Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients' symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46-2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67-4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services. DESIGN: Intermediate-risk patients (60-72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012-December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance. RESULTS: 74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%-40% of CRCs and 40%-70% of AAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18040196; Results.

Long term effects of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening after 17 years of follow-up: the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Previous analyses have only reported follow-up after flexible sigmoidoscopy for a maximum of 12 years. We aimed to examine colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening and 17 years of follow-up. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised trial (UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial), done between Nov 14, 1994, and March 30, 1999, 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would probably attend screening if invited, were randomly assigned (1:2) to an intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or a control group (not contacted). Randomisation was done centrally in blocks of 12, and stratified by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The nature of the intervention did not allow the staff to be masked to arm of the trial; however, randomisation was done in batches so that the control group and participants not yet randomised were unaware of their allocation status. The primary outcomes were incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were estimated for intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 28352761. FINDINGS: Our cohort analysis included 170 034 people: 112 936 in the control group and 57 098 in the intervention group, 40 621 (71%) of whom were screened and 16 477 (29%) were not screened. During screening and a median of 17·1 years' follow-up, colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 1230 individuals in the intervention group and 3253 in the control group, and 353 individuals in the intervention group versus 996 individuals in the control group died from colorectal cancer. In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence was reduced by 26% (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·70-0·80]; p<0·0001) in the intervention group versus the control group and colorectal cancer mortality was reduced by 30% (0·70 [0·62-0·79]; p<0·0001) in the intervention group versus the control group. In per-protocol analyses, adjusted for non-compliance, colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were 35% (HR 0·65 [95% CI 0·59-0·71]) and 41% (0·59 [0·49-0·70]) lower in the screened group. INTERPRETATION: A single flexible sigmoidoscopy continues to provide substantial protection from colorectal cancer diagnosis and death, with protection lasting at least 17 years. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation.

Adenoma surveillance and colorectal cancer incidence: a retrospective, multicentre, cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Removal of adenomas reduces colorectal cancer incidence and mortality; however, the benefit of surveillance colonoscopy on colorectal cancer risk remains unclear. We examined heterogeneity in colorectal cancer incidence in intermediate-risk patients and the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence. METHODS: We did this retrospective, multicentre, cohort study using routine lower gastrointestinal endoscopy and pathology data from patients who, after baseline colonoscopy and polypectomy, were diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas mostly (>99%) between Jan 1, 1990, and Dec 31, 2010, at 17 hospitals in the UK. These patients are currently offered surveillance colonoscopy at intervals of 3 years. Patients were followed up through to Dec 31, 2014.We assessed the effect of surveillance on colorectal cancer incidence using Cox regression with adjustment for patient, procedural, and polyp characteristics. We defined lower-risk and higher-risk subgroups on the basis of polyp and procedural characteristics identified as colorectal cancer risk factors. We estimated colorectal cancer incidence and standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) using as standard the general population of England in 2007. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN15213649. FINDINGS: 253 798 patients who underwent colonic endoscopy were identified, of whom 11 944 with intermediate-risk adenomas were included in this analysis. After a median follow-up of 7·9 years (IQR 5·6-11·1), 210 colorectal cancers were diagnosed. 5019 (42%) patients did not attend surveillance and 6925 (58%) attended one or more surveillance visits. Compared to no surveillance, one or two surveillance visits were associated with a significant reduction in colorectal cancer incidence rate (adjusted hazard ratio 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·80 for one visit; 0·51, 0·31-0·84 for two visits). Without surveillance, colorectal cancer incidence in patients with a suboptimal quality colonoscopy, proximal polyps, or a high-grade or large adenoma (≥20 mm) at baseline (8865 [74%] patients) was significantly higher than in the general population (SIR 1·30, 95% CI 1·06-1·57). By contrast, in patients without these features, colorectal cancer incidence was lower than that of the general population (SIR 0·51, 95% CI 0·29-0·84). INTERPRETATION: Colonoscopy surveillance benefits most patients with intermediate-risk adenomas. However, some patients are already at low risk after baseline colonoscopy and the value of surveillance for them is unclear. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment, Cancer Research UK.

Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening. METHODS: All people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60-74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing people's stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July-August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020. FINDINGS: As all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163,525) and 2 (n=150,417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04-1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04-1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94-1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03-1·11, p=0·001). INTERPRETATION: Of four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the 'gist' of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP. METHODS: The trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59-74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet ('SI'). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet ('SI + Gist') which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles. RESULTS: In November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the 'SI' intervention (n = 79,104) or the 'SI + Gist' group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: Providing supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN74121020 , registered: 17/20/2012.

Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of screening in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), potentially leading to inequalities in outcomes. We tested whether endorsement of bowel cancer screening by an individual's general practice (GP endorsement; GPE) reduced this gradient. METHODS: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Over 20 days, individuals eligible for screening in England from 6480 participating general practices were randomly allocated to receive a GP-endorsed or the standard invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation. RESULTS: We enrolled 265,434 individuals. Uptake was 58.2% in the intervention arm and 57.5% in the control arm. After adjusting for age, sex, hub and screening episode, GPE increased the overall odds of uptake (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10), but did not affect its socioeconomic gradient. We estimated that implementing GPE could result in up to 165 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and 61 cancers detected, and a small one-off cost to modify the standard invitation (£78,000). CONCLUSIONS: Although GPE did not improve its socioeconomic gradient, it offers a low-cost approach to enhancing overall screening uptake within the NHS BCSP.

Identification of Extracolonic Pathologies by Computed Tomographic Colonography in Colorectal Cancer Symptomatic Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer may originate outside the colorectum. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is used to examine the colorectum and abdominopelvic organs simultaneously. We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial to quantify the frequency, nature, and consequences of extracolonic findings. METHODS: We studied 5384 patients from 21 UK National Health Service hospitals referred by their family doctor for the investigation of colorectal cancer symptoms from March 2004 through December 2007. The patients were assigned randomly to groups that received the requested test (barium enema or colonoscopy, n = 3574) or CTC (n = 1810). We determined the frequency and nature of extracolonic findings, subsequent investigations, ultimate diagnosis, and extracolonic cancer diagnoses 1 and 3 years after testing patients without colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Extracolonic pathologies were detected in 959 patients by CTC (58.7%), in 42 patients by barium enema analysis (1.9%), and in no patients by colonoscopy. Extracolonic findings were investigated in 142 patients (14.2%) and a diagnosis was made for 126 patients (88.1%). Symptoms were explained by extracolonic findings in 4 patients analyzed by barium enema (0.2%) and in 33 patients analyzed by CTC (2.8%). CTC identified 72 extracolonic neoplasms, however, barium enema analysis found only 3 (colonoscopy found none). Overall, CTC diagnosed extracolonic neoplasms in 72 of 1634 patients (4.4%); 26 of these were malignant (1.6%). There were significantly more extracolonic malignancies detected than expected 1 year after examination, but these did not differ between patients evaluated by CTC (22.2/1000 person-years), barium enema (26.5/1000 person-years; P = .43), or colonoscopy (32.0/1000 person-years; P = .88). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer are found to have extracolonic pathologies by CTC analysis. However, the proportion of patients found to have extracolonic malignancies after 1 year of CTC examination is not significantly greater than after barium enema or colonoscopy examinations. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials no: 95152621.isrctn.com.

Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Barium enema (BE) is widely available for diagnosis of colorectal cancer despite concerns about its accuracy and acceptability. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) might be a more sensitive and acceptable alternative. We aimed to compare CTC and BE for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for radiological investigation of the colon. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to BE or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS: 3838 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BE (n=2553) or CTC (n=1285). 34 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 2527 assigned to BE and 1277 assigned to CTC. The detection rate of colorectal cancer or large polyps was significantly higher in patients assigned to CTC than in those assigned to BE (93 [7.3%] of 1277 vs 141 [5.6%] of 2527, relative risk 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.68; p=0.0390). CTC missed three of 45 colorectal cancers and BE missed 12 of 85. The rate of additional colonic investigation was higher after CTC than after BE (283 [23.5%] of 1206 CTC patients had additional investigation vs 422 [18.3%] of 2300 BE patients; p=0.0003), due mainly to a higher polyp detection rate. Serious adverse events were rare. INTERPRETATION: CTC is a more sensitive test than BE. Our results suggest that CTC should be the preferred radiological test for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS: 1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30.0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8.2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3.65, 95% CI 2.87-4.65; p<0.0001). Almost half the referrals after CTC were for small (<10 mm) polyps or clinical uncertainty, with low predictive value for large polyps or cancer. Detection rates of colorectal cancer or large polyps in the trial cohort were 11% for both procedures. CTC missed 1 of 29 colorectal cancers and colonoscopy missed none (of 55). Serious adverse events were rare. INTERPRETATION: Guidelines are needed to reduce the referral rate after CTC. For most patients, however, CTC provides a similarly sensitive, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy (SMILE (UK)): a randomised controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Teaching people with epilepsy to identify and manage seizure triggers, implement strategies to remember to take antiepileptic drugs, implement precautions to minimize risks during seizures, tell others what to do during a seizure and learn what to do during recovery may lead to better self-management. No teaching programme exists for adults with epilepsy in the United Kingdom although a number of surveys have shown patients want more information. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a two-day Self-Management education for epILEpsy (SMILE (UK)), which was originally developed in Germany (MOSES).Four hundred and twenty eight adult patients who attended specialist epilepsy outpatient clinics at 15 NHS participating sites in the previous 12 months, and who fulfil other eligibility criteria will be randomised to receive the intervention (SMILE (UK) course with treatment as usual- TAU) or to have TAU only (control). The primary outcome is the effect on patient reported quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes are seizure frequency and psychological distress (anxiety and depression), perceived impact of epilepsy, adherence to medication, management of adverse effects from medication, and improved self-efficacy in management (mastery/control) of epilepsy.Within the trial there will be a nested qualitative study to explore users' views of the intervention, including barriers to participation and the perceived benefits of the intervention. The cost-effectiveness of the intervention will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: This study will provide quantitative and qualitative evidence of the impact of a structured self management programme on quality of life and other aspects of clinical and cost effectiveness in adults with poorly controlled epilepsy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN57937389.

Remote monitoring of atrial fibrillation recurrence using mHealth technology (REMOTE-AF).

Aims: This proof-of-concept study sought to evaluate changes in heart rate (HR) obtained from a consumer wearable device and compare against implantable loop recorder (ILR)-detected recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia (AT) after AF ablation. Methods and results: REMOTE-AF (NCT05037136) was a prospectively designed sub-study of the CASA-AF randomized controlled trial (NCT04280042). Participants without a permanent pacemaker had an ILR implanted at their index ablation procedure for longstanding persistent AF. Heart rate and step count were continuously monitored using photoplethysmography (PPG) from a commercially available wrist-worn wearable. Photoplethysmography-recorded HR data were pre-processed with noise filtration and episodes at 1-min interval over 30 min of HR elevations (Z-score = 2) were compared with corresponding ILR data. Thirty-five patients were enrolled, with mean age 70.3 ± 6.8 years and median follow-up 10 months (interquartile range 8-12 months). Implantable loop recorder analysis revealed 17 out of 35 patients (49%) had recurrence of AF/AT. Compared with ILR recurrence, wearable-derived elevations in HR ≥ 110 beats per minute had a sensitivity of 95.3%, specificity 54.1%, positive predictive value (PPV) 15.8%, negative predictive value (NPV) 99.2%, and overall accuracy 57.4%. With PPG-recorded HR elevation spikes (non-exercise related), the sensitivity was 87.5%, specificity 62.2%, PPV 39.2%, NPV 92.3%, and overall accuracy 64.0% in the entire patient cohort. In the AF/AT recurrence only group, sensitivity was 87.6%, specificity 68.3%, PPV 53.6%, NPV 93.0%, and overall accuracy 75.0%. Conclusion: Consumer wearable devices have the potential to contribute to arrhythmia detection after AF ablation. Study Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05037136 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05037136.

Long-term clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of catheter vs thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation using continuous cardiac monitoring: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes of catheter ablation (CA) compared to thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) to treat patients with long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) are not known. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term (36-month) clinical efficacy, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness of SA and CA in LSPAF. METHODS: Participants were followed up for 3 years using implantable loop recorders and questionnaires to assess the change in quality of life. Intention-to-treat analyses were used to report the findings. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients with LSPAF treated, 104 (90.4%) completed 36-month follow-up [CA: n = 57 (95%); SA: n = 47 (85%)]. After a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs, 7 patients (12%) in the CA arm and 5 (11%) in the SA arm [hazard ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.83; P = .41] were free from atrial fibrillation/tachycardia (AF/AT) ≥30 seconds at 36 months. Thirty-three patients (58%) in the CA arm and 26 (55%) in the SA arm (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% CI 0.57-1.88; P = .91) had their AF/AT burden reduced by ≥75%. The overall impact on health-related quality of life was similar, with mean quality-adjusted life year estimates of 2.45 (95% CI 2.31-2.59) for CA and 2.32 (95% CI 2.13-2.52) for SA. Estimated costs were higher for SA (mean £24,682; 95% CI £21,746-£27,618) than for CA (mean £18,002; 95% CI £15,422-£20,581). CONCLUSION: In symptomatic LSPAF, CA and SA were equally effective at achieving arrhythmia outcomes (freedom from AF/AT ≥30 seconds and ≥75% burden reduction) after a single procedure without antiarrhythmic drugs. However, SA is significantly more costly than CA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04280042.

Left Atrial Function Predicts Atrial Arrhythmia Recurrence Following Ablation of Long-Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial (LA) function following catheter or surgical ablation of de-novo long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and its impact on AF recurrence was studied in patients participating in the CASA-AF trial (Catheter Ablation vs. Thoracoscopic Surgical Ablation in Long Standing Persistent Atrial Fibrillation). METHODS: All patients underwent echocardiography preablation, 3 and 12 months post-ablation. LA structure and function were assessed by 2-dimensional volume and speckle tracking strain measurements of LA reservoir, conduit, and contractile strain. Left ventricular diastolic function was measured using transmitral Doppler filling velocities and myocardial tissue Doppler velocities to derive the e', E/e', and E/A ratios. Continuous rhythm monitoring was achieved using an implantable loop recorder. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients had echocardiographic data suitable for analysis. Their mean age was 63.6±9.7 years, 73.5% were male, had AF for 22.8±11.6 months, and had a mean LA maximum volume of 48.8±13.8 mL/m2. Thirty patients maintained sinus rhythm, and 53 developed AF recurrence. Ablation led to similar reductions in LA volumes at follow-up in both rhythm groups. However, higher LA emptying fraction (36.3±10.6% versus 27.9±9.9%; P<0.001), reservoir strain (22.6±8.5% versus 16.7±5.7%; P=0.001), and contractile strain (9.2±3.4% versus 5.6±2.5%; P<0.001) were noted in the sinus rhythm compared with AF recurrence group following ablation at 3 months. Diastolic function was better in the sinus rhythm compared with the AF recurrence group with an E/A ratio of 1.5±0.5 versus 2.2±1.2 (P<0.001) and left ventricular E/e' ratio of 8.0±2.1 versus 10.3±4.1 (P<0.001), respectively. LA contractile strain at 3 months was the only independent predictor of AF recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Following ablation for long-standing persistent AF, improvement in LA function was greater in those who maintained sinus rhythm. LA contractile strain at 3 months was the most important determinant of AF recurrence following ablation. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02755688.

Leflunomide treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19: DEFEAT-COVID randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide (L) added to the standard-of-care (SOC) treatment in COVID-19 patients hospitalised with moderate/critical clinical symptoms. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, multicentre, stratified, randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Five hospitals in UK and India, from September 2020 to May 2021. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with PCR confirmed COVID-19 infection with moderate/critical symptoms within 15 days of onset. INTERVENTION: Leflunomide 100 mg/day (3 days) followed by 10-20 mg/day (7 days) added to standard care. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: The time to clinical improvement (TTCI) defined as two-point reduction on a clinical status scale or live discharge prior to 28 days; safety profile measured by the incidence of adverse events (AEs) within 28 days. RESULTS: Eligible patients (n=214; age 56.3±14.9 years; 33% female) were randomised to SOC+L (n=104) and SOC group (n=110), stratified according to their clinical risk profile. TTCI was 7 vs 8 days in SOC+L vs SOC group (HR 1.317; 95% CI 0.980 to 1.768; p=0.070). Incidence of serious AEs was similar between the groups and none was attributed to leflunomide. In sensitivity analyses, excluding 10 patients not fulfilling the inclusion criteria and 3 who withdrew consent before leflunomide treatment, TTCI was 7 vs 8 days (HR 1.416, 95% CI 1.041 to 1.935; p=0.028), indicating a trend in favour of the intervention group. All-cause mortality rate was similar between groups, 9/104 vs 10/110. Duration of oxygen dependence was shorter in the SOC+L group being a median 6 days (IQR 4-8) compared with 7 days (IQR 5-10) in SOC group (p=0.047). CONCLUSION: Leflunomide, added to the SOC treatment for COVID-19, was safe and well tolerated but had no major impact on clinical outcomes. It may shorten the time of oxygen dependence by 1 day and thereby improve TTCI/hospital discharge in moderately affected COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT Number: 2020-002952-18, NCT05007678.

Biomarkers as predictors of recurrence of atrial fibrillation post ablation: an updated and expanded systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: A high proportion of patients undergoing catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) experience recurrence of arrhythmia. This meta-analysis aims to identify pre-ablation serum biomarker(s) associated with arrhythmia recurrence to improve patient selection before CA. METHODS: A systematic approach following PRISMA reporting guidelines was utilised in libraries (Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus) and supplemented by scanning through bibliographies of articles. Biomarker levels were compared using a random-effects model and presented as odds ratio (OR). Heterogeneity was examined by meta-regression and subgroup analysis. RESULTS: In total, 73 studies were identified after inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Nine out of 22 biomarkers showed association with recurrence of AF after CA. High levels of N-Terminal-pro-B-type-Natriuretic Peptide [OR (95% CI), 3.11 (1.80-5.36)], B-type Natriuretic Peptide [BNP, 2.91 (1.74-4.88)], high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein [2.04 (1.28-3.23)], Carboxy-terminal telopeptide of collagen type I [1.89 (1.16-3.08)] and Interleukin-6 [1.83 (1.18-2.84)] were strongly associated with identifying patients with AF recurrence. Meta-regression highlighted that AF type had a significant impact on BNP levels (heterogeneity R2 = 55%). Subgroup analysis showed that high BNP levels were more strongly associated with AF recurrence in paroxysmal AF (PAF) cohorts compared to the addition of non-PAF patients. Egger's test ruled out the presence of publication bias from small-study effects. CONCLUSION: Ranking biomarkers based on the strength of association with outcome provides each biomarker relative capacity to predict AF recurrence. This will provide randomised controlled trials, a guide to choosing a priori tool for identifying patients likely to revert to AF, which are required to substantiate these findings.

Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide and has a high mortality rate. We tested the hypothesis that only one flexible sigmoidoscopy screening between 55 and 64 years of age can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was undertaken in 14 UK centres. 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would accept an invitation for screening, were randomly allocated to the intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or the control group (not contacted). Randomisation by sequential number generation was done centrally in blocks of 12, with stratification by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The primary outcomes were the incidence of colorectal cancer, including prevalent cases detected at screening, and mortality from colorectal cancer. Analyses were intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered, number ISRCTN28352761. FINDINGS: 113 195 people were assigned to the control group and 57 237 to the intervention group, of whom 112 939 and 57 099, respectively, were included in the final analyses. 40 674 (71%) people underwent flexible sigmoidoscopy. During screening and median follow-up of 11.2 years (IQR 10.7-11.9), 2524 participants were diagnosed with colorectal cancer (1818 in control group vs 706 in intervention group) and 20 543 died (13 768 vs 6775; 727 certified from colorectal cancer [538 vs 189]). In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence in the intervention group was reduced by 23% (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.84) and mortality by 31% (0.69, 0.59-0.82). In per-protocol analyses, adjusting for self-selection bias in the intervention group, incidence of colorectal cancer in people attending screening was reduced by 33% (0.67, 0.60-0.76) and mortality by 43% (0.57, 0.45-0.72). Incidence of distal colorectal cancer (rectum and sigmoid colon) was reduced by 50% (0.50, 0.42-0.59; secondary outcome). The numbers needed to be screened to prevent one colorectal cancer diagnosis or death, by the end of the study period, were 191 (95% CI 145-277) and 489 (343-852), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Flexible sigmoidoscopy is a safe and practical test and, when offered only once between ages 55 and 64 years, confers a substantial and longlasting benefit. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, National Health Service R&D, Cancer Research UK, KeyMed.

Nurses' experiences of a colorectal cancer screening pilot.

This article describes a study that set out to explore the experience of endoscopy nurse practitioners participating in the Department of Health-funded UK Nurse-led Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the three nurse practitioners involved and were analysed using Thematic Analysis, a qualitative method for analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data. Nurse practitioners found that participating in the study improved their skills and provided job satisfaction despite the hard work it entailed. A varied workload consisting of diagnostic and screening procedures, in addition to the other duties of nurse practitioners, may be desirable for nurses working in the field of gastroenterology.

The impact of individually-tailored lifestyle advice in the colorectal cancer screening context: a randomised pilot study in North-West London.

OBJECTIVE: The screening context may provide a "teachable moment" for promoting health behaviours. The present study examined the impact on diet, alcohol and physical activity of providing individually-tailored advice in the context of flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. METHOD: Adults (n=365) aged 58-59 years who attended FS screening between 2006 and 2008 and had no abnormalities detected were randomised to one of three groups: (i) control (usual care); (ii) standard leaflet on healthy lifestyle; or (iii) standard leaflet plus brief, tailored feedback based on information from the pre-screening questionnaire. A 6-month follow-up questionnaire assessed group differences in fruit and vegetable consumption, alcohol intake and physical activity. RESULTS: More people in the tailored group were meeting the 5-a-day fruit and vegetable recommendation at 6 months (OR: 2.28, CI[1.09, 4.76]). For physical activity there was a non-significant trend towards meeting current activity guidelines in the tailored group (OR: 1.26, CI[0.62, 2.55]). Alcohol intake was low overall and did not change in any group. CONCLUSION: Tailored advice given in the context of cancer screening may provide an opportunity to improve dietary behaviours. Further research is needed to determine whether screening provides a unique "teachable moment" or if similar effects can be achieved in other health settings.

Effect of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on the outcomes of subsequent faecal occult blood test screening.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the outcomes of biennial guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) screening after once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. METHODS: Between 1994 and 1999, as part of the UK FS Screening Trial (UKFSST), adults aged 55-64 were randomly allocated to an intervention group (offered FS screening) or a control group (not contacted). From 2006, a subset of UKFSST participants (20,895/44,041 intervention group; 41,497/87,149 control group) were invited to biennial gFOBT screening by the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. We analysed gFOBT uptake, test positivity, yield of colorectal cancer (CRC), and positive predictive value (PPV) for CRC, advanced adenomas (AAs), and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN: AA/CRC). RESULTS: Uptake of gFOBT at first invitation was 1.9% lower (65.7% vs. 67.6%, p < 0.01) among intervention versus control group participants. Positivity was 0.4% lower (2.0% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.01) and CRC yield was 0.08% lower (0.19% vs. 0.27%, p = 0.14). PPVs were also lower in the intervention versus control group, at 10.3% vs. 12.3% ( p = 0.44) for CRC, 22.7% vs. 31.4% ( p < 0.01) for AA, and 33.0% vs. 43.7% ( p < 0.01) for ACN. Among those who refused FS ( n = 5532), gFOBT uptake at first invitation was 47.7%, CRC yield was 0.25%, and PPV for ACN was 46.2%. Among FS attenders ( n = 15,363), uptake was 72.2%, CRC yield was 0.18%, and PPV for ACN was 27.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Uptake, positivity and PPV of gFOBT screening were reduced following prior offer of FS screening. However, a quarter of FS screened participants receiving a diagnostic examination after positive gFOBT were diagnosed with ACN.