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

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

Missense variants in the chromatin remodeler CHD1 are associated with neurodevelopmental disability

BackgroundThe list of Mendelian disorders of the epigenetic machinery has expanded rapidly during the last 5 years. A few missense variants in the chromatin remodeler CHD1 have been found in several large-scale sequencing efforts focused on uncovering the genetic aetiology of autism.ObjectivesTo explore whether variants in CHD1 are associated with a human phenotype.MethodsWe used GeneMatcher to identify other physicians caring for patients with variants in CHD1. We also explored the epigenetic consequences of one of these variants in cultured fibroblasts.ResultsHere we describe six CHD1 heterozygous missense variants in a cohort of patients with autism, speech apraxia, developmental delay and facial dysmorphic features. Importantly, three of these variants occurred de novo. We also report on a subject with a de novo deletion covering a large fraction of the CHD1 gene without any obvious neurological phenotype. Finally, we demonstrate increased levels of the closed chromatin modification H3K27me3 in fibroblasts from a subject carrying a de novo variant in CHD1.ConclusionsOur results suggest that variants in CHD1 can lead to diverse phenotypic outcomes; however, the neurodevelopmental phenotype appears to be limited to patients with missense variants, which is compatible with a dominant negative mechanism of disease

Identifying key priorities for research to protect the consumer with food hypersensitivity:a UK Food Standards Agency Priority Setting Exercise

Introduction: Food hypersensitivity (FHS), including food allergy, coeliac disease and food intolerance, is a major public health issue. The Food Standards Agency (FSA), an independent UK Government department working to protect public health and consumers’ wider interests in food, sought to identify research priorities in the area of FHS. Methods: A priority setting exercise was undertaken, using a methodology adapted from the James Lind Alliance—the first such exercise with respect to food hypersensitivity. A UK-wide public consultation was held to identify unanswered research questions. After excluding diagnostics, desensitization treatment and other questions which were out of scope for FSA or where FSA was already commissioning research, 15 indicative questions were identified and prioritized by a range of stakeholders, representing food businesses, patient groups, health care and academia, local authorities and the FSA. Results: 295 responses were received during the public consultation, which were categorized into 70 sub-questions and used to define 15 key evidence uncertainties (‘indicative questions’) for prioritization. Using the JLA prioritization framework, this resulted in 10 priority uncertainties in evidence, from which 16 research questions were developed. These could be summarized under the following 5 themes: communication of allergens both within the food supply chain and then to the end consumer (ensuring trust in allergen communication); the impact of socio-economic factors on consumers with FHS; drivers of severe reactions; mechanism(s) underlying loss of tolerance in FHS; and the risks posed by novel allergens/processing. Discussion: In this first research prioritization exercise for food allergy and FHS, key priorities identified to protect the food-allergic public were strategies to help allergic consumers to make confident food choices, prevention of FHS and increasing understanding of socio-economic impacts. Diagnosis and treatment of FHS was not considered in this prioritization

Follow-on rifaximin for the prevention of recurrence following standard treatment of infection with clostridium fifficile (RAPID): a randomised placebo controlled trial

©2018 The Authors. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2018-316794Background Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) recurs after initial treatment in approximately one in four patients. A single-centre pilot study suggested that this could be reduced using ’follow-on’ rifaximin treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy of rifaximin treatment in preventing recurrence. Methods A multisite, parallel group, randomised, placebo controlled trial recruiting patients aged ≥18 years immediately after resolution of CDI through treatment with metronidazole or vancomycin. Participants received either rifaximin 400mg three times a day for 2weeks, reduced to 200mg three times a day for a further 2weeks or identical placebo. The primary endpoint was recurrence of CDI within 12 weeks of trial entry. Results Between December 2012 and March 2016, 151 participants were randomised to either rifaximin or placebo. Primary outcome data were available on 130. Mean age was 71.9 years (SD 15.3). Recurrence within 12 weeks was 29.5% (18/61) among participants allocated to placebo compared with 15.9% (11/69) among those allocated to rifaximin, a difference between groups of 13.7% (95% CI −28.1% to 0.7%, p=0.06). The risk ratio was 0.54 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.05, p=0.07). During 6-month safety follow-up, nine participants died in each group (12%). Adverse event rates were similar between groups. Conclusion While ’follow-on’ rifaximin after CDI appeared to halve recurrence rate, we failed to reach our recruitment target in this group of frail elderly patients, so the estimated effect of rifaximin lacks precision. A meta-analysis including a previous trial suggests that rifaximin may be effective; however, further, larger confirmatory studies are needed.The trial was sponsored by the University of Nottingham, was coordinated from the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network