Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation to reduce ileus after colorectal surgery: randomized feasibility trial and efficacy assessment (IDEAL Stage 2B).

AIM: Ileus is characterized by a period of intestinal dysmotility after surgery, leading to vomiting and constipation. In preclinical models, vagus nerve stimulation reduces intestinal inflammation and prevents smooth muscle dysfunction, accelerating the return of gut function. This study explored the feasibility of a definitive trial of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) along with an early assessment of efficacy. METHOD: A multicentre, randomized feasibility trial (IDEAL Stage 2B) of self-administered nVNS was performed. Patients undergoing colorectal surgery were randomized to nVNS or sham before and after surgery. Feasibility outcomes comprised assessments of recruitment, compliance, blinding and attrition. Clinical outcomes were measures of intestinal function and adverse events. All participants were followed up for 30 days. Interviews with patients and health professionals explored barriers to feasibility and perspectives around implementation. RESULTS: In all, 125 patients were approached about the study and 97 (77.6%) took part. Across all randomized groups, the median compliance to treatment was 19 out of 20 stimulations (interquartile range 17-20). The incidence of adverse events was similar across groups. In this unpowered feasibility study, the time taken for the return of gut function (such as first passage of stool) was similar between nVNS and sham treatments. According to interviews, patients were highly motivated to use the device because it provided them with an opportunity to engage actively in their care. Health professionals were highly driven to tackle the problem of ileus. CONCLUSION: Powered assessments of clinical efficacy are required to confirm or refute the promise of nVNS, as already demonstrated in preclinical models. This feasibility study concludes that a definitive randomized assessment of the clinical benefits of nVNS is desired and feasible.

Echocardiographic screening for heart failure and optimization of the care pathway for individuals with pacemakers: a randomized controlled trial.

Individuals with pacemakers are at increased risk of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD). Whether screening for and optimizing the medical management of LVSD in these individuals can improve clinical outcomes is unknown. In the present study, in a multicenter controlled trial (OPT-PACE), we randomized 1,201 patients (717 men) with a pacemaker to echocardiography screening or usual care. In the screening arm, LVSD was detected in 201 of 600 (34%) patients, who then received management in either primary care or a specialist heart failure (HF) and devices clinic. The primary outcome of the trial was the difference in a composite of time to first HF hospitalization or death. Over 31 months (interquartile range = 30-40 months), the primary outcome occurred in 106 of 600 (18%) patients receiving echocardiography screening, which was not significantly different compared with the occurrence of the primary outcome in 115 of 601 (19%) patients receiving the usual care (hazard ratio = 0.89; 95% confidence interval = 0.69, 1.17). In a prespecified, nonrandomized, exploratory analysis, patients with LVSD managed by the specialist clinic experienced the primary outcome event less frequently than those managed in primary care. The results of this trial indicate that echocardiography screening commonly identifies LVSD in individuals with pacemakers but alone does not alter outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01819662 .

Development of a core data set for describing, measuring and reporting the learning curve in studies of novel invasive procedures: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction of novel surgical techniques and procedures remains poorly regulated and standardised. Although the learning curve associated with invasive procedures is a critical part of innovation, it is currently inconsistently defined, measured and reported. This study aims to develop a core data set that can be applied in all studies describing or measuring the learning curve in novel invasive procedures. METHODS: A core data set will be developed using methods adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials initiative. The study will involve three phases: (1) Identification of a comprehensive list of data items through (a) an umbrella review of existing systematic reviews on the learning curve in surgery and (b) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. (2) Key stakeholders (eg, clinical innovators, clinicians, patients, methodologists, statisticians, journal editors and governance representatives) will complete a Delphi survey to score the importance of each data item, generating a shortened list. (3) Consensus meeting(s) with stakeholders to discuss and agree on the final core data set. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by an Institutional Ethics Committee at the University of Bristol (ref: 111362). Participants will complete written informed consent to participate. Dissemination strategies include scientific meeting presentations, peer-reviewed journal publications, patient engagement events, use of social media platforms, workshops and other events.

'The unexpected journey': a qualitative interview study exploring patient and health professionals experiences of participating in the knee arthroplasty versus joint distraction study (KARDS).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the knee arthroplasty versus joint distraction (KARDS) randomised trial was to investigate whether knee joint distraction (KJD) is non-inferior to knee arthroplasty, also known as knee replacement (KR). Here we report the findings from qualitative interviews that were part of the planned KARDS process evaluation. DESIGN AND METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews with staff and participants in secondary care. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. FINDINGS: We were unable to complete the full-planned KARDS process evaluation as recruitment to the trial was closed early but key common themes emerged.Eleven members of staff were interviewed from two KARDS sites (eight initial interviews just after site opening and three follow-up interviews at 12 months). Eleven KARDS participants (six KR and five KJD) were interviewed. One overarching theme emerged: 'An unexpected journey'. This incorporated subthemes including 'an important research question', 'a roller coaster ride', 'lessons learnt', 'managing expectations' and 'a slow recovery'. These encapsulate experiences of both staff and participants. CONCLUSION: The information that we were able to collect highlights that providing adequate and comprehensive information about all aspects of treatment including estimated timelines of recovery are essential in clinical trials of novel interventions. Incorporating a comprehensive rehabilitation package following KJD was a key learning. Process evaluations in these complex trials are essential to determine issues as early as possible so appropriate changes can be made to ensure participants have a smooth journey through the trial experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14879004.

Artificial intelligence in digital pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy.

Ensuring diagnostic performance of artificial intelligence (AI) before introduction into clinical practice is essential. Growing numbers of studies using AI for digital pathology have been reported over recent years. The aim of this work is to examine the diagnostic accuracy of AI in digital pathology images for any disease. This systematic review and meta-analysis included diagnostic accuracy studies using any type of AI applied to whole slide images (WSIs) for any disease. The reference standard was diagnosis by histopathological assessment and/or immunohistochemistry. Searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL in June 2022. Risk of bias and concerns of applicability were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Data extraction was conducted by two investigators and meta-analysis was performed using a bivariate random effects model, with additional subgroup analyses also performed. Of 2976 identified studies, 100 were included in the review and 48 in the meta-analysis. Studies were from a range of countries, including over 152,000 whole slide images (WSIs), representing many diseases. These studies reported a mean sensitivity of 96.3% (CI 94.1-97.7) and mean specificity of 93.3% (CI 90.5-95.4). There was heterogeneity in study design and 99% of studies identified for inclusion had at least one area at high or unclear risk of bias or applicability concerns. Details on selection of cases, division of model development and validation data and raw performance data were frequently ambiguous or missing. AI is reported as having high diagnostic accuracy in the reported areas but requires more rigorous evaluation of its performance.

Effectiveness of septoplasty compared to medical management in adults with obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum: the NAIROS RCT.

Background: The indications for septoplasty are practice-based, rather than evidence-based. In addition, internationally accepted guidelines for the management of nasal obstruction associated with nasal septal deviation are lacking. Objective: The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, compared with medical management, in the management of nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. Design: This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, with defined medical management; it incorporated a mixed-methods process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The trial was set in 17 NHS secondary care hospitals in the UK. Participants: A total of 378 eligible participants aged > 18 years were recruited. Interventions: Participants were randomised on a 1: 1 basis and stratified by baseline severity and gender to either (1) septoplasty, with or without turbinate surgery (n = 188) or (2) medical management with intranasal steroid spray and saline spray (n = 190). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score at 6 months (patient-reported outcome). The secondary outcomes were as follows: patient-reported outcomes - Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation score at 6 and 12 months, Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items subscales at 12 months, Double Ordinal Airway Subjective Scale at 6 and 12 months, the Short Form questionnaire-36 items and costs; objective measurements - peak nasal inspiratory flow and rhinospirometry. The number of adverse events experienced was also recorded. A within-trial economic evaluation from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective estimated the incremental cost per (1) improvement (of ≥ 9 points) in Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score, (2) adverse event avoided and (3) quality-adjusted life-year gained at 12 months. An economic model estimated the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained at 24 and 36 months. A mixed-methods process evaluation was undertaken to understand/address recruitment issues and examine the acceptability of trial processes and treatment arms. Results: At the 6-month time point, 307 participants provided primary outcome data (septoplasty, n = 152; medical management, n = 155). An intention-to-treat analysis revealed a greater and more sustained improvement in the primary outcome measure in the surgical arm. The 6-month mean Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores were -20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to septoplasty than for those randomised to medical management [the score for the septoplasty arm was 19.9 and the score for the medical management arm was 39.5 (95% confidence interval -23.6 to -16.4; p < 0.0001)]. This was confirmed by sensitivity analyses and through the analysis of secondary outcomes. Outcomes were statistically significantly related to baseline severity, but not to gender or turbinate reduction. In the surgical and medical management arms, 132 and 95 adverse events occurred, respectively; 14 serious adverse events occurred in the surgical arm and nine in the medical management arm. On average, septoplasty was more costly and more effective in improving Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items scores and quality-adjusted life-years than medical management, but incurred a larger number of adverse events. Septoplasty had a 15% probability of being considered cost-effective at 12 months at a £20,000 willingness-to-pay threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. This probability increased to 99% and 100% at 24 and 36 months, respectively. Limitations: COVID-19 had an impact on participant-facing data collection from March 2020. Conclusions: Septoplasty, with or without turbinate reduction, is more effective than medical management with a nasal steroid and saline spray. Baseline severity predicts the degree of improvement in symptoms. Septoplasty has a low probability of cost-effectiveness at 12 months, but may be considered cost-effective at 24 months. Future work should focus on developing a septoplasty patient decision aid. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN16168569 and EudraCT 2017-000893-12. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/226/07) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 10. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Septoplasty is an operation to straighten the septum, which is the partition wall between the nostrils inside the nose. Septoplasty can be used as a treatment for people who have a bent septum and symptoms of a blocked nose, such as difficulty sleeping and exercising. Medical management (a saltwater spray to clear the nose followed by a nose steroid spray) is an alternative treatment to septoplasty. The Nasal AIRway Obstruction Study (NAIROS) aimed to find out whether septoplasty or medical management is a better treatment for people with a bent septum and symptoms of a blocked nose. We recruited 378 patients with at least moderately severe nose symptoms from 17 hospitals in England, Scotland and Wales to take part in the NAIROS. Participants were randomly put into one of two groups: septoplasty or medical management. Participants' nose symptoms were measured both when they joined the study and after 6 months, using a questionnaire called the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items. This questionnaire was chosen because patients reported that it included symptoms that were important to them. Other studies have shown that a 9-point change in the Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 items score is significant. After 6 months, on average, people in the septoplasty group improved by 25 points, whereas people in the medical management group improved by 5 points. We saw improvement after septoplasty among patients with moderate symptoms, and among those with severe symptoms. Most patients who we spoke to after a septoplasty were happy with their treatment, but some would have liked more information about what to expect after their nose surgery. In the short term, septoplasty is more costly than medical management. However, over the longer term, taking into account all the costs and benefits of treatment, suggests that septoplasty would be considered good value for money for the NHS.

Good Statistical Practice-development of tailored Good Clinical Practice training for statisticians.

BACKGROUND: Statisticians are fundamental in ensuring clinical research, including clinical trials, are conducted with quality, transparency, reproducibility and integrity. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is an international quality standard for the conduct of clinical trials research. Statisticians are required to undertake training on GCP but existing training is generic and, crucially, does not cover statistical activities. This results in statisticians undertaking training mostly unrelated to their role and variation in awareness and implementation of relevant regulatory requirements with regards to statistical conduct. The need for role-relevant training is recognised by the UK NHS Health Research Authority and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). METHODS: The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project was instigated by the UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Registered Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) Statisticians Operational Group and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), to develop materials to enable role-specific GCP training tailored to statisticians. Review of current GCP training was undertaken by survey. Development of training materials were based on MHRA GCP. Critical review and piloting was conducted with UKCRC CTU and NIHR researchers with comment from MHRA. Final review was conducted through the UKCRC CTU Statistics group. RESULTS: The survey confirmed the need and desire for the development of dedicated GCP training for statisticians. An accessible, comprehensive, piloted training package was developed tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. The training materials cover legislation and guidance for best practice across all clinical trial processes with statistical involvement, including exercises and real-life scenarios to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Comprehensive feedback was incorporated. The training materials are freely available for national and international adoption. CONCLUSION: All research staff should have training in GCP yet the training undertaken by most academic statisticians does not cover activities related to their role. The Good Statistical Practice (GCP for Statisticians) project has developed and extensively piloted new, role-specific, comprehensive, accessible GCP training tailored to statisticians working in clinical research, particularly the clinical trials arena. This role-specific training will encourage best practice, leading to transparent and reproducible statistical activity, as required by regulatory authorities and funders.

Clinical effectiveness of septoplasty versus medical management for nasal airways obstruction: multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness of septoplasty. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 17 otolaryngology clinics in the UK's National Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: 378 adults (≥18 years, 67% men) newly referred with symptoms of nasal obstruction associated with septal deviation and at least moderate symptoms of nasal obstruction (score >30 on the Nasal Obstruction and Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive either septoplasty (n=188) or defined medical management (n=190, nasal steroid and saline spray for six months), stratified by baseline symptom severity and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was patient reported score on the Sino-Nasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) at six months, with 9 points defined as the minimal clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and objective nasal airflow measures. RESULTS: Mean SNOT-22 scores at six months were 19.9 (95% confidence interval 17.0 to 22.7) in the septoplasty arm (n=152, intention-to-treat population) and 39.5 (36.1 to 42.9) in the medical management arm (n=155); an estimated 20.0 points lower (better) for participants randomised to receive septoplasty (95% confidence interval 16.4 to 23.6, P<0.001, adjusted for baseline continuous SNOT-22 score and the stratification variables sex and baseline NOSE severity categories). Greater improvement in SNOT-22 scores was predicted by higher baseline symptom severity scores. Quality of life outcomes and nasal airflow measures (including peak nasal inspiratory flow and absolute inhalational nasal partitioning ratio) improved more in participants in the septoplasty group. Readmission to hospital with bleeding after septoplasty occurred in seven participants (4% of 174 who had septoplasty), and a further 20 participants (12%) required antibiotics for infections. CONCLUSIONS: Septoplasty is a more effective intervention than a defined medical management regimen with a nasal steroid and saline spray in adults with nasal obstruction associated with a deviated nasal septum. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN16168569.

Effectiveness of GRACE risk score in patients admitted to hospital with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (UKGRIS): parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of risk stratification using the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) for patients presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN: Parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Patients presenting with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome to 42 hospitals in England between 9 March 2017 and 30 December 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. INTERVENTION: Hospitals were randomised (1:1) to patient management by standard care or according to the GRS and associated guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures were use of guideline recommended management and time to the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, new onset heart failure hospital admission, and readmission for cardiovascular event. Secondary measures included the duration of hospital stay, EQ-5D-5L (five domain, five level version of the EuroQoL index), and the composite endpoint components. RESULTS: 3050 participants (1440 GRS, 1610 standard care) were recruited in 38 UK clusters (20 GRS, 18 standard care). The mean age was 65.7 years (standard deviation 12), 69% were male, and the mean baseline GRACE scores were 119.5 (standard deviation 31.4) and 125.7 (34.4) for GRS and standard care, respectively. The uptake of guideline recommended processes was 77.3% for GRS and 75.3% for standard care (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.92, P=0.56). The time to the first composite cardiac event was not significantly improved by the GRS (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16, P=0.37). Baseline adjusted EQ-5D-5L utility at 12 months (difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.04) and the duration of hospital admission within 12 months (mean 11.2 days, standard deviation 18 days v 11.8 days, 19 days) were similar for GRS and standard care. CONCLUSIONS: In adults presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome, the GRS did not improve adherence to guideline recommended management or reduce cardiovascular events at 12 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 29731761.

Conservative management versus tonsillectomy in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis in the UK (NATTINA): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tonsillectomy is regularly performed in adults with acute tonsillitis, but with scarce evidence. A reduction in tonsillectomies has coincided with an increase in acute adult hospitalisation for tonsillitis complications. We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative management versus tonsillectomy in patients with recurrent acute tonsillitis. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial was conducted in 27 hospitals in the UK. Participants were adults aged 16 years or older who were newly referred to secondary care otolaryngology clinics with recurrent acute tonsillitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive tonsillectomy or conservative management using random permuted blocks of variable length. Stratification by recruiting centre and baseline symptom severity was assessed using the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score (categories defined as mild 0-35, moderate 36-48, or severe 49-70). Participants in the tonsillectomy group received elective surgery to dissect the palatine tonsils within 8 weeks after random assignment and those in the conservative management group received standard non-surgical care during 24 months. The primary outcome was the number of sore throat days collected during 24 months after random assignment, reported once per week with a text message. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 55284102. FINDINGS: Between May 11, 2015, and April 30, 2018, 4165 participants with recurrent acute tonsillitis were assessed for eligibility and 3712 were excluded. 453 eligible participants were randomly assigned (233 in the immediate tonsillectomy group vs 220 in the conservative management group). 429 (95%) patients were included in the primary ITT analysis (224 vs 205). The median age of participants was 23 years (IQR 19-30), with 355 (78%) females and 97 (21%) males. Most participants were White (407 [90%]). Participants in the immediate tonsillectomy group had fewer days of sore throat during 24 months than those in the conservative management group (median 23 days [IQR 11-46] vs 30 days [14-65]). After adjustment for site and baseline severity, the incident rate ratio of total sore throat days in the immediate tonsillectomy group (n=224) compared with the conservative management group (n=205) was 0·53 (95% CI 0·43 to 0·65; <0·0001). 191 adverse events in 90 (39%) of 231 participants were deemed related to tonsillectomy. The most common adverse event was bleeding (54 events in 44 [19%] participants). No deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: Compared with conservative management, immediate tonsillectomy is clinically effective and cost-effective in adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Pathway Of Low Anterior Resection syndrome relief after Surgery (POLARiS) feasibility trial protocol: a multicentre, feasibility cohort study with embedded randomised control trial to compare sacral neuromodulation and transanal irrigation to optimised conservative management in the management of major low anterior resection syndrome following rectal cancer treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal cancer is common with a 60% 5-year survival rate. Treatment usually involves surgery with or without neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy. Sphincter saving curative treatment can result in debilitating changes to bowel function known as low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). There are currently no clear guidelines on the management of LARS with only limited evidence for different treatment modalities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients who have undergone an anterior resection for rectal cancer in the last 10 years will be approached for the study. The feasibility trial will take place in four centres with a 9-month recruitment window and 12 months follow-up period. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility of recruitment to the POLARiS trial which will be achieved through assessment of recruitment, retainment and follow-up rates as well as the prevalence of major LARS.Feasibility outcomes will be analysed descriptively through the estimation of proportions with confidence intervals. Longitudinal patient reported outcome measures will be analysed according to scoring manuals and presented descriptively with reporting graphically over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been granted by Wales REC1; Reference 22/WA/0025. The feasibility study is in the process of set up. The results of the feasibility trial will feed into the design of an expanded, international trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CT05319054.

Multicenter Randomized Trial of Intermittently Scanned Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose in Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes and Recent-Onset Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results of the LIBERATES Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the impact of modern glucose-monitoring strategies on glycemic and patient-related outcomes in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and recent myocardial infarction (MI) and assess cost effectiveness. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: LIBERATES was a multicenter two-arm randomized trial comparing self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) with intermittently scanned continuous glucose monitoring (isCGM), also known as flash CGM, in individuals with T2D and recent MI, treated with insulin and/or a sulphonylurea before hospital admission. The primary outcome measure was time in range (TIR) (glucose 3.9-10 mmol/L/day) on days 76-90 post-randomization. Secondary and exploratory outcomes included time in hypoglycemia, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), clinical outcome, quality of life (QOL), and cost effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 141 participants randomly assigned (median age 63 years; interquartile range 53, 70), 73% of whom were men, isCGM was associated with increased TIR by 17 min/day (95% credible interval -105 to +153 min/day), with 59% probability of benefit. Users of isCGM showed lower hypoglycemic exposure (<3.9 mmol/L) at days 76-90 (-80 min/day; 95% CI -118, -43), also evident at days 16-30 (-28 min/day; 95% CI -92, 2). Compared with baseline, HbA1c showed similar reductions of 7 mmol/mol at 3 months in both study arms. Combined glycemic emergencies and mortality occurred in four isCGM and seven SMBG study participants. QOL measures marginally favored isCGM, and the intervention proved to be cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SMBG, isCGM in T2D individuals with MI marginally increases TIR and significantly reduces hypoglycemic exposure while equally improving HbA1c, explaining its cost effectiveness. Studies are required to understand whether these glycemic differences translate into longer-term clinical benefit.

Tonsillectomy compared with conservative management in patients over 16 years with recurrent sore throat: the NATTINA RCT and economic evaluation.

Background: The place of tonsillectomy in the management of sore throat in adults remains uncertain. Objectives: To establish the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy, compared with conservative management, for tonsillitis in adults, and to evaluate the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways. Design: This was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing tonsillectomy with conservative management. The trial included a qualitative process evaluation and an economic evaluation. Setting: The study took place at 27 NHS secondary care hospitals in Great Britain. Participants: A total of 453 eligible participants with recurrent sore throats were recruited to the main trial. Interventions: Patients were randomised on a 1 : 1 basis between tonsil dissection and conservative management (i.e. deferred surgery) using a variable block-stratified design, stratified by (1) centre and (2) severity. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was the total number of sore throat days over 24 months following randomisation. The secondary outcome measures were the number of sore throat episodes and five characteristics from Sore Throat Alert Return, describing severity of the sore throat, use of medications, time away from usual activities and the Short Form questionnaire-12 items. Additional secondary outcomes were the Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 total and subscales and Short Form questionnaire-12 items 6 monthly. Evaluation of the impact of alternative sore throat patient pathways by observation and statistical modelling of outcomes against baseline severity, as assessed by Tonsil Outcome Inventory-14 score at recruitment. The incremental cost per sore throat day avoided, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained based on responses to the Short Form questionnaire-12 items and the incremental net benefit based on costs and responses to a contingent valuation exercise. A qualitative process evaluation examined acceptability of trial processes and ramdomised arms. Results: There was a median of 27 (interquartile range 12-52) sore throats over the 24-month follow-up. A smaller number of sore throats was reported in the tonsillectomy arm [median 23 (interquartile range 11-46)] than in the conservative management arm [median 30 (interquartile range 14-65)]. On an intention-to-treat basis, there were fewer sore throats in the tonsillectomy arm (incident rate ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.65). Sensitivity analyses confirmed this, as did the secondary outcomes. There were 52 episodes of post-operative haemorrhage reported in 231 participants undergoing tonsillectomy (22.5%). There were 47 re-admissions following tonsillectomy (20.3%), 35 relating to haemorrhage. On average, tonsillectomy was more costly and more effective in terms of both sore throat days avoided and quality-adjusted life-years gained. Tonsillectomy had a 100% probability of being considered cost-effective if the threshold for an additional quality-adjusted life year was £20,000. Tonsillectomy had a 69% probability of having a higher net benefit than conservative management. Trial processes were deemed to be acceptable. Patients who received surgery were unanimous in reporting to be happy to have received it. Limitations: The decliners who provided data tended to have higher Tonsillectomy Outcome Inventory-14 scores than those willing to be randomised implying that patients with a higher burden of tonsillitis symptoms may have declined entry into the trial. Conclusions: The tonsillectomy arm had fewer sore throat days over 24 months than the conservative management arm, and had a high probability of being considered cost-effective over the ranges considered. Further work should focus on when tonsillectomy should be offered. National Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults has assessed the effectiveness of tonsillectomy when offered for the current UK threshold of disease burden. Further research is required to define the minimum disease burden at which tonsillectomy becomes clinically effective and cost-effective. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN55284102. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/146/06) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 31. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Tonsillectomy is an operation to take out the pair of tonsil glands at the back of the throat. It is an option for adults who suffer from repeated, severe sore throats. Adults who have a tonsillectomy say that they get fewer sore throats afterwards, but it is not clear whether or not they would have got better over time without the operation. There is pressure on doctors to limit the number of tonsillectomies carried out. At the same time, emergency hospital admissions for adults with severe throat infections have been increasing. NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults aimed to find out whether tonsillectomy is an effective and worthwhile treatment for repeated severe sore throats or whether patients would be better off treated without an operation. A total of 453 patients from 27 hospitals in Great Britain took part in the study. Patients were assigned at random to receive either tonsillectomy or conservative management (treatment as needed from their general practitioner). We measured how many sore throats patients had in the next 2 years by sending them text messages every week. We asked about the impact of their sore throats on their quality of life and time off work, and looked at the costs of treatment. We also interviewed 47 patients, general practitioners and hospital staff about their experiences of tonsillectomy and NAtional Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults. The typical patient in the tonsillectomy arm had 23 days of sore throat compared with 30 days of sore throat in the conservative management arm. Tonsillectomy resulted in higher quality of life. We looked to see whether or not it was only those with the most severe sore throats who benefited from tonsillectomy, but we found that patients with more or less severe sore throats at the start all did better with tonsillectomy. Patients who had a tonsillectomy were happy to have undertaken this. Our findings suggest a clear benefit of tonsillectomy using modest additional NHS resources for adults with repeated severe sore throats.

Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care. DESIGN: Placebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded. SETTING: Nine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome. RESULTS: A total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm. LIMITATIONS: The trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth. CONCLUSIONS: This trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services. FUTURE WORK: Further well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Around 9 out of 10 head and neck cancer patients undergoing treatment experience pain, swelling and sores in their mouth (oral mucositis). This can lead to weight loss, painful ulcers, difficulty talking, eating and drinking, and even hospitalisation. Current care includes helping patients to keep their mouth and teeth clean, encouraging them to have a healthy diet and prescribing mouthwashes, painkillers and mouth-coating gels. However, these treatments give limited help in preventing or treating this condition. The LiTEFORM trial looked at whether or not low-level laser therapy could be used to prevent and treat oral mucositis. Patients were allocated to one of two arms at random: active laser or fake (sham) laser. Neither the patients nor the hospital staff knew which laser was being used. Eighty-seven people joined the study during the time allowed (44 received low-level laser therapy and 43 received sham treatment); however, this was a smaller number than the planned target of 380 people. As a result, no meaningful conclusion can be drawn from the results about whether the therapy is beneficial or cost-effective. People receiving the low-level laser therapy reported slightly more soreness in their mouth than those receiving the sham laser, but this could be down to chance. The number of participants is too small to draw conclusions about whether or not the low-level laser is helpful. Some patients found the laser treatment sessions to be difficult. Setting up a new service delivering laser therapy at the same time as cancer treatments was more complicated than originally anticipated. Problems included the scheduling of appointments, finding suitable rooms and having enough trained staff with time to deliver laser therapy. However, this study has provided us with knowledge on how best to set up a laser therapy service in the NHS as part of the cancer treatment pathway and the costs involved. These findings could help future studies looking into low-level laser therapy for those with head and neck cancer.

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of Knee Arthroplasty versus Joint Distraction for Osteoarthritis (KARDS): protocol for a multicentre, phase III, randomised control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Knee replacement (KR) is a clinically proven procedure typically offered to patients with severe knee osteoarthritis (OA) to relieve pain and improve quality of life. However, artificial joints fail over time, requiring revision associated with higher mortality and inferior outcomes. With more young people presenting with knee OA and increasing life expectancy, there is an unmet need to postpone time to first KR. Knee joint distraction (KJD), the practice of using external fixators to open up knee joint space, is proposed as potentially effective to preserve the joint following initial studies in the Netherlands, however, has not been researched within an NHS setting. The KARDS trial will investigate whether KJD is non-inferior to KR in terms of patient-reported postoperative pain 12 months post-surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: KARDS is a phase III, multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing KJD with KR in patients with severe knee OA, employing a hybrid-expertise design, with internal pilot phase and process evaluation. 344 participants will be randomised (1:1) to KJD or KR. The primary outcome measure is the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) pain domain score at 12 months post-operation. Secondary outcome measures include patient-reported overall KOOS, Pain Visual Analogue Scale and Oxford Knee Scores, knee function assessments, joint space width, complications and further interventions over 24 months post-operation. Per patient cost difference between KR and KJD and cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained over 24 months will be estimated within trial, and incremental cost per QALY gained over 20 years by KJD relative to KR predicted using decision analytic modelling. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and Health Research Authority (HRA). Trial results will be disseminated at clinical conferences, through relevant patient groups and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14879004; recruitment opened April 2021.

Non-invasive, vagus nerve stimulation to reduce ileus after colorectal surgery: protocol for a feasibility trial with nested mechanistic studies.

INTRODUCTION: Ileus is a common and distressing condition characterised by gut dysfunction after surgery. While a number of interventions have aimed to curtail its impact on patients and healthcare systems, ileus is still an unmet challenge. Electrical stimulation of the vagus nerve is a promising new treatment due to its role in modulating the neuro-immune axis through a novel anti-inflammatory reflex. The protocol for a feasibility study of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), and a programme of mechanistic and qualitative studies, is described. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a participant-blinded, parallel-group, randomised, sham-controlled feasibility trial (IDEAL Stage 2b) of self-administered nVNS. One hundred forty patients planned for elective, minimally invasive, colorectal surgery will be randomised to four schedules of nVNS before and after surgery. Feasibility outcomes include assessments of recruitment and attrition, adequacy of blinding and compliance to the intervention. Clinical outcomes include bowel function and length of hospital stay. A series of mechanistic substudies exploring the impact of nVNS on inflammation and bowel motility will inform the design of the final stimulation schedule. Semistructured interviews with participants will explore experiences and perceptions of the intervention, while interviews with patients who decline participation will explore barriers to recruitment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the Tyne and Wear South National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (19/NE/0217) on 2 July 2019. Feasibility, mechanistic and qualitative findings will be disseminated to national and international partners through peer-reviewed publications, academic conferences, social media channels and stakeholder engagement activities. The findings will build a case for or against progression to a definitive randomised assessment as well as informing key elements of study design. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN62033341.

Targeting synovial fibroblast proliferation in rheumatoid arthritis (TRAFIC): an open-label, dose-finding, phase 1b trial.

BACKGROUND: Current rheumatoid arthritis therapies target immune inflammation and are subject to ceiling effects. Seliciclib is an orally available cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor that suppresses proliferation of synovial fibroblasts-cells not yet targeted in rheumatoid arthritis. Part 1 of this phase 1b/2a trial aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite ongoing treatment with TNF inhibitors, and to evaluate safety and pharmacokinetics. METHODS: Phase 1b of the TRAFIC study was a non-randomised, open-label, dose-finding trial done in rheumatology departments in five UK National Health Service hospitals. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) fulfilled the 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) or the 2010 ACR-European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis and had moderate to severe disease activity (a Disease Activity Score for 28 joints [DAS28] of ≥3·2) despite stable treatment with anti-TNF therapy for at least 3 months before enrolment. Participants were recruited sequentially to a maximum of seven cohorts of three participants each, designated to receive seliciclib 200 mg, 400 mg, 600 mg, 800 mg, or 1000 mg administered in 200 mg oral capsules. Sequential cohorts received doses determined by a restricted, one-stage Bayesian continual reassessment model, which determined the maximum tolerated dose (the primary outcome) based on a target dose-limiting toxicity rate of 35%. Seliciclib maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration time curve 0-6 h (AUC0-6) were measured. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN36667085. FINDINGS: Between Oct 8, 2015, and Aug 15, 2017, 37 patients were screened and 15 were enrolled to five cohorts and received seliciclib, after which the trial steering committee and the data monitoring committee determined that the maximum tolerated dose could be defined. In addition to a TNF inhibitor, ten (67%) enrolled patients were taking conventional synthetic disease modifying antirheumatic drugs. The maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib was 400 mg, with an estimated dose-limiting toxicity probability of 0·35 (90% posterior probability interval 0·18-0·52). Two serious adverse events occurred (one acute kidney injury in a patient receiving the 600 mg dose and one drug-induced liver injury in a patient receiving the 400 mg dose), both considered to be related to seliciclib and consistent with its known safety profile. 65 non-serious adverse events occurred during the trial, 50 of which were considered to be treatment related. Most treatment-related adverse events were mild; 20 of the treatment-related non-serious adverse events contributed to dose-limiting toxicities. There were no deaths. Average Cmax and AUC0-6 were two-times higher in participants developing dose-limiting toxicities. INTERPRETATION: The maximum tolerated dose of seliciclib has been defined for rheumatoid arthritis refractory to TNF blockade. No unexpected safety concerns were identified to preclude ongoing clinical evaluation in a formal efficacy trial. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, Cyclacel, Research into Inflammatory Arthritis Centre (Versus Arthritis), and the National Institute of Health Research Newcastle and Birmingham Biomedical Research Centres and Clinical Research Facilities.

Use of proton pump inhibitors to treat persistent throat symptoms: multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) to treat persistent throat symptoms. DESIGN: Pragmatic, double blind, placebo controlled, randomised trial. SETTING: Eight ear, nose, and throat outpatient clinics, United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 346 patients aged 18 years or older with persistent throat symptoms who were randomised according to recruiting centre and baseline severity of symptoms (mild or severe): 172 to lansoprazole and 174 to placebo. INTERVENTION: Random blinded allocation (1:1) to either 30 mg lansoprazole twice daily or matched placebo twice daily for 16 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was symptomatic response at 16 weeks measured using the total reflux symptom index (RSI) score. Secondary outcomes included symptom response at 12 months, quality of life, and throat appearances. RESULTS: Of 1427 patients initially screened for eligibility, 346 were recruited. The mean age of the study sample was 52.2 (SD 13.7) years, 196 (57%) were women, and 162 (47%) had severe symptoms at presentation; these characteristics were balanced across treatment arms. The primary analysis was performed on 220 patients who completed the primary outcome measure within a window of 14-20 weeks. Mean RSI scores were similar between treatment arms at baseline: lansoprazole 22.0 (95% confidence interval 20.4 to 23.6) and placebo 21.7 (20.5 to 23.0). Improvements (reduction in RSI score) were observed in both groups-score at 16 weeks: lansoprazole 17.4 (15.5 to19.4) and placebo 15.6 (13.8 to 17.3). No statistically significant difference was found between the treatment arms: estimated difference 1.9 points (95% confidence interval -0.3 to 4.2 points; P=0.096) adjusted for site and baseline symptom severity. Lansoprazole showed no benefits over placebo for any secondary outcome measure, including RSI scores at 12 months: lansoprazole 16.0 (13.6 to 18.4) and placebo 13.6 (11.7 to 15.5): estimated difference 2.4 points (-0.6 to 5.4 points). CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found of benefit from PPI treatment in patients with persistent throat symptoms. RSI scores were similar between the lansoprazole and placebo groups after 16 weeks of treatment and at the 12 month follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN38578686 and EudraCT 2013-004249-17.

Lansoprazole for persistent throat symptoms in secondary care: the TOPPITS RCT.

BACKGROUND: Persistent throat symptoms are commonly attributed to 'laryngopharyngeal reflux'. Despite a limited evidence base, these symptoms are increasingly being treated in primary care with proton pump inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of proton pump inhibitor therapy in patients with persistent throat symptoms. DESIGN: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised Phase III trial. SETTING: This was a multicentre UK trial in eight UK ear, nose and throat departments. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 346 participants aged ≥ 18 years with persistent throat symptoms and a Reflux Symptom Index score of ≥ 10, exclusive of the dyspepsia item, were recruited. INTERVENTION: Random allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either 30 mg of lansoprazole twice daily or matched placebo for 16 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Symptomatic response (i.e. total Reflux Symptom Index score after 16 weeks of therapy). RESULTS: A total of 1427 patients were screened and 346 were randomised. The mean age was 52 years (standard deviation 13.7 years, range 20-84 years); 150 (43%) participants were male and 196 (57%) were female; 184 (53%) participants had a mild Reflux Symptom Index minus the heartburn/dyspepsia item and 162 (47%) had a severe Reflux Symptom Index minus the heartburn/dyspepsia item. A total of 172 patients were randomised to lansoprazole and 174 were randomised to placebo. MAIN OUTCOMES: A total of 267 participants completed the primary end-point visit (lansoprazole, n = 127; placebo, n = 140), of whom 220 did so between 14 and 20 weeks post randomisation ('compliant' group); 102 received lansoprazole and 118 received placebo. The mean Reflux Symptom Index scores at baseline were similar [lansoprazole 22.0 (standard deviation 8.0), placebo 21.7 (standard deviation 7.1), overall 21.9 (standard deviation 7.5)]. The mean Reflux Symptom Index scores at 16 weeks reduced from baseline in both groups [overall 17.4 (standard deviation 9.9), lansoprazole 17.4 (standard deviation 9.9), placebo 15.6 (standard deviation 9.8)]. Lansoprazole participants had estimated Reflux Symptom Index scores at 16 weeks that were 1.9 points higher (worse) than those of placebo participants (95% confidence interval -0.3 to 4.2; padj = 0.096), adjusted for site and baseline severity. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Ninety-five (43%) participants achieved a Reflux Symptom Index score in the normal range (< 12) at 16 weeks: 42 (41%) in the lansoprazole group and 53 (45%) in the placebo group. A total of 226 participants completed the end-of-trial follow-up visit (lansoprazole, n = 109; placebo, n = 117), of whom 181 were 'compliant'. The mean Reflux Symptom Index scores at 12 months reduced from baseline in both groups [lansoprazole 16.0 (standard deviation 10.8), placebo 13.6 (standard deviation 9.6), overall 14.7 (standard deviation 10.2)]. A total of 87 (48%) participants achieved a Reflux Symptom Index score in the normal range at 12 months: 33 (40%) in the lansoprazole group and 54 (55%) in the placebo group. Likewise, the Comprehensive Reflux Symptom Score and Laryngopharyngeal Reflux - Health Related Quality of Life total scores and subscales all showed very similar changes in the lansoprazole and placebo cohorts at both 16 weeks and 12 months. LIMITATIONS: Drop-out rate and compliance are issues in pragmatic clinical trials. The Trial Of Proton Pump Inhibitors in Throat Symptoms (TOPPITS) aimed to detect clinically relevant difference with 90% power. The 346 randomised participants reduced to 283 at the primary end point; 267 completed the primary outcome measure, 220 within the protocol time scale. Despite this, the powers to detect the clinically relevant difference in Reflux Symptom Index score at 16 weeks were 82% (compliant comparison) and 89% (pragmatic comparison). The lack of difference between lansoprazole and placebo is generalisable across NHS clinics. CONCLUSIONS: Participants on lansoprazole did not report significantly better outcomes than participants on placebo on any of the three patient-reported outcome tools (Reflux Symptom Index, Comprehensive Reflux Symptom Score and Laryngopharyngeal Reflux - Health Related Quality of Life). This multicentre, pragmatic, powered, definitive Phase III trial found no evidence of benefit for patients by treating persistent throat symptoms with lansoprazole. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38578686 and EudraCT number 2013-004249-17. 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. 25, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: One of the commonest reasons for patients attending hospital throat or voice clinics is persistent throat symptoms, which include a feeling of a lump in the throat, a cough or a hoarse voice. Over time, more of these patients are being treated with proton pump inhibitors to suppress stomach acid in the belief that stomach acid entering the throat causes the symptoms, but there is little evidence that these medications work. STUDY AIM: The aim of this study is to explore whether or not having a 16-week course of proton pump inhibitors has any impact on throat symptoms. We also tested the usefulness of three different questionnaires in measuring throat symptoms, explored side effects and whether or not patients adhere to treatment, and measured patients' quality of life. METHODS: Patients with persistent (lasting for more than 6 weeks) throat symptoms who agreed to participate were randomised to receive either the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole or a placebo. Participants took lansoprazole or placebo for 16 weeks. Symptoms and quality of life were measured before patients were randomised and at 4 and 12 months after randomisation. RESULTS: The total number of participants was 346. The mean Reflux Symptom Index outcome score (higher scores meaning worse symptoms) was 22 before the 4-month course of capsules, 16 after 4 months and 15 after 12 months. Participant-reported throat symptoms and quality of life in all participants improved over the 12 months of the study. There was no difference in the symptom improvement experienced by proton pump inhibitor and placebo participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that proton pump inhibitors do not benefit patients with persistent throat symptoms. Future research should focus on other available therapies.