STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: A structured protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID (LC), the persistent symptoms ≥12 weeks following acute COVID-19, presents major threats to individual and public health across countries, affecting over 1.5 million people in the UK alone. Evidence-based interventions are urgently required and an integrated care pathway approach in pragmatic trials, which include investigations, treatments and rehabilitation for LC, could provide scalable and generalisable solutions at pace. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised clinical trial of two components of an integrated care pathway (Coverscan™, a multi-organ MRI, and Living with COVID Recovery™, a digitally enabled rehabilitation platform) with a nested, Phase III, open label, platform randomised drug trial in individuals with LC. Cluster randomisation is at level of primary care networks so that integrated care pathway interventions are delivered as "standard of care" in that area. The drug trial randomisation is at individual level and initial arms are rivaroxaban, colchicine, famotidine/loratadine, compared with no drugs, with potential to add in further drug arms. The trial is being carried out in 6-10 LC clinics in the UK and is evaluating the effectiveness of a pathway of care for adults with LC in reducing fatigue and other physical, psychological and functional outcomes at 3 months. The trial also includes an economic evaluation which will be described separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was reviewed by South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/SC/0416). All participating sites obtained local approvals prior to recruitment. Coverscan™ has UK certification (UKCA 752965). All participants will provide written consent to take part in the trial. The first participant was recruited in July 2022 and interim/final results will be disseminated in 2023, in a plan co-developed with public and patient representatives. The results will be presented at national and international conferences, published in peer reviewed medical journals, and shared via media (mainstream and social) and patient support organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10665760.

Favipiravir and/or nitazoxanide: a randomized, double-blind, 2×2 design, placebo-controlled trial of early therapy in COVID-19 in health workers, their household members, and patients treated at IMSS (FANTAZE).

BACKGROUND: The 2020 pandemic of SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 disease is an unprecedented global emergency. COVID-19 appears to be a disease with an early phase where the virus replicates, coinciding with the first presentation of symptoms, followed by a later 'inflammatory' phase which results in severe disease in some individuals. It is known from other rapidly progressive infections such as sepsis and influenza that early treatment with antimicrobials is associated with a better outcome. The hypothesis is that this holds for COVID-19 and that early antiviral treatment may prevent progression to the later phase of the disease. METHODS: Trial design: Phase IIA randomised, double-blind, 2 × 2 design, placebo-controlled, interventional trial. RANDOMISATION: Participants will be randomised 1:1 by stratification, with the following factors: gender, obesity, symptomatic or asymptomatic, current smoking status presence or absence of comorbidity, and if the participant has or has not been vaccinated. BLINDING: Participants and investigators will both be blinded to treatment allocation (double-blind). DISCUSSION: We propose to conduct a proof-of-principle placebo-controlled clinical trial of favipiravir plus or minus nitazoxanide in health workers, their household members and patients treated at the Mexican Social Security Institute (IMSS) facilities. Participants with or without symptomatic COVID-19 or who tested positive will be assigned to receive favipiravir plus nitazoxanide or favipiravir plus nitazoxanide placebo. The primary outcome will be the difference in the amount of virus ('viral load') in the upper respiratory tract after 5 days of therapy. Secondary outcomes will include hospitalization, major morbidity and mortality, pharmacokinetics, and impact of antiviral therapy on viral genetic mutation rate. If favipiravir with nitazoxanide demonstrates important antiviral effects without significant toxicity, there will be a strong case for a larger trial in people at high risk of hospitalization or intensive care admission, for example older patients and/or those with comorbidities and with early disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04918927 . Registered on June 9, 2021.

Post-COVID-19 assessment in a specialist clinical service: a 12-month, single-centre, prospective study in 1325 individuals.

INTRODUCTION: Post-COVID-19 complications require simultaneous characterisation and management to plan policy and health system responses. We describe the 12-month experience of the first UK dedicated post-COVID-19 clinical service to include hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients. METHODS: In a single-centre, observational analysis, we report the demographics, symptoms, comorbidities, investigations, treatments, functional recovery, specialist referral and rehabilitation of 1325 individuals assessed at the University College London Hospitals post-COVID-19 service between April 2020 and April 2021, comparing by referral route: posthospitalised (PH), non-hospitalised (NH) and post emergency department (PED). Symptoms associated with poor recovery or inability to return to work full time were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 1325 individuals were assessed (PH: 547, 41.3%; PED: 212, 16%; NH: 566, 42.7%). Compared with the PH and PED groups, the NH group were younger (median 44.6 (35.6-52.8) years vs 58.3 (47.0-67.7) years and 48.5 (39.4-55.7) years), more likely to be female (68.2%, 43.0% and 59.9%), less likely to be of ethnic minority (30.9%, 52.7% and 41.0%) or seen later after symptom onset (median (IQR): 194 (118-298) days, 69 (51-111) days and 76 (55-128) days; all p<0.0001). All groups had similar rates of onward specialist referral (NH 18.7%, PH 16.1% and PED 18.9%, p=0.452) and were more likely to require support for breathlessness (23.7%, 5.5% and 15.1%, p<0.001) and fatigue (17.8%, 4.8% and 8.0%, p<0.001). Hospitalised patients had higher rates of pulmonary emboli, persistent lung interstitial abnormalities and other organ impairment. 716 (54.0%) individuals reported <75% optimal health (median 70%, IQR 55%-85%). Less than half of employed individuals could return to work full time at first assessment. CONCLUSION: Post-COVID-19 symptoms were significant in PH and NH patients, with significant ongoing healthcare needs and utilisation. Trials of interventions and patient-centred pathways for diagnostic and treatment approaches are urgently required.

Sex Differences in Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Revascularization Strategy.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies. BACKGROUND: An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes. METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 ± 0.51 vs. 0.43 ± 0.59; p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 ± 0.09 vs. 0.91 ± 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 ± 0.09 vs. 0.85 ± 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS: An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to guide Revascularization [DEFINE-FLAIR]; NCT02053038).

Clinical Events After Deferral of LAD Revascularization Following Physiological Coronary Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS: MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral.

Application of the DILEMMA score to improve lesion selection for invasive physiological assessment.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the validity of the DILEMMA score against instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and evaluate its utility in rationalizing the number of patients referred for invasive physiological assessment. BACKGROUND: The DILEMMA score is a validated angiographic scoring tool incorporating minimal lumen diameter, lesion length and subtended myocardial area that has been shown to predict the functional significance of lesions as assessed by fractional flow reserve (FFR). METHODS: Patients in the DEFINE-FLAIR study who had coronary stenosis of intermediate severity were randomized to either FFR or iFR. DILEMMA score was calculated retrospectively on a subset of this cohort by operators blinded to FFR or iFR values. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-six lesions (181 assessed by FFR; 165 by iFR) from 259 patients (mean age 66.0 years, 79% male) were included. A DILEMMA score ≤ 2 had a negative predictive value of 96.3% and 95.7% for identifying lesions with FFR >0.80 and iFR >0.89, respectively. A DILEMMA score ≥ 9 had a positive predictive value of 88.9% and 100% for identifying lesions with FFR ≤0.80 and iFR ≤0.89, respectively. The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve values for DILEMMA score to predict FFR ≤0.80 and iFR ≤0.89 were 0.83 (95% CI 0.77-0.90) and 0.82 (0.75-0.89) respectively. A DILEMMA score ≤ 2 or ≥9 occurred in 172 of the 346 lesions (49.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Using DILEMMA score in patients with coronary stenosis of intermediate severity may reduce the need for pressure wire use, offering potential cost-savings and minimizing the risks associated with invasive physiological lesion assessment.

A protocol for an economic evaluation of a polypill in patients with established or at high risk of cardiovascular disease in a UK NHS setting: RUPEE (NHS) study.

INTRODUCTION: The 'Use of a Multi-drug Pill in Reducing cardiovascular Events' (UMPIRE) trial was a randomised controlled clinical trial evaluating the impact of a polypill strategy on adherence to indicated medication in a population with established cardiovascular disease (CVD) of or at high risk thereof. The aim of Researching the UMPIRE Processes for Economic Evaluation in the National Health Service (RUPEE NHS) is to estimate the potential health economic impact of a polypill strategy for CVD prevention within the NHS using UMPIRE trial and other relevant data. This paper describes the design of a modelled economic evaluation of the impact of increased adherence to the polypill versus usual care among the UK UMPIRE participants. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: As recommended by the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the Society for Medical Decision Making modelling guidelines, a review of published CVD models was undertaken to identify the most appropriate modelling approach and structure. The review was carried out in the electronic databases, MEDLINE and EMBASE. 40 CVD models were identified from 57 studies, the majority of economic models were health state transition cohort models and individual-level simulation models. The findings were discussed with clinical experts to confirm the approach and structure. An individual simulation approach was identified as the most suitable method to capture the heterogeneity in the population at CVD risk. RUPEE-NHS will use UMPIRE trial data on adherence to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of the polypill strategy. DISSEMINATION: The evaluation findings will be presented in open-access scientific and healthcare policy journals and at national and international conferences. We will also present findings to NHS policy makers and pharmaceutical companies.

Efficacy and Safety of Quarter-Dose Blood Pressure-Lowering Agents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

There is a critical need for blood pressure-lowering strategies that have greater efficacy and minimal side effects. Low-dose combinations hold promise in this regard, but there are few data on very-low-dose therapy. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with at least one quarter-dose and one placebo and standard-dose monotherapy arm. A search was conducted of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Registry, Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicinal Agency websites. Data on blood pressure and adverse events were pooled using a fixed-effect model, and bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias. The review included 42 trials involving 20 284 participants. Thirty-six comparisons evaluated quarter-dose with placebo and indicated a blood pressure reduction of -4.7/-2.4 mm Hg (P<0.001). Six comparisons were of dual quarter-dose therapy versus placebo, observing a -6.7/ -4.4 mm Hg (P<0.001) blood pressure reduction. There were no trials of triple quarter-dose combination versus placebo, but one quadruple quarter-dose study observed a blood pressure reduction of -22.4/-13.1 mm Hg versus placebo (P<0.001). Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, the blood pressure differences achieved by single (37 comparisons), dual (7 comparisons), and quadruple (1 trial) quarter-dose combinations were +3.7/+2.6 (P<0.001), +1.3/-0.3 (NS), and -13.1/-7.9 (P<0.001) mm Hg, respectively. In terms of adverse events, single and dual quarter-dose therapy was not significantly different from placebo and had significantly fewer adverse events compared with standard-dose monotherapy. Quarter-dose combinations could provide improvements in efficacy and tolerability of blood pressure-lowering therapy.