Objective sputum colour assessment and clinical outcomes in bronchiectasis: data from the European Bronchiectasis Registry (EMBARC).

BACKGROUND: A validated 4-point sputum colour chart can be used to objectively evaluate the levels of airway inflammation in bronchiectasis patients. In the European Bronchiectasis Registry (EMBARC), we tested whether sputum colour would be associated with disease severity and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We used a prospective, observational registry of adults with bronchiectasis conducted in 31 countries. Patients who did not produce spontaneous sputum were excluded from the analysis. The Murray sputum colour chart was used at baseline and at follow-up visits. Key outcomes were frequency of exacerbations, hospitalisations for severe exacerbations and mortality during up to 5-year follow-up. RESULTS: 13 484 patients were included in the analysis. More purulent sputum was associated with lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), worse quality of life, greater bacterial infection and a higher bronchiectasis severity index. Sputum colour was strongly associated with the risk of future exacerbations during follow-up. Compared to patients with mucoid sputum (reference group), patients with mucopurulent sputum experienced significantly more exacerbations (incident rate ratio (IRR) 1.29, 95% CI 1.22-1.38; p<0.0001), while the rates were even higher for patients with purulent (IRR 1.55, 95% CI 1.44-1.67; p<0.0001) and severely purulent sputum (IRR 1.91, 95% CI 1.52-2.39; p<0.0001). Hospitalisations for severe exacerbations were also associated with increasing sputum colour with rate ratios, compared to patients with mucoid sputum, of 1.41 (95% CI 1.29-1.56; p<0.0001), 1.98 (95% CI 1.77-2.21; p<0.0001) and 3.05 (95% CI 2.25-4.14; p<0.0001) for mucopurulent, purulent and severely purulent sputum, respectively. Mortality was significantly increased with increasing sputum purulence, hazard ratio 1.12 (95% CI 1.01-1.24; p=0.027), for each increment in sputum purulence. CONCLUSION: Sputum colour is a simple marker of disease severity and future risk of exacerbations, severe exacerbations and mortality in patients with bronchiectasis.

Dual bronchodilators in Bronchiectasis study (DIBS): protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, three-arm, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial studying bronchodilators in preventing exacerbations of bronchiectasis.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiectasis is a long-term lung condition, with dilated bronchi, chronic inflammation, chronic infection and acute exacerbations. Recurrent exacerbations are associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as increased severity of lung disease, further exacerbations, hospitalisations, reduced quality of life and increased risk of death. Despite an increasing prevalence of bronchiectasis, there is a critical lack of high-quality studies into the disease and no treatments specifically approved for its treatment. This trial aims to establish whether inhaled dual bronchodilators (long acting beta agonist (LABA) and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)) taken as either a stand-alone therapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduce the number of exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring treatment with antibiotics during a 12 month treatment period. METHODS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and embedded economic evaluation. 600 adult patients (≥18 years) with CT confirmed bronchiectasis will be recruited and randomised to either inhaled dual therapy (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS) or matched placebo, in a 2:2:1 ratio (respectively). The primary outcome is the number of protocol defined exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 12 month treatment period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion was received from the North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/NE/0020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in the NIHR Health Technology Assessments journal and to participants and the public (using lay language). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15988757.

How achievable are COVID-19 clinical trial recruitment targets? A UK observational cohort study and trials registry analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse enrolment to interventional trials during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in England and describe the barriers to successful recruitment in the circumstance of a further wave or future pandemics. DESIGN: We analysed registered interventional COVID-19 trial data and concurrently did a prospective observational study of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who were being assessed for eligibility to one of the RECOVERY, C19-ACS or SIMPLE trials. SETTING: Interventional COVID-19 trial data were analysed from the clinicaltrials.gov and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number databases on 12 July 2020. The patient cohort was taken from five centres in a respiratory National Institute for Health Research network. Population and modelling data were taken from published reports from the UK government and Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit. PARTICIPANTS: 2082 consecutive admitted patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from 27 March 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions enrolled, and reasons for exclusion from the aforementioned trials. Comparisons of trial recruitment targets with estimated feasible recruitment numbers. RESULTS: Analysis of trial registration data for COVID-19 treatment studies enrolling in England showed that by 12 July 2020, 29 142 participants were needed. In the observational study, 430 (20.7%) proceeded to randomisation. 82 (3.9%) declined participation, 699 (33.6%) were excluded on clinical grounds, 363 (17.4%) were medically fit for discharge and 153 (7.3%) were receiving palliative care. With 111 037 people hospitalised with COVID-19 in England by 12 July 2020, we determine that 22 985 people were potentially suitable for trial enrolment. We estimate a UK hospitalisation rate of 2.38%, and that another 1.25 million infections would be required to meet recruitment targets of ongoing trials. CONCLUSIONS: Feasible recruitment rates, study design and proliferation of trials can limit the number, and size, that will successfully complete recruitment. We consider that fewer, more appropriately designed trials, prioritising cooperation between centres would maximise productivity in a further wave.

A 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, open-label trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care over 52 weeks in adults with bronchiectasis: a protocol for the CLEAR clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the management of bronchiectasis (BE) highlight the lack of evidence to recommend mucoactive agents, such as hypertonic saline (HTS) and carbocisteine, to aid sputum removal as part of standard care. We hypothesise that mucoactive agents (HTS or carbocisteine, or a combination) are effective in reducing exacerbations over a 52-week period, compared to usual care. METHODS: This is a 52-week, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, open-label trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of HTS 6% and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care - the Clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care (CLEAR) trial. Patients will be randomised to (1) standard care and twice-daily nebulised HTS (6%), (2) standard care and carbocisteine (750 mg three times per day until visit 3, reducing to 750 mg twice per day), (3) standard care and combination of twice-daily nebulised HTS and carbocisteine, or (4) standard care. The primary outcome is the mean number of exacerbations over 52 weeks. Key inclusion criteria are as follows: adults with a diagnosis of BE on computed tomography, BE as the primary respiratory diagnosis, and two or more pulmonary exacerbations in the last year requiring antibiotics and production of daily sputum. DISCUSSION: This trial's pragmatic research design avoids the significant costs associated with double-blind trials whilst optimising rigour in other areas of trial delivery. The CLEAR trial will provide evidence as to whether HTS, carbocisteine or both are effective and cost effective for patients with BE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2017-000664-14 (first entered in the database on 20 October 2017). ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN89040295. Registered on 6 July/2018. Funder: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (15/100/01). SPONSOR: Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Ethics Reference Number: 17/NE/0339. Protocol version: v3.0 Final_14052018.

Use of low-dose oral theophylline as an adjunct to inhaled corticosteroids in preventing exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with high morbidity, mortality, and health-care costs. An incomplete response to the anti-inflammatory effects of inhaled corticosteroids is present in COPD. Preclinical work indicates that 'low dose' theophylline improves steroid responsiveness. The Theophylline With Inhaled Corticosteroids (TWICS) trial investigates whether the addition of 'low dose' theophylline to inhaled corticosteroids has clinical and cost-effective benefits in COPD. METHOD/DESIGN: TWICS is a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in primary and secondary care sites in the UK. The inclusion criteria are the following: an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in first second/forced vital capacity [FEV1/FVC] of less than 0.7), age of at least 40 years, smoking history of at least 10 pack-years, current inhaled corticosteroid use, and history of at least two exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics or oral corticosteroids in the previous year. A computerised randomisation system will stratify 1424 participants by region and recruitment setting (primary and secondary) and then randomly assign with equal probability to intervention or control arms. Participants will receive either 'low dose' theophylline (Uniphyllin MR 200 mg tablets) or placebo for 52 weeks. Dosing is based on pharmacokinetic modelling to achieve a steady-state serum theophylline of 1-5 mg/l. A dose of theophylline MR 200 mg once daily (or placebo once daily) will be taken by participants who do not smoke or participants who smoke but have an ideal body weight (IBW) of not more than 60 kg. A dose of theophylline MR 200 mg twice daily (or placebo twice daily) will be taken by participants who smoke and have an IBW of more than 60 kg. Participants will be reviewed at recruitment and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the total number of participant-reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. DISCUSSION: The demonstration that 'low dose' theophylline increases the efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids in COPD by reducing the incidence of exacerbations is relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to health-care providers, both in the UK and globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27066620 was registered on Sept. 19, 2013, and the first subject was randomly assigned on Feb. 6, 2014.