A multicentre observational study to investigate feasibility of a direct oral penicillin challenge in de-labelling 'low risk' patients with penicillin allergy by non-allergy healthcare professionals (SPACE study): Implications for healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: The huge burden of inaccurate penicillin allergy labels (PALs) is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. This is magnified by insufficient allergy specialists and lack of 'point-of-care' tests. We investigated the feasibility of non-allergy healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering direct oral penicillin challenges (DPCs) for penicillin allergy de-labelling. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted in three hospitals in England across three settings (acute medical, pre-surgical and haematology-oncology). Patients with a PAL were screened and stratified as low risk/high risk. Low risk patients (non-immune mediated symptoms, benign rash, tolerated amoxicillin since and family history) underwent a DPC. RESULTS: N = 2257 PALs were screened, 1054 were eligible; 643 were approached, 373 declined, 270 consented and 259 risk stratified (low risk = 155; high risk = 104). One hundred and twenty-six low risk patients underwent DPC, 122 (96.8%) were de-labelled with no serious allergic reactions. Conversion rate from screening-to-consent was 12% [3.3% and 17.9% in acute and elective settings respectively; odds ratios for consent were 3.42 (p < 0.001) and 5.53 (p < 0.001) in haematology-oncology and pre-surgical setting respectively. Common reasons for failure to progress in the study included difficulty in reaching patients, clinical instability/medical reasons, lacking capacity to consent and psychological factors. INTERPRETATION: DPCs can be delivered by non-allergy HCPs. A high proportion of patients with PALs did not progress in the study pathway. Strategies to deliver DPC at optimal points of the care pathway are needed to enhance uptake. Elective settings offer greater opportunities than acute settings for DPC. The safety and simplicity of DPCs lends itself to adoption by healthcare systems beyond the UK, including in resource-limited settings.

Randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the effect of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) on colorectal cancer recurrence and survival after surgery for resectable liver metastases: EPA for Metastasis Trial 2 (EMT2) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There remains an unmet need for safe and cost-effective adjunctive treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is safe, well-tolerated and has anti-inflammatory as well as antineoplastic properties. A phase 2 randomised trial of preoperative EPA free fatty acid 2 g daily in patients undergoing surgery for CRC liver metastasis showed no difference in the primary endpoint (histological tumour proliferation index) compared with placebo. However, the trial demonstrated possible benefit for the prespecified exploratory endpoint of postoperative disease-free survival. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that EPA treatment, started before liver resection surgery (and continued postoperatively), improves CRC outcomes in patients with CRC liver metastasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EPA for Metastasis Trial 2 trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of 4 g EPA ethyl ester (icosapent ethyl (IPE; Vascepa)) daily in patients undergoing liver resection surgery for CRC liver metastasis with curative intent. Trial treatment continues for a minimum of 2 years and maximum of 4 years, with 6 monthly assessments, including quality of life outcomes, as well as annual clinical record review after the trial intervention. The primary endpoint is CRC progression-free survival. Key secondary endpoints are overall survival, as well as the safety and tolerability of IPE. A minimum 388 participants are estimated to provide 247 CRC progression events during minimum 2-year follow-up, allowing detection of an HR of 0.7 in favour of IPE, with a power of 80% at the 5% (two sided) level of significance, assuming drop-out of 15%. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical and health research authority approval was obtained in January 2018. All data will be collected by 2025. Full trial results will be published in 2026. Secondary analyses of health economic data, biomarker studies and other translational work will be published subsequently. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03428477.

The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded randomized controlled trials was infrequent and variable.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the approach to participant coenrolment in publicly funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to consider its impact on study recruitment. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study of the UK National Institute for Health Research Journals Library was undertaken. RCTs funded between 2010 and 2019 were eligible. The reporting of coenrolment criteria was assessed through inspection of publicly available study protocols. Where present, the approach to coenrolment was examined, including circumstances in which it was permitted/prohibited and the mechanism for decision-making. For completed RCTs, the impact on recruitment was explored by comparing rates of early recruitment (completion before the expected end date) and extensions (completion after the expected end date) between studies, which did and did not permit coenrolment. RESULTS: Of 219 eligible protocols, coenrolment was addressed in 94 (42.9%). Twenty-three (24.5%) of these did not allow recruitment to multiple studies, while 71 (75.5%) permitted it according to a series of caveats, including considerations of study outcomes, intervention type, and patient burden. The final decision for coenrolment rested with the local recruitment team in 57 (60.6%) and with the central organizing team in 37 (39.4%). Early completion of recruitment occurred in 8 of 64 (12.5%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 5 of 20 (25.0%) where it was not (P = 0.285). An extension to recruitment time was required in 31 of 64 (48.4%) RCTs where coenrolment was permitted and 9 of 11 (45.0%) where it was not (P = 0.788). CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of coenrolment in protocols of publicly funded RCTs is infrequent, and where present, the approach to decision-making is widely variable. In this study, policies of coenrolment were not associated with gains in trial recruitment.

Feasibility of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open colorectal surgery in the acute setting: the LaCeS feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Acute colorectal surgery forms a significant proportion of emergency admissions within the National Health Service. There is limited evidence to suggest minimally invasive surgery may be associated with improved clinical outcomes in this cohort of patients. Consequently, there is a need to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic surgery in the acute colorectal setting. However,emergency colorectal surgical trials have previously been difficult to conduct due to issues surrounding recruitment and equipoise. The LaCeS (randomised controlled trial of Laparoscopic versus open Colorectal Surgery in the acute setting) feasibility trial will determine the feasibility of conducting a definitive, phase III trial of laparoscopic versus open acute colorectal resection. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The LaCeS feasibility trial is a prospective, multicentre, single-blinded, parallel group, pragmatic randomised controlled feasibility trial. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive eitherlaparoscopic or open surgery. The trial aims to recruit at least 66 patients from five acute general surgical units across the UK. Patients over the age of 18 with a diagnosis of acute colorectal pathology requiring resection on clinical and radiological/endoscopic investigations, with a National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death classification of urgent will be considered eligible for participation. The primary outcome is recruitment. Secondary outcomes include assessing the safety profile of laparoscopic surgery using intraoperative and postoperative complication rates, conversion rates and patient-safety indicators as surrogate markers. Clinical and patient-reported outcomes will also be reported. The trial will contain an embedded qualitative study to assess clinician and patient acceptability of trial processes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The LaCeS feasibility trial is approved by the Yorkshire and The Humber, Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 15/ YH/0542). The results from the trial will be presented at national and international colorectal conferences and will be submitted for publication to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15681041; Pre-results.