A feasibility study investigating the acceptability and design of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of needle fasciotomy versus limited fasciectomy for the treatment of Dupuytren's contractures of the fingers (HAND-1): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Percutaneous Needle Fasciotomy Versus Limited Fasciectomy for Dupuytren Disease: A Linear Model Assessment of Short-term Efficacy

Background

There is no consensus about the best treatment for Dupuytren contracture in the hand. In particular, whether to use a percutaneous needle fasciotomy (PCNF) in preference to a limited fasciectomy (LF).

Methods

We performed a retrospective review of the outcomes of 74 joints treated with either PCNF or LF. Baseline characteristics, complications, and active extension deficit (AED) were assessed at 3 weeks and 3 months posttreatment. Reoperative procedures were analyzed to assess the effectiveness of repeated procedures.

Results

Our results suggest that there is no significant difference between PCNF and LF in reducing AED at 3 weeks (P = 0.504) or 3 months (P = 0.66). Moreover, our data suggest that the risk of a surgical complication was the same for both procedures, after adjustment for confounders (P = 0.613). Our study suggests that a reoperative PCNF was 15.3% less effective in reducing the AED compared with a primary PCNF at 3 months postoperatively (P = 0.032); whereas there was no change in the effectiveness of a reoperative LF in reducing AED at both 3 weeks (P = 0.839) and 3 months (P = 0.449).

Conclusions

We believe that PCNF should be used as the primary treatment for nonrecurrent and recurrent Dupuytren contractures. More frequent use of PCNF may help to reduce waiting times for treatment and may enable better resource allocation. Further prospective studies should be carried out.

Hand and Wrist Trauma: Antimicrobials and Infection (HAWAII)

Aims

Hand trauma accounts for one in five of emergency department attendances, with a UK incidence of over five million injuries/year and 250,000 operations/year. Surgical site infection (SSI) in hand trauma surgery leads to further interventions, poor outcomes, and prolonged recovery, but has been poorly researched. Antimicrobial sutures have been recognized by both the World Health Organization and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as potentially effective for reducing SSI. They have never been studied in hand trauma surgery: a completely different patient group and clinical pathway to previous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of these sutures. Antimicrobial sutures are expensive, and further research in hand trauma is warranted before they become standard of care. The aim of this protocol is to conduct a feasibility study of antimicrobial sutures in patients undergoing hand trauma surgery to establish acceptability, compliance, and retention for a definitive trial.

Methods

A two-arm, multicentre feasibility RCT of 116 adult participants with hand and wrist injuries, randomized to either antimicrobial sutures or standard sutures. Study participants and outcome assessors will be blinded to treatment allocation. Outcome measures will be recorded at baseline (preoperatively), 30 days, 90 days, and six months, and will include SSI, patient-reported outcome measures, and return to work.

Conclusion

This will inform a definitive trial of antimicrobial sutures in the hand and wrist, and will help to inform future upper limb trauma trials. The results of this research will be shared with the medical community through high impact publication and presentation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):529–535.

Sensitivity and Specificity of the Unité Rhumatologique Des Affections De La Main (URAM) Scale for Dupuytren Contracture: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

BACKGROUND

Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) is a novel and disease-specific questionnaire for Dupuytren contracture, a fibroproliferative disease that affects hands causing progressive contracture in flexion of the fingers.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of the URAM scale in Dupuytren contracture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed meta-analyses of 10 articles published in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and in various grey literature databases that describe the use of the URAM and Tubiana scales to assess treatment outcomes in Dupuytren contracture. We built three models: a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to determine the optimal threshold for defining Dupuytren contracture, a difference in means model to assess the magnitude of the effect of different treatment modalities, and a meta-regression model to determine the effect on patient quality of life questionnaires such as the URAM, according to variations in Tubiana scores after treatment.

RESULTS

The HSROC and bivariate models showed a sensitivity of 80.23% (95% CI: 75.66 to 84.14) and an overall specificity of 2.61% (95% CI: 1.11 to 6.05). The second model showed an overall difference in means of 1.95 (95% CI: -2.86 to -1.04) for partial fasciectomy and collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (CCH) injections, and -1.30 (95% CI: -1.77 to -0.83) for partial fasciectomy, and -2.75 (95% CI: -4.73 to -0.78) for CCH. The coefficient obtained in the meta-regression model was -1.666 (95% CI: -4.183 to 0.851).

CONCLUSION

The URAM scale is highly sensitive to changes in Dupuytren contracture but has low specificity. It also showed a strong correlation with worsening of finger contracture as measured by the Tubiana scale.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

CONCLUSION

The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

"Validation of a spanish version of the 'Unité Rhumatologique Des Affections De La Main' (URAM) scale"

BACKGROUND

In health care, quality-of-life surveys and questionnaires related to care are becoming increasingly important as a measure of its quality. There is currently no Spanish version of the Unité Rhumatologique des Affections de la Main (URAM) scale, which makes it suitable for hand pathology. The purposes of this study are to develop a Spanish version of the URAM and perform a transcultural adaptation of it, analyzing the result for reliability, validity, and sensitivity to changes.

METHODS

The questionnaire was evaluated for patients with Dupuytren's disease and Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. The cohort study subjects were interviewed at three points in time (baseline, three days after intervention, and one month after), administering the QuickDASH, URAM, and SF-12 (CF12 = physical component, CM12 = mental component) questionnaires at baseline and after intervention; and only the URAM at 3 days. Content validity was evaluated using Cronbach's α. The distribution of the factorial loads of the items and the pattern of the answers were checked. Responsiveness was evaluated by the size of the effect and the reliable rate of change. Convergent and divergent validity was performed using Spearman's r between the different questionnaires.

RESULTS

The study was conducted with 106 patients. The mean baseline scores were: URAM = 14.8, QuickDASH = 41.6, CF12 = 39.3 and CM12 = 49.4. Ceiling or floor effects were not observed in the Spanish URAM. The Cronbach α = 0.853 explains 49.6% of the variance. The study had a high reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.939). Size effect, measured as differences in scores, was moderate for URAM (-0.69) and QuickDASH (-0.51); and low for CF12 and CM12. The correlation of URAM with QuickDASH was high (r = 0.716), and moderate with DD and CTS.

CONCLUSION

The Spanish version of the URAM is a valid and reliable tool for use in assessing hand pathology.

Optimising recruitment to the HAND-1 RCT feasibility study: integration of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI)

Background

Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging, with most trials not reaching recruitment targets. Randomised feasibility studies can be set up prior to a main trial to identify and overcome recruitment obstacles. This paper reports on an intervention—the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI)—to optimise recruitment within a randomised feasibility study of surgical treatments for patients with Dupuytren’s contracture (the HAND-1 study).

Methods

The QRI was introduced in 2-phases: phase 1 sought to understand the recruitment challenges by interviewing trial staff, scrutinising screening logs and analysing audio-recorded patient consultations; in phase 2 a tailored plan of action consisting of recruiter feedback and training was delivered to address the identified challenges.

Results

Two key recruitment obstacles emerged: (1) issues with the recruitment pathway, in particular methods to identify potentially eligible patients and (2) equipoise of recruiters and patients. These were addressed by liaising with centres to share good practice and refine their pathway and by providing bespoke feedback and training on consent discussions to individual recruiters and centres whilst recruitment was ongoing. The HAND-1 study subsequently achieved its recruitment target.

Conclusions

Transferable lessons learnt from the QRI in the feasibility study will be implemented in the definitive RCT, enabling a “head start” in the tackling of wider issues around screening methods and consent discussions in the set up/early recruitment study phases, with ongoing QRI addressing specific issues with new centres and recruiters. Findings from this study are likely to be relevant to other surgical and similar trials that are anticipated to encounter issues around patient and recruiter equipoise of treatments and variation in recruitment pathways across centres. The study also highlights the value of feasibility studies in fine-tuning design and conduct issues for definitive RCTs. Embedding a QRI in an RCT, at feasibility or main stage, offers an opportunity for a detailed and nuanced understanding of key recruitment challenges and the chance to address them in “real-time” as recruitment proceeds.

Do investigator meetings improve recruitment rates in clinical trials? A retrospective before-and-after study of data from nine multi-centre clinical trials

Background

Poor recruitment in clinical trials is well-documented. In large, multi-centre trials, communication between the coordinating centre and trial sites is essential. A commonly used communication tool is the hosting of an investigator/collaborator meeting, which offers an opportunity for sites to re-train and receive trial updates, learn from each other, share best practice and troubleshoot issues. Anecdotally, there is a perception that recruitment rates may increase after holding such a meeting. The aim of this before-and-after study was to examine any changes in recruitment after an investigator meeting.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of nine trials at the Nottingham Clinical Trials Unit (NCTU) that were open to recruitment between 2014 and 2018. In the 8 weeks prior to the date of the investigator meeting, 82 sites (across nine trials) were open to recruitment; 60 of which attended the meeting, 22 who did not. Using meeting attendance data available in Trial Master Files (TMF) and recruitment data from randomisation datasets, we examined recruitment rates in the 8 weeks prior to and following the date of the investigator meeting.

Results

For the 82 sites included, 284 participants were recruited in the 8 weeks prior to the meeting, with a further 300 participants recruited in the 8 weeks post meeting. This gives a mean change in weekly recruitment of 0.073 (− 0.129, 0.275) per site, demonstrating no statistically significant increase in recruitment after the investigator meeting. For the 60 attending sites, recruitment increased from 254 participants prior to the meeting to 271 post meeting, giving a 0.100 (− 0.160, 0.360) mean change in weekly recruitment per site, providing no evidence that recruitment rates increase following an investigator meeting.

Conclusion

There is no statistical evidence to conclude that holding an investigator meeting increases recruitment in the 8 weeks following the meeting. Thus, if the meeting has been held in the belief that it will have a positive impact upon recruitment, trialists may wish to consider other evidence-based strategies known to increase recruitment rates. However, since there are a variety of reasons why an investigator meeting may be held, trialists should continue to consider this as a communication strategy with sites.

Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308)

INTRODUCTION

Providing balanced information that emphasizes clinical equipoise (i.e., uncertainty regarding the relative merits of trial interventions) and exploring patient treatment preferences can improve informed consent and trial recruitment. Within a trial comparing adjuvant radiotherapy versus active monitoring following surgical resection for an atypical meningioma (ROAM/EORTC-1308), we explored patterns in communication and reasons why health practitioners may find it challenging to convey equipoise and explore treatment preferences.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Qualitative study embedded within ROAM/EORTC-1308. Data were collected on 40 patients and 18 practitioners from 13 U.K. sites, including audio recordings of 39 patients' trial consultations, 23 patient interviews, and 18 practitioner interviews. Qualitative analysis drew on argumentation theory.

RESULTS

Practitioners acknowledged the importance of the research question that the trial aimed to answer. However, they often demonstrated a lack of equipoise in consultations, particularly with eligible patients who practitioners believed to be susceptible to side effects (e.g., cognitive impairment) or inconvenienced by radiotherapy. Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient treatment preferences, especially if a patient expressed an initial preference for active monitoring. Concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints influenced communication in ways that were loaded against trial participation.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several challenges that practitioners face in conveying equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in oncology, and particularly neuro-oncology, trials with distinct management pathways. The findings informed communication about ROAM/EORTC-1308 and will be relevant to enhancing trial communication in future oncology trials. Qualitative studies embedded within trials can address difficulties with communication, thus improving informed consent and recruitment. ROAM/EORTC-1308 RCT: ISRCTN71502099.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Oncology trials can be challenging to recruit to, especially those that compare treatment versus monitoring. Conveying clinical equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences can enhance recruitment and patient understanding. This study focused on the challenges that practitioners encounter in trying to use such communication strategies and how practitioners may inadvertently impede patient recruitment and informed decision making. This article provides recommendations to support practitioners in balancing the content and presentation of trial management pathways. The results can inform training to optimize communication, especially for neuro-oncology trials and trials comparing markedly different management pathways.

A randomised feasibility trial comparing needle fasciotomy with limited fasciectomy treatment for Dupuytren's contractures

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of conducting a large, multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing needle fasciotomy with limited fasciectomy for treatment of Dupuytren’s contractures.

Design

The design of this study is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, randomised feasibility trial with embedded QuinteT Recruitment Intervention.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years or over who were referred from primary to secondary care for treatment of a hand with Dupuytren’s contractures of one or more fingers of more than 30° at the metacarpophalangeal (MCP) and/or proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joints and well-defined cord(s). Patients were excluded if they had undergone previous Dupuytren’s contracture surgery on the same hand.

Methods

Potential participants were screened for eligibility. Recruited participants randomised (1:1) to treatment with either needle fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy and followed-up for up to 6 months after treatment. Data on recruitment rates, completion of follow-up, and procedure costs were collected. Four patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective outcome measures were collected before intervention and 6 weeks and 6 months afterwards.

Results

One hundred and fifty-three of 267 (57%) primary-care referrals for Dupuytren’s contractures met the eligibility criteria for the study. Seventy-one of the 153 (46%) agreed to participate and were randomly allocated to treatment with needle fasciotomy or limited fasciectomy. Sixty-seven of these underwent their allocated treatment, two were crossovers from limited fasciectomy to needle fasciotomy, and two (both allocated limited fasciectomy) received no treatment. Fifty-nine participants (85%) completed 6-month follow-up PROMs. Participants felt the MYMOP, PEM and URAM PROMs allowed them to better describe how their treatment affected their hand function than the DASH PROM. The estimated costs of limited fasciectomy (in an operating theatre) and needle fasciotomy (in a clinic room) were £777 and £111 respectively.

Conclusion

A large RCT comparing treatment of Dupuytren’s contractures by needle fasciotomy and limited fasciectomy is feasible. Data from this study will help determine the number of sites and duration of recruitment required to complete an adequately powered RCT and will assist the selection of PROMs in future studies on the treatment of Dupuytren’s contractures. (Level 1 feasibility study).

Trial registration

Trial registered with ISRCTN (registration number: ISRCTN11164292), date assigned - 28/08/2015.

The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention supported five randomized trials to recruit to target: a mixed-methods evaluation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) on recruitment in challenging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have applied the intervention. The QRI aims to understand recruitment difficulties and then implements "QRI actions" to address these as recruitment proceeds.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A mixed-methods study, comprising (1) before-and-after comparisons of recruitment rates and the numbers of patients approached and (2) qualitative case studies, including documentary analysis and interviews with RCT investigators.

RESULTS

Five UK-based publicly funded RCTs were included in the evaluation. All recruited to target. Randomized controlled trial 2 and RCT 5 both received up-front prerecruitment training before the intervention was applied. Randomized controlled trial 2 did not encounter recruitment issues and recruited above target from its outset. Recruitment difficulties, particularly communication issues, were identified and addressed through QRI actions in RCTs 1, 3, 4, and 5. Randomization rates significantly improved after QRI action in RCTs 1, 3, and 4. Quintet Recruitment Intervention actions addressed issues with approaching eligible patients in RCTs 3 and 5, which both saw significant increases in the number of patients approached. Trial investigators reported that the QRI had unearthed issues they had been unaware of and reportedly changed their practices after QRI action.

CONCLUSION

There is promising evidence to suggest that the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs. This needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations.