Search

Introduction: Acute uncomplicated urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common condition with potentially serious sequelae that is mostly diagnosed and managed in primary care settings. Around half of all women have a UTI in their lifetime, and a quarter experience an infection caused by organisms resistant to more than one antibiotic. Reducing inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics is a core tenet of antimicrobial stewardship. However, current diagnostics for UTI are unfit for purpose in acute (highest prescribing) settings, being too slow to inform the required immediate decision-making and often confounded by sample contamination.Rapid point-of-care diagnostic tests (POCTs) that facilitate timely decision-making are potential solutions to this problem. Several such tests have reached advanced stages of technology readiness, but their diagnostic performance has not been evaluated in primary care with clinical users. To progress novel tests towards implementation, a diagnostic field study is required, to allow for parallel and sequential evaluation of multiple tests in a primary care population., Methods and Analysis: We will recruit participants assigned female at birth from primary care clinics in England who contact their clinic with symptoms of acute uncomplicated UTI. Eligible participants will complete a short questionnaire to capture symptoms and symptom severity and will provide a urine sample. Samples will be split and initially tested using novel index tests (POCTs) and conventional urinalysis 'dipstick' at the primary care clinic. The second part of the sample will be processed at a National Health Service-based reference laboratory using a modified reference standard including microscopy, microbiological culture, pathogen speciation and antimicrobial susceptibility testing. The UTI reference standard culture, although based on the national methods, is modified to provide accurate bacterial counts, better to define a microbiological diagnosis of UTI. Susceptibility testing will be performed using 'gold-standard' methods, not usually performed in diagnostic laboratories. The primary outcome will be the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) of POCTs for detection of UTI and antimicrobial susceptibility for POCTs that include antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Secondary outcomes will include the symptom profile of patients presenting with uncomplicated UTI, a theoretical determination of how use of POCT results might change prescribing, an understanding of POCT failure rate and qualitative capture of the experiences of those using the POCT to deliver the study in primary care clinics., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was received from the London Central Research Ethics Committee (23/LO/0371) and the UK Health Research Authority. We will publish the findings of The plaTform fOr Urinary tract infection diagnostiC evAluatioN evaluations in peer-reviewed medical journals and more broadly following a dissemination plan formulated by a communications specialist in consultation with patients and the public., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN80937472., Competing Interests: Competing interests: It is the intention that technology (POCT), associated consumables and training will be provided free of charge to the study under contractual arrangements that preserve the team’s unrestricted rights to publish results. CCB is a member of the Editorial Advisory Board of BMJ Open., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ Group.)

Background: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with low blood pressure and frailty. The OPTiMISE trial showed that this deprescribing can be achieved with no differences in blood pressure control at 3 months compared with usual care. We aimed to examine effects of deprescribing on longer-term hospitalisation and mortality., Methods: This randomised controlled trial enrolled participants from 69 general practices across central and southern England. Participants aged 80 years or older, with systolic blood pressure less than 150 mm Hg and who were receiving two or more antihypertensive medications, were randomly assigned (1:1) to antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of one antihypertensive) or usual care. General practitioners and participants were aware of the treatment allocation following randomisation but individuals responsible for analysing the data were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. Participants were followed up via their primary and secondary care electronic health records at least 3 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was time to all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. Intention-to-treat analyses were done using Cox regression modelling. A per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome was also done, excluding participants from the intervention group who did not reduce treatment or who had medication reinstated during the initial trial 12-week follow-up period. This study is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT2016-004236-38) and the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN97503221)., Findings: Between March 20, 2017, and Sept 30, 2018, a total of 569 participants were randomly assigned. Of these, 564 (99%; intervention=280; control=284) were followed up for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 3·7-4·3). Participants had a mean age of 84·8 years (SD 3·4) at baseline and 273 (48%) were women. Medication reduction was sustained in 109 participants at follow-up (51% of the 213 participants alive in the intervention group). Participants in the intervention group had a larger reduction in antihypertensives than the control group (adjusted mean difference -0·35 drugs [95% CI -0·52 to -0·18]). Overall, 202 (72%) participants in the intervention group and 218 (77%) participants in the control group experienced hospitalisation or mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·76 to 1·12]). There was some evidence that the proportion of participants experiencing the primary outcome in the per-protocol population was lower in the intervention group (aHR 0·80 [0·64 to 1·00])., Interpretation: Half of participants sustained medication reduction with no evidence of an increase in all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. These findings suggest that an antihypertensive deprescribing intervention might be safe for people aged 80 years or older with controlled blood pressure taking two or more antihypertensives., Funding: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health and Care Research., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JPS reports funding from the Wellcome Trust/Royal Society, National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), British Heart Foundation, and Stroke Association; payment for consultancy from DoctorLink; is a Data Safety Monitoring Board member for the Hypertension Treatment in Nigeria Study sponsored by Northwestern University; and is Secretary and trustee for the British and Irish Hypertension Society. GAF is Board non-executive Director for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. FDRH reports honoraria for lectures from Pfizer/BMS, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and AstraZeneca; and is chair of the European Primary Care Cardiovascular Society and International Primary Care Cardiovascular Society. SdL has received research grants to his university for investigator-led cardiometabolic research from Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GSK, MSD, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Seqirus; has been a member of advisory boards for AstraZeneca, GSK, Sanofi, and Seqirus; and has received medical writing support provided by AstraZeneca, GSK, and Pfizer. JM reports funding from an NIHR Senior Investigator Award and honoraria for lectures from Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer. RAP reports NIHR funding to his institution for other research related to medicines use and Medical Research Council funding to his institution unrelated to this project. L-MY reports NIHR funding to her institution for other research. RJM reports funding from the NIHR, British Heart Foundation, and Stroke Association; has received royalties, consulting fees (paid to his institution), and research equipment from Omron; has received royalties from Sensyne; and has received honoraria (paid to his institution) for lectures from the Finnish Hypertension Society and Canadian Hypertension Society., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The Anti-Freaze-F trial will assess the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial to assess whether intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab) can reduce pain and improve function in people with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder., Methods and Analysis: We are conducting a multi-centre, randomised feasibility study, with an embedded qualitative sub-study. We will recruit adults ≥18 years with a new episode of shoulder pain attributable to early stage frozen shoulder, recruited from at least five UK NHS musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. Participants (n=84) will be randomised (centralised computer generated 1:1 allocation) to receive either: 1) intra-articular injection of anti-TNF (adalimumab 160mg) or 2) placebo injection (saline [0.9% sodium chloride]), both under ultrasound guidance. A second injection of the allocated treatment (adalimumab 80mg) or equivalent volume of placebo will be administered 2-3 weeks later. All participants will receive a physiotherapy advice leaflet providing education and advice about frozen shoulder and pain management. The primary feasibility objectives are: 1) the ability to screen and identify potential participants with pain predominant early stage frozen shoulder; 2) willingness of eligible participants to consent and be randomised to intervention; 3) practicalities of delivering the intervention, including time to first injection and number of participants receiving second injection; 4) standard deviation of the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score and attrition rate at 3 months (i.e. 12 weeks) post-randomisation in order to estimate the sample size for a definitive trial. We will also assess follow up rates and viability of patient-reported outcome measures and range of shoulder motion for a definitive trial. Research Ethics Committee approval (REC 21/NE/0214)., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN 27075727; EudraCT number: 2021-003509-23; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05299242., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Professor Sir Marc Feldman and Professor Jagdeep Nanchahal are co-founders and hold equity in 180 Life Sciences, the company funding the purchase of adalimumab, the investigational medicinal product to be used in this trial., (Copyright: © 2023 Hopewell S et al.)

Background: Dupuytren's disease is a common fibrotic condition that causes the fingers to flex irreversibly into the palm. Treatments for late-stage disease all have limitations, and there is no approved treatment for early-stage disease. We identified tumour necrosis factor as a therapeutic target in Dupuytren's disease, and in a dose ranging trial found 40 mg adalimumab in 0·4 mL to be most efficacious. Here we aimed to assess the effects of intranodular injection of adalimumab in early-stage disease., Methods: In this phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial adults with early-stage Dupuytren's disease and an established clinically distinct nodule with a clear history of progression in the preceding 6 months were recruited from two clinical centres in the UK and were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four injections of adalimumab or saline every 3 months. Participants and assessors were masked. The primary outcome was nodule hardness measured with a durometer at 12 months. Data were analysed by linear mixed effects regression models in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing primary outcome data. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 27786905 and is complete., Findings: Between Feb 17, 2017, and Jan 11, 2019, 284 participants were screened in the UK and 140 were enrolled. 47 (34%) participants were female and 93 (66%) were male. Mean age of participants was 59·7 years (SD 10·0). Primary outcome data were available from 113 participants. Nodule hardness was lower (-4·6 AU [95% CI -7·1 to -2·2], p=0·0002) in the adalimumab compared with the saline group at 12 months. There were no related serious adverse events; the most common adverse events were minor injection site reactions., Interpretation: Intranodular injections of adalimumab in participants with early-stage Dupuytren's disease resulted in softening and reduction in size of the nodules. Longer follow-up would be required to assess the effect of tumour necrosis factor inhibition on disease progression, extension deficit and hand function., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JN receives consulting fees and has received research grants from 180 Life Sciences Corp (180LS). MF has been executive co-chairman of 180LS since November 2020 and receives payment for this. JN and MF hold stock in 180LS, which has exclusively licensed intellectual property for the treatment of Dupuytren’s disease from the University of Oxford. SEL was appointed as a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of 180LS in Feb, 2022, and has not received any payments. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Objectives: To evaluate whether a home-based rehabilitation programme for people assessed as being at risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty offers superior outcomes to traditional outpatient physiotherapy., Design: A prospective, single-blind, two-arm randomised controlled superiority trial., Setting: 14 National Health Service physiotherapy departments in the UK., Participants: 621 participants identified at high risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty using a bespoke screening tool., Interventions: A multicomponent home-based rehabilitation programme delivered by rehabilitation assistants with supervision from qualified therapists versus usual care outpatient physiotherapy., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (a disease-specific measure of function), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality of Life subscale, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, 5 dimension, 5 level version of Euroqol (EQ-5D-5L) and physical function assessed using the Figure of 8 Walk test, 30 s Chair Stand Test and Single Leg Stance., Results: 621 participants were randomised between March 2015 and January 2018. 309 were assigned to CORKA (Community Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty) home-based rehabilitation, receiving a median five treatment sessions (IQR 4-7). 312 were assigned to usual care, receiving a median 4 sessions (IQR 2-6). The primary outcome, LLFDI function total score at 12 months, was collected for 279 participants (89%) in the home-based CORKA group and 287 participants (92%) in the usual care group. No clinically or statistically significant difference was found between the groups (intention-to-treat adjusted difference=0.49 points; 95% CI -0.89 to 1.88; p=0.48). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups on any of the patient-reported or physical secondary outcome measures at 6 or 12 months.There were 18 participants in the intervention group reporting a serious adverse event (5.8%), only one directly related to the intervention, all other adverse events recorded throughout the trial related to underlying chronic medical conditions., Conclusions: The CORKA intervention was not superior to usual care. The trial detected no significant differences, clinical or statistical, between the two groups on either primary or secondary outcomes. CORKA offers an evaluation of an intervention utilising a different service delivery model for this patient group., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN13517704., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GC is a member of the HTA Commissioning Board. A Price has a consultancy with Zimmer Biomet, outside the submitted work. MU has grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from NIHR, Personal fees from NIHR, Personal fees from NICE, non financial support from Stryker PLC, grants from SERCO. SL has grants from NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme during the conduct of the study and is a member of the following Boards: HTA Additional Capacity Funding Board 2010-2015, HTA Clinical Trials Board 2010-2015, HTA End of Life Care and Add on Studies 2015-2015, HTA Funding Boards Policy Group (Formally CSG) 2010–2015, HTA MNCH Methods Group 2013–2015, HTA Post-board funding teleconference (PG members to attend) 2010–2015, HTA Primary Care Themed Call board 2013–2014, HTA Prioritisation Group 2014–2015, NIHR CTU Standing Advisory Committee 2012–2016., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Over 100,000 primary knee arthroplasty operations are undertaken annually in the UK. Around 15-30% of patients do not report a good outcome. Better rehabilitation strategies may improve patient-reported outcomes., Objectives: To compare the outcomes from a traditional outpatient physiotherapy model with those from a home-based rehabilitation programme for people assessed as being at risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty., Design: An individually randomised, two-arm controlled trial with a blinded outcome assessment, a parallel health economic evaluation and a nested qualitative study., Setting: The trial took place in 14 NHS physiotherapy departments., Participants: People identified as being at high risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty., Interventions: A multicomponent home-based rehabilitation package delivered by rehabilitation assistants with supervision from qualified therapists compared with usual-care outpatient physiotherapy., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (a disease-specific measure of function); Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; Quality of Life subscale; Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; and physical function assessed using the Figure-of-8 Walk Test, 30-Second Chair Stand Test and Single Leg Stance. Data on the use of health-care services, time off work and informal care were collected using participant diaries., Results: In total, 621 participants were randomised. A total of 309 participants were assigned to the COmmunity based Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty (CORKA) home-based rehabilitation programme, receiving a median of five treatment sessions (interquartile range 4-7 sessions). A total of 312 participants were assigned to usual care, receiving a median of four sessions (interquartile range 2-6 sessions). The primary outcome, Late Life Function and Disability Instrument function total score at 12 months, was collected for 279 participants (89%) in the home-based CORKA group and 287 participants (92%) in the usual-care group. No clinically or statistically significant difference was found between the groups (intention-to-treat adjusted difference 0.49 points, 95% confidence interval -0.89 to 1.88 points; p  = 0.48). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the patient-reported or physical secondary outcome measures at 6 or 12 months post randomisation. The health economic analysis found that the CORKA intervention was cheaper to provide than usual care (£66 less per participant). Total societal costs (combining health-care costs and other costs) were lower for the CORKA intervention than usual care (£316 less per participant). Adopting a societal perspective, CORKA had a 75% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Adopting the narrower health and social care perspective, CORKA had a 43% probability of being cost-effective at the same threshold., Limitations: The interventions were of short duration and were set within current commissioning guidance for UK physiotherapy. Participants and treating therapists could not be blinded., Conclusions: This randomised controlled trial found no important differences in outcomes when post-arthroplasty rehabilitation was delivered using a home-based, rehabilitation assistant-delivered rehabilitation package or a traditional outpatient model. However, the health economic evaluation found that when adopting a societal perspective, the CORKA home-based intervention was cost-saving and more effective than, and thus dominant over, usual care, owing to reduced time away from paid employment for this group. Further research could look at identifying the risk of poor outcome and further evaluation of a cost-effective treatment, including the workforce model to deliver it., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13517704., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 65. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: The number of knee arthroplasties performed each year is steadily increasing. Although the outcome is generally favourable, up to 15 % fail to achieve a satisfactory clinical outcome which may indicate that the existing model of rehabilitation after surgery may not be the most efficacious. Given the increasing number of knee arthroplasties, the relative limited physiotherapy resources available and the increasing age and frailty of patients receiving arthroplasty surgery, it is important that we concentrate our rehabilitation resources on those patients who most need help to achieve a good outcome. This pragmatic randomised controlled trial will investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a community-based multidisciplinary rehabilitation intervention in comparison to usual care., Methods/design: The trial is designed as a prospective, single-blind, two-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT). A bespoke algorithm to predict which patients are at risk of poor outcome will be developed to screen patients for inclusion into a RCT using existing datasets. Six hundred and twenty patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, and assessed as being at risk of poor outcome using this algorithm, will be recruited and randomly allocated to one of two rehabilitation strategies: usual care or an individually tailored community-based rehabilitation package. The primary outcome is the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument measured at 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include the Oxford Knee Score, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score quality of life subscale, the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, the EQ-5D-5L and physical function measured by three performance-based tests: figure of eight, sit to stand and single-leg stand. A nested qualitative study will explore patient experience and perceptions and a health economic analysis will assess whether a home-based multidisciplinary individually tailored rehabilitation package represents good value for money when compared to usual care., Discussion: There is lack of consensus about what constitutes the optimum package of rehabilitation after knee arthroplasty surgery. There is also a need to tailor rehabilitation to the needs of those predicted to do least well by focussing on interventions that target the elderly and frailer population receiving arthroplasty surgery., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 13517704 , registered on 12 February 2015.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common malignancy in Europe and a leading cause of cancer-related death. Almost 50% of patients with CRC develop liver metastases, which heralds a poor prognosis unless metastases can be downsized to surgical resection or ablation. The FOXFIRE trial examines the hypothesis that combining radiosensitising chemotherapy (OxMdG: oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and folic acid) with Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT or radioembolisation) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres®; Sirtex Medical Limited, North Sydney, Australia) as a first-line treatment for liver-dominant metastatic CRC will improve clinical outcomes when compared to OxMdG chemotherapy alone., Methods/design: FOXFIRE is an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of OxMdG with or without the addition of SIRT (1:1 randomisation). Eligible adult patients have histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma, liver metastases measurable on computed tomography scan and untreatable by either surgical resection or local ablation, and they may have limited extra-hepatic disease, defined as ≤5 nodules in the lung and/or one other metastatic site which is amenable to future definitive treatment. Eligible patients may have received adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of the primary tumour, but are not permitted to have previously received chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and must have a life expectancy of ≥3 months and a WHO performance status of 0-1. The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include progression free survival (PFS), liver-specific PFS, patient-reported outcomes, safety, response rate, resection rate and cost-effectiveness. FOXFIRE shares a combined statistical analysis plan with an international sister trial called SIRFLOX., Discussion: This trial is establishing a network of SIRT centres and 'feeder' chemotherapy-only centres to standardise the delivery of SIRT across the whole of the UK and to provide greater equity of access to this highly specialised liver-directed therapy. The FOXFIRE trial will establish the potential role of adding SIRT to first-line chemotherapy for unresectable liver metastatic colorectal cancer, and the impact on current treatment paradigms for metastatic CRC., Trial Registration: ISRCTN83867919.