Outcomes of single- versus multi-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: Data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus thoracotomy for lung cancer.

Objectives: Surgery through a single port may be less painful because access is supplied by 1 intercostal nerve or more painful because multiple instruments are used in 1 port. We analyzed data collected from the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group of a randomized controlled trial to compare differences in pain up to 1 year. Methods: Groups were compared in a prespecified exploratory analysis using direct (regression) and indirect comparison (difference with respect to thoracotomy). In-hospital visual analogue scale pain scores were used, and analgesic ratios were calculated. After discharge, pain was evaluated using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires-Core 30 scores up to 1 year. Results: From July 2015 to February 2019, we randomized 503 participants. After excluding 50 participants who did not receive lobectomy, surgery was performed using a single port in 42 participants (predominately by a single surgeon), multiple ports in 166 participants, and thoracotomy in 245 participants. No differences were observed in-hospital between single- and multiple-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery when modeled using a direct comparison, mean difference of -0.24 (95% CI, -1.06 to 0.58) or indirect comparison, mean difference of -0.33 (-1.16 to 0.51). Mean analgesic ratio (single/multiple port) was 0.75 (0.64 to 0.87) for direct comparison and 0.90 (0.64 to 1.25) for indirect comparison. After discharge, pain for single-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery was lower than for multiple-port video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (first 3 months), and corresponding physical function was higher up to 12 months. Conclusions: There were no consistent differences for in-hospital pain when lobectomy was undertaken using 1 or multiple ports. However, better pain scores and physical function were observed for single-port surgery after discharge.

Strategies to address recruitment to a randomised trial of surgical and non-surgical treatment for cancer: results from a complex recruitment intervention within the Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 (MARS 2) study.

OBJECTIVES: Recruiting to randomised trials is often challenging particularly when the intervention arms are markedly different. The Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared standard chemotherapy with or without (extended) pleurectomy decortication surgery for malignant pleural mesothelioma. Anticipating recruitment difficulties, a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention was embedded in the main trial phase to unearth and address barriers. The trial achieved recruitment to target with a 4-month COVID-19 pandemic-related extension. This paper presents the key recruitment challenges, and the strategies delivered to optimise recruitment and informed consent. DESIGN: A multifaceted, flexible, mixed-method approach to investigate recruitment obstacles drawing on data from staff/patient interviews, audio recorded study recruitment consultations and screening logs. Key findings were translated into strategies targeting identified issues. Data collection, analysis, feedback and strategy implementation continued cyclically throughout the recruitment period. SETTING: Secondary thoracic cancer care. RESULTS: Respiratory physicians, oncologists, surgeons and nursing specialists supported the trial, but recruitment challenges were evident. The study had to fit within a framework of a thoracic cancer service considered overstretched where patients encountered multiple healthcare professionals and treatment views, all of which challenged recruitment. Clinician treatment biases, shaped in part by the wider clinical and research context alongside experience, adversely impacted several aspects of the recruitment process by restricting referrals for study consideration, impacting eligibility decisions, affecting the neutrality in which the study and treatment was presented and shaping patient treatment expectations and preferences. Individual and group recruiter feedback and training raised awareness of key equipoise issues, offered support and shared good practice to safeguard informed consent and optimise recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: With bespoke support to overcome identified issues, recruitment to a challenging RCT of surgery versus no surgery in a thoracic cancer setting with a complex recruitment pathway and multiple health professional involvement is possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN ISRCTN44351742, Clinical Trials.gov NCT02040272.

Extended pleurectomy decortication and chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for pleural mesothelioma (MARS 2): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Extended pleurectomy decortication for complete macroscopic resection for pleural mesothelioma has never been evaluated in a randomised trial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after extended pleurectomy decortication plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone. METHODS: MARS 2 was a phase 3, national, multicentre, open-label, parallel two-group, pragmatic, superiority randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK. The trial took place across 26 hospitals (21 recruiting only, one surgical only, and four recruiting and surgical). Following two cycles of chemotherapy, eligible participants with pleural mesothelioma were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgery and chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone using a secure web-based system. Individuals aged 16 years or older with resectable pleural mesothelioma and adequate organ and lung function were eligible for inclusion. Participants in the chemotherapy only group received two to four further cycles of chemotherapy, and participants in the surgery and chemotherapy group received pleurectomy decortication or extended pleurectomy decortication, followed by two to four further cycles of chemotherapy. It was not possible to mask allocation because the intervention was a major surgical procedure. The primary outcome was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation to death from any cause. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population for all outcomes, unless specified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02040272, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between June 19, 2015, and Jan 21, 2021, of 1030 assessed for eligibility, 335 participants were randomly assigned (169 to surgery and chemotherapy, and 166 to chemotherapy alone). 291 (87%) participants were men and 44 (13%) women, and 288 (86%) were diagnosed with epithelioid mesothelioma. At a median follow-up of 22·4 months (IQR 11·3-30·8), median survival was shorter in the surgery and chemotherapy group (19·3 months [IQR 10·0-33·7]) than in the chemotherapy alone group (24·8 months [IQR 12·6-37·4]), and the difference in restricted mean survival time at 2 years was -1·9 months (95% CI -3·4 to -0·3, p=0·019). There were 318 serious adverse events (grade ≥3) in the surgery group and 169 in the chemotherapy group (incidence rate ratio 3·6 [95% CI 2·3 to 5·5], p<0·0001), with increased incidence of cardiac (30 vs 12; 3·01 [1·13 to 8·02]) and respiratory (84 vs 34; 2·62 [1·58 to 4·33]) disorders, infection (124 vs 53; 2·13 [1·36 to 3·33]), and additional surgical or medical procedures (15 vs eight; 2·41 [1·04 to 5·57]) in the surgery group. INTERPRETATION: Extended pleurectomy decortication was associated with worse survival to 2 years, and more serious adverse events for individuals with resectable pleural mesothelioma, compared with chemotherapy alone. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (15/188/31), Cancer Research UK Feasibility Studies Project Grant (A15895).

Detection of SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal antibodies in saliva following concomitant COVID-19 and influenza vaccination in the ComFluCOV trial.

The ComFluCOV trial randomized 679 participants to receive an age-appropriate influenza vaccine, or placebo, alongside their second COVID-19 vaccine. Concomitant administration was shown to be safe, and to preserve systemic immune responses to both vaccines. Here we report on a secondary outcome of the trial investigating SARS-CoV-2-specific mucosal antibody responses. Anti-spike IgG and IgA levels in saliva were measured with in-house ELISAs. Concomitant administration of an influenza vaccine did not affect salivary anti-spike IgG positivity rates to Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162b2 (99.1 cf. 95.6%), or AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (67.8% cf. 64.9%), at 3-weeks post-vaccination relative to placebo. Furthermore, saliva IgG positively correlated with serum titres highlighting the potential utility of saliva for assessing differences in immunogenicity in future vaccine studies. Mucosal IgA was not detected in response to either COVID-19 vaccine, reinforcing the need for novel vaccines capable of inducing sterilising immunity or otherwise reducing transmission. The trial is registered as ISRCTN 14391248.

Delivering COVID-19 vaccine trials at speed: the implementation of a phase IV UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines (ComFluCOV).

BACKGROUND: In February 2021, the UK Department of Health and Social Care sought evidence on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccine co-administration to inform the 2021/2022 influenza vaccine policy. Co-administration could support vaccine uptake and reduce healthcare appointments. ComFluCOV was a randomised controlled trial designed to provide this evidence. This report outlines the methods used to deliver the trial in 6 months to answer an urgent public health question as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. METHODS: ComFluCOV was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care and was managed by the Bristol Trials Centre, a UK-registered clinical trials unit. It was classed as an Urgent Public Health trial which facilitated fast-track regulatory approvals. Trial materials and databases were developed using in-house templates and those used in other COVID-19 vaccine trials. Participants were recruited by advertising, and via a trial website. Electronic trial systems enabled daily review of participant data. Weekly virtual meetings were held with stakeholders and trial sites. RESULTS: ComFluCOV was delivered within 6 months from inception to reporting, and trial milestones to inform the Department of Health and Social Care policy were met. Set-up was achieved within 1 month. Regulators provided expedited reviews, with feedback ahead of submission. Recruitment took place at 12 sites. Over 380 site staff were trained. Overall, 679 participants were recruited in two months. The final report to the Department of Health and Social Care was submitted in September 2021, following a preliminary safety report in May 2021. Trial results have been published. CONCLUSION: The rapid delivery of ComFluCOV was resource intensive. It was made possible in part due to a unique set of circumstances created by the pandemic situation including measures put in place to support urgent public health research and public support for COVID-19 vaccine research. Elements of the trial could be adopted to increase efficiency in 'non-pandemic' situations including working with a clinical trials unit to enable immediate mobilisation of a team of experienced researchers, greater sharing of resources between clinical trials units, use of electronic trial systems and virtual meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, submitted on 17/03/2021. Registered on 30/03/2021.

Working under short timescales to deliver a national trial: a case study of the ComFluCOV trial from a statistician's perspective.

BACKGROUND: In early 2021, the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK called for research on the safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Co-administration of these vaccines would facilitate uptake and reduce the number of healthcare visits required. The ComFluCOV trial was designed to deliver the necessary evidence in time to inform the autumn (September-November) 2021 vaccination policy. This paper presents the statistical methodology applied to help successfully deliver the trial results in 6 months. METHODS: ComFluCOV was a parallel-group multicentre randomised controlled trial managed by the Bristol Trials Centre. Two study statisticians, supported by a senior statistician, worked together on all statistical tasks. Tools were developed to aid the pre-screening process. Automated data monitoring reports of clinic data and electronic diaries were produced daily and reviewed by the trial team and feedback provided to sites. Analyses were performed independently in parallel, and derivations and results of all outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Set-up was achieved in less than a month, and 679 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 537 [at least] daily reports outlining recruitment, protocol adherence, and data quality, and 695 daily reports of participant electronic diaries identifying any missed diary entries and adverse events were produced over a period of 16 weeks. A preliminary primary outcome analysis of validated data was reported to the Department of Health and Social Care in May 2021. The database was locked 6 weeks after the final participant follow-up and final analyses completed 3 weeks later. A pre-print publication was submitted within 14 days of the results being made available. The results were reported 6 months after first discussions about the trial. CONCLUSION: The statistical methodologies implemented in ComFluCOV helped to deliver the study in the timescale set. Working in a new clinical area to tight timescales was challenging. Having two statisticians working together on the study provided a quality assurance process that enabled analyses to be completed efficiently and ensured data were interpreted correctly. Processes developed could be applied to other studies to maximise quality, reduce the risk of errors, and overall provide enhanced validation methods. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, registered on 30 March 2021.

Multimodality local consolidative treatment versus conventional care of advanced lung cancer after first-line systemic anti-cancer treatment: study protocol for the RAMON multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death worldwide and most patients present with extensive disease. One-year survival is improving but remains low (37%) despite novel systemic anti-cancer treatments forming the current standard of care. Although new therapies improve survival, most patients have residual disease after treatment, and little is known on how best to manage it. Therefore, residual disease management varies across the UK, with some patients receiving only maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment while others receive local consolidative treatment (LCT), alongside maintenance systemic anti-cancer treatment. LCT can be a combination of surgery, radiotherapy and/or ablation to remove all remaining cancer within the lung and throughout the body. This is intensive, expensive and impacts quality of life, but we do not know if it results in better survival, nor the extent of impact on quality of life and what the cost might be for healthcare providers. The RAMON study (RAdical Management Of Advanced Non-small cell lung cancer) will evaluate the acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of LCT versus no LCT after first-line systemic treatment for advanced lung cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RAMON is a pragmatic open multicentre, parallel group, superiority randomised controlled trial. We aim to recruit 244 patients aged 18 years and over with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 40 UK NHS hospitals. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive LCT alongside maintenance treatment, or maintenance treatment alone. LCT will be tailored to each patient's specific disease sites. Participants will be followed up for a minimum of 2 years. The primary outcome is overall survival from randomisation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (22/WS/0121) gave ethical approval in August 2022 and the Health Research Authority in September 2022. Participants will provide written informed consent before participating in the study. Findings will be presented at international meetings, in peer-reviewed publications, through patient organisations and notifications to patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11613852.

Impact of video-assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus open lobectomy for lung cancer on recovery assessed using self-reported physical function: VIOLET RCT.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Surgery remains the main method of managing early-stage disease. Minimal-access video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery results in less tissue trauma than open surgery; however, it is not known if it improves patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy with open surgery for the treatment of lung cancer. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicentre, superiority, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinding of participants (until hospital discharge) and outcome assessors conducted in nine NHS hospitals. Adults referred for lung resection for known or suspected lung cancer, with disease suitable for both surgeries, were eligible. Participants were followed up for 1 year. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy or open surgery. Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery used one to four keyhole incisions without rib spreading. Open surgery used a single incision with rib spreading, with or without rib resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported physical function (using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30) at 5 weeks. Secondary outcomes included upstaging to pathologic node stage 2 disease, time from surgery to hospital discharge, pain in the first 2 days, prolonged pain requiring analgesia at > 5 weeks, adverse health events, uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall and disease-free survival, quality of life (Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30, Quality of Life Questionnaire Lung Cancer 13 and EQ-5D) at 2 and 5 weeks and 3, 6 and 12 months, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 503 patients were randomised between July 2015 and February 2019 (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 256). One participant withdrew before surgery. The mean age of patients was 69 years; 249 (49.5%) patients were men and 242 (48.1%) did not have a confirmed diagnosis. Lobectomy was performed in 453 of 502 (90.2%) participants and complete resection was achieved in 429 of 439 (97.7%) participants. Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 physical function was better in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group at 5 weeks (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery, n = 247; open surgery, n = 255; mean difference 4.65, 95% confidence interval 1.69 to 7.61; p = 0.0089). Upstaging from clinical node stage 0 to pathologic node stage 1 and from clinical node stage 0 or 1 to pathologic node stage 2 was similar (p ≥ 0.50). Pain scores were similar on day 1, but lower in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group on day 2 (mean difference -0.54, 95% confidence interval -0.99 to -0.09; p = 0.018). Analgesic consumption was 10% lower (95% CI -20% to 1%) and the median hospital stay was less (4 vs. 5 days, hazard ratio 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.09, 1.65; p = 0.006) in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. Prolonged pain was also less (relative risk 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.94; p = 0.003). Time to uptake of adjuvant treatment, overall survival and progression-free survival were similar (p ≥ 0.28). Fewer participants in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group experienced complications before and after discharge from hospital (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.84; p < 0.001 and relative risk 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.00; p = 0.053, respectively). Quality of life to 1 year was better across several domains in the video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery group than in the open-surgery group. The probability that video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is 1. LIMITATIONS: Ethnic minorities were under-represented compared with the UK population (< 5%), but the cohort reflected the lung cancer population. CONCLUSIONS: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery lobectomy was associated with less pain, fewer complications and better quality of life without any compromise to oncologic outcome. Use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery is highly likely to be cost-effective for the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation of the efficacy of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery with robotic assistance, which is being offered in many hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN13472721. 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. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is a common cause of cancer death worldwide. If the disease is caught early, the part of the lung containing the tumour can be removed in an operation called a lobectomy. The operation can be carried out through a large cut so that the surgeon has a full view of the lung, which is called open surgery, or using several small cuts and a camera, which is called video-assisted thoracoscopic (keyhole) surgery. It is thought that, as keyhole surgery is less invasive, patients recover quicker. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no high-quality research studies that are applicable to UK practice to support this. This study was conducted so that it could be determined, based on high-quality evidence, which operation provides the best treatment and recovery for patients. WHO PARTICIPATED?: Five hundred and three adults referred for lobectomy for known or suspected lung cancer from nine hospitals in the UK. WHAT WAS INVOLVED?: Participants were randomly allocated to either receive keyhole or open surgery. Participants were followed up for 12 months. We collected information on further treatment, hospital visits, safety information and disease progression over this period. Participants were also asked to complete questionnaires about their health and recovery. WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: For patients with early-stage lung cancer who underwent a lobectomy, keyhole surgery led to less pain, less time in hospital and better quality of life than open surgery, without having a detrimental effect on cancer progression or survival. Keyhole surgery was found to be cost-effective and to provide excellent value for money for the NHS.

Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic or Open Lobectomy in Early-Stage Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is limited randomized evidence on the comparative outcomes of early-stage lung cancer resection by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) versus open resection. METHODS: We conducted a parallel-group multicenter randomized trial that recruited participants with known or suspected early-stage lung cancer and randomly assigned them to open or VATS resection of their lesions. The primary outcome was physical function at 5 weeks as a measure of recovery using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core health-related quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better function; the clinical minimally important difference for improvement is 5 points). We followed the patients for an additional 47 weeks for other outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 503 participants were randomly assigned (247 to VATS and 256 to open lobectomy). At 5 weeks, median physical function was 73 in the VATS group and 67 in the open surgery group, with a mean difference of 4.65 points (95% confidence interval, 1.69 to 7.61). Of the participants allocated to VATS, 30.7% had serious adverse events after discharge compared with 37.8% of those allocated to open surgery (risk ratio, 0.81 [95% confidence interval, 0.66 to 1.00]). At 52 weeks, there were no differences in cancer progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.74 [0.43 to 1.27]) or overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.67 [0.32 to 1.40]). CONCLUSIONS: VATS lobectomy for lung cancer is associated with a better recovery of physical function in the 5 weeks after random assignment compared with open surgery. Long-term oncologic outcomes will require continued follow-up to assess. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme [reference number 13/04/03]; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN13472721.)

Safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) with seasonal influenza vaccines in adults in the UK (ComFluCOV): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines could reduce burden on health-care systems. We aimed to assess the safety of concomitant administration of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial, adults in receipt of a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 were enrolled at 12 UK sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive concomitant administration of either an age-appropriate influenza vaccine or placebo alongside their second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 3 weeks later the group who received placebo received the influenza vaccine, and vice versa. Participants were followed up for 6 weeks. The influenza vaccines were three seasonal, inactivated vaccines (trivalent, MF59C adjuvanted or a cellular or recombinant quadrivalent vaccine). Participants and investigators were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was one or more participant-reported solicited systemic reactions in the 7 days after first trial vaccination(s), with a difference of less than 25% considered non-inferior. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Local and unsolicited systemic reactions and humoral responses were also assessed. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14391248. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and June 26, 2021, 679 participants were recruited to one of six cohorts, as follows: 129 ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 139 BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 146 ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 79 BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 128 ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and 58 BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine. 340 participants were assigned to concomitant administration of influenza and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by placebo at day 21, and 339 participants were randomly assigned to concomitant administration of placebo and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by influenza vaccine at day 21. Non-inferiority was indicated in four cohorts, as follows: ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (risk difference for influenza vaccine minus placebos -1·29%, 95% CI -14·7 to 12·1), BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (6·17%, -6·27 to 18·6), BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine (-12·9%, -34·2 to 8·37), and ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (2·53%, -13·3 to 18·3). In the other two cohorts, the upper limit of the 95% CI exceeded the 0·25 non-inferiority margin (ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine 10·3%, -5·44 to 26·0; BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine 6·75%, -11·8 to 25·3). Most systemic reactions to vaccination were mild or moderate. Rates of local and unsolicited systemic reactions were similar between the randomly assigned groups. One serious adverse event, hospitalisation with severe headache, was considered related to the trial intervention. Immune responses were not adversely affected. INTERPRETATION: Concomitant vaccination with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine raises no safety concerns and preserves antibody responses to both vaccines. Concomitant vaccination with both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines over the next immunisation season should reduce the burden on health-care services for vaccine delivery, allowing for timely vaccine administration and protection from COVID-19 and influenza for those in need. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme.

A randomized controlled trial comparing controlled reoxygenation and standard cardiopulmonary bypass in paediatric cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Controlled reoxygenation on starting cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) rather than hyperoxic CPB may confer clinical advantages during surgery for congenital cyanotic heart disease. METHODS: A single-centre, randomized controlled trial was carried out to compare the effectiveness of controlled reoxygenation (normoxia) versus hyperoxic CPB in children with congenital cyanotic heart disease undergoing open-heart surgery (Oxic-2). The co-primary clinical outcomes were duration of inotropic support, intubation time and postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay. Analysis of the primary outcomes included data from a previous trial (Oxic-1) conducted to the same protocol. RESULTS: Ninety participants were recruited to Oxic-2 and 79 were recruited to the previous Oxic-1 trial. There were no significant differences between the groups for any of the co-primary outcomes: inotrope duration geometric mean ratio (normoxia/hyperoxic) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.69-1.37), P-value = 0.87; intubation time hazard ratio (HR) 1.03, 95% CI (0.74-1.42), P-value = 0.87; postoperative ICU stay HR 1.14 95% CI (0.77-1.67), P-value = 0.52, hospital stay HR 0.90, 95% CI (0.65-1.25), P-value = 0.53. Lower oxygen levels were successfully achieved during the operative period in the normoxic group. Serum creatinine levels were lower in the normoxic group at day 2, but not on days 1, 3-5. Childhood developmental outcomes were similar. In the year following surgery, 85 serious adverse events were reported (51 normoxic group and 34 hyperoxic group). CONCLUSIONS: Controlled reoxygenation (normoxic) CPB is safe but with no evidence of a clinical advantage over hyperoxic CPB. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Current Controlled Trials-ISRCTN81773762.

Mesothelioma and Radical Surgery 2 (MARS 2): protocol for a multicentre randomised trial comparing (extended) pleurectomy decortication versus no (extended) pleurectomy decortication for patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

INTRODUCTION: Mesothelioma remains a lethal cancer. To date, systemic therapy with pemetrexed and a platinum drug remains the only licensed standard of care. As the median survival for patients with mesothelioma is 12.1 months, surgery is an important consideration to improve survival and/or quality of life. Currently, only two surgical trials have been performed which found that neither extensive (extra-pleural pneumonectomy) or limited (partial pleurectomy) surgery improved survival (although there was some evidence of improved quality of life). Therefore, clinicians are now looking to evaluate pleurectomy decortication, the only radical treatment option left. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MARS 2 study is a UK multicentre open parallel group randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgery-(extended) pleurectomy decortication-versus no surgery for the treatment of pleural mesothelioma. The study will test the hypothesis that surgery and chemotherapy is superior to chemotherapy alone with respect to overall survival. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, progression-free survival, measures of safety (adverse events) and resource use to 2 years. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention is integrated into the trial to optimise recruitment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics approval was granted by London - Camberwell St. Giles Research Ethics Committee (reference 13/LO/1481) on 7 November 2013. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN-ISRCTN44351742 and ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT02040272.

The Effect of Mode of Anaesthesia on Outcomes After Elective Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the most commonly used method to repair abdominal aortic aneurysms. EVAR can be performed using a variety of anaesthetic techniques, including general anaesthetic (GA), regional anaesthetic (RA), and local anaesthetic (LA), but little is known about the effects that each of these anaesthetic modes have on patient outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of anaesthetic technique on early outcomes after elective EVAR. METHODS: Data from the UK's National Vascular Registry were analysed. All patients undergoing elective standard infrarenal EVAR between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016 were included. Patients with a symptomatic aneurysm treated semi-electively were excluded. The primary outcome was in hospital death within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes included post-operative complications and length of hospital stay. Time to event outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for confounders, including British Aneurysm Repair score (a validated aneurysm risk prediction score that is calculated using age, sex, creatinine, cardiac disease, electrocardiogram, previous aortic surgery, white blood cell count, serum sodium, abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter, and American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade) and chronic lung disease. RESULTS: A total of 9783 patients received an elective, standard infrarenal EVAR (GA, n = 7069; RA, n = 2347; and LA, n = 367) across 89 hospitals. RA and/or LA was used in 82 hospitals. There were 64 in hospital deaths within 30 days, 50 (0.9% mortality at 30 days, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-1.2) in the GA group, 11 (0.6%, 95% CI 0.3-1.1) in the RA group, and three (1.5%, 95% CI 0.5-4.7) in the LA group. The mortality rate differed between groups (p = .03) and was significantly lower in the RA group compared with the GA group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] RA/GA 0.37 [95% CI 0.17-0.81]; LA/GA 0.63 [95% CI 0.15-2.69]). The median length of stay was two days for all modes of anaesthesia, but patients were discharged from hospital more quickly in the RA and LA groups than the GA group (aHR RA/GA 1.10 [95% CI 1.03-1.17]; LA/GA 1.15 [95% CI 1.02-1.29]). Overall, 20.7% of patients experienced one or more complications (GA group, 22.1%; RA group, 16.8%; LA group, 17.7%) and pulmonary complications occurred with similar frequency in the three groups (overall 2.4%, adjusted odds ratio RA/GA 0.93 [95% CI 0.66-1.32]; LA/GA 0.82 [95% CI 0.41-1.63]). CONCLUSION: Thirty day mortality was lower with RA than with GA, but mode of anaesthesia was not associated with increased complications for patients undergoing elective standard infrarenal EVAR.

Eplerenone for chronic central serous chorioretinopathy in patients with active, previously untreated disease for more than 4 months (VICI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In chronic central serous chorioretinopathy (CSCR), fluid accumulates in the subretinal space. CSCR is a common visually disabling condition that develops in individuals up to 60 years of age, and there is no definitive treatment. Previous research suggests the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, eplerenone, is effective for treating CSCR; however, this drug is not licensed for the treatment of patients with CSCR. We aimed to evaluate whether eplerenone was superior to placebo in terms of improving visual acuity in patients with chronic CSCR. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, multicentre placebo-controlled trial was done at 22 hospitals in the UK. Participants were eligible if they were aged 18-60 years and had had treatment-naive CSCR for 4 months or more. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the eplerenone or the placebo group by a trial statistician through a password-protected system online. Allocation was stratified by best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and hospital. Patients were given either oral eplerenone (25 mg/day for 1 week, increasing to 50 mg/day for up to 12 months) plus usual care or placebo plus usual care for up to 12 months. All participants, care teams, outcome assessors, pharmacists, and members of the trial management group were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was BCVA, measured as letters read, at 12 months. All outcomes apart from safety were analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (participants who withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement were excluded from the primary analysis population and from most secondary analysis populations). The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN92746680, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2017, and Feb 22, 2018, we enrolled and randomly assigned 114 patients to receive either eplerenone (n=57) or placebo (n=57). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew consent without contributing a post-randomisation BCVA measurement and were excluded from the primary outcome analysis population. All patients from the eplerenone group and 54 patients from the placebo group were included in the primary outcome. Modelled mean BCVA at 12 months was 79·5 letters (SD 4·5) in the placebo group and 80·4 letters (4·6) in the eplerenone group, with an adjusted estimated mean difference of 1·73 letters (95% CI -1·12 to 4·57; p=0·24) at 12 months. Hyperkalaemia occurred in eight (14%) patients in each group. No serious adverse events were reported in the eplerenone group and three unrelated serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group (myocardial infarction [anticipated], diverticulitis [unanticipated], and metabolic surgery [unanticipated]). INTERPRETATION: Eplerenone was not superior to placebo for improving BCVA in people with chronic CSCR after 12 months of treatment. Ophthalmologists who currently prescribe eplerenone for CSCR should discontinue this practice. FUNDING: Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, and National Institute for Health Research and Social Care.

Preoperative VolumE Replacement therapy in DIabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: results from an open parallel group randomized Controlled Trial (VeRDiCT).

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of preoperative volume replacement therapy (VRT) on renal function, health outcome and time to fitness for discharge in diabetic patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: In 2 parallel randomized controlled trials, diabetic patients were allocated to preoperative VRT (1 ml/kg/h of Hartmann's solution for 12 h) or usual care. Primary outcome was time to fitness for discharge. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, postoperative complications, patient-reported quality of life (QoL), hospital resource use and markers of renal, cardiac and inflammatory injury. RESULTS: In total, 169 patients were randomized (84 VRT, 85 usual care; mean age 64 years; 88% male). Time to fitness for discharge was similar between groups [median 6 days; interquartile range 5.0-9.0 in both groups; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65-1.38; P = 0.78]. Postoperative acute kidney injury was not statistically different (VRT: 27.7% vs usual care: 18.8%, odds ratio 1.72, 95% CI 0.82-3.59; P = 0.15). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (mean difference -0.92, 95% CI -4.18 to 2.25; P = 0.56), microalbumin/creatinine ratio [geometric mean ratio (GMR) 1.16, 95% CI 0.94-1.42; P = 0.16], N-acetyl-beta-d-glucosaminidase (GMR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83-1.40; P = 0.57), C-reactive protein (GMR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88-1.13; P = 0.94), troponin T (Trop-T; GMR 1.18, 95% CI 0.78-1.79; P = 0.39) and other secondary health outcomes were similar between groups. QoL improved in both groups at 3 months with no difference observed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of preoperative VRT is not superior to usual care in diabetic patients undergoing CABG. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN02159606.

Study protocol for VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer, a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot (the VIOLET study).

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide and surgery remains the main treatment for early stage disease. Prior to the introduction of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), lung resection for cancer was undertaken through an open thoracotomy. To date, the evidence base supporting the different surgical approaches is based on non-randomised studies, small randomised trials and is focused mainly on short-term in-hospital outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer study is a UK multicentre parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with blinding of outcome assessors and participants (to hospital discharge) comparing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of VATS lobectomy versus open lobectomy for treatment of lung cancer. We will test the hypothesis that VATS lobectomy is superior to open lobectomy with respect to self-reported physical function 5 weeks after randomisation (approximately 1 month after surgery). Secondary outcomes include assessment of efficacy (hospital stay, pain, proportion and time to uptake of chemotherapy), measures of safety (adverse health events), oncological outcomes (proportion of patients upstaged to pathologic N2 (pN2) disease and disease-free survival), overall survival and health related quality of life to 1 year. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention is integrated into the trial to optimise recruitment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the UK (Dulwich) National Research Ethics Service Committee London. Findings will be written-up as methodology papers for conference presentation, and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Many aspects of the feasibility work will inform surgical RCTs in general and these will be reported at methodology meetings. We will also link with lung cancer clinical studies groups. The patient and public involvement group that works with the Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit at the Brompton Hospital will help identify how we can best publicise the findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13472721.

Three wound-dressing strategies to reduce surgical site infection after abdominal surgery: the Bluebelle feasibility study and pilot RCT.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 20% of people with a primary closed wound after surgery. Wound dressings may reduce SSI. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dressing types or no dressing to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds. DESIGN: Phase A - semistructured interviews, outcome measure development, practice survey, literature reviews and value-of-information analysis. Phase B - pilot RCT with qualitative research and questionnaire validation. Patients and the public were involved. SETTING: Usual NHS care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective/non-elective abdominal surgery, including caesarean section. INTERVENTIONS: Phase A - none. Phase B - simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing (tissue adhesive) or 'no dressing'. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phase A - pilot RCT design; SSI, patient experience and wound management questionnaires; dressing practices; and value-of-information of a RCT. Phase B - participants screened, proportions consented/randomised; acceptability of interventions; adherence; retention; validity and reliability of SSI measure; and cost drivers. DATA SOURCES: Phase A - interviews with patients and health-care professionals (HCPs), narrative data from published RCTs and data about dressing practices. Phase B - participants and HCPs in five hospitals. RESULTS: Phase A - we interviewed 102 participants. HCPs interpreted 'dressing' variably and reported using available products. HCPs suggested practical/clinical reasons for dressing use, acknowledged the weak evidence base and felt that a RCT including a 'no dressing' group was acceptable. A survey showed that 68% of 1769 wounds (727 participants) had simple dressings and 27% had glue-as-a-dressing. Dressings were used similarly in elective and non-elective surgery. The SSI questionnaire was developed from a content analysis of existing SSI tools and interviews, yielding 19 domains and 16 items. A main RCT would be valuable to the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Phase B - from 4 March 2016 to 30 November 2016, we approached 862 patients for the pilot RCT; 81.1% were eligible, 59.4% consented and 394 were randomised (simple, n = 133; glue, n = 129; no dressing, n = 132); non-adherence was 3 out of 133, 8 out of 129 and 20 out of 132, respectively. SSI occurred in 51 out of 281 participants. We interviewed 55 participants. All dressing strategies were acceptable to stakeholders, with no indication that adherence was problematic. Adherence aids and patients' understanding of their allocated dressing appeared to be key. The SSI questionnaire response rate overall was 67.2%. Items in the SSI questionnaire fitted a single scale, which had good reliability (test-retest and Cronbach's alpha of > 0.7) and diagnostic accuracy (c-statistic = 0.906). The key cost drivers were hospital appointments, dressings and redressings, use of new medicines and primary care appointments. LIMITATIONS: Multiple activities, often in parallel, were challenging to co-ordinate. An amendment took 4 months, restricting recruitment to the pilot RCT. Only 67% of participants completed the SSI questionnaire. We could not implement photography in theatres. CONCLUSIONS: A main RCT of dressing strategies is feasible and would be valuable to the NHS. The SSI questionnaire is sufficiently accurate to be used as the primary outcome. A main trial with three groups (as in the pilot) would be valuable to the NHS, using a primary outcome of SSI at discharge and patient-reported SSI symptoms at 4-8 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Phase A - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06792113; Phase B - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49328913. 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. 23, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub (reference number MR/K025643/1).

Wound infections are common after surgery. Some are cured with simple treatment, but others may lead to serious problems. Reducing the risk of a wound infection is important. We do not know if the type of dressing, or not using a dressing, influences the risk of infection. A study that allocated patients to receive different dressings (or no dressing) would answer this question. We did preliminary research to explore whether or not such a study is possible. We interviewed doctors, nurses and patients about their views on dressings and a future study. We also described dressings currently being used in the NHS and found that simple dressings and tissue adhesive (glue) 'as-a-dressing' are used most frequently. We studied existing evidence and interviewed experts to develop a questionnaire, completed by patients, to identify wound infections after patients leave hospital and tested its accuracy. We also explored taking photographs of wounds. We investigated whether or not a major study would be worth the cost and designed a pilot study to test its feasibility. The pilot study recruited 394 patients undergoing abdominal operations in five NHS hospitals. These patients were allocated to have a simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing or no dressing, and 92% received the allocated dressing method. Patients and their doctors and nurses found the dressing methods to be acceptable. We showed that the new patient questionnaire accurately identified infections. Patients or their carers also found it acceptable to photograph their wounds. Our research suggests that a future large study would be worth the investment and is possible.