Dataset Information

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of bracing in symptomatic knee osteoarthritis management: protocol for a multicentre, primary care, randomised, parallel-group, superiority trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Brace effectiveness for knee osteoarthritis (OA) remains unclear and international guidelines offer conflicting recommendations. Our trial will determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of adding knee bracing (matched to patients' clinical and radiographic presentation and with adherence support) to a package of advice, written information and exercise instruction delivered by physiotherapists.

Methods and analysis

A multicentre, pragmatic, two-parallel group, single-blind, superiority, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot and nested qualitative study. 434 eligible participants with symptomatic knee OA identified from general practice, physiotherapy referrals and self-referral will be randomised 1:1 to advice, written information and exercise instruction and knee brace versus advice, written information and exercise instruction alone. The primary analysis will be intention-to-treat comparing treatment arms on the primary outcome (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS)-5) (composite knee score) at the primary endpoint (6 months) adjusted for prespecified covariates. Secondary analysis of KOOS subscales (pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, function in sport and recreation, knee-related quality of life), self-reported pain, instability (buckling), treatment response, physical activity, social participation, self-efficacy and treatment acceptability will occur at 3, 6, and 12 months postrandomisation. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression will model continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. Treatment effect estimates will be presented as mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness. Semistructured interviews to explore acceptability and experiences of trial interventions will be conducted with participants and physiotherapists delivering interventions.

Ethics and dissemination

North West Preston Research Ethics Committee, the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research in Wales approved the study (REC Reference: 19/NW/0183; IRAS Reference: 247370). This protocol has been coproduced with stakeholders including patients and public. Findings will be disseminated to patients and a range of stakeholders.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN28555470.

SUBMITTER: Holden MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006841 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHip osteoarthritis (OA) is the leading cause for total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although, being considered as the surgery of the century up to 23% of the patients report long-term pain, and deficits in physical function and muscle strength may persist after THA. Progressive resistance training (PRT) appears to improve multiple outcomes moderately in patients with hip OA. Current treatment selection is based on low-level evidence as no randomised controlled trials have compared THA to non-surgical treatment. The primary aim of this trial is to investigate whether THA followed by standard care is superior to 12 weeks of supervised PRT followed by 12 weeks of optional unsupervised PRT for improving hip pain and function in patients with severe hip OA.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled superiority trial conducted at four hospitals across three healthcare regions in Denmark. 120 patients aged ≥50 years with clinical and radiographic hip OA found eligible for THA by an orthopaedic surgeon will be randomised to THA followed by standard care, or 12 weeks of PRT (allocation 1:1). The primary outcome will be change in patient-reported hip pain and function, measured using the Oxford Hip Score, from baseline to 6 months after initiating the treatment. Key secondary outcomes will be change in the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, University of California Los Angeles Activity Score, 40 m fast-paced walk test, 30 s chair stand test and occurrence of serious adverse events. Patients declining participation in the trial will be invited into a prospective observational cohort study.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been approved by The Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (Project-ID: S-20180158). All results will be presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals and international conferences.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04070027).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Exercise is consistently recommended for older adults with knee pain related to osteoarthritis. However, the effects from exercise are typically small and short-term, likely linked to insufficient individualisation of the exercise programme and limited attention to supporting exercise adherence over time. The BEEP randomised trial aims to improve patients' short and long-term outcomes from exercise. It will test the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two physiotherapy-led exercise interventions (Individually Tailored Exercise and Targeted Exercise Adherence) to improve the individual tailoring of, and adherence to exercise, compared with usual physiotherapy care. METHODS/DESIGN:Based on the learning from a pilot study (ISRCTN 23294263), the BEEP trial is a multi-centre, pragmatic, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial, with embedded longitudinal qualitative interviews. 500 adults in primary care, aged 45 years and over with knee pain will be randomised to 1 of 3 treatment groups delivered by fully trained physiotherapists in up to 6 NHS services. These are: Usual Physiotherapy Care (control group consisting of up to 4 treatment sessions of advice and exercise), Individually Tailored Exercise (an individualised, supervised and progressed lower-limb exercise programme) or Targeted Exercise Adherence (supporting patients to adhere to exercise and to engage in general physical activity over the longer-term). The primary outcomes are pain and function as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis index. A comprehensive range of secondary outcomes are also included. Outcomes are measured at 3, 6 (primary outcome time-point), 9, 18 and 36 months. Data on adverse events will also be collected. Semi-structured, qualitative interviews with a subsample of 30 participants (10 from each treatment group) will be undertaken at two time-points (end of treatment and 12 to 18 months later) and analysed thematically. DISCUSSION:This trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of older adults with knee pain attributable to osteoarthritis in primary care. The findings will have important implications for healthcare commissioners, general practitioners and physiotherapy service providers and it will inform future education of healthcare practitioners. It may also serve to delay or prevent some individuals from becoming surgical candidates. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN:ISRCTN93634563.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a viral prothrombotic respiratory infection. Heparins exert antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects, and might have antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin would prevent untoward hospitalisation and death in symptomatic, but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.MethodsOVID was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial and was done at eight centres in Switzerland and Germany. Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute COVID-19 were eligible if they presented with respiratory symptoms or body temperature higher than 37·5°C. Eligible participants underwent block-stratified randomisation (by age group 50-70 vs >70 years and by study centre) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days versus standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was a composite of any untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days of randomisation. Analysis of the efficacy outcomes was done in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04400799) and has been completed.FindingsAt the predefined formal interim analysis for efficacy (50% of total study population), the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended early termination of the trial on the basis of predefined statistical criteria having considered the very low probability of showing superiority of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for the primary outcome under the initial study design assumptions. Between Aug 15, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, from 3319 participants prescreened, 472 were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (n=234) or standard of care (n=238). The median age was 57 years (IQR 53-62) and 217 (46%) were women. The 30-day risk of the primary outcome was similar in participants allocated to receive enoxaparin and in controls (8 [3%] of 234 vs 8 [3%] of 238; adjusted relative risk 0·98; 95% CI 0·37-2·56; p=0·96). All hospitalisations were related to COVID-19. No deaths were reported during the study. No major bleeding events were recorded. Eight serious adverse events were recorded in the enoxaparin group versus nine in the control group.InterpretationThese findings suggest thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin does not reduce early hospitalisations and deaths among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Futility of the treatment under the initial study design assumptions could not be conclusively assessed owing to under-representation of older patients and consequent low event rates.FundingSNSF (National Research Programme COVID-19 NRP78: 198352), University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Dr-Ing Georg Pollert (Berlin), Johanna Dürmüller-Bol Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is limited by concerns about its cognitive adverse effects. Preliminary evidence suggests that administering the glutamate antagonist ketamine with ECT might alleviate cognitive adverse effects and accelerate symptomatic improvement; we tested this in a randomised trial of low-dose ketamine.MethodsIn this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group study in 11 ECT suites serving inpatient and outpatient care settings in seven National Health Service trusts in the North of England, we recruited severely depressed patients, who were diagnosed as having unipolar or bipolar depressive episodes defined as moderate or severe by DSM-IV criteria, aged at least 18 years, and were able and willing to provide written consent to participate in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to ketamine (0·5 mg/kg intravenous bolus) or saline adjunctive to the anaesthetic for the duration of their ECT course. Patients and assessment and ECT treatment teams were masked to treatment allocation, although anaesthetists administering the study medication were not. We analysed the primary outcome, Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised delayed verbal recall (HVLT-R-DR) after four ECT treatments, using a Gaussian repeated measures model in all patients receiving the first ECT treatment. In the same population, safety was assessed by adverse effect monitoring. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, number ISRCTN14689382.FindingsBetween early December, 2012, and mid-June, 2015, 628 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 79 were randomly assigned to treatment (40 in the ketamine group vs 39 in the saline group). Ketamine (mean 5·17, SD 2·92), when compared with saline (5·54, 3·42), had no benefit on the primary outcome (HVLT-R-DR; difference in means -0·43 [95% CI -1·73 to 0·87]). 15 (45%) of 33 ketamine-treated patients compared with 10 (27%) of 37 patients receiving saline experienced at least one adverse event which included two (6%) of 33 patients who had ketamine-attributable transient psychological effects. Psychiatric adverse events were the most common in both groups (six [27%] of 22 adverse events in the ketamine group vs seven [54%] of 13 in the saline group).InterpretationNo evidence of benefit for ketamine was found although the sample size used was small; however, the results excluded greater than a small to moderate benefit with 95% confidence. The results do not support the use of adjunctive low-dose ketamine in routine ECT treatment.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, an MRC and NIHR partnership.