Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT.

Background: Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy. Objectives: To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications. Design: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care. Setting: Nineteen UK oncology centres. Participants: Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for < 24 hours were eligible. Patients with acute leukaemia or stem cell transplant were excluded. Intervention: Early switch to oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) and co-amoxiclav (625 mg three times daily) within 12-24 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics to complete 5 days treatment in total. Control was standard care, that is, continuation of intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 hours with ongoing treatment at physician discretion. Main outcome measures: Treatment failure, a composite measure assessed at day 14 based on the following criteria: fever persistence or recurrence within 72 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics; escalation from protocolised antibiotics; critical care support or death. Results: The study was closed early due to under-recruitment with 129 patients recruited; hence, a definitive conclusion regarding non-inferiority cannot be made. Sixty-five patients were randomised to the early switch arm and 64 to the standard care arm with subsequent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses including 125 (intervention n = 61 and control n = 64) and 113 (intervention n = 53 and control n = 60) patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the treatment failure rates were 14.1% in the control group and 24.6% in the intervention group, difference = 10.5% (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.22). In the per-protocol population the treatment failure rates were 13.3% and 17.7% in control and intervention groups, respectively; difference = 3.7% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.148). Treatment failure predominantly consisted of persistence or recurrence of fever and/or physician-directed escalation from protocolised antibiotics with no critical care admissions or deaths. The median length of stay was shorter in the intervention group and adverse events reported were similar in both groups. Patients, particularly those with care-giving responsibilities, expressed a preference for early switch. However, differences in health-related quality of life and health resource use were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Non-inferiority for early oral switch could not be proven due to trial under-recruitment. The findings suggest this may be an acceptable treatment strategy for some patients who can adhere to such a treatment regimen and would prefer a potentially reduced duration of hospitalisation while accepting increased risk of treatment failure resulting in re-admission. Further research should explore tools for patient stratification for low-risk de-escalation or ambulatory pathways including use of biomarkers and/or point-of-care rapid microbiological testing as an adjunct to clinical decision-making tools. This could include application to shorter-duration antimicrobial therapy in line with other antimicrobial stewardship studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84288963. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/140/05) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Neutropenic sepsis, or infection with a low white blood cell count, can occur following cancer treatment. Usually patients receive treatment with intravenous antibiotics (antibiotics delivered into a vein) for two or more days. Patients at low risk of complications from their infection may be able to have a shorter period of intravenous antibiotics benefitting both patients and the NHS. The trial compared whether changing from intravenous to oral antibiotics (antibiotics taken by mouth as tablets or liquid) 12­24 hours after starting antibiotic treatment ('early switch') is as effective as usual care. Patients could take part if they had started intravenous antibiotics for low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients were randomly allocated to 'early switch' or to usual care. The main outcome measured was treatment failure. Treatment failure happened if fever persisted or recurred despite antibiotics, if patients needed to change antibiotics, if they needed to be re-admitted to hospital or needed to be admitted to intensive care within 14 days or died. We had originally intended that 628 patients would take part, but after review of the design of the study the number needed to take part was revised to 230. We were not able to complete the trial as planned as unfortunately only 129 patients took part. As the trial was smaller than expected we were not able to draw conclusions as to whether 'early switch' is no less effective than usual care. Our findings suggest that 'early switch' might result in a shorter time in hospital initially; however, treatment failure was more likely to occur, meaning some patients had to return to hospital for further antibiotics. There were no differences in side effects and no serious complications from treatment or treatment failure (such as intensive care admission or death) among the 65 patients in the 'early switch' group. Patients were satisfied with 'early switch'. Early switch may be a treatment option for some patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis who would prefer a shorter duration of hospital admission but accept a risk of needing hospital re-admission.

Diabetic Macular Edema and Diode Subthreshold Micropulse Laser: A Randomized Double-Masked Noninferiority Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser (SML), compared with standard laser (SL), for diabetic macular edema (DME) with central retinal thickness (CRT) < 400 µm. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomized, noninferiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with center-involved DME < 400 µm and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters in one/both eyes. METHODS: Randomization 1:1 to 577 nm SML or SL treatment. Retreatments were allowed. Rescue with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was permitted if 10 or more ETDRS letter loss occurred, CRT increased > 400 µm, or both. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was mean change in BCVA in the study eye at 24 months (noninferiority margin 5 ETDRS letters). Secondary outcomes were mean change from baseline to month 24 in binocular BCVA; CRT and mean deviation of Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; percentage meeting driving standards; EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L, 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), and Vision and Quality of Life Index (VisQoL) scores; cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; adverse effects; and number of laser and rescue treatments. RESULTS: The study recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of SML-treated and 86% of SL-treated patients had primary outcome data. Mean ± standard deviation BCVA change from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 ± 8.20 letters and -0.45 ± 6.72 letters in the SML and SL groups, respectively. Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was deemed not only noninferior but also equivalent to SL therapy because the 95% confidence interval (CI; -3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 ETDRS letters). No statistically significant difference was found in binocular BCVA (0.32 ETDRS letters; 95% CI, -0.99 to 1.64 ETDRS letters; P = 0.63); CRT (-0.64 µm; 95% CI, -14.25 to 12.98 µm; P = 0.93); mean deviation of the visual field (0.39 decibels (dB); 95% CI, -0.23 to 1.02 dB; P = 0.21); meeting driving standards (percentage point difference, 1.6%; 95% CI, -25.3% to 28.5%; P = 0.91); adverse effects (risk ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.34; P = 0.11); rescue treatments (percentage point difference, -2.8%; 95% CI, -13.1% to 7.5%; P = 0.59); or EQ-5D, NEI-VFQ-25, or VisQoL scores. Number of laser treatments was higher in the SML group (0.48; 95% CI, 0.18-0.79; P = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no differences in costs or QALYs. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold micropulse laser therapy was equivalent to SL therapy, requiring slightly higher laser treatments.

Standard threshold laser versus subthreshold micropulse laser for adults with diabetic macular oedema: the DIAMONDS non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends macular laser to treat diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm on optical coherence tomography. The DIAMONDS (DIAbetic Macular Oedema aNd Diode Subthreshold micropulse laser) trial compared standard threshold macular laser with subthreshold micropulse laser to treat diabetic macular oedema suitable for macular laser. OBJECTIVES: Determining the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of subthreshold micropulse laser compared with standard threshold macular laser to treat diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, allocation-concealed, double-masked, randomised, non-inferiority, clinical trial. SETTING: Hospital eye services in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with diabetes and centre-involving diabetic macular oedema with a central retinal subfield thickness of < 400 µm, and a visual acuity of > 24 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters (Snellen equivalent > 20/320) in one/both eyes. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive 577 nm subthreshold micropulse laser or standard threshold macular laser (e.g. argon laser, frequency-doubled neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet 532 nm laser); laser treatments could be repeated as needed. Rescue therapy with intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies or steroids was allowed if a loss of ≥ 10 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters between visits occurred and/or central retinal subfield thickness increased to > 400 µm. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the mean change in best-corrected visual acuity in the study eye at 24 months (non-inferiority margin 5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters). Secondary outcomes included the mean change from baseline to 24 months in the following: binocular best-corrected visual acuity; central retinal subfield thickness; the mean deviation of the Humphrey 10-2 visual field in the study eye; the percentage of people meeting driving standards; and the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire - 25 and Vision and Quality of Life Index scores. Other secondary outcomes were the cost per quality-adjusted life-years gained, adverse effects, number of laser treatments and additional rescue treatments. RESULTS: The DIAMONDS trial recruited fully (n = 266); 87% of participants in the subthreshold micropulse laser group and 86% of participants in the standard threshold macular laser group had primary outcome data. Groups were balanced regarding baseline characteristics. Mean best-corrected visual acuity change in the study eye from baseline to month 24 was -2.43 letters (standard deviation 8.20 letters) in the subthreshold micropulse laser group and -0.45 letters (standard deviation 6.72 letters) in the standard threshold macular laser group. Subthreshold micropulse laser was deemed to be not only non-inferior but also equivalent to standard threshold macular laser as the 95% confidence interval (-3.9 to -0.04 letters) lay wholly within both the upper and lower margins of the permitted maximum difference (5 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letters). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in any of the secondary outcomes investigated with the exception of the number of laser treatments performed, which was slightly higher in the subthreshold micropulse laser group (mean difference 0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79; p = 0.002). Base-case analysis indicated no significant difference in the cost per quality-adjusted life-years between groups. FUTURE WORK: A trial in people with ≥ 400 µm diabetic macular oedema comparing anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy alone with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy and macular laser applied at the time when central retinal subfield thickness has decreased to < 400 µm following anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections would be of value because it could reduce the number of injections and, subsequently, costs and risks and inconvenience to patients. LIMITATIONS: The majority of participants enrolled had poorly controlled diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Subthreshold micropulse laser was equivalent to standard threshold macular laser but required a slightly higher number of laser treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as EudraCT 2015-001940-12, ISRCTN17742985 and NCT03690050. 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. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The retina is a layer at the back of the eye. Its centre is called the macula and is responsible for central vision. Some people with diabetes develop diabetic macular oedema. In diabetic macular oedema fluid leaks from retinal blood vessels and builds up at the macula, resulting in sight loss. Diabetic macular oedema can be mild or severe; this can be determined measuring the thickness of the macula, which is measured in micrometres (µm). One micrometre is one thousandth of a millimetre. In mild diabetic macular oedema, the thickness of the macula increases, but is less than 400 µm. Patients with mild diabetic macular oedema can be treated with a laser and there are two laser types. The standard threshold macular laser has been available for many years. It clears the diabetic macular oedema but produces a 'burn' in the retina. The subthreshold micropulse laser is newer. It does not produce a burn but also clears the diabetic macular oedema. The lack of a burn, however, has led to doubts about whether or not this laser works as well as the standard threshold macular laser because 'no burn' was taken to mean 'less benefit'. These doubts led to our establishing the DIAMONDS (DIAbetic Macular Oedema aNd Diode Subthreshold micropulse laser) trial, which compared these two lasers for people with mild diabetic macular oedema. A total of 266 people suitable for either laser joined the study at 16 NHS hospitals across the UK; 133 received standard threshold macular laser and 133 received subthreshold micropulse laser. The choice of laser was determined by chance. The DIAMONDS trial found that the subthreshold micropulse laser was as good as the standard threshold macular laser (i.e. 'clinically equivalent') in terms of improving people's vision, reducing macula thickness, allowing people to meet driving standards and maintaining their quality of life, both in general terms and for vision in particular. There was a small increase (less than one session on average per person) in the number of laser treatment sessions needed with subthreshold micropulse laser. The costs of both laser treatments were about the same.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime).

BACKGROUND: For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy (use of multiple medications) is a standard practice. PolyPrime is a theory-based intervention developed to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aimed to recruit 12 general practitioner (GP) practices (six in NI; six in the ROI counties that border NI) and ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) per GP practice (n = 120). Practices allocated to the intervention arm watched an online video and scheduled medication reviews with patients on two occasions. We assessed the feasibility of collecting GP record (medication appropriateness, health service use) and patient self-reported data [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health service use)] at baseline, 6 and 9 months. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and medication-related burden quality-of-life (MRB-QoL) tool. An embedded process evaluation and health economics analysis were also undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a definitive cRCT. RESULTS: Twelve GP practices were recruited and randomised. Three GP practices withdrew from the study due to COVID-related factors. Sixty-eight patients were recruited, with 47 (69.1%) being retained until the end of the study. GP record data were available for 47 patients for medication appropriateness analysis at 9 months. EQ-5D-5L and MRB-QoL data were available for 46 and 41 patients, respectively, at 9 months. GP record and patient self-reported health service use data were available for 47 patients at 9 months. Health service use was comparable in terms of overall cost estimated from GP record versus patient self-reported data. The intervention was successfully delivered as intended; it was acceptable to GPs, practice staff, and patients; and potential mechanisms of action have been identified. All five progression criteria were met (two 'Go', three 'Amend'). CONCLUSION: Despite challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has demonstrated that it may be feasible to conduct an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care across two healthcare jurisdictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Repair of acute respiratory distress syndrome by stromal cell administration (REALIST): a structured study protocol for an open-label dose-escalation phase 1 trial followed by a randomised, triple-blind, allocation concealed, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may be of benefit in ARDS due to immunomodulatory and reparative properties. This trial investigates a novel CD362 enriched umbilical cord derived MSC product (REALIST ORBCEL-C), produced to Good Manufacturing Practice standards, in patients with moderate to severe ARDS due to COVID-19 and ARDS due to other causes. METHODS: Phase 1 is a multicentre open-label dose-escalation pilot trial. Patients will receive a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (100 × 106 cells, 200 × 106 cells or 400 × 106 cells) in a 3 + 3 design. Phase 2 is a multicentre randomised, triple blind, allocation concealed placebo-controlled trial. Two cohorts of patients, with ARDS due to COVID-19 or ARDS due to other causes, will be recruited and randomised 1:1 to receive either a single infusion of REALIST ORBCEL-C (400 × 106 cells or maximal tolerated dose in phase 1) or placebo. Planned recruitment to each cohort is 60 patients. The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is oxygenation index at day 7. The trial will be reported according to the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT 2010) statement. DISCUSSION: The development and manufacture of an advanced therapy medicinal product to Good Manufacturing Practice standards within NHS infrastructure are discussed, including challenges encountered during the early stages of trial set up. The rationale to include a separate cohort of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 in phase 2 of the trial is outlined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143. Registered on 3 February 2017. EudraCT Number 2017-000584-33.

The relationship between plasma cystatin C, mortality and acute respiratory distress syndrome subphenotype in the HARP-2 trial.

Objective: To evaluate the performance of cystatin C as a prognostic and predictive marker in a trial of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Design, patients and setting: A retrospective analysis was performed on plasma samples from patients included in the HARP-2 (hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibition with simvastatin in acute lung injury to reduce pulmonary dysfunction) trial - a multicentre, phase 2b trial carried out in general intensive care units across 40 hospitals in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Cystatin C concentrations in plasma obtained from 466 patients with ARDS (before they were randomly assigned in the trial) were quantified by ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay). Results: In a univariate analysis, plasma cystatin C concentrations were significantly higher in patients with ARDS who did not survive past 28 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.12-1.72]; P = 0.002). In a multivariate model adjusted for selected covariates, cystatin C concentrations remained higher among patients with ARDS who did not survive, although this did not reach statistical significance (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.96-1.71]; P = 0.090). Cystatin C concentration was also significantly associated with hyperinflammatory ARDS (OR, 2.64 [95% CI, 1.83-3.89]; P < 0.001). In multivariate models adjusted for both cystatin C concentration and ARDS subphenotype, hyperinflammatory ARDS was prognostic for mortality (OR, 2.06 [95% CI, 1.16-3.64]; P = 0.013) but cystatin C concentration was not (OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.85-1.57]; P = 0.346). In a multivariate analysis, hyperinflammatory ARDS was predictive of a beneficial effect of simvastatin on mortality (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.16-3.62]; P = 0.014) but cystatin C concentration was not (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.77-1.56]; P = 0.614). Conclusion: The association between cystatin C concentration and mortality in ARDS may be dependent on inflammatory subphenotype. Cystatin C concentration does not appear to add to existing prognostic or predictive approaches.

Repair of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome by Stromal Cell Administration in COVID-19 (REALIST-COVID-19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised, controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study is to assess the safety of a single intravenous infusion of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells (MSCs) in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. Secondary objectives are to determine the effects of MSCs on important clinical outcomes, as described below. TRIAL DESIGN: REALIST COVID 19 is a randomised, placebo-controlled, triple blinded trial. PARTICIPANTS: The study will be conducted in Intensive Care Units in hospitals across the United Kingdom. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS as defined by the Berlin definition, receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and with a diagnosis of COVID-19 based on clinical diagnosis or PCR test will be eligible. Patients will be excluded for the following reasons: more than 72 hours from the onset of ARDS; age < 16 years; patient known to be pregnant; major trauma in previous 5 days; presence of any active malignancy (other than non-melanoma skin cancer); WHO Class III or IV pulmonary hypertension; venous thromboembolism currently receiving anti-coagulation or within the past 3 months; patient receiving extracorporeal life support; severe chronic liver disease (Child-Pugh > 12); Do Not Attempt Resuscitation order in place; treatment withdrawal imminent within 24 hours; prisoners; declined consent; non-English speaking patients or those who do not adequately understand verbal or written information unless an interpreter is available; previously enrolled in the REALIST trial. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Intervention: Allogeneic donor CD362 enriched human umbilical cord derived mesenchymal stromal cells (REALIST ORBCEL-C) supplied as sterile, single-use cryopreserved cell suspension of a fixed dose of 400 x106 cells in 40ml volume, to be diluted in Plasma-Lyte 148 to a total volume of 200mls for administration. Comparator (placebo): Plasma-Lyte 148 Solution for Infusion (200mls). The cellular product (REALIST ORBCEL-C) was developed and patented by Orbsen Therapeutics. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary safety outcome is the incidence of serious adverse events. The primary efficacy outcome is Oxygenation Index (OI) at day 7. Secondary outcomes include: OI at days 4 and 14; respiratory compliance, driving pressure and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (PF ratio) at days 4, 7 and 14; Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score at days 4, 7 and 14; extubation and reintubation; ventilation free days at day 28; duration of mechanical ventilation; length of ICU and hospital stay; 28-day and 90-day mortality. RANDOMISATION: After obtaining informed consent, patients will be randomised via a centralised automated 24-hour telephone or web-based randomisation system (CHaRT, Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen). Randomisation will be stratified by recruitment centre and by vasopressor use and patients will be allocated to REALIST ORBCEL-C or placebo control in a 1:1 ratio. BLINDING (MASKING): The investigator, treating physician, other members of the site research team and participants will be blinded. The cell therapy facility and clinical trials pharmacist will be unblinded to facilitate intervention and placebo preparation. The unblinded individuals will keep the treatment information confidential. The infusion bag will be masked at the time of preparation and will be administered via a masked infusion set. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): A sample size of 60 patients with 30 patients randomised to the intervention and 30 to the control group. If possible, recruitment will continue beyond 60 patients to provide more accurate and definitive trial results. The total number of patients recruited will depend on the pandemic and be guided by the data monitoring and ethics committee (DMEC). TRIAL STATUS: REALIST Phase 1 completed in January 2020 prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. This was an open label dose escalation study of REALIST ORBCEL-C in patients with ARDS. The COVID-19 pandemic emerged as REALIST Phase 2 was planned to commence and the investigator team decided to repurpose the Phase 2 trial as a COVID-19 specific trial. This decision was discussed and approved by the Trial Steering Committee (TSC) and DMEC. Submissions were made to the Research Ethics Committee (REC) and MHRA to amend the protocol to a COVID-19 specific patient population and the protocol amendment was accepted by the REC on 27th March 2020 and MHRA on 30th March 2020 respectively. Other protocol changes in this amendment included an increase in the time of onset of ARDS from 48 to 72 hours, inclusion of clinical outcomes as secondary outcomes, the provision of an option for telephone consent, an indicative sample size and provision to continue recruitment beyond this indicative sample size. The current protocol in use is version 4.0 23.03.2020 (Additional file 1). Urgent Public Health status was awarded by the NIHR on 2 April 2020 and the trial opened to recruitment and recruited the first participant the same day. At the time of publication the trial was open to recruitment at 5 sites across the UK (Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, King's College London, Guys and St Thomas' Hospital London, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital and the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham) and 12 patients have been recruited across these sites. Additional sites are planned to open and appropriate approvals for these are being obtained. It is estimated recruitment will continue for 6 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03042143 (Registered 3 Feb 2017). EudraCT 2017-000585-33 (Registered 28 Nov 2017). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol (version 4.0 23.03.2020) is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis (the EASI-SWITCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenic sepsis remains a common treatment complication for patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have not recommended switching from empirical intravenous antibiotics to oral antibiotics within 48 h for patients assessed as low risk for septic complications because of uncertainty about whether this would achieve comparable outcomes to using intravenous antibiotics for longer. The UK National Institute for Health Research funded the EASI-SWITCH trial to tackle this uncertainty. METHODS: The trial is a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial that aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients ≥ 16 years, receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment (acute leukaemics/stem cell transplants excluded), with a temperature of > 38 °C, neutrophil count ≤ 1.0 × 109/L, MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) score ≥ 21 and receiving IV piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for less than 24 h are eligible to participate. Patients are randomised 1:1 either (i) to switch to oral ciprofloxacin and co-amoxiclav within 12-24 h of commencing intravenous antibiotics, completing at least 5 days total antibiotics (intervention), or (ii) to continue intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 h, with ongoing antibiotics being continued at the physician's discretion (control). Patients are discharged home when their physician deems it appropriate. The primary outcome measure is a composite of treatment failures as assessed at day 14. The criteria for treatment failure include fever persistence or recurrence 72 h after starting intravenous antibiotics, escalation from protocolised antibiotics, hospital readmission related to infection/antibiotics, critical care support or death. Based on a 15% treatment failure rate in the control group and a 15% non-inferiority margin, the recruitment target is 230 patients. DISCUSSION: If the trial demonstrates non-inferiority of early switching to oral antibiotics, with potential benefits for patient quality of life and resource savings, this finding will have significant implications for the routine clinical management of those with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 84288963. Registered on the 1 July 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN84288963. EudraCT: 2015-002830-35.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome subphenotypes and differential response to simvastatin: secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine approaches that target patients on the basis of disease subtype have transformed treatment approaches to cancer, asthma, and other heterogeneous syndromes. Two distinct subphenotypes of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been identified in three US-based clinical trials, and these subphenotypes respond differently to positive end-expiratory pressure and fluid management. We aimed to investigate whether these subphenotypes exist in non-US patient populations and respond differently to pharmacotherapies. METHODS: HARP-2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of simvastatin (80 mg) versus placebo done in general intensive care units (ICUs) at 40 hospitals in the UK and Ireland within 48 h of onset of ARDS. The primary outcome was ventilator-free days, and secondary outcomes included non-pulmonary organ failure-free days and mortality. In a secondary analysis of HARP-2, we applied latent class analysis to baseline data without consideration of outcomes to identify subphenotypes, and we compared clinical outcomes across subphenotypes and treatment groups. FINDINGS: 540 patients were recruited to HARP-2. One patient withdrew consent for the use of their data, so data from 539 patients were analysed. In our secondary analysis, a two-class (two subphenotype) model was an improvement over a one-class model (p<0·0001), with 353 (65%) patients in the hypoinflammatory subphenotype group and 186 (35%) in the hyperinflammatory subphenotype group. Additional classes did not improve model fit. Clinical and biological characteristics of the two subphenotypes were similar to previous studies. Patients with the hyperinflammatory subphenotype had fewer ventilator-free days (median 2 days [IQR 0-17] vs 18 [IQR 0-23]; p<0·0001), fewer non-pulmonary organ failure-free days (15 [0-25] vs 27 [21-28]; p<0·0001), and higher 28-day mortality (73 [39%] vs 59 [17%]; p<0·0001) than did those with the hypoinflammatory subphenotype. Although HARP-2 found no difference in 28-day survival between placebo and simvastatin, significantly different survival was identified across patients stratified by treatment and subphenotype (p<0·0001). Specifically, within the hyperinflammatory subphenotype, patients treated with simvastatin had significantly higher 28-day survival than did those given placebo (p=0·008). A similar pattern was observed for 90-day survival. INTERPRETATION: Two subphenotypes of ARDS were identified in the HARP-2 cohort, with distinct clinical and biological features and disparate clinical outcomes. The hyperinflammatory subphenotype had improved survival with simvastatin compared with placebo. These findings support further pursuit of predictive enrichment strategies in critical care clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme and National Institutes of Health.

PAlliative Care in chronic Kidney diSease: the PACKS study--quality of life, decision making, costs and impact on carers in people managed without dialysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease opting for conservative management rather than dialysis is unknown but likely to be growing as increasingly frail patients with advanced renal disease present to renal services. Conservative kidney management includes ongoing medical input and support from a multidisciplinary team. There is limited evidence concerning patient and carer experience of this choice. This study will explore quality of life, symptoms, cognition, frailty, performance decision making, costs and impact on carers in people with advanced chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis and is funded by the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, longitudinal study, patients will be recruited in the UK, by renal research nurses, once they have made the decision not to embark on dialysis. Carers will be asked to 'opt-in' with consent from patients. The approach includes longitudinal quantitative surveys of quality of life, symptoms, decision making and costs for patients and quality of life and costs for carers, with questionnaires administered quarterly over 12 months. Additionally, the decision making process will be explored via qualitative interviews with renal physicians/clinical nurse specialists. DISCUSSION: The study is designed to capture patient and carer profiles when conservative kidney management is implemented, and understand trajectories of care-receiving and care-giving with the aim of optimising palliative care for this population. It will explore the interactions that lead to clinical care decisions and the impact of these decisions on informal carers with the intention of improving clinical outcomes for patients and the experiences of care givers.

Effect of simvastatin on physiological and biological outcomes in patients undergoing esophagectomy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether simvastatin improves physiological and biological outcomes in patients undergoing esophagectomy. BACKGROUND: One-lung ventilation during esophagectomy is associated with inflammation, alveolar epithelial and systemic endothelial injury, and the development of acute lung injury (ALI). Statins that modify many of the underlying processes are a potential therapy to prevent ALI. METHODS: We conducted a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in patients undergoing esophagectomy. Patients received simvastatin 80 mg or placebo enterally for 4 days preoperatively and 7 days postoperatively. The primary end point was pulmonary dead space (Vd/Vt) at 6 hours after esophagectomy or before extubation. Inflammation was assessed by plasma cytokines and intraoperative exhaled breath condensate pH; alveolar type 1 epithelial injury was assessed by plasma receptor for advanced glycation end products and systemic endothelial injury by the urine albumin-creatinine ratio. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were randomized; 8 patients did not undergo surgery and were excluded. Fifteen patients received simvastatin and 16 received placebo. There was no difference in Vd/Vt or other physiological outcomes. Simvastatin resulted in a significant decrease in plasma MCP-1 on day 3 and reduced exhaled breath condensate acidification. Plasma receptor for advanced glycation end products was significantly lower in the simvastatin-treated group, as was the urine albumin-creatinine ratio on day 7 postsurgery. ALI developed in 4 patients in the placebo group and no patients in the simvastatin group although this difference was not statistically significant (P=0.1). CONCLUSIONS: In this proof of concept study, pretreatment with simvastatin in esophagectomy decreased biomarkers of inflammation as well as pulmonary epithelial and systemic endothelial injury.

Phase II clinical trial of first or second-line treatment with bortezomib in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Based on promising preclinical efficacy of bortezomib in mesothelioma, a single-arm phase II trial (Ireland Cooperative Oncology Research Group 05-10 study), with Simon's two-stage design, was undertaken to assess efficacy of bortezomib monotherapy in the first-line (poor performance status) and second-line settings. The Bcl-2 homology domain 3-only protein Noxa has been implicated as a key inducer of apoptosis by bortezomib. Thus, in a biomarker research substudy, we hypothesized that deficiency in Noxa expression might correlate with resistance. In the second-line setting, 23 patients were enrolled. Partial response was confirmed in one patient (4.8%) who received four cycles of bortezomib. One patient had stable disease; however, progression occurred in the majority of patients within the first two cycles. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.1 and 5.8 months, respectively. In the first-line setting, ten patients were accrued, and there was no evidence of objective response. In the tumor analysis, expression of Noxa was seen in all biopsies. Bortezomib monotherapy exhibits insufficient activity to warrant further investigation in unselected patients with mesothelioma.

Neoadjuvant hormone therapy for radical prostate radiotherapy: bicalutamide monotherapy vs. luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist monotherapy: a single-institution matched-pair analysis.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response to either neoadjuvant bicalutamide (BC) monotherapy or neoadjuvant luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist (LHRHa) monotherapy and the subsequent effect on biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) in men receiving radical radiotherapy (RT) for localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective review of consecutive men treated with BC monotherapy before radical prostate RT who were individually case-matched to men treated with neoadjuvant LHRHa monotherapy. PSA kinetics and absolute pre-RT posthormone PSA (PRPH-PSA) level and subsequent BFFS were analyzed. RESULTS: Sixty-five men treated with BC monotherapy with a median follow-up of 44 months were individually matched with 65 men treated with LHRHa with a median follow-up of 54 months. Statistically significant differences were noted between groups in the PRPH-PSA, with a mean of 2.9 ng/mL (0.1-11.2 ng/mL) for patients receiving BC treatment and 1.8 ng/mL (0.1-11.1 ng/mL) for patients receiving LHRHa treatment (P < .001). A PRPH-PSA of < 1.0 and < 0.1 ng/mL was seen in 16 (24.6%) and 2 (3%) of the patients receiving BC and 34 (52.3%) and 3 (4.6%) patients receiving LHRHa, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups in either PSA halving time or velocity. Phoenix biochemical failure occurred in 10 (15.4%) and 8 (12.3%) patients receiving BC and patients receiving LHRHa, respectively. Neither PRPH-PSA level nor PSA kinetics during the neoadjuvant period predict for subsequent BFFS at this duration of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although neoadjuvant BC therapy did not result in equivalent PRPH-PSA suppression when compared with neoadjuvant LHRHa alone, there was no difference in biochemical failure rates between cohorts at 50 months' median follow-up. Longer follow-up is required.

Prognostic significance of TRAIL signaling molecules in stage II and III colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: We previously found that cellular FLICE-inhibitory protein (c-FLIP), caspase 8, and tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) receptor 2 (DR5) are major regulators of cell viability and chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in colorectal cancer. In this study, we determined the prognostic significance of c-FLIP, caspase 8, TRAIL and DR5 expression in tissues from patients with stage II and III colorectal cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Tissue microarrays were constructed from matched normal and tumor tissue derived from patients (n = 253) enrolled in a phase III trial of adjuvant 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy versus postoperative observation alone. TRAIL, DR5, caspase 8, and c-FLIP expression levels were determined by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Colorectal tumors displayed significantly higher expression levels of c-FLIP (P < 0.001), caspase 8 (P = 0.01), and DR5 (P < 0.001), but lower levels of TRAIL (P < 0.001) compared with matched normal tissue. In univariate analysis, higher TRAIL expression in the tumor was associated with worse overall survival (P = 0.026), with a trend to decreased relapse-free survival (RFS; P = 0.06), and higher tumor c-FLIP expression was associated with a significantly decreased RFS (P = 0.015). Using multivariate predictive modeling for RFS in all patients and including all biomarkers, age, treatment, and stage, we found that the model was significant when the mean tumor c-FLIP expression score and disease stage were included (P < 0.001). As regards overall survival, the overall model was predictive when both TRAIL expression and disease stage were included (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High c-FLIP and TRAIL expression may be independent adverse prognostic markers in stage II and III colorectal cancer and might identify patients most at risk of relapse.