Use of selective gut decontamination in critically ill children: PICnIC a pilot RCT and mixed-methods study.

Background: Healthcare-associated infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill children. In adults, data suggest the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract may reduce the incidence of healthcare-associated infections. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract has not been evaluated in the paediatric intensive care unit population. Objectives: To determine the feasibility of conducting a multicentre, cluster-randomised controlled trial in critically ill children comparing selective decontamination of the digestive tract with standard infection control. Design: Parallel-group pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial with an integrated mixed-methods study. Setting: Six paediatric intensive care units in England. Participants: Children (> 37 weeks corrected gestational age, up to 16 years) requiring mechanical ventilation expected to last for at least 48 hours were eligible for the PICnIC pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial. During the ecology periods, all children admitted to the paediatric intensive care units were eligible. Parents/legal guardians of recruited patients and healthcare professionals working in paediatric intensive care units were eligible for inclusion in the mixed-methods study. Interventions: The interventions in the PICnIC pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial included administration of selective decontamination of the digestive tract as oro-pharyngeal paste and as a suspension given by enteric tube during the period of mechanical ventilation. Main outcome measures: The decision as to whether a definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial is feasible is based on multiple outcomes, including (but not limited to): (1) willingness and ability to recruit eligible patients; (2) adherence to the selective decontamination of the digestive tract intervention; (3) acceptability of the definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial; (4) estimation of recruitment rate; and (5) understanding of potential clinical and ecological outcome measures. Results: A total of 368 children (85% of all those who were eligible) were enrolled in the PICnIC pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial across six paediatric intensive care units: 207 in the baseline phase (Period One) and 161 in the intervention period (Period Two). In sites delivering selective decontamination of the digestive tract, the majority (98%) of children received at least one dose of selective decontamination of the digestive tract, and of these, 68% commenced within the first 6 hours. Consent for the collection of additional swabs was low (44%), though data completeness for potential outcomes, including microbiology data from routine clinical swab testing, was excellent. Recruited children were representative of the wider paediatric intensive care unit population. Overall, 3.6 children/site/week were recruited compared with the potential recruitment rate for a definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial of 3 children/site/week, based on data from all UK paediatric intensive care units. The proposed trial, including consent and selective decontamination of the digestive tract, was acceptable to parents and staff with adaptations, including training to improve consent and communication, and adaptations to the administration protocol for the paste and ecology monitoring. Clinical outcomes that were considered important included duration of organ failure and hospital stay, healthcare-acquired infections and survival. Limitations: The delivery of the pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to slow set-up of sites, and a lack of face-to face training. Conclusions: PICnIC's findings indicate that a definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial in selective decontamination of the digestive tract in paediatric intensive care units is feasible with the inclusion modifications, which would need to be included in a definitive cluster-randomised controlled trial to ensure that the efficiency of trial processes is maximised. Future work: A definitive trial that incorporates the protocol adaptations and outcomes arising from this study is feasible and should be conducted. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN40310490. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/152/01) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 8. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Each year, around 20,000 critically ill children are admitted to paediatric intensive care units in the UK. These children are at a higher risk of healthcare-associated infections, one of the main sources of which is the large number of bacteria in the digestive tract. Spread of bacteria from the digestive tract into other organs, such as the lung (causing ventilator-associated pneumonia) or bloodstream (causing sepsis), can be life-threatening. The risk is highest in those children whose illness is so severe that they require prolonged mechanical ventilation. Stopping the growth of bacteria in the digestive tract (called selective decontamination of the digestive tract) has been shown in adults to reduce the number of hospital-acquired infections. However, there have been no trials in children. We wanted to assess how practical and acceptable such a trial would be comparing standard infection control to selective decontamination of the digestive tract-enhanced infection control and monitoring how each intervention affected antimicrobial resistance. We undertook a pilot study to examine whether clinicians could identify eligible children, enrol them in the study and follow study procedures during the course of paediatric intensive care unit admission. Alongside this, we interviewed parents and clinicians to get their views on the proposed trial. Six hospitals recruited 559 patients over a period of roughly 7 months. Hospitals were randomly allocated to continue with the standard infection control procedure or to give selective decontamination of the digestive tract. Overall, recruitment was higher than expected. Alongside this, we examined the views of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals to assess their views on whether a trial should be carried out to see if selective decontamination of the digestive tract should become part of the infection control regime for children most at risk of hospital-acquired infection in the paediatric intensive care unit. Overall results suggest that a larger PICnIC trial incorporating patient stakeholder and clinical staff feedback on design and outcomes is feasible and that it is appropriate to conduct a trial into the effectiveness of selective decontamination of the digestive tract administration to minimise hospital-acquired infections.

Protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation conferred by primary-series vaccination with AZD1222 in non-boosted individuals: first vaccine effectiveness results of the European COVIDRIVE study and meta-regression analysis.

Background: Vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies with long-term follow-up are needed to understand durability of protection against severe COVID-19 outcomes conferred by primary-series vaccination in individuals not receiving boosters. COVIDRIVE is a European public-private partnership evaluating brand-specific vaccine effectiveness (VE). We report a prespecified interim analysis of primary-series AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) VE. Methods: Seven Study Contributors in Europe collected data on individuals aged ≥18 years who were hospitalised with severe acute respiratory infection (June 1st, 2021-September 5th, 2022) and eligible for COVID-19 vaccination prior to hospitalisation. In this test-negative case-control study, individuals were defined as test-positive cases or test-negative controls (SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR) and were either fully vaccinated (two AZD1222 doses, 4-12 weeks apart, completed ≥14 days prior to symptom onset; no booster doses) or unvaccinated (no COVID-19 vaccine prior to hospitalisation). The primary objective was to estimate AZD1222 VE against COVID-19 hospitalisation. A literature review and meta-regression were conducted to contextualise findings on durability of protection. Findings: 761 individuals were included during the 15-month analysis period. Overall AZD1222 VE estimate was 72.8% (95% CI, 53.4-84.1). VE was 93.8% (48.6-99.3) in participants who received second AZD1222 doses ≤8 weeks prior to hospitalisation, with spline-based VE estimates demonstrating protection (VE ≥ 50%) 30 weeks post-second dose. Meta-regression analysis (data from seven publications) showed consistent results, with ≥80% protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation through ∼43 weeks post-second dose, with some degree of waning. Interpretation: Primary-series AZD1222 vaccination confers protection against COVID-19 hospitalisation with enduring levels of VE through ≥6 months. Funding: AstraZeneca.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Therapy on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Acutely Ill Children Admitted to Pediatric Critical Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acutely ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC) as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support for acute illness, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), for time to liberation from all forms of respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, multicenter, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in 24 pediatric critical care units in the United Kingdom among 600 acutely ill children aged 0 to 15 years who were clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support, recruited between August 2019 and November 2021, with last follow-up completed in March 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to commence either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 301) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 299). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which a participant was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.75. Seven secondary outcomes were assessed, including mortality at critical care unit discharge, intubation within 48 hours, and use of sedation. Results: Of the 600 randomized children, consent was not obtained for 5 (HFNC: 1; CPAP: 4) and respiratory support was not started in 22 (HFNC: 5; CPAP: 17); 573 children (HFNC: 295; CPAP: 278) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 9 months; 226 girls [39%]). The median time to liberation in the HFNC group was 52.9 hours (95% CI, 46.0-60.9 hours) vs 47.9 hours (95% CI, 40.5-55.7 hours) in the CPAP group (absolute difference, 5.0 hours [95% CI -10.1 to 17.4 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio 1.03 [1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.86-∞]). This met the criterion for noninferiority. Of the 7 prespecified secondary outcomes, 3 were significantly lower in the HFNC group: use of sedation (27.7% vs 37%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.39-0.88]); mean duration of critical care stay (5 days vs 7.4 days; adjusted mean difference, -3 days [95% CI, -5.1 to -1 days]); and mean duration of acute hospital stay (13.8 days vs 19.5 days; adjusted mean difference, -7.6 days [95% CI, -13.2 to -1.9 days]). The most common adverse event was nasal trauma (HFNC: 6/295 [2.0%]; CPAP: 18/278 [6.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among acutely ill children clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support in a pediatric critical care unit, HFNC compared with CPAP met the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: ISRCTN.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Effect of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy vs Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Following Extubation on Liberation From Respiratory Support in Critically Ill Children: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation of critically ill children is not known. Objective: To evaluate the noninferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) therapy as the first-line mode of noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, compared with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), on time to liberation from respiratory support. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial conducted at 22 pediatric intensive care units in the United Kingdom. Six hundred children aged 0 to 15 years clinically assessed to require noninvasive respiratory support within 72 hours of extubation were recruited between August 8, 2019, and May 18, 2020, with last follow-up completed on November 22, 2020. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to start either HFNC at a flow rate based on patient weight (n = 299) or CPAP of 7 to 8 cm H2O (n = 301). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time from randomization to liberation from respiratory support, defined as the start of a 48-hour period during which the child was free from all forms of respiratory support (invasive or noninvasive), assessed against a noninferiority margin of an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75. There were 6 secondary outcomes, including mortality at day 180 and reintubation within 48 hours. Results: Of the 600 children who were randomized, 553 children (HFNC, 281; CPAP, 272) were included in the primary analysis (median age, 3 months; 241 girls [44%]). HFNC failed to meet noninferiority, with a median time to liberation of 50.5 hours (95% CI, 43.0-67.9) vs 42.9 hours (95% CI, 30.5-48.2) for CPAP (adjusted HR, 0.83; 1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.70-∞). Similar results were seen across prespecified subgroups. Of the 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 showed no significant difference, including the rate of reintubation within 48 hours (13.3% for HFNC vs 11.5 % for CPAP). Mortality at day 180 was significantly higher for HFNC (5.6% vs 2.4% for CPAP; adjusted odds ratio, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.1-8.8]). The most common adverse events were abdominal distension (HFNC: 8/281 [2.8%] vs CPAP: 7/272 [2.6%]) and nasal/facial trauma (HFNC: 14/281 [5.0%] vs CPAP: 15/272 [5.5%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill children requiring noninvasive respiratory support following extubation, HFNC compared with CPAP following extubation failed to meet the criterion for noninferiority for time to liberation from respiratory support. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN60048867.

Use of selective gut decontamination in critically ill children: protocol for the Paediatric Intensive Care and Infection Control (PICnIC) pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in critically ill children. In critically ill adults, there are data that suggest the use of Selective Decontamination of the Digestive tract (SDD), alongside standard infection control measures reduce mortality and the incidence of HCAIs. SDD-enhanced infection control has not been compared directly with standard infection prevention strategies in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) population. The aim of this pilot study is to determine the feasibility of conducting a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in critically ill children comparing SDD with standard infection control. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Paediatric Intensive Care and Infection Control is a parallel group pilot cRCT, with integrated mixed-methods study, comparing incorporation of SDD into infection control procedures to standard care. After a 1-week pretrial ecology surveillance period, recruitment to the cRCT will run for a period of 18 weeks, comprising: (1) baseline control period (2) pre, mid and post-trial ecology surveillance periods and (3) intervention period. Six PICUs (in England, UK) will begin with usual care in period 1, then will be randomised 1:1 by the trial statistician using computer-based randomisation, to either continue to deliver usual care or commence delivery of the intervention (SDD) in period 2. Outcomes measures include parent and healthcare professionals' views on trial feasibility, adherence to the SDD intervention, estimation of recruitment rate and understanding of potential patient-centred primary and secondary outcome measures for the definitive trial. The planned recruitment for the cRCT is 324 participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received favourable ethical opinion from West Midlands-Black Country Research Ethics Committee (reference: 20/WM/0061) and approval from the Health Research Authority (IRAS number: 239324). Informed consent is not required for SDD intervention or anonymised data collection but is sought for investigations as part of the study, any identifiable data collected and monitoring of medical records. Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN40310490.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments and outcomes for new-onset atrial fibrillation in ICU patients: the CAFE scoping review and database analyses.

BACKGROUND: New-onset atrial fibrillation occurs in around 10% of adults treated in an intensive care unit. New-onset atrial fibrillation may lead to cardiovascular instability and thromboembolism, and has been independently associated with increased length of hospital stay and mortality. The long-term consequences are unclear. Current practice guidance is based on patients outside the intensive care unit; however, new-onset atrial fibrillation that develops while in an intensive care unit differs in its causes and the risks and clinical effectiveness of treatments. The lack of evidence on new-onset atrial fibrillation treatment or long-term outcomes in intensive care units means that practice varies. Identifying optimal treatment strategies and defining long-term outcomes are critical to improving care. OBJECTIVES: In patients treated in an intensive care unit, the objectives were to (1) evaluate existing evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, (2) compare the use and clinical effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, and (3) determine outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We undertook a scoping review that included studies of interventions for treatment or prevention of new-onset atrial fibrillation involving adults in general intensive care units. To investigate the long-term outcomes associated with new-onset atrial fibrillation, we carried out a retrospective cohort study using English national intensive care audit data linked to national hospital episode and outcome data. To analyse the clinical effectiveness of different new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments, we undertook a retrospective cohort study of two large intensive care unit databases in the USA and the UK. RESULTS: Existing evidence was generally of low quality, with limited data suggesting that beta-blockers might be more effective than amiodarone for converting new-onset atrial fibrillation to sinus rhythm and for reducing mortality. Using linked audit data, we showed that patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation have more comorbidities than those who do not. After controlling for these differences, patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation had substantially higher mortality in hospital and during the first 90 days after discharge (adjusted odds ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval 2.16 to 2.48; adjusted hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.26 to 1.70, respectively), and higher rates of subsequent hospitalisation with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure (adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 5.86, 95% confidence interval 5.33 to 6.44; adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.93; and adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.44, respectively), than patients who did not have new-onset atrial fibrillation. From intensive care unit data, we found that new-onset atrial fibrillation occurred in 952 out of 8367 (11.4%) UK and 1065 out of 18,559 (5.7%) US intensive care unit patients in our study. The median time to onset of new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients who received treatment was 40 hours, with a median duration of 14.4 hours. The clinical characteristics of patients developing new-onset atrial fibrillation were similar in both databases. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with significant average reductions in systolic blood pressure of 5 mmHg, despite significant increases in vasoactive medication (vasoactive-inotropic score increase of 2.3; p < 0.001). After adjustment, intravenous beta-blockers were not more effective than amiodarone in achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.44) or rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.11). Digoxin therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rate control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.86) and calcium channel blocker therapy was associated with a lower probability of achieving rhythm control (adjusted hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.39 to 0.79) than amiodarone. Findings were consistent across both the combined and the individual database analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Existing evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation management in intensive care unit patients is limited. New-onset atrial fibrillation in these patients is common and is associated with significant short- and long-term complications. Beta-blockers and amiodarone appear to be similarly effective in achieving cardiovascular control, but digoxin and calcium channel blockers appear to be inferior. FUTURE WORK: Our findings suggest that a randomised controlled trial of amiodarone and beta-blockers for management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients should be undertaken. Studies should also be undertaken to provide evidence for or against anticoagulation for patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units. Finally, given that readmission with heart failure and thromboembolism increases following an episode of new-onset atrial fibrillation while in an intensive care unit, a prospective cohort study to demonstrate the incidence of atrial fibrillation and/or left ventricular dysfunction at hospital discharge and at 3 months following the development of new-onset atrial fibrillation should be undertaken. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13252515. 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. 25, No. 71. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation can cause heart failure and stroke. It can also affect heart rate in different ways. It is common for patients admitted to intensive care units to develop atrial fibrillation. When patients have never had atrial fibrillation before, this is called 'new-onset atrial fibrillation'. We do not know how new-onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated in an intensive care unit affects heart rate and blood pressure, what the best treatments are or how treatments affect how people recover. METHODS: We looked at studies of new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments in intensive care units to see if some treatments have been shown to work better. We used a national database to see what happens to intensive care unit patients in the UK who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation. We also used two databases from intensive care units in the UK and the USA to see how many patients in the intensive care units have new-onset atrial fibrillation, how atrial fibrillation affects heart rate and blood pressure, and whether or not some treatments work better than others. RESULTS: Between 6% and 11% of intensive care unit patients develop new-onset atrial fibrillation. These patients are more likely to die in hospital and in the first 90 days after discharge than those who do not. They are also more likely to be readmitted to hospital with atrial fibrillation, stroke and heart failure. The evidence for new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments is limited, but suggests that beta-blockers or amiodarone may work better than calcium channel blockers or digoxin. CONCLUSIONS: New-onset atrial fibrillation in intensive care units is common, and outcomes are worse in patients who develop new-onset atrial fibrillation than in those who do not. Our research shows that some new-onset atrial fibrillation treatments work better than others. This information will help us to plan a study to improve health after new-onset atrial fibrillation.

Treatment strategies for new onset atrial fibrillation in patients treated on an intensive care unit: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in patients treated on an intensive care unit (ICU) is common and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. We undertook a systematic scoping review to summarise comparative evidence to inform NOAF management for patients admitted to ICU. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, OpenGrey, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials register, additional WHO ICTRP trial databases, and NIHR Clinical Trials Gateway in March 2019. We included studies evaluating treatment or prevention strategies for NOAF or acute anticoagulation in general medical, surgical or mixed adult ICUs. We extracted study details, population characteristics, intervention and comparator(s), methods addressing confounding, results, and recommendations for future research onto study-specific forms. RESULTS: Of 3,651 citations, 42 articles were eligible: 25 primary studies, 12 review articles and 5 surveys/opinion papers. Definitions of NOAF varied between NOAF lasting 30 s to NOAF lasting > 24 h. Only one comparative study investigated effects of anticoagulation. Evidence from small RCTs suggests calcium channel blockers (CCBs) result in slower rhythm control than beta blockers (1 study), and more cardiovascular instability than amiodarone (1 study). Evidence from 4 non-randomised studies suggests beta blocker and amiodarone therapy may be equivalent in respect to rhythm control. Beta blockers may be associated with improved survival compared to amiodarone, CCBs, and digoxin, though supporting evidence is subject to confounding. Currently, the limited evidence does not support therapeutic anticoagulation during ICU admission. CONCLUSIONS: From the limited evidence available beta blockers or amiodarone may be superior to CCBs as first line therapy in undifferentiated patients in ICU. The little evidence available does not support therapeutic anticoagulation for NOAF whilst patients are critically ill. Consensus definitions for NOAF, rate and rhythm control are needed.

FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children (FIRST-ABC): a master protocol of two randomised trials to evaluate the non-inferiority of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) for non-invasive respiratory support in paediatric critical care.

INTRODUCTION: Even though respiratory support is a common intervention in paediatric critical care, there is no randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence regarding the effectiveness of two commonly used modes of non-invasive respiratory support (NRS), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal cannula therapy (HFNC). FIRST-line support for assistance in breathing in children is a master protocol of two pragmatic non-inferiority RCTs to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HFNC (compared with CPAP) as the first-line mode of support in critically ill children. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will recruit participants over a 30-month period at 25 UK paediatric critical care units (paediatric intensive care units/high-dependency units). Patients are eligible if admitted/accepted for admission, aged >36 weeks corrected gestational age and <16 years, and assessed by the treating clinician to require NRS for an acute illness (step-up RCT) or within 72 hours of extubation following a period of invasive ventilation (step-down RCT). Due to the emergency nature of the treatment, written informed consent will be deferred to after randomisation. Randomisation will occur 1:1 to CPAP or HFNC, stratified by site and age (<12 vs ≥12 months). The primary outcome is time to liberation from respiratory support for a continuous period of 48 hours. A total sample size of 600 patients in each RCT will provide 90% power with a type I error rate of 2.5% (one sided) to exclude the prespecified non-inferiority margin of HR of 0.75. Primary analyses will be undertaken separately in each RCT in both the intention-to-treat and per-protocol populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This master protocol received favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service East of England-Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee (reference: 19/EE/0185) and approval from the Health Research Authority (reference: 260536). Results will be disseminated via publications in peer-reviewed medical journals and presentations at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60048867.