alongside observation field notes. Survey responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. Strategies to enhance TRCs were developed at a workshop by 13 trial methodologists, surgical trainees, consultants and research nurses. SETTING: This study was conducted within a secondary care setting in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: The survey was sent to registered UK surgical trainees. TRC members and linked stakeholders across surgical specialties and UK regions were purposefully sampled for interviews. RESULTS: We observed 5 TRC meetings, conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and analysed 73 survey responses. TRCs can mobilise trainees thus gaining wider access to patients. Trainees engaged with TRCs to improve patient care, surgical evidence and to help progress their careers. Trainees valued the TRC infrastructure, research expertise and mentoring. Challenges for trainees included clinical and other priorities, limited time and confidence, and recognition, especially by authorship. Key TRC strategies were consultant support, initial simple rapid studies, transparency of involvement and recognition for trainees (including authorship policies) and working with Clinical Trials Units and research nurses. A 6 min digital story on YouTube disseminated these strategies. CONCLUSION: Trainee surgeons are mostly motivated to engage with trials and TRCs. Trainee engagement in TRCs can be enhanced through building relationships with key stakeholders, maximising multi-disciplinary working and offering training and career development opportunities.

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.

The Hand and Wrist: AntImicrobials and Infection (HAWAII) trial.

BACKGROUND: Hand trauma, comprising injuries to both the hand and wrist, affects over five million people per year in the NHS, resulting in 250 000 operations each year. Surgical site infection (SSI) following hand trauma surgery leads to significant morbidity. Triclosan-coated sutures may reduce SSI in major abdominal surgery but have never been tested in hand trauma. Feasibility needs to be ascertained before a definitive trial can be delivered in hand trauma. METHODS: A multicentre feasibility RCT of antimicrobial sutures versus standard sutures involving adults undergoing surgery for hand trauma to evaluate feasibility for a definitive trial. Secondary objectives were incidence of SSI in both groups, hand function measured with patient-reported outcome measures, health-related quality of life and change in employment. Randomization was performed on a 1:1 basis, stratified by age of the patient and whether the injury was open or closed, using a secure, centralized, online randomization service. Participants were blinded to allocation. RESULTS: 116 participants were recruited and randomized (60 intervention, 56 control). Of 227 screened, most were eligible (89.5 per cent), and most who were approached agreed to be included in the study (84.7 per cent). Retention was low: 57.5 per cent at 30 days, 52 per cent at 90 days and 45.1 per cent at 6 months. Incidence of SSI was >20 per cent in both groups. Hand function deteriorated after injury but recovered to near pre-injury levels during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Risk of SSI after hand trauma is high. A definitive RCT of antimicrobial sutures in hand trauma surgery is feasible, if retention is improved. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN10771059.

Phage Therapy in the Management of Urinary Tract Infections: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a problem worldwide, affecting almost half a billion people each year. Increasing antibiotic resistance and limited therapeutic options have led to the exploration of alternative therapies for UTIs, including bacteriophage (phage) therapy. This systematic review aims at evaluating the efficacy of phage therapy in treating UTIs. We employed a comprehensive search strategy for any language, any animal, and any publication date. A total of 55 in vivo and clinical studies were included. Of the studies, 22% were published in a non-English language, 32.7% were before the year 1996, and the rest were after 2005. The results of this review suggest that phage therapy for UTIs can be effective; more than 72% of the included articles reported microbiological and clinical improvements. On the other hand, only 5 randomized controlled trials have been completed, and case reports and case series information were frequently incomplete for analysis. Overall, this comprehensive systematic review identifies preliminary evidence supporting the potential of phage therapy as a safe and viable option for the treatment of UTIs.

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.

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.