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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Targeting the rheumatoid arthritis synovial fibroblast via cyclin dependent kinase inhibition: An early phase trial.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted biologic therapies demonstrate similar efficacies in rheumatoid arthritis despite distinct mechanisms of action. They also exhibit a ceiling effect, with 10% to 20% of patients achieving remission in clinical trials. None of these therapies target synovial fibroblasts, which drive and maintain synovitis. Seliciclib (R-roscovitine) is an orally available cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor that suppresses fibroblast proliferation, and is efficacious in preclinical arthritis models. We aim to determine the toxicity and preliminary efficacy of seliciclib in combination with biologic therapies, to inform its potential as an adjunctive therapy in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TRAFIC is a non-commercial, multi-center, rolling phase Ib/IIa trial investigating the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of seliciclib in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis receiving biologic therapies. All participants receive seliciclib with no control arm. The primary objective of part 1 (phase Ib) is to determine the maximum tolerated dose and safety of seliciclib over 4 weeks of dosing. Part 1 uses a restricted 1-stage Bayesian continual reassessment method based on a target dose-limiting toxicity probability of 35%. Part 2 (phase IIa) assesses the potential efficacy of seliciclib, and is designed as a single arm, single stage early phase trial based on a Fleming-A'Hern design using the maximum tolerated dose recommended from part 1. The primary response outcome after 12 weeks of therapy is a composite of clinical, histological and magnetic resonance imaging scores. Secondary outcomes include adverse events, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic parameters, autoantibodies, and fatigue. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the North East - Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee (reference 14/NE/1075) and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), United Kingdom. Results will be disseminated through publication in relevant peer-reviewed journals and presentation at national and international conferences. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN36667085. Registered on September 26, 2014; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN36667085Current protocol version: Protocol version 11.0 (March 21, 2019).

Antiplatelet therapy in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a randomised controlled proof-of-concept trial.

The APPLE COPD-ICON2 trial is a prospective 2×2 factorial, double-blinded proof-of-concept randomised controlled trial targeting patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) without prior history of cardiovascular disease. The primary goal of this trial is to investigate if treatment with antiplatelet therapy will produce the predefined cut-off of platelet inhibition measured using the Multiplate test in COPD patients. Eligible patients were randomised to aspirin plus placebo, ticagrelor plus placebo, aspirin plus ticagrelor or placebo only for 6 months. The primary outcome comprises inhibition (binary response) of arachidonic acid- (ASPI test, cut-off <40) and adenosine diphosphate- (ADP test, cut-off <46) induced platelet aggregation at 6 months. 543 patients were screened and 120 patients were recruited with mean age of 67.5 years; 47.5% patients were male. The per-protocol ASPI test response rate to aspirin was 68.3% (95% CI 52.3-80.9%). The per-protocol ADP test response rate to ticagrelaor was 68.8% (95% CI 50.4-82.6%). Platelet response to antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and ticagrelor was not observed in nearly one-third of COPD patients without prior history of cardiovascular disease. These findings support the high pro-thrombotic milieu and the need for further research to determine the effect of antiplatelet/antithrombotic therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in COPD patients.

Pretreatment prediction of response to ursodeoxycholic acid in primary biliary cholangitis: development and validation of the UDCA Response Score.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines recommend a stepwise approach to primary biliary cholangitis: all patients begin treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) monotherapy and those with an inadequate biochemical response after 12 months are subsequently considered for second-line therapies. However, as a result, patients at the highest risk can wait the longest for effective treatment. We determined whether UDCA response can be accurately predicted using pretreatment clinical parameters. METHODS: We did logistic regression analysis of pretreatment variables in a discovery cohort of patients in the UK with primary biliary cholangitis to derive the best-fitting model of UDCA response, defined as alkaline phosphatase less than 1·67 times the upper limit of normal (ULN), measured after 12 months of treatment with UDCA. We validated the model in an external cohort of patients with primary biliary cholangitis and treated with UDCA in Italy. Additionally, we assessed correlations between model predictions and key histological features, such as biliary injury and fibrosis, on liver biopsy samples. FINDINGS: 2703 participants diagnosed with primary biliary cholangitis between Jan 1, 1998, and May 31, 2015, were included in the UK-PBC cohort for derivation of the model. The following pretreatment parameters were associated with lower probability of UDCA response: higher alkaline phosphatase concentration (p<0·0001), higher total bilirubin concentration (p=0·0003), lower aminotransferase concentration (p=0·0012), younger age (p<0·0001), longer interval from diagnosis to the start of UDCA treatment (treatment time lag, p<0·0001), and worsening of alkaline phosphatase concentration from diagnosis (p<0·0001). Based on these variables, we derived a predictive score of UDCA response. In the external validation cohort, 460 patients diagnosed with primary biliary cholangitis were treated with UDCA, with follow-up data until May 31, 2016. In this validation cohort, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the score was 0·83 (95% CI 0·79-0·87). In 20 liver biopsy samples from patients with primary biliary cholangitis, the UDCA response score was associated with ductular reaction (r=-0·556, p=0·0130) and intermediate hepatocytes (probability of response was 0·90 if intermediate hepatocytes were absent vs 0·51 if present). INTERPRETATION: We have derived and externally validated a model based on pretreatment variables that accurately predicts UDCA response. Association with histological features provides face validity. This model provides a basis to explore alternative approaches to treatment stratification in patients with primary biliary cholangitis. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and University of Milan-Bicocca.

Targeting Tropomyosin Receptor Kinase in Cutaneous CYLD Defective Tumors With Pegcantratinib: The TRAC Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: There are no medical interventions for the orphan disease CYLD cutaneous syndrome (CCS). Transcriptomic profiling of CCS skin tumors previously highlighted tropomyosin receptor kinases (TRKs) as candidate therapeutic targets. Objective: To investigate if topical targeting of TRK with an existing topical TRK inhibitor, pegcantratinib, 0.5% (wt/wt), is safe and efficacious in CCS. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 1b open-label safety study, followed by a phase 2a within-patient randomized (by tumor), double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (the Tropomyosin Receptor Antagonism in Cylindromatosis [TRAC] trial). The setting was a single-center trial based at a tertiary dermatogenetics referral center for CCS (Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle, United Kingdom). Patients who had germline mutations in CYLD or who satisfied clinical diagnostic criteria for CCS were recruited between March 1, 2015, and July 1, 2016. Interventions: In phase 1b, patients with CCS applied pegcantratinib for 4 weeks to a single skin tumor. In phase 2a, allocation of tumors was to either receive active treatment on the right side and placebo on the left side (arm A) or active treatment on the left side and placebo on the right side (arm B). Patients were eligible if they had 10 small skin tumors, with 5 matched lesions on each body side; patients were randomized to receive active treatment (pegcantratinib) to one body side and placebo to the other side once daily for 12 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the number of tumors meeting the criteria for response in a prespecified critical number of pegcantratinib-treated tumors. Secondary clinical outcome measures included an assessment for safety of application, pain in early tumors, and compliance with the trial protocol. Results: In phase 1b, 8 female patients with a median age of 60 years (age range, 41-80 years) were recruited and completed the study. None of the participants experienced any adverse treatment site reactions. Three patients reported reduced pain in treated tumors. In phase 2a (15 patients [13 female; median age, 51 years], with 150 tumors), 2 tumors treated with pegcantratinib achieved the primary outcome measure of response compared with 6 tumors treated with placebo. The primary prespecified number of responses was not met. The incidence of adverse events was low. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, pegcantratinib, 0.5% (wt/wt), applied once daily appeared to be well tolerated and to penetrate the tumor tissue; however, the low tumor drug concentrations demonstrated are likely to account for the lack of response. Dose-escalation studies to assess the maximal tolerated dose may be beneficial in future studies of CCS. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN75715723.

Surveillance versus ablation for incidentally diagnosed small renal tumours: the SURAB feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty around the appropriate management of small renal tumours. Treatments include partial nephrectomy, ablation and active surveillance. OBJECTIVES: To explore the feasibility of a randomised trial of ablation versus active surveillance. DESIGN: Two-stage feasibility study: stage 1 - clinician survey and co-design work; and stage 2 - randomised feasibility study with qualitative and economic components. METHODS: Stage 1 - survey of radiologists and urologists, and development of patient information materials. Stage 2 - patients identified across eight UK centres with small renal tumours (< 4 cm) were randomised (1 : 1 ratio) to ablation or active surveillance in an unblinded manner. Randomisation was carried out by a central computer system. The primary objective was to determine willingness to participate and to randomise a target of 60 patients. The qualitative and economic data were collected separately. RESULTS: The trial was conducted across eight centres, with a site-specific period of recruitment ranging from 3 to 11 months. Of the 154 patients screened, 36 were eligible and were provided with study details. Seven agreed to be randomised and one patient was found ineligible following biopsy results. Six patients (17% of those eligible) were randomised: three patients received ablation and no serious adverse events were recorded. The 3- and 6-month data were collected for four (67%) and three (50%) out of the six patients, respectively. The qualitative substudy identified factors directly impacting on the recruitment of this trial. These included patient and clinician preferences, organisational factors (variation in clinical pathway) and standard treatment not included. The health economic questionnaire was designed and piloted; however, the sample size of recruited patients was insufficient to draw a conclusion on the feasibility of the health economics. CONCLUSIONS: The trial did not meet the criteria for progression and the recruitment rate was lower than hypothesised, demonstrating that a full trial is presently not possible. The qualitative study identified factors that led to variation in recruitment across the sites. Implementation of organisational and operational measures can increase recruitment in any future trial. There was insufficient information to conduct a full economic analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31161700. 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. 21, No. 81. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (TACE 2): a randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, while the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves survival in patients with advanced disease. We aimed to determine whether TACE with sorafenib improves progression-free survival versus TACE with placebo. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TACE 2) in 20 hospitals in the UK for patients with unresectable, liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were eligible if they were at least aged 18 years, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and had Child-Pugh A liver disease. Patients were randomised 1:1 by computerised minimisation algorithm to continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) or matching placebo combined with TACE using drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), which was given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and patient tolerance thereafter. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre and serum α-fetoprotein concentration (<400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL). Only the trial coordinator was unmasked to treatment allocation before patient progression during the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed by intention-to-treat. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2008-005073-36, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN93375053. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and Dec 7, 2015, the trial enrolled 399 patients and was terminated after a planned interim futility analysis. 86 patients failed screening and 313 remaining patients were randomly assigned: 157 to sorafenib and 156 to placebo. The median daily dose was 660 mg (IQR 389·2-800·0) sorafenib versus 800 mg (758·2-800·0) placebo, and median duration of therapy was 120·0 days (IQR 43·0-266·0) for sorafenib versus 162·0 days (70·0-323·5) for placebo. There was no evidence of difference in progression-free survival between the sorafenib group and the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·77-1·27], p=0·94); median progression-free survival was 238·0 days (95% CI 221·0-281·0) in the sorafenib group and 235·0 days (209·0-322·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (29 [18%] of 157 patients in the sorafenib group vs 21 [13%] of 156 patients in the placebo group), abdominal pain (20 [13%] vs 12 [8%]), diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs four [3%]), gastrointestinal disorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 65 (41%) of 157 patients in the sorafenib group and 50 (32%) of 156 in the placebo group, and 181 serious adverse events were reported in total, 95 (52%) in the sorafenib group and 86 (48%) in the placebo group. Three deaths occurred in each group that were attributed to DEB-TACE. Four deaths were attributed to study drug; three in the sorafenib group and one in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sorafenib to DEB-TACE does not improve progression-free survival in European patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Alternative systemic therapies need to be assessed in combination with TACE to improve patient outcomes. FUNDING: Bayer PLC and BTG PLC.

Tropomyosin Receptor Antagonism in Cylindromatosis (TRAC), an early phase trial of a topical tropomyosin kinase inhibitor as a treatment for inherited CYLD defective skin tumours: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with germline mutations in a tumour suppressor gene called CYLD develop multiple, disfiguring, hair follicle tumours on the head and neck. The prognosis is poor, with up to one in four mutation carriers requiring complete surgical removal of the scalp. There are no effective medical alternatives to treat this condition. Whole genome molecular profiling experiments led to the discovery of an attractive molecular target in these skin tumour cells, named tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK), upon which these cells demonstrate an oncogenic dependency in preclinical studies. Recently, the development of an ointment containing a TRK inhibitor (pegcantratinib - previously CT327 - from Creabilis SA) allowed for the assessment of TRK inhibition in tumours from patients with inherited CYLD mutations. METHODS/DESIGN: Tropomysin Receptor Antagonism in Cylindromatosis (TRAC) is a two-part, exploratory, early phase, single-centre trial. Cohort 1 is a phase 1b open-labelled trial, and cohort 2 is a phase 2a randomised double-blinded exploratory placebo-controlled trial. Cohort 1 will determine the safety and acceptability of applying pegcantratinib for 4 weeks to a single tumour on a CYLD mutation carrier that is scheduled for a routine lesion excision (n = 8 patients). Cohort 2 will investigate if CYLD defective tumours respond following 12 weeks of treatment with pegcantratinib. As patients have multiple tumours, we intend to treat 10 tumours in each patient, 5 with active treatment and 5 with placebo. Patients will be allocated both active and placebo treatments to be applied randomly to tumours on the left or right side. The target is to treat 150 tumours in a maximum of 20 patients. Tumour volume will be measured at baseline and at 4 and 12 weeks. The primary outcome measure is the proportion of tumours responding to treatment by 12 weeks, based on change in tumour volume, with secondary measures based on adverse event profile, treatment compliance and acceptability, changes in tumour volume and surface area, patient quality of life and pain. DISCUSSION: Interventions for rare genetic skin diseases are often difficult to assess in an unbiased way due to small patient numbers and the challenges of incorporating adequate controls into trial design. Here we present a single-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled trial design that leverages the multiplicity of tumours seen in an inherited skin tumour syndrome that may inform the design of other studies in similar genetic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, ISRCTN75715723 . Registered on 22 October 2014.

A feasibility study incorporating a pilot randomised controlled trial of oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy tube versus oral feeding plus as-needed nasogastric tube feeding in patients undergoing chemoradiation for head and neck cancer (TUBE trial): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There are 7000 new cases of head and neck squamous cell cancers (HNSCC) treated by the NHS each year. Stage III and IV HNSCC can be treated non-surgically by radio therapy (RT) or chemoradiation therapy (CRT). CRT can affect eating and drinking through a range of side effects with 90 % of patients undergoing this treatment requiring nutritional support via gastrostomy (G) or nasogastric (NG) tube feeding. Long-term dysphagia following CRT is a primary concern for patients. The effect of enteral feeding routes on swallowing function is not well understood, and the two feeding methods have, to date, not been compared to assess which leads to a better patient outcome. The purpose of this study is to explore the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing these two options with particular emphasis on patient willingness to be randomised and clinician willingness to approach eligible patients. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a mixed methods multicentre study to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial comparing oral feeding plus pre-treatment gastrostomy versus oral feeding plus as required nasogastric tube feeding in patients with HNSCC. A total of 60 participants will be randomised to the two arms of the study (1:1 ratio). The primary outcome of feasibility is a composite of recruitment (willingness to randomise and be randomised) and retention. A qualitative process evaluation investigating patient, family and friends and staff experiences of trial participation will also be conducted alongside an economic modelling exercise to synthesise available evidence and provide estimates of cost-effectiveness and value of information. Participants will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomisation), during CRT weekly, 3 months and 6 months. DISCUSSION: Clinicians are in equipoise over the enteral feeding options for patients being treated with CRT. Swallowing outcomes have been identified as a top priority for patients following treatment and this trial would inform a future larger scale RCT in this area to inform best practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN48569216.

The NAtional randomised controlled Trial of Tonsillectomy IN Adults (NATTINA): a clinical and cost-effectiveness study: study protocol for a randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of tonsillectomy in the management of adult tonsillitis remains uncertain and UK regional variation in tonsillectomy rates persists. Patients, doctors and health policy makers wish to know the costs and benefits of tonsillectomy against conservative management and whether therapy can be better targeted to maximise benefits and minimise risks of surgery, hence maximising cost-effective use of resources. NATTINA incorporates the first attempt to map current NHS referral criteria against other metrics of tonsil disease severity. METHODS/DESIGN: A UK multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial for adults with recurrent tonsillitis to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of tonsillectomy versus conservative management. An initial feasibility study comprises qualitative interviews to investigate the practicality of the protocol, including willingness to randomise and be randomised. Approximately 20 otolaryngology staff, 10 GPs and 15 ENT patients will be recruited over 5 months in all 9 proposed main trial participating sites. A 6-month internal pilot will then recruit 72 patients across 6 of the 9 sites. Participants will be adults with recurrent acute tonsillitis referred by a GP to secondary care. Randomisation between tonsillectomy and conservative management will be according to a blocked allocation method in a 1:1 ratio stratified by centre and baseline disease severity. If the pilot is successful, the main trial will recruit a further 528 patients over 18 months in all 9 participating sites. All participants will be followed up for a total of 24 months, throughout which both primary and secondary outcome data will be collected. The primary outcome is the number of sore throat days experienced over the 24-month follow-up. The pilot and main trials include an embedded qualitative process evaluation. DISCUSSION: NATTINA is designed to evaluate the relative effectiveness and efficiency of tonsillectomy versus conservative management in patients with recurrent sore throat who are eligible for surgery. Most adult tonsil disease and surgery has an impact on economically active age groups, with individual and societal costs through loss of earnings and productivity. Avoidance of unnecessary operations and prioritisation of those individuals likely to gain most from tonsillectomy would reduce costs to the NHS and society. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN55284102, Date of Registration: 4 August 2014.

Optimal duration and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after definitive surgery for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: ongoing lessons from the ESPAC-3 study.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves patient survival rates after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but the optimal duration and time to initiate chemotherapy is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated within the international, phase III, European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer-3 (version 2) study were included if they had been randomly assigned to chemotherapy. Overall survival analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis, retaining patients in their randomized groups, and adjusting the overall treatment effect by known prognostic variables as well as the start time of chemotherapy. RESULTS: There were 985 patients, of whom 486 (49%) received gemcitabine and 499 (51%) received fluorouracil; 675 patients (68%) completed all six cycles of chemotherapy (full course) and 293 patients (30%) completed one to five cycles. Lymph node involvement, resection margins status, tumor differentiation, and completion of therapy were all shown by multivariable Cox regression to be independent survival factors. Overall survival favored patients who completed the full six courses of treatment versus those who did not (hazard ratio [HR], 0.516; 95% CI, 0.443 to 0.601; P < .001). Time to starting chemotherapy did not influence overall survival rates for the full study population (HR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.956 to 1.015). Chemotherapy start time was an important survival factor only for the subgroup of patients who did not complete therapy, in favor of later treatment (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Completion of all six cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy rather than early initiation was an independent prognostic factor after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. There seems to be no difference in outcome if chemotherapy is delayed up to 12 weeks, thus allowing adequate time for postoperative recovery.

Phase I trial of recombinant modified vaccinia ankara encoding Epstein-Barr viral tumor antigens in nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients.

Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) is associated with several malignancies including nasopharyngeal carcinoma, a high incidence tumor in Chinese populations, in which tumor cells express the two EBV antigens EB nuclear antigen 1 (EBNA1) and latent membrane protein 2 (LMP2). Here, we report the phase I trial of a recombinant vaccinia virus, MVA-EL, which encodes an EBNA1/LMP2 fusion protein designed to boost T-cell immunity to these antigens. The vaccine was delivered to Hong Kong patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma to determine a safe and immunogenic dose. The patients, all in remission more than 12 weeks after primary therapy, received three intradermal MVA-EL vaccinations at three weekly intervals, using five escalating dose levels between 5 × 10(7) and 5 × 10(8) plaque-forming unit (pfu). Blood samples were taken during prescreening, immediately before vaccination, one week afterward and at intervals up to one year later. Immunogenicity was tested by IFN-γ ELIspot assays using complete EBNA1 and LMP2 15-mer peptide mixes and known epitope peptides relevant to patient MHC type. Eighteen patients were treated, three per dose level one to four and six at the highest dose, without dose-limiting toxicity. T-cell responses to one or both vaccine antigens were increased in 15 of 18 patients and, in many cases, were mapped to known CD4 and CD8 epitopes in EBNA1 and/or LMP2. The range of these responses suggested a direct relationship with vaccine dose, with all six patients at the highest dose level giving strong EBNA1/LMP2 responses. We concluded that MVA-EL is both safe and immunogenic, allowing the highest dose to be forwarded to phase II studies examining clinical benefit.