Evaluating niraparib versus active symptom control in patients with previously treated mesothelioma (NERO): a study protocol for a multicentre, randomised, two-arm, open-label phase II trial in UK secondary care centres.

BACKGROUND: Malignant mesothelioma is a rapidly lethal cancer that has been increasing at an epidemic rate over the last three decades. Targeted therapies for mesothelioma have been lacking. A previous study called MiST1 (NCT03654833), evaluated the efficacy of Poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition in mesothelioma. This study met its primary endpoint with 15% of patients having durable responses exceeding 1 year. Therefore, there is a need to evaluate PARP inhibitors in relapsed mesothelioma patients, where options are limited. Niraparib is the PARP inhibitor used in NERO. METHODS: NERO is a multicentre, two-arm, open-label UK randomised phase II trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of PARP inhibition in relapsed mesothelioma. 84 patients are being recruited. NERO is not restricted by line of therapy; however, eligible participants must have been treated with an approved platinum based systemic therapy. Participants will be randomised 2:1, stratified according to histology and response to prior platinum-based chemotherapy, to receive either active symptom control (ASC) and niraparib or ASC alone, for up to 24 weeks. Participants will be treated until disease progression, withdrawal, death or development of significant treatment limiting toxicity. Participants randomised to niraparib will receive 200 or 300 mg daily in a 3-weekly cycle. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival, where progression is determined by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) or RECIST 1.1; investigator reported progression; or death from any cause, whichever comes first. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, best overall response, 12-week and 24 week disease control, duration of response, treatment compliance and safety/tolerability. If NERO shows niraparib to be safe and biologically effective, it may lead to future late phase randomised controlled trials in relapsed mesothelioma. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study received ethical approval from London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee on 06-May-2022 (22/LO/0281). Data from all centres will be analysed together and published as soon as possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISCRTN16171129; NCT05455424.

Rationale and study protocol for the BRITISH randomized trial (Using cardiovascular magnetic resonance identified scar as the benchmark risk indication tool for implantable cardioverter defibrillators in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and severe systolic heart failure).

BACKGROUND: For patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM), current guidelines recommend implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICD) when left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is ≤35%, but the DANISH trial failed to confirm that ICDs reduced all-cause mortality for such patients. Circumstantial evidence suggests that scar on CMR is predictive of sudden and arrhythmic death in this population. The presence of myocardial scar identified by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in patients with NICM and an LVEF ≤35% might identify patients at higher risk of sudden arrhythmic death, for whom an ICD is more likely to reduce all-cause mortality. METHODS/DESIGN: The BRITISH trial is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial aiming to enrol 1,252 patients with NICM and an LVEF ≤35%. Patients with a nonischemic scar on CMR will be randomized to either: (1) ICD, with or without cardiac resynchronization (CRT-D), or (2) implantable loop recorder (ILR) or cardiac resynchronization (CRT-P). Patients who are screened for the trial but are found not to be eligible, predominantly due to an absence of scar or those who decline to be randomized will be enrolled in an observational registry. The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality, which we plan to assess at 3 years after the last participant is randomized. Secondary endpoints include clinical outcomes, appropriate and inappropriate device therapies, symptom severity and well-being, device-related complications, and analysis of the primary endpoint by subgroups with other risk markers. CONCLUSION: The BRITISH trial will assess whether the use of CMR-defined scar to direct ICD implantation in patients with NICM and an LVEF ≤35% is associated with a reduction in mortality.

Managing Parkinson's during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives from people living with Parkinson's and health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to understand how people living with Parkinson's and healthcare professionals perceived their care management and interactions with health services were affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments introduced restrictions and services that support Parkinson's care management had to cease or be delivered remotely. These changes may have had an impact on the well-being of people living with Parkinson's. METHODS: A qualitative exploratory UK study was carried out. Semi-structured individual interviews with people living with Parkinson's and health professionals were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Braun´s and Clarke´s thematic analysis. Eleven patients and 10 health professionals were recruited between April and September 2020. The study was reported using the COREQ. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified. In the first theme, many patients and professionals reported that the COVID-19 pandemic made some people living with Parkinson's feel isolated and vulnerable due to disruptions to their social networks and usual activities related to Parkinson's disease care. However, other patients remained connected with their networks. In the second theme, patients and most professionals mentioned that some clinical practices were cancelled, delayed or transformed to remote consultation. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 restrictions had an impact on how people living with Parkinson's managed their care and in their interactions with healthcare services. Health professionals should assess the risk of vulnerability, social isolation, physical inactivity and confidence with remote consultations in people living with Parkinson's. This might inform a rethinking of existing clinical interactions with people living with Parkinson's towards a flexible, sustainable, person-centred care model. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study has shown that Parkinson's care management and interactions with healthcare services should provide personalised and flexible support. To meet this challenge, the design of the organisation of health services should include greater involvement of patients and person-centred care models.

Molnupiravir versus placebo in unvaccinated and vaccinated patients with early SARS-CoV-2 infection in the UK (AGILE CST-2): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The antiviral drug molnupiravir was licensed for treating at-risk patients with COVID-19 on the basis of data from unvaccinated adults. We aimed to evaluate the safety and virological efficacy of molnupiravir in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals with COVID-19. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial (AGILE CST-2) was done at five National Institute for Health and Care Research sites in the UK. Eligible participants were adult (aged ≥18 years) outpatients with PCR-confirmed, mild-to-moderate SARS-CoV-2 infection who were within 5 days of symptom onset. Using permuted blocks (block size 2 or 4) and stratifying by site, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either molnupiravir (orally; 800 mg twice daily for 5 days) plus standard of care or matching placebo plus standard of care. The primary outcome was the time from randomisation to SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity on nasopharyngeal swabs and was analysed by use of a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model for estimating the probability of a superior virological response (hazard ratio [HR]>1) for molnupiravir versus placebo. Our primary model used a two-point prior based on equal prior probabilities (50%) that the HR was 1·0 or 1·5. We defined a priori that if the probability of a HR of more than 1 was more than 80% molnupiravir would be recommended for further testing. The primary outcome was analysed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was analysed in the safety population, comprising participants who had received at least one dose of allocated treatment. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04746183, and the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN27106947, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Nov 18, 2020, and March 16, 2022, 1723 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 180 were randomly assigned to receive either molnupiravir (n=90) or placebo (n=90) and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. 103 (57%) of 180 participants were female and 77 (43%) were male and 90 (50%) participants had received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. SARS-CoV-2 infections with the delta (B.1.617.2; 72 [40%] of 180), alpha (B.1.1.7; 37 [21%]), omicron (B.1.1.529; 38 [21%]), and EU1 (B.1.177; 28 [16%]) variants were represented. All 180 participants received at least one dose of treatment and four participants discontinued the study (one in the molnupiravir group and three in the placebo group). Participants in the molnupiravir group had a faster median time from randomisation to negative PCR (8 days [95% CI 8-9]) than participants in the placebo group (11 days [10-11]; HR 1·30, 95% credible interval 0·92-1·71; log-rank p=0·074). The probability of molnupiravir being superior to placebo (HR>1) was 75·4%, which was less than our threshold of 80%. 73 (81%) of 90 participants in the molnupiravir group and 68 (76%) of 90 participants in the placebo group had at least one adverse event by day 29. One participant in the molnupiravir group and three participants in the placebo group had an adverse event of a Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher severity. No participants died (due to any cause) during the trial. INTERPRETATION: We found molnupiravir to be well tolerated and, although our predefined threshold was not reached, we observed some evidence that molnupiravir has antiviral activity in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals infected with a broad range of SARS-CoV-2 variants, although this evidence is not conclusive. FUNDING: Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Medical Research Council, and the Wellcome Trust.

Principles into Practice: An Observational Study of Physiotherapists use of Motor Learning Principles in Stroke Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE(S): To describe a) how motor learning principles are applied during post stroke physiotherapy, with a focus on lower limb rehabilitation; and b) the context in which these principles are used, in relation to patient and/or task characteristics. DESIGN: Direct non-participation observation of routine physiotherapy sessions, with data collected via video recording. A structured analysis matrix and pre-agreed definitions were used to identify, count and record: type of activity; repetitions; instructional and feedback statements (frequency and type); strategies such as observational learning and augmented feedback. Data was visualised using scatter plots, and analysed descriptively. SETTING: 6 UK Stroke Units PARTICIPANTS: 89 therapy sessions were observed, involving 55 clinicians and 57 patients. RESULTS: Proportion of time spent active within each session ranged from 26% to 98% (mean 85, SD 19). The frequency of task repetition varied widely, with a median of 3.7 repetitions per minute (IQR 2.1-8.6). Coaching statements were common (mean 6.46 per minute), with 52% categorised as instructions, 14% as feedback, and 34% as verbal cues/motivational statements. 13% of instructions and 6% of feedback statements were externally focussed. Examining the use of different coaching behaviours in relation to patient characteristics found no associations. Overall, practice varied widely across the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: To optimise the potential for motor skill learning, therapists must manipulate features of their coaching language (what they say, how much and when) and practice design (type, number, difficulty and variability of task). There is an opportunity to implement motor learning principles more consistently, to benefit motor skill recovery following stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03792126). CONTRIBUTION OF THE PAPER.

ELEVATE - evaluating Temozolomide and Nivolumab in patients with advanced unresectable previously treated oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma with MGMT methylation: study protocol for a single arm phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma, surgery is the only curative option and despite the use of multimodality therapy, which combines it with chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy, more than 50% of patients will relapse and die. Many UK patients present with advanced disease which is already inoperable or metastatic at diagnosis. For these patients, standard care chemotherapy only offers them survival of less than a year. Nivolumab, a checkpoint blockade inhibitor, has been found to work in some advanced cancers. It is proposed, for those where immunotherapy hasn't worked, that these immunologically evasive tumours need to be sensitized to immunotherapy drugs to allow them to act. METHODS: ELEVATE is a single arm phase II trial testing the overall response to nivolumab following temozolomide treatment in patients with advanced unresectable previously treated adenocarcinoma which is O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) methylated. 18 patients are being recruited from UK secondary care sites. To be eligible, participants must have been treated with at least 3 months of platinum and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Participants will receive 50 mg/m2 temozolomide continuously for 3 months. If their disease progresses during the 3 months, they will stop temozolomide and start nivolumab at a dose of 240mg every 2 weeks. If there is no progression after 3 months the participant will continue taking temozolomide in combination with nivolumab. All treatment will stop once the participant progresses on nivolumab. The primary endpoint is the best overall response to nivolumab, using both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 and immunotherapy modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, overall survival, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: ELEVATE will provide evidence for whether giving nivolumab after temozolomide in patients with previously treated advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma is safe and biologically effective prior to future randomised trials. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: EudraCT Number: 2020-004771-41 (issued 01 October 2020); ISCRTN11398887 (registered 14 July 2021).

Influence of social networks on cancer survivors' self-management support: A mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: The role of social networks, especially weaker ties (e.g. casual acquaintances and hobby groups), in self-management of long-term consequences of cancer is unexplored. This study aimed to explore the structure of cancer survivors' social networks and their contribution to self-management support and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: The study used a sequential, exploratory mixed methods design. Phase 1 surveyed 349 lymphoma, colorectal, breast and prostate cancer survivors. Phase 2 analysed 20 semi-structured interviews with respondents recruited from Phase 1. RESULTS: Phase 1 results suggested participants' HRQoL increased if they participated in an exercise group, if their self-management skills increased, and social distress and negative illness perception decreased (p < 0.0005 adj. R2 = 0.631). These findings were explored in Phase 2, identifying underlying mechanisms. Four themes were identified: disrupted networks after cancer treatment; navigating formal support and building individual capacity; peer networks and self-management knowledge and linking networks to enable adaptation in recovery. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests engagement with community groups, particularly those not directly related to illness management and social interaction with weak ties, make a valuable contribution to self-management support, increase HRQoL and enhance well-being.

Pharmacokinetics of ß-d-N4-Hydroxycytidine, the Parent Nucleoside of Prodrug Molnupiravir, in Nonplasma Compartments of Patients With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection.

ß-d-N4-hydroxycytidine (NHC), the parent nucleoside of molnupiravir, a COVID-19 antiviral, was quantified at SARS-CoV-2 transmission sites in 12 patients enrolled in AGILE Candidate-Specific Trial-2. Saliva, nasal, and tear NHC concentrations were 3%, 21%, and 22% that of plasma. Saliva and nasal NHC were significantly correlated with plasma (P < .0001). Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04746183.

Body composition and chemotherapy toxicity in women with early breast cancer (CANDO-3): protocol for an observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic anticancer therapy is given to selected patients with early breast cancer (EBC) before or after surgery with the aim of eradicating micrometastatic spread and reducing the risk of cancer recurrence. Chemotherapy treatment is most effective when patients receive the optimum dose, on time and without delays or reductions in their treatment doses. Most chemotherapy drugs are dosed according to body surface area calculated from a patient's height and weight. These calculations were however designed based on data from normal weight patients. This has resulted in uncertainty as to the optimal dosing for patients with different amounts of blood, muscle and fatty tissue (body composition). This study uses segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis (using the Seca mBCA 515) to determine whether differences in the measures of resistance and reactance, and derived estimates of body composition, are predictive of chemotherapy toxicity in the treatment of EBC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective observational cohort study of women with EBC in whom adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy is planned. A total of 300 participants will be recruited across nine UK hospital sites. The primary outcome is to determine if higher fat mass index is associated with increased National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0 grade 3 (or higher) chemotherapy toxicity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received ethical approval from the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee, England (19/SC/0596: IRAS: 263666). The chief investigator and coinvestigators will be responsible for publication of the study findings in a peer-reviewed journal, on behalf of all collaborators. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN79577461.

Practical recommendations for implementing a Bayesian adaptive phase I design during a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Modern designs for dose-finding studies (e.g., model-based designs such as continual reassessment method) have been shown to substantially improve the ability to determine a suitable dose for efficacy testing when compared to traditional designs such as the 3 + 3 design. However, implementing such designs requires time and specialist knowledge. METHODS: We present a practical approach to developing a model-based design to help support uptake of these methods; in particular, we lay out how to derive the necessary parameters and who should input, and when, to these decisions. Designing a model-based, dose-finding trial is demonstrated using a treatment within the AGILE platform trial, a phase I/II adaptive design for novel COVID-19 treatments. RESULTS: We present discussion of the practical delivery of AGILE, covering what information was found to support principled decision making by the Safety Review Committee, and what could be contained within a statistical analysis plan. We also discuss additional challenges we encountered in the study and discuss more generally what (unplanned) adaptations may be acceptable (or not) in studies using model-based designs. CONCLUSIONS: This example demonstrates both how to design and deliver an adaptive dose-finding trial in order to support uptake of these methods.

An Open Label, Adaptive, Phase 1 Trial of High-Dose Oral Nitazoxanide in Healthy Volunteers: An Antiviral Candidate for SARS-CoV-2.

Repurposing approved drugs may rapidly establish effective interventions during a public health crisis. This has yielded immunomodulatory treatments for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but repurposed antivirals have not been successful to date because of redundancy of the target in vivo or suboptimal exposures at studied doses. Nitazoxanide is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved antiparasitic medicine, that physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling has indicated may provide antiviral concentrations across the dosing interval, when repurposed at higher than approved doses. Within the AGILE trial platform (NCT04746183) an open label, adaptive, phase I trial in healthy adult participants was undertaken with high-dose nitazoxanide. Participants received 1,500 mg nitazoxanide orally twice-daily with food for 7 days. Primary outcomes were safety, tolerability, optimum dose, and schedule. Intensive pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling was undertaken day 1 and 5 with minimum concentration (Cmin ) sampling on days 3 and 7. Fourteen healthy participants were enrolled between February 18 and May 11, 2021. All 14 doses were completed by 10 of 14 participants. Nitazoxanide was safe and with no significant adverse events. Moderate gastrointestinal disturbance (loose stools or diarrhea) occurred in 8 participants (57.1%), with urine and sclera discoloration in 12 (85.7%) and 9 (64.3%) participants, respectively, without clinically significant bilirubin elevation. This was self-limiting and resolved upon drug discontinuation. PBPK predictions were confirmed on day 1 but with underprediction at day 5. Median Cmin was above the in vitro target concentration on the first dose and maintained throughout. Nitazoxanide administered at 1,500 mg b.i.d. with food was safe with acceptable tolerability a phase Ib/IIa study is now being initiated in patients with COVID-19.

Nivolumab versus placebo in patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (CONFIRM): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: No phase 3 trial has yet shown improved survival for patients with pleural or peritoneal malignant mesothelioma who have progressed following platinum-based chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of nivolumab, an anti-PD-1 antibody, in these patients. METHODS: This was a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, parallel group, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 24 hospitals in the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, with histologically confirmed pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma, who had received previous first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and had radiological evidence of disease progression, were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive nivolumab at a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks over 30 min intravenously or placebo until disease progression or a maximum of 12 months. The randomisation sequence was generated within an interactive web response system (Alea); patients were stratified according to epithelioid versus non-epithelioid histology and were assigned in random block sizes of 3 and 6. Participants and treating clinicians were masked to group allocation. The co-primary endpoints were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed according to the treatment policy estimand (an equivalent of the intention-to-treat principle). All patients who were randomly assigned were included in the safety population, reported according to group allocation. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03063450. FINDINGS: Between May 10, 2017, and March 30, 2020, 332 patients were recruited, of whom 221 (67%) were randomly assigned to the nivolumab group and 111 (33%) were assigned to the placebo group). Median follow-up was 11·6 months (IQR 7·2-16·8). Median progression-free survival was 3·0 months (95% CI 2·8-4·1) in the nivolumab group versus 1·8 months (1·4-2·6) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·67 [95% CI 0·53-0·85; p=0·0012). Median overall survival was 10·2 months (95% CI 8·5-12·1) in the nivolumab group versus 6·9 months (5·0-8·0) in the placebo group (adjusted HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52-0·91]; p=0·0090). The most frequently reported grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (six [3%] of 221 in the nivolumab group vs two [2%] of 111 in the placebo group) and infusion-related reaction (six [3%] vs none). Serious adverse events occurred in 90 (41%) patients in the nivolumab group and 49 (44%) patients in the placebo group. There were no treatment-related deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: Nivolumab represents a treatment that might be beneficial to patients with malignant mesothelioma who have progressed on first-line therapy. FUNDING: Stand up to Cancer-Cancer Research UK and Bristol Myers Squibb.

The effect of time spent in rehabilitation on activity limitation and impairment after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Stroke affects millions of people every year and is a leading cause of disability, resulting in significant financial cost and reduction in quality of life. Rehabilitation after stroke aims to reduce disability by facilitating recovery of impairment, activity, or participation. One aspect of stroke rehabilitation that may affect outcomes is the amount of time spent in rehabilitation, including minutes provided, frequency (i.e. days per week of rehabilitation), and duration (i.e. time period over which rehabilitation is provided). Effect of time spent in rehabilitation after stroke has been explored extensively in the literature, but findings are inconsistent. Previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses have included studies that differ not only in the amount provided, but also type of rehabilitation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of 1. more time spent in the same type of rehabilitation on activity measures in people with stroke; 2. difference in total rehabilitation time (in minutes) on recovery of activity in people with stroke; and 3. rehabilitation schedule on activity in terms of: a. average time (minutes) per week undergoing rehabilitation, b. frequency (number of sessions per week) of rehabilitation, and c. total duration of rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and five trials registers to June 2021. We searched reference lists of identified studies, contacted key authors, and undertook reference searching using Web of Science Cited Reference Search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with stroke that compared different amounts of time spent, greater than zero, in rehabilitation (any non-pharmacological, non-surgical intervention aimed to improve activity after stroke). Studies varied only in the amount of time in rehabilitation between experimental and control conditions. Primary outcome was activities of daily living (ADLs); secondary outcomes were activity measures of upper and lower limbs, motor impairment measures of upper and lower limbs, and serious adverse events (SAE)/death. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool, and assessed certainty of the evidence using GRADE. For continuous outcomes using different scales, we calculated pooled standardised mean difference (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% CIs. MAIN RESULTS: The quantitative synthesis of this review comprised 21 parallel RCTs, involving analysed data from 1412 participants.  Time in rehabilitation varied between studies. Minutes provided per week were 90 to 1288. Days per week of rehabilitation were three to seven. Duration of rehabilitation was two weeks to six months. Thirteen studies provided upper limb rehabilitation, five general rehabilitation, two mobilisation training, and one lower limb training. Sixteen studies examined participants in the first six months following stroke; the remaining five included participants more than six months poststroke. Comparison of stroke severity or level of impairment was limited due to variations in measurement. The risk of bias assessment suggests there were issues with the methodological quality of the included studies. There were 76 outcome-level risk of bias assessments: 15 low risk, 37 some concerns, and 24 high risk. When comparing groups that spent more time versus less time in rehabilitation immediately after intervention, we found no difference in rehabilitation for ADL outcomes (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; P = 0.09; I2 = 7%; 14 studies, 864 participants; very low-certainty evidence), activity measures of the upper limb (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.29; P = 0.36; I2 = 0%; 12 studies, 426 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and activity measures of the lower limb (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.53; P = 0.08; I2 = 48%; 5 studies, 425 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found an effect in favour of more time in rehabilitation for motor impairment measures of the upper limb (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.58; P = 0.01; I2 = 10%; 9 studies, 287 participants; low-certainty evidence) and of the lower limb (SMD 0.71, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.28; P = 0.01; 1 study, 51 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There were no intervention-related SAEs. More time in rehabilitation did not affect the risk of SAEs/death (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.51 to 2.85; P = 0.68; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 379 participants; low-certainty evidence), but few studies measured these outcomes. Predefined subgroup analyses comparing studies with a larger difference of total time spent in rehabilitation between intervention groups to studies with a smaller difference found greater improvements for studies with a larger difference. This was statistically significant for ADL outcomes (P = 0.02) and activity measures of the upper limb (P = 0.04), but not for activity measures of the lower limb (P = 0.41) or motor impairment measures of the upper limb (P = 0.06). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: An increase in time spent in the same type of rehabilitation after stroke results in little to no difference in meaningful activities such as activities of daily living and activities of the upper and lower limb but a small benefit in measures of motor impairment (low- to very low-certainty evidence for all findings). If the increase in time spent in rehabilitation exceeds a threshold, this may lead to improved outcomes. There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend a minimum beneficial daily amount in clinical practice. The findings of this study are limited by a lack of studies with a significant contrast in amount of additional rehabilitation provided between control and intervention groups. Large, well-designed, high-quality RCTs that measure time spent in all rehabilitation activities (not just interventional) and provide a large contrast (minimum of 1000 minutes) in amount of rehabilitation between groups would provide further evidence for effect of time spent in rehabilitation.

Optimal dose and safety of molnupiravir in patients with early SARS-CoV-2: a Phase I, open-label, dose-escalating, randomized controlled study.

OBJECTIVES: AGILE is a Phase Ib/IIa platform for rapidly evaluating COVID-19 treatments. In this trial (NCT04746183) we evaluated the safety and optimal dose of molnupiravir in participants with early symptomatic infection. METHODS: We undertook a dose-escalating, open-label, randomized-controlled (standard-of-care) Bayesian adaptive Phase I trial at the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen Clinical Research Facility. Participants (adult outpatients with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection within 5 days of symptom onset) were randomized 2:1 in groups of 6 participants to 300, 600 and 800 mg doses of molnupiravir orally, twice daily for 5 days or control. A dose was judged unsafe if the probability of 30% or greater dose-limiting toxicity (the primary outcome) over controls was 25% or greater. Secondary outcomes included safety, clinical progression, pharmacokinetics and virological responses. RESULTS: Of 103 participants screened, 18 participants were enrolled between 17 July and 30 October 2020. Molnupiravir was well tolerated at 300, 600 and 800 mg doses with no serious or severe adverse events. Overall, 4 of 4 (100%), 4 of 4 (100%) and 1 of 4 (25%) of the participants receiving 300, 600 and 800 mg molnupiravir, respectively, and 5 of 6 (83%) controls, had at least one adverse event, all of which were mild (≤grade 2). The probability of ≥30% excess toxicity over controls at 800 mg was estimated at 0.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Molnupiravir was safe and well tolerated; a dose of 800 mg twice daily for 5 days was recommended for Phase II evaluation.

AGILE: a seamless phase I/IIa platform for the rapid evaluation of candidates for COVID-19 treatment: an update to the structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised platform trial letter.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent unmet clinical need for the identification of novel therapeutics for the treatment of COVID-19. A number of COVID-19 late phase trial platforms have been developed to investigate (often repurposed) drugs both in the UK and globally (e.g. RECOVERY led by the University of Oxford and SOLIDARITY led by WHO). There is a pressing need to investigate novel candidates within early phase trial platforms, from which promising candidates can feed into established later phase platforms. AGILE grew from a UK-wide collaboration to undertake early stage clinical evaluation of candidates for SARS-CoV-2 infection to accelerate national and global healthcare interventions. METHODS/DESIGN: AGILE is a seamless phase I/IIa platform study to establish the optimum dose, determine the activity and safety of each candidate and recommend whether it should be evaluated further. Each candidate is evaluated in its own trial, either as an open label single arm healthy volunteer study or in patients, randomising between candidate and control usually in a 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate. Each dose is assessed sequentially for safety usually in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified, efficacy is assessed by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. AGILE is completely flexible in that the core design in the master protocol can be adapted for each candidate based on prior knowledge of the candidate (i.e. population, primary endpoint and sample size can be amended). This information is detailed in each candidate specific trial protocol of the master protocol. DISCUSSION: Few approved treatments for COVID-19 are available such as dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab in hospitalised patients. The AGILE platform aims to rapidly identify new efficacious and safe treatments to help end the current global COVID-19 pandemic. We currently have three candidate specific trials within this platform study that are open to recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number: 2020-001860-27 14 March 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746183  19 February 2021 ISRCTN reference: 27106947.

Clinical impact of a routine, molecular, point-of-care, test-and-treat strategy for influenza in adults admitted to hospital (FluPOC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of influenza in patients admitted to hospital is delayed due to long turnaround times with laboratory testing, leading to inappropriate and late antiviral treatment and isolation facility use. Molecular point-of-care tests (mPOCTs) are highly accurate, easy to use, and generate results in less than 1 h, but high-quality evidence for their effect on management and clinical outcomes is needed. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical impact of an mPOCT on influenza detection, antiviral use, infection control measures, and clinical outcomes in adults admitted to hospital with acute respiratory illness. METHODS: In this multicentre, pragmatic, open-label, randomised controlled trial (FluPOC), we recruited adults admitted to hospital with acute respiratory illness during influenza seasons from two hospitals in Hampshire, UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and older, with acute respiratory illness of 10 days or fewer duration before admission to hospital, who were recruited within 16 h of admission to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using random permuted blocks of varying sizes (4, 6 and 8), to receive mPOCT for influenza or routine clinical care (control group). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients infected with influenza who were treated appropriately with antivirals (neuraminidase inhibitors) within 5 days of admission. Safety was assessed in all patients. Secondary outcomes included time to antivirals, isolation facility use, and clinical outcomes. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17197293, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2017, and May 3, 2019, over two influenza seasons, 613 patients were enrolled, of whom 307 were assigned to the mPOCT group and 306 to the control group, and all were analysed. Median age was 62 years (IQR 45-75) and 332 (54%) of 612 participants with data were female. 100 (33%) of 307 patients in the mPOCT group and 102 (33%) of 306 in the control group had influenza. 100 (100%) of 100 patients with influenza were diagnosed in the mPOCT group and 60 (59%) of 102 were diagnosed though routine clinical care in the control group (relative risk 1·7, 95% CI 1·7-1·7; p<0·0001). 99 (99%) of 100 patients with influenza in the mPOCT group were given antiviral treatment within 5 days of admission versus 63 (62%) 102 in the control group (relative risk 1·6, 95% CI 1·4-1·9; p<0·0001). Median time to antivirals was 1·0 h (IQR 0·0 to 2·0) in the mPOCT group versus 6·0 h (0·0 to 12·0) in the control group (difference of 5·0 h [95% CI 0·0-6·0; p=0·0039]). 70 (70%) of 100 patients with influenza in the mPOCT group were isolated to single-room accommodation versus 39 (38%) of 102 in the control group (relative risk 1·8 [95% CI 1·4-2·4; p<0·0001]). 19 adverse events occurred among patients with influenza in the mPOCT group compared with 34 events in the control group. No patients with influenza died in the mPOCT group and two (2%) died in the control group (p=0·16). INTERPRETATION: Routine mPOCT for influenza was associated with improved influenza detection and improvements in appropriate and timely antiviral and isolation facility use. Routine mPOCT should replace laboratory-based diagnostics for acute admissions to hospital during the influenza season. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Beyond Visual Acuity: Development of a Simple Test of the Slow-To-See Phenomenon in Children with Infantile Nystagmus Syndrome.

PURPOSE: Conventional static visual acuity testing profoundly underestimates the impact of infantile nystagmus on functional vision. The slow-to-see phenomenon explains why many patients with nystagmus perform well in non-time restricted acuity tests but experience difficulty in certain situations. This is often observed by parents when their child struggles to recognise familiar faces in crowded scenes. A test measuring more than visual acuity could permit a more real-world assessment of visual impact and provide a robust outcome measure for clinical trials. METHODS: Children with nystagmus and, age and acuity matched controls attending Southampton General Hospital were recruited for two tasks. In the first, eye-tracking measured the time participants spent looking at an image of their mother when alongside a stranger, this was then repeated with a sine grating and a homogenous grey box. Next, a tablet-based app was developed where participants had to find and press either their mother or a target face from up to 16 faces. Here, the response time was measured. The tablet task was refined over multiple iterations. RESULTS: In the eye-tracking task, controls spent significantly longer looking at their mother and the grating (P < .05). Interestingly, children with nystagmus looked significantly longer at the grating (P < .05) but not their mother (P > .05). This confirmed a facial target was key to further development. The tablet-based task demonstrated that children with nystagmus take significantly longer to identify the target; this was most pronounced using a 3-min test with 12-face displays. CONCLUSION: This study has shown a facial target is key to identifying the time-to-see deficit in infantile nystagmus and provides the basis for an outcome measure for use in clinical treatment trials.

Clinical impact of molecular point-of-care testing for suspected COVID-19 in hospital (COV-19POC): a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The management of the COVID-19 pandemic is hampered by long delays associated with centralised laboratory PCR testing. In hospitals, these delays lead to poor patient flow and nosocomial transmission. Rapid, accurate tests are therefore urgently needed in preparation for the next wave of the pandemic. METHODS: We did a prospective, interventional, non-randomised, controlled study of molecular point-of-care testing in patients aged 18 years or older presenting with suspected COVID-19 to the emergency department or other acute areas of Southampton General Hospital during the first wave of the pandemic in the UK. Nose and throat swab samples taken at admission from patients in the point-of-care testing group were tested with the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. Samples taken from patients in a contemporaneous control group were tested by laboratory PCR. The primary outcome was time to results in the full cohort. This study is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN14966673) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between March 20 and April 29, 2020, 517 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 499 were recruited to the point-of-care testing group and tested by the QIAstat-Dx Respiratory SARS-CoV-2 Panel. 555 contemporaneously identified patients were included in the control group and tested by laboratory PCR. The two groups were similar with regard to the distribution of sex, age, and ethnicity. 197 (39%) patients in the point-of-care testing group and 155 (28%) in the control group tested positive for COVID-19 (difference 11·5% [95% CI 5·8-17·2], p=0·0001). Median time to results was 1·7 h (IQR 1·6-1·9) in the point-of-care testing group and 21·3 h (16·0-27·9) in the control group (difference 19·6 h [19·0-20·3], p<0·0001). A Cox proportional hazards regression model controlling for age, sex, time of presentation, and severity of illness also showed that time to results was significantly shorter in the point-of-care testing group than in the control group (hazard ratio 4023 [95% CI 545-29 696], p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Point-of-care testing is associated with large reductions in time to results and could lead to improvements in infection control measures and patient flow compared with centralised laboratory PCR testing. FUNDING: University Hospitals Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.

Supporting patient access to medicines in community palliative care: on-line survey of health professionals' practice, perceived effectiveness and influencing factors.

BACKGROUND: Patient access to medicines at home during the last year of life is critical for symptom control, but is thought to be problematic. Little is known about healthcare professionals' practices in supporting timely medicines access and what influences their effectiveness. The purpose of the study was to evaluate health professionals' medicines access practices, perceived effectiveness and influencing factors. METHODS: On-line questionnaire survey of health care professionals (General Practitioners, Community Pharmacists, community-based Clinical Nurse Specialists and Community Nurses) delivering end-of-life care in primary and community care settings in England. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred twenty-seven responses were received. All health professional groups are engaged in supporting access to prescriptions, using a number of different methods. GPs remain a predominant route for patients to access new prescriptions in working hours. However, nurses and, increasingly, primary care-based pharmacists are also actively contributing. However, only 42% (160) of Clinical Nurse Specialists and 27% (27) of Community Nurses were trained as prescribers. The majority (58% 142) of prescribing nurses and pharmacists did not have access to an electronic prescribing system. Satisfaction with access to shared patient records to facilitate medicines access was low: 39% (507) were either Not At All or only Slightly satisfied. Out-of-hours specialist cover was reported by less than half (49%; 656) and many General Practitioners and pharmacists lacked confidence advising about out-of-hours services. Respondents perceived there would be a significant improvement in pain control if access to medicines was greater. Those with shared records access reported significantly lower pain estimates for their caseload patients. CONCLUSIONS: Action is required to support a greater number of nurses and pharmacists to prescribe end-of-life medicines. Solutions are also required to enable shared access to patient records across health professional groups. Coverage and awareness of out-of-hours services to access medicines needs to be improved.

AGILE-ACCORD: A Randomized, Multicentre, Seamless, Adaptive Phase I/II Platform Study to Determine the Optimal Dose, Safety and Efficacy of Multiple Candidate Agents for the Treatment of COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised platform trial.

OBJECTIVES: Phase I - To determine the optimal dose of each candidate (or combination of candidates) entered into the platform. Phase II - To determine the efficacy and safety of each candidate entered into the platform, compared to the current Standard of Care (SoC), and recommend whether it should be evaluated further in a later phase II & III platforms. TRIAL DESIGN: AGILE-ACCORD is a Bayesian multicentre, multi-arm, multi-dose, multi-stage open-label, adaptive, seamless phase I/II randomised platform trial to determine the optimal dose, activity and safety of multiple candidate agents for the treatment of COVID-19. Designed as a master protocol with each candidate being evaluated within its own sub-protocol (Candidate Specific Trial (CST) protocol), randomising between candidate and SoC with 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate (N.B the first candidate has gone through regulatory approval and is expected to open to recruitment early summer 2020). Each dose will be assessed for safety sequentially in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified we will assess efficacy by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. PARTICIPANTS: Patient populations can vary between CSTs, but the main eligibility criteria include adult patients (≥18 years) who have laboratory-confirmed infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We will include both severe and mild-moderate patients defined as follows: Group A (severe disease) - patients with WHO Working Group on the Clinical Characteristics of COVID-19 infection 9-point ordinal scale of Grades 4 (hospitalised, oxygen by mask or nasal prongs), 5 (hospitalised, non-invasive ventilation or high flow oxygen), 6 (hospitalised, intubation and mechanical ventilation) or 7 (hospitalised, ventilation and additional organ support); Group B (mild-moderate disease) - ambulant or hospitalised patients with peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) >94% RA. If any CSTs are included in the community setting, the CST protocol will clarify whether patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection are also eligible. Participants will be recruited from England, North Ireland, Wales and Scotland. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Comparator is the current standard of care (SoC), in some CSTs plus placebo. Candidates that prevent uncontrolled cytokine release, prevention of viral replication, and other anti-viral treatment strategies are at various stages of development for inclusion into AGILE-ACCORD. Other CSTs will be added over time. There is not a set limit on the number of CSTs we can include within the AGILE-ACCORD Master protocol and we will upload each CST into this publication as each opens to recruitment. MAIN OUTCOMES: Phase I: Dose limiting toxicities using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5 Grade ≥3 adverse events. Phase II: Agreed on a CST basis depending on mechanism of action of the candidate and patient population. But may include; time to clinical improvement of at least 2 points on the WHO 9-point category ordinal scale [measured up to 29 days from randomisation], progression of disease (oxygen saturation (SaO2) <92%) or hospitalization or death, or change in time-weighted viral load [measured up to 29 days from randomisation]. RANDOMISATION: Varies with CST, but default is 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate to maximise early safety data. BLINDING (MASKING): For the safety phase open-label although for some CSTs may include placebo or SoC for the efficacy phase. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): Varies between CSTs. However simulations have shown that around 16 participants are necessary to determine futility or promise of a candidate at a given dose (in efficacy evaluation alone) and between 32 and 40 participants are required across the dose-finding and efficacy evaluation when capping the maximum number of participants contributing to the evaluation of a treatment at 40. TRIAL STATUS: Master protocol version number v5 07 May 2020, trial is in setup with full regulatory approval and utilises several digital technology solutions, including Medidata's Rave EDC [electronic data capture], RTSM for randomisation and patient eConsent on iPads via Rave Patient Cloud. The recruitment dates will vary between CSTs but at the time of writing no CSTs are yet open for recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2020-001860-27 14th March 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in 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.