CAPAbility: Comparison of the JOURNEY II Bi-Cruciate Stabilised and GENESIS II total knee arthroplasty in performance and functional ability: protocol of a randomised controlled trial

Background: Osteoarthritis of the knee is a common condition that is expected to rise in the next two decades leading to an associated increase in total knee replacement (TKR) surgery. Although there is little debate regarding the safety and efficacy of modern TKR, up to 20% of patients report poor functional outcomes following surgery. This study will investigate the functional outcome of two TKRs; the JOURNEY II Bi-Cruciate Stabilised knee arthroplasty, a newer knee prosthesis designed to provide guided motion and improve knee kinematics by more closely approximating a normal knee, and the GENESIS II, a proven existing design. Aim: To compare the change in Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) scores of the JOURNEY II BCS and the GENESIS II from pre-operation to 6 months post operation. Methods: CAPAbility is a pragmatic, blinded, two-arm parallel, randomised controlled trial recruiting patients with primary osteoarthritis due to have unilateral TKR surgery across two UK hospitals. Eligible participants (n = 80) will be randomly allocated to receive either the JOURNEY II or the GENESIS II BCS knee prosthesis. Baseline measures will be taken prior to surgery. Patients will be followed at 1 week, 6 to 8 weeks and 6 months post-operatively. The primary outcome is the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) at 6 months post-operatively. Secondary outcomes include: Other PROMs, biomechanical, radiological (computerised tomography, (CT)), clinical efficacy and safety outcomes. An embedded qualitative study will also investigate patients' perspectives via interview pre and post surgery on variables known to affect the outcome of TKR surgery. A sub-sample (n = 30) will have additional in-depth interviews to explore the themes identified. The surgeons' perspectives on the operation will be investigated by a group interview after all participants have undergone surgery. Discussion: This trial will evaluate two generations of TKR using PROMS, kinematic and radiological analyses and qualitative outcomes from the patient perspective

What is the purpose of clinical trial monitoring?

Background: The sources of information on clinical trial monitoring do not give information in an accessible language and do not give detailed guidance. In order to enable communication and to build clinical trial monitoring tools on a strong easily communicated foundation, we identified the need to define monitoring in accessible language. Methods: In a three-step process, the material from sources that describe clinical trial monitoring were synthesised into principles of monitoring. A poll regarding their applicability was run at a UK national academic clinical trials monitoring meeting. Results: The process derived 5 key principles of monitoring: keeping participants safe and respecting their rights, having data we can trust, making sure the trial is being run as it was meant to be, improving the way the trial is run and preventing problems before they happen. Conclusion: From the many sources mentioning monitoring of clinical trials, the purpose of monitoring can be summarised simply as 5 principles. These principles, given in accessible language, should form a firm basis for discussion of monitoring of clinical trials

Teriparatide and stress fracture healing in young adults (RETURN – Research on Efficacy of Teriparatide Use in the Return of recruits to Normal duty): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: Stress fractures are a common and potentially debilitating overuse injury to bone and occur frequently among military recruits and athletes. Recovery from a lower body stress fracture typically requires several weeks of physical rehabilitation. Teriparatide, a recombinant form of the bioactive portion of parathyroid hormone (1–34 amino acids), is used to treat osteoporosis, prevent osteoporotic fractures, and enhance fracture healing due to its net anabolic effect on bone. The study aim is to investigate the effect of teriparatide on stress fracture healing in young, otherwise healthy adults undergoing military training. Methods: In a two-arm, parallel, prospective, randomised controlled, intention-to-treat trial, Army recruits (n = 136 men and women, 18–40 years) with a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosed lower body stress fracture (pelvic girdle, sacrum, coccyx, or lower limb) will be randomised to receive either usual Army standard care, or teriparatide and usual Army standard care. Teriparatide will be self-administered by subcutaneous injections (20 μg/day) for 16 weeks, continuing to 24 weeks where a fracture remains unhealed at week 16. The primary outcome will be the improvement in radiological healing by two grades or more, or reduction to grade zero, 8 weeks after randomisation, assessed using Fredericson grading of MRI by radiologists blind to the randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be time to radiological healing, assessed by MRI at 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 20 and 24 weeks, until healed; time to clinical healing, assessed using a clinical severity score of injury signs and symptoms; time to discharge from Army physical rehabilitation; pain, assessed by visual analogue scale; health-related quality of life, using the Short Form (36) Health Survey; and adverse events. Exploratory outcomes will include blood and urine biochemistry; bone density and morphology assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry, peripheral quantitative computed tomography (pQCT), and high-resolution pQCT; physical activity measured using accelerometers; and long-term future fracture rate. Discussion: This study will evaluate whether teriparatide, in addition to standard care, is more effective for stress fracture healing than standard care alone in Army recruits who have sustained a lower body stress fracture. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04196855. Registered on 12 December 2019

At-risk registers integrated into primary care to stop asthma crises in the UK (ARRISA-UK): study protocol for a pragmatic, cluster randomised trial with nested health economic and process evaluations

Background: Despite effective treatments and long-standing management guidelines, there are approximately 1400 hospital admissions for asthma weekly in the United Kingdom (UK), many of which could be avoided. In our previous research, a secondary analysis of the intervention (ARRISA) suggested an improvement in the management of at-risk asthma patients in primary care. ARRISA involved identifying individuals at risk of adverse asthma events, flagging their electronic health records, training practice staff to develop and implement practice-wide processes of care when alerted by the flag, plus motivational reminders. We now seek to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ARRISA in reducing asthma-related crisis events. Methods: We are undertaking a pragmatic, two-arm, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial, plus health economic and process evaluation. We will randomise 270 primary care practices from throughout the UK covering over 10,000 registered patients with ‘at-risk asthma’ identified according to a validated algorithm. Staff in practices randomised to the intervention will complete two 45-min eLearning modules (an individually completed module giving background to ARRISA and a group-completed module to develop practice-wide pathways of care) plus a 30-min webinar with other practices. On completion of training at-risk patients’ records will be coded so that a flag appears whenever their record is accessed. Practices will receive a phone call at 4 weeks and a reminder video at 6 weeks and 6 months. Control practices will continue to provide usual care. We will extract anonymised routine patient data from primary care records (with linkage to secondary care data) to determine the percentage of at-risk patients with an asthma-related crisis event (accident and emergency attendances, hospitalisations and deaths) after 12 months (primary outcome). We will also capture the time to crisis event, all-cause hospitalisations, asthma control and any changes in practice asthma management for at-risk and all patients with asthma. Cost-effectiveness analysis and mixed-methods process evaluations will also be conducted. Discussion: This study is novel in terms of using a practice-wide intervention to target and engage with patients at risk from their asthma and is innovative in the use of routinely captured data with record linkage to obtain trial outcomes. Trial registration: ISRCTN95472706. Registered on 5 December 2014

Additional file 2 of What is the purpose of clinical trial monitoring?

Additional file 2. Questions used in UKCRC Task and Finish Monitoring Group annual meeting 9 June 2021