Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of thoracic epidural and paravertebral blockade in reducing chronic post-thoracotomy pain: 2 (TOPIC 2).

BACKGROUND: Thoracotomy is considered one of the most painful surgical procedures and can cause debilitating chronic post-surgical pain lasting months or years postoperatively. Aggressive management of acute pain resulting from thoracotomy may reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. This trial compares the two most commonly used modes of acute analgesia provision at the time of thoracotomy (thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) and paravertebral blockade (PVB)) in terms of their clinical and cost-effectiveness in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain. METHODS: TOPIC 2 is a multi-centre, open-label, parallel group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, with an internal pilot investigating the use of TEB and PVB in 1026 adult (≥ 18 years old) patients undergoing thoracotomy in up to 20 thoracic centres throughout the UK. Patients (N = 1026) will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TEB or PVB. During the first year, the trial will include an integrated QuinteT (Qualitative Research Integrated into Trials) Recruitment Intervention (QRI) with the aim of optimising recruitment and informed consent. The primary outcome is the incidence of chronic post-surgical pain at 6 months post-randomisation defined as 'worst chest pain over the last week' equating to a visual analogue score greater than or equal to 40 mm indicating at least a moderate level of pain. Secondary outcomes include acute pain, complications of regional analgesia and surgery, health-related quality of life, mortality and a health economic analysis. DISCUSSION: Both TEB and PVB have been demonstrated to be effective in the prevention of acute pain following thoracotomy and nationally practice is divided. Identification of which mode of analgesia is both clinically and cost-effective in preventing chronic post-thoracotomy pain could ameliorate the debilitating effects of chronic pain, improving health-related quality of life, facilitating return to work and caring responsibilities and resulting in a cost saving to the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03677856 [ClinicalTrials.gov] registered September 19, 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03677856 . First patient recruited 8 January 2019.

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials.

Background: Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials. Methods: As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials. Findings: Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators. Interpretation: There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence. Funding: SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership.

BACKGROUND: Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research (i.e. research that aims to enhance the quality and rigour of research) is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to give practical insights to inform public involvement in priority-setting for future methodological research. METHODS: Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n = 26) regarding public involvement in Priority III. We used a case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners; one focus group with four researchers; and seven one-to-one interviews with researchers and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation of meetings were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: The findings of this case study present three themes and six subthemes: Theme 1 We all bring unique qualities to the table. Subtheme 1.1-Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2-Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2 We need support and space at the table. Subtheme 2.1-Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2-Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3 We all benefit from working together. Subtheme 3.1-Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2-Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Communication and trust, as inclusive ways of working, underpinned the partnership approach to involvement. CONCLUSIONS: This case study contributes to knowledge on public involvement in research by explaining the supportive strategies, spaces, attitudes and behaviours that enabled a productive working partnership to develop between a team of researchers and public partners in this research context.

Public and patient involvement is well known in research where patients share their lived experience for a health-related study. However, the role of public and patients in methodology research (research that aims to improve the quality of research) is not clear.A priority-setting partnership brings patients, carers, clinicians and other stakeholders together to jointly identify priorities for research. We looked at public involvement in a priority-setting partnership in how we plan, do, and share the results of rapid reviews­the Priority III project. We wanted to do this to better support public involvement in future research.We explored the processes of Priority III and asked the members of the Priority III steering group for their views and experiences of public involvement in the project. We found three themes:1: We all bring unique qualities to the table.2: We need support and space at the table.3: We all benefit from working together.Communication and trust were found to be important across all themes. Even though public partners felt outside of their comfort zones when starting the project, they significantly helped the project, brought unique views, ideas and practical solutions. Support and safe spaces were needed to help overcome challenges due to the complex methodological concepts. Researchers and public partners learned from one another, and developed relationships with a feeling of being "partners in research". Our findings offer insight into what helped public involvement in this research context. We give examples of practical actions and suggestions for future research.

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions. RESULTS: Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results. CONCLUSION: The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol.

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders' perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

What are the most important unanswered research questions in trial retention? A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership: the PRioRiTy II (Prioritising Retention in Randomised Trials) study.

BACKGROUND: One of the top three research priorities for the UK clinical trial community is to address the gap in evidence-based approaches to improving participant retention in randomised trials. Despite this, there is little evidence supporting methods to improve retention. This paper reports the PRioRiTy II project, a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) that identified and prioritised unanswered questions and uncertainties around trial retention in collaboration with key stakeholders. METHODS: This PSP was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance, a non-profit making initiative, to support key stakeholders (researchers, patients, and the public) in jointly identifying and agreeing on priority research questions. There were three stages. (1) First an initial online survey was conducted consisting of six open-ended questions about retention in randomised trials. Responses were coded into thematic groups to create a longlist of questions. The longlist of questions was checked against existing evidence to ensure that they had not been answered by existing research. (2) An interim stage involved a further online survey where stakeholders were asked to select questions of key importance from the longlist. (3) A face-to-face consensus meeting was held, where key stakeholder representatives agreed on an ordered list of 21 unanswered research questions for methods of improving retention in randomised trials. RESULTS: A total of 456 respondents yielded 2431 answers to six open-ended questions, from which 372 questions specifically about retention were identified. Further analysis included thematically grouping all data items within answers and merging questions in consultation with the Steering Group. This produced 27 questions for further rating during the interim survey. The top 21 questions from the interim online survey were brought to a face-to-face consensus meeting in which key stakeholder representatives prioritised the order. The 'Top 10' of these are reported in this paper. The number one ranked question was 'What motivates a participant's decision to complete a clinical trial?' The entire list will be available at www.priorityresearch.ie . CONCLUSION: The Top 10 list can inform the direction of future research on trial methods and be used by funders to guide projects aiming to address and improve retention in randomised trials.

IGF-1R associates with adverse outcomes after radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Activated type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptors (IGF-1Rs) undergo internalisation and nuclear translocation, promoting cell survival. We previously reported that IGF-1R inhibition delays DNA damage repair, sensitising prostate cancer cells to ionising radiation. Here we tested the clinical relevance of these findings. METHODS: We assessed associations between IGF-1R and clinical outcomes by immunohistochemistry in diagnostic biopsies of 136 men treated with 55-70 Gy external beam radiotherapy for prostate cancer, comparing results with publicly available transcriptional data in surgically treated patients. RESULTS: Following radiotherapy, overall recurrence-free survival was shorter in patients whose tumours contained high total, cytoplasmic and internalised (nuclear/cytoplasmic) IGF-1R. High total IGF-1R associated with high primary Gleason grade and risk of metastasis, and cytoplasmic and internalised IGF-1R with biochemical recurrence, which includes patients experiencing local recurrence within the radiation field indicating radioresistance. In multivariate analysis, cytoplasmic, internalised and total IGF-1R were independently associated with risk of overall recurrence, and cytoplasmic IGF-1R was an independent predictor of biochemical recurrence post radiotherapy. Insulin-like growth factor receptors expression did not associate with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: These data reveal increased risk of post-radiotherapy recurrence in men whose prostate cancers contain high levels of total or cytoplasmic IGF-1R.

Near patient anti-platelet response testing over time and gene analysis in patients admitted with acute coronary syndromes.

We sought to assess the relationships between platelet reactivity at different time points, CYP2C19*2 and ABCB1 status and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Anti-platelet response to clopidogrel was studied prospectively using the VerifyNow (VN) P2Y12 assay at the time of angiography and at 30 days post procedure in 151 patients admitted with ACS who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Troponin T levels were measured at angiography and 16-24 hour following PCI. DNA was extracted and the presence of CYP2C19*2 allele and ABCB1 polymorphisms were determined. Adverse cardiovascular and cerebral events (ACCE) were assessed at 12 months. High VN P2Y12 response at angiography was associated with a greater peri-procedural rise in troponin T, but not ACCE. However, VN P2Y12 response measured at 30 days was associated with ACCE (p = 0.017). CYP2C19*2 status was associated with higher VN P2Y12 response at angiography (p < 0.0001) and 30 days (p = 0.006) but not ACCE. Near-patient testing for clopidogrel response was associated with subsequent ACCE when performed 30 days following PCI, but not at angiography.