Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Early Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery or Intrapleural Enzyme Therapy in Pleural Infection: A Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial. The Third Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial-MIST-3.

Rationale: Assessing the early use of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) or intrapleural enzyme therapy (IET) in pleural infection requires a phase III randomized controlled trial (RCT). Objectives: To establish the feasibility of randomization in a surgery-versus-nonsurgery trial as well as the key outcome measures that are important to identify relevant patient-centered outcomes in a subsequent RCT. Methods: The MIST-3 (third Multicenter Intrapleural Sepsis Trial) was a prospective multicenter RCT involving eight U.K. centers combining on-site and off-site surgical services. The study enrolled all patients with a confirmed diagnosis of pleural infection and randomized those with ongoing pleural sepsis after an initial period (as long as 24 h) of standard care to one of three treatment arms: continued standard care, early IET, or a surgical opinion with regard to early VATS. The primary outcome was feasibility based on >50% of eligible patients being successfully randomized, >95% of randomized participants retained to discharge, and >80% of randomized participants retained to 2 weeks of follow-up. The analysis was performed per intention to treat. Measurements and Main Results: Of 97 eligible patients, 60 (62%) were randomized, with 100% retained to discharge and 84% retained to 2 weeks. Baseline demographic, clinical, and microbiological characteristics of the patients were similar across groups. Median times to intervention were 1.0 and 3.5 days in the IET and surgery groups, respectively (P = 0.02). Despite the difference in time to intervention, length of stay (from randomization to discharge) was similar in both intervention arms (7 d) compared with standard care (10 d) (P = 0.70). There were no significant intergroup differences in 2-month readmission and further intervention, although the study was not adequately powered for this outcome. Compared with VATS, IET demonstrated a larger improvement in mean EuroQol five-dimension health utility index (five-level edition) from baseline (0.35) to 2 months (0.83) (P = 0.023). One serious adverse event was reported in the VATS arm. Conclusions: This is the first multicenter RCT of early IET versus early surgery in pleural infection. Despite the logistical challenges posed by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, the study met its predefined feasibility criteria, demonstrated potential shortening of length of stay with early surgery, and signals toward earlier resolution of pain and a shortened recovery with IET. The study findings suggest that a definitive phase III study is feasible but highlights important considerations and significant modifications to the design that would be required to adequately assess optimal initial management in pleural infection.The trial was registered on ISRCTN (number 18,192,121).

Patient-derived malignant pleural mesothelioma cell cultures: a tool to advance biomarker-driven treatments.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive cancer, associated with poor prognosis. We assessed the feasibility of patient-derived cell cultures to serve as an ex vivo model of MPM. Patient-derived MPM cell cultures (n=16) exhibited stemness features and reflected intratumour and interpatient heterogeneity. A subset of the cells were subjected to high-throughput drug screening and coculture assays with cancer-specific cytotoxic T cells and showed diverse responses. Some of the biphasic MPM cells were capable of processing and presenting the neoantigen SSX-2 endogenously. In conclusion, patient-derived MPM cell cultures are a promising and faithful ex vivo model of MPM.

Prospective validation of the RAPID clinical risk prediction score in adult patients with pleural infection: the PILOT study.

BACKGROUND: Over 30% of adult patients with pleural infection either die and/or require surgery. There is no robust means of predicting at baseline presentation which patients will suffer a poor clinical outcome. A validated risk prediction score would allow early identification of high-risk patients, potentially directing more aggressive treatment thereafter. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess a previously described risk score (the RAPID (Renal (urea), Age, fluid Purulence, Infection source, Dietary (albumin)) score) in adults with pleural infection. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study that recruited patients undergoing treatment for pleural infection. RAPID score and risk category were calculated at baseline presentation. The primary outcome was mortality at 3 months; secondary outcomes were mortality at 12 months, length of hospital stay, need for thoracic surgery, failure of medical treatment and lung function at 3 months. RESULTS: Mortality data were available in 542 out of 546 patients recruited (99.3%). Overall mortality was 10% at 3 months (54 out of 542) and 19% at 12 months (102 out of 542). The RAPID risk category predicted mortality at 3 months. Low-risk mortality (RAPID score 0-2): five out of 222 (2.3%, 95% CI 0.9 to 5.7%); medium-risk mortality (RAPID score 3-4): 21 out of 228 (9.2%, 95% CI 6.0 to 13.7%); and high-risk mortality (RAPID score 5-7): 27 out of 92 (29.3%, 95% CI 21.0 to 39.2%). C-statistics for the scores at 3 months and 12 months were 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RAPID score stratifies adults with pleural infection according to increasing risk of mortality and should inform future research directed at improving outcomes in this patient population.

Cost-effectiveness of intrapleural use of tissue plasminogen activator and DNase in pleural infection: evidence from the MIST2 randomised controlled trial.

The MIST2 (Second Multicentre Intrapleural Sepsis Trial) trial showed that combined intrapleural use of tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA) and recombinant human DNase was effective when compared with single agents or placebo. However, the treatment costs are significant and overall cost-effectiveness of combined therapy remains unclear.An economic evaluation of the MIST2 trial was performed to assess the cost-effectiveness of combined therapy. Costs included were those related to study medications, initial hospital stay and subsequent hospitalisations. Outcomes were measured in terms of life-years gained. All costs were reported in euro and in 2016 prices.Mean annual costs were lowest in the t-PA-DNase group (EUR 10 605 for t-PA, EUR 17 856 for DNase, EUR 13 483 for placebo and EUR 7248 for t-PA-DNase; p=0.209). Mean 1-year life expectancy was 0.988 for t-PA, 0.923 for DNase, and 0.969 for both placebo and t-PA-DNase (p=0.296). Both DNase and placebo were less effective, in terms of life-years gained, and more costly than t-PA. When placebo was compared with t-PA-DNase, the incremental cost per life-year gained of placebo was EUR 1.6 billion, with a probability of 0.85 of t-PA-DNase being cost-effective.This study demonstrates that combined t-PA-DNase is likely to be highly cost-effective. In light of this evidence, a definitive trial designed to facilitate a thorough economic evaluation is warranted to provide further evidence on the cost-effectiveness of this promising combined intervention.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Urokinase versus Placebo for Nondraining Malignant Pleural Effusion.

RATIONALE: Patients with malignant pleural effusion experience breathlessness, which is treated by drainage and pleurodesis. Incomplete drainage results in residual dyspnea and pleurodesis failure. Intrapleural fibrinolytics lyse septations within pleural fluid, improving drainage. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of intrapleural urokinase on dyspnea and pleurodesis success in patients with nondraining malignant effusion. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients with nondraining effusion were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to intrapleural urokinase (100,000 IU, three doses, 12-hourly) or matched placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Co-primary outcome measures were dyspnea (average daily 100-mm visual analog scale scores over 28 d) and time to pleurodesis failure to 12 months. Secondary outcomes were survival, hospital length of stay, and radiographic change. A total of 71 subjects were randomized (36 received urokinase, 35 placebo) from 12 U.K. centers. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. There was no difference in mean dyspnea between groups (mean difference, 3.8 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 4.4 mm; P = 0.36). Pleurodesis failure rates were similar (urokinase, 13 of 35 [37%]; placebo, 11 of 34 [32%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2; P = 0.65). Urokinase was associated with decreased effusion size visualized by chest radiography (adjusted relative improvement, -19%; 95% CI, -28 to -11%; P < 0.001), reduced hospital stay (1.6 d; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6; P = 0.049), and improved survival (69 vs. 48 d; P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Use of intrapleural urokinase does not reduce dyspnea or improve pleurodesis success compared with placebo and cannot be recommended as an adjunct to pleurodesis. Other palliative treatments should be used. Improvements in hospital stay, radiographic appearance, and survival associated with urokinase require further evaluation. Clinical trial registered with ISRCTN (12852177) and EudraCT (2008-000586-26).

Development and validation of response markers to predict survival and pleurodesis success in patients with malignant pleural effusion (PROMISE): a multicohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of malignant pleural effusion is increasing worldwide, but prognostic biomarkers to plan treatment and to understand the underlying mechanisms of disease progression remain unidentified. The PROMISE study was designed with the objectives to discover, validate, and prospectively assess biomarkers of survival and pleurodesis response in malignant pleural effusion and build a score that predicts survival. METHODS: In this multicohort study, we used five separate and independent datasets from randomised controlled trials to investigate potential biomarkers of survival and pleurodesis. Mass spectrometry-based discovery was used to investigate pleural fluid samples for differential protein expression in patients from the discovery group with different survival and pleurodesis outcomes. Clinical, radiological, and biological variables were entered into least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression to build a model that predicts 3-month mortality. We evaluated the model using internal and external validation. FINDINGS: 17 biomarker candidates of survival and seven of pleurodesis were identified in the discovery dataset. Three independent datasets (n=502) were used for biomarker validation. All pleurodesis biomarkers failed, and gelsolin, macrophage migration inhibitory factor, versican, and tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 1 (TIMP1) emerged as accurate predictors of survival. Eight variables (haemoglobin, C-reactive protein, white blood cell count, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, cancer type, pleural fluid TIMP1 concentrations, and previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy) were validated and used to develop a survival score. Internal validation with bootstrap resampling and external validation with 162 patients from two independent datasets showed good discrimination (C statistic values of 0·78 [95% CI 0·72-0·83] for internal validation and 0·89 [0·84-0·93] for external validation of the clinical PROMISE score). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, the PROMISE score is the first prospectively validated prognostic model for malignant pleural effusion that combines biological and clinical parameters to accurately estimate 3-month mortality. It is a robust, clinically relevant prognostic score that can be applied immediately, provide important information on patient prognosis, and guide the selection of appropriate management strategies. FUNDING: European Respiratory Society, Medical Research Funding-University of Oxford, Slater & Gordon Research Fund, and Oxfordshire Health Services Research Committee Research Grants.

Effect of Opioids vs NSAIDs and Larger vs Smaller Chest Tube Size on Pain Control and Pleurodesis Efficacy Among Patients With Malignant Pleural Effusion: The TIME1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: For treatment of malignant pleural effusion, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are avoided because they may reduce pleurodesis efficacy. Smaller chest tubes may be less painful than larger tubes, but efficacy in pleurodesis has not been proven. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of chest tube size and analgesia (NSAIDs vs opiates) on pain and clinical efficacy related to pleurodesis in patients with malignant pleural effusion. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 2×2 factorial phase 3 randomized clinical trial among 320 patients requiring pleurodesis in 16 UK hospitals from 2007 to 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Patients undergoing thoracoscopy (n = 206; clinical decision if biopsy was required) received a 24F chest tube and were randomized to receive opiates (n = 103) vs NSAIDs (n = 103), and those not undergoing thoracoscopy (n = 114) were randomized to 1 of 4 groups (24F chest tube and opioids [n = 28]; 24F chest tube and NSAIDs [n = 29]; 12F chest tube and opioids [n = 29]; or 12F chest tube and NSAIDs [n = 28]). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Pain while chest tube was in place (0- to 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS] 4 times/d; superiority comparison) and pleurodesis efficacy at 3 months (failure defined as need for further pleural intervention; noninferiority comparison; margin, 15%). RESULTS: Pain scores in the opiate group (n = 150) vs the NSAID group (n = 144) were not significantly different (mean VAS score, 23.8 mm vs 22.1 mm; adjusted difference, -1.5 mm; 95% CI, -5.0 to 2.0 mm; P = .40), but the NSAID group required more rescue analgesia (26.3% vs 38.1%; rate ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3-3.4; P = .003). Pleurodesis failure occurred in 30 patients (20%) in the opiate group and 33 (23%) in the NSAID group, meeting criteria for noninferiority (difference, -3%; 1-sided 95% CI, -10% to ∞; P = .004 for noninferiority). Pain scores were lower among patients in the 12F chest tube group (n = 54) vs the 24F group (n = 56) (mean VAS score, 22.0 mm vs 26.8 mm; adjusted difference, -6.0 mm; 95% CI, -11.7 to -0.2 mm; P = .04) and 12F chest tubes vs 24F chest tubes were associated with higher pleurodesis failure (30% vs 24%), failing to meet noninferiority criteria (difference, -6%; 1-sided 95% CI, -20% to ∞; P = .14 for noninferiority). Complications during chest tube insertion occurred more commonly with 12F tubes (14% vs 24%; odds ratio, 1.91; P = .20). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of NSAIDs vs opiates resulted in no significant difference in pain scores but was associated with more rescue medication. NSAID use resulted in noninferior rates of pleurodesis efficacy at 3 months. Placement of 12F chest tubes vs 24F chest tubes was associated with a statistically significant but clinically modest reduction in pain but failed to meet noninferiority criteria for pleurodesis efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN33288337.

Development and evaluation of a tool to optimise inhaler selection prior to hospital discharge following an exacerbation of COPD.

Introduction: Rates of mortality and re-admission after a hospitalised exacerbation of COPD are high and resistant to change. COPD guidelines do not give practical advice about the optimal selection of inhaled drugs and device in this situation. We hypothesised that a failure to optimise inhaled drug and drug delivery prior to discharge from hospital after an exacerbation would be associated with a modifiable increased risk of re-admission and death. We designed a study to 1) develop a practical inhaler selection tool to use at the point of hospital discharge and 2) implement this tool to understand the potential impact on modifying inhaler prescriptions, clinical outcomes, acceptability to clinicians and patients, and the feasibility of delivering a definitive trial to demonstrate potential benefit. Methods: We iteratively developed an inhaler selection tool for use prior to discharge following a hospitalised exacerbation of COPD using surveys with multiprofessional clinicians and a focus group of people living with COPD. We surveyed clinicians to understand their views on the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for death and re-admission following a hospitalised exacerbation of COPD. We conducted a mixed-methods implementation feasibility study using the tool at discharge, and collated 30- and 90-day follow-up data including death and re-admissions. Additionally, we observed the tool being used and interviewed clinicians and patients about use of the tool in this setting. Results: We completed the design of an inhaler selection tool through two rounds of consultations with 94 multiprofessional clinicians, and a focus group of four expert patients. Regarding MCIDs, there was majority consensus for the following reductions from baseline being the MCID: 30-day readmissions 5-10%, 90-day readmissions 10-20%, 30-day mortality 5-10% and 90-day mortality 5-10%. 118 patients were assessed for eligibility and 26 had the tool applied. A change in inhaled medication was recommended in nine (35%) out of 26. Re-admission or death at 30 days was seen in 33% of the switch group and 35% of the no-switch group. Re-admission or death at 90 days was seen in 56% of the switch group and 41% of the no-switch group. Satisfaction with inhalers was generally high, and switching was associated with a small increase in the Feeling of Satisfaction with Inhaler questionnaire of 3 out of 50 points. Delivery of a definitive study would be challenging. Conclusion: We completed a mixed-methods study to design and implement a tool to aid optimisation of inhaled pharmacotherapy prior to discharge following a hospitalised exacerbation of COPD. This was not associated with fewer re-admissions, but was well received and one-third of people were eligible for a change in inhalers.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation. METHODS: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up. INTERPRETATION: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

The randomised thoracoscopic talc poudrage+indwelling pleural catheters versus thoracoscopic talc poudrage only in malignant pleural effusion trial (TACTIC): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural effusion (MPE) is common, with 50 000 new cases per year in the UK. MPE causes disabling breathlessness and indicates advanced disease with a poor prognosis. Treatment approaches focus on symptom relief and optimising quality of life (QoL). Patients who newly present with MPE commonly require procedural intervention for both diagnosis and therapeutic benefit.Thoracoscopic pleural biopsies are highly sensitive in diagnosing pleural malignancy. Talc poudrage may be delivered at thoracoscopy (TTP) to prevent effusion recurrence by effecting pleurodesis. Indwelling pleural catheters (IPCs) offer an alternative strategy for fluid control, enabling outpatient management and are often used as 'rescue' therapy following pleurodesis failure or in cases of 'trapped lung'. It is unknown whether combining a TTP with IPC insertion will improve patient symptoms or reduce time spent in the hospital.The randomised thoracoscopic talc poudrage + indwelling pleural catheters versus thoracoscopic talc poudrage only in malignant pleural effusion trial (TACTIC) is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the benefit of a combined TTP and IPC procedure, evaluating cost-effectiveness and patient-centred outcomes such as symptoms and QoL. The study remains in active recruitment and has the potential to radically transform the pathway for all patients presenting with MPE. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TACTIC is an unblinded, multicentre, RCT comparing the combination of TTP with an IPC to TTP alone. Co-primary outcomes are time spent in the hospital and mean breathlessness score over 4 weeks postprocedure. The study will recruit 124 patients and aims to define the optimal pathway for patients presenting with symptomatic MPE. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: TACTIC is sponsored by North Bristol NHS Trust and has been granted ethical approval by the London-Brent Research Ethics Committee (REC ref: 21/LO/0495). Publication of results in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations are anticipated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 11058680.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

FoxO transcription factors; Regulation by AKT and 14-3-3 proteins.

The forkhead box O (FoxO) transcription factor family is a key player in an evolutionary conserved pathway downstream of insulin and insulin-like growth factor receptors. The mammalian FoxO family consists of FoxO1, 3, 4 and 6, which share high similarity in their structure, function and regulation. FoxO proteins are involved in diverse cellular and physiological processes including cell proliferation, apoptosis, reactive oxygen species (ROS) response, longevity, cancer and regulation of cell cycle and metabolism. The regulation of FoxO protein function involves an intricate network of posttranslational modifications and protein-protein interactions that provide integrated cellular response to changing physiological conditions and cues. AKT was identified in early genetic and biochemical studies as a main regulator of FoxO function in diverse organisms. Though other FoxO regulatory pathways and mechanisms have been delineated since, AKT remains a key regulator of the pathway. The present review summarizes the current knowledge of FoxO regulation by AKT and 14-3-3 proteins, focusing on its mechanistic and structural aspects and discusses its crosstalk with the other FoxO regulatory mechanisms. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: PI3K-AKT-FoxO axis in cancer and aging.

Bimodal regulation of FoxO3 by AKT and 14-3-3.

FoxO3 is a member of FoxO family transcription factors that mediate cellular functions downstream of AKT. FoxO3 phosphorylation by AKT generates binding sites for 14-3-3, which in-turn regulates FoxO3 transcriptional activity and localization. We examine here the functional significance of AKT-FoxO3 interaction and further detail the mechanistic aspects of FoxO3 regulation by AKT and 14-3-3. Our data show that AKT overexpression increases the steady-state levels of FoxO3 protein in a manner dependent on AKT activity and its ability to bind FoxO3. Characterization of the AKT-FoxO3 interaction shows that the three AKT phosphorylation-site-recognition motifs (RxRxxS/T) present on FoxO3, which are required for FoxO3 phosphorylation, are dispensable for AKT binding, suggesting that AKT has a docking point on FoxO3 distinct from the phosphorylation-recognition motifs. Development of a FoxO3 mutant deficient in 14-3-3 binding (P34A), which can be phosphorylated by AKT, established that 14-3-3 binding and not AKT phosphorylation per se controls FoxO3 transcriptional activity. Intriguingly, 14-3-3 binding was found to stabilize FoxO3 by inhibiting its dephosphorylation and degradation rates. Collectively, our data support a model where both AKT and 14-3-3 positively regulate FoxO3 in addition to their established negative roles and that 14-3-3 availability could dictate the fate of phosphorylated FoxO3 toward degradation or recycling.

Role of thoracic ultrasonography in pleurodesis pathways for malignant pleural effusions (SIMPLE): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pleurodesis is done as an in-patient procedure to control symptomatic recurrent malignant pleural effusion (MPE) and has a success rate of 75-80%. Thoracic ultrasonography has been shown in a small study to predict pleurodesis success early by demonstrating cessation of lung sliding (a normal sign seen in healthy patients, lung sliding indicates normal movement of the lung inside the thorax). We aimed to investigate whether the use of thoracic ultrasonography in pleurodesis pathways could shorten hospital stay in patients with MPE undergoing pleurodesis. METHODS: The Efficacy of Sonographic and Biological Pleurodesis Indicators of Malignant Pleural Effusion (SIMPLE) trial was an open-label, randomised controlled trial done in ten respiratory centres in the UK and one respiratory centre in the Netherlands. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed MPE who required talc pleurodesis via either a chest tube or as poudrage during medical thorascopy were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to thoracic ultrasonography-guided care or standard care via an online platform using a minimisation algorithm. In the intervention group, daily thoracic ultrasonography examination for lung sliding in nine regions was done to derive an adherence score: present (1 point), questionable (2 points), or absent (3 points), with a lowest possible score of 9 (preserved sliding) and a highest possible score of 27 (complete absence of sliding); the chest tube was removed if the score was more than 20. In the standard care group, tube removal was based on daily output volume (per British Thoracic Society Guidelines). The primary outcome was length of hospital stay, and secondary outcomes were pleurodesis failure at 3 months, time to tube removal, all-cause mortality, symptoms and quality-of-life scores, and cost-effectiveness of thoracic ultrasonography-guided care. All outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with missing data excluded), and a non-inferiority analysis of pleurodesis failure was done in the per-protocol population. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN16441661. FINDINGS: Between Dec 31, 2015, and Dec 17, 2019, 778 patients were assessed for eligibility and 313 participants (165 [53%] male) were recruited and randomly assigned to thoracic ultrasonography-guided care (n=159) or standard care (n=154). In the modified intention-to-treat population, the median length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the intervention group (2 days [IQR 2-4]) than in the standard care group (3 days [2-5]; difference 1 day [95% CI 1-1]; p<0·0001). In the per-protocol analysis, thoracic ultrasonography-guided care was non-inferior to standard care in terms of pleurodesis failure at 3 months, which occurred in 27 (29·7%) of 91 patients in the intervention group versus 34 (31·2%) of 109 patients in the standard care group (risk difference -1·5% [95% CI -10·2% to 7·2%]; non-inferiority margin 15%). Mean time to chest tube removal in the intervention group was 2·4 days (SD 2·5) versus 3·1 days (2·0) in the standard care group (mean difference -0·72 days [95% CI -1·22 to -0·21]; p=0·0057). There were no significant between-group differences in all-cause mortality, symptom scores, or quality-of-life scores, except on the EQ-5D visual analogue scale, which was significantly lower in the standard care group at 3 months. Although costs were similar between the groups, thoracic ultrasonography-guided care was cost-effective compared with standard care. INTERPRETATION: Thoracic ultrasonography-guided care for pleurodesis in patients with MPE results in shorter hospital stay (compared with the British Thoracic Society recommendation for pleurodesis) without reducing the success rate of the procedure at 3 months. The data support consideration of standard use of thoracic ultrasonography in patients undergoing MPE-related pleurodesis. FUNDING: Marie Curie Cancer Care Committee.

Setting up a respiratory trials unit.

Clinical trials are essential in advancing our knowledge and treatment of patients with respiratory disease. Conducting well-designed clinical studies which accurately and reliably answer important clinical questions is challenging. The expertise required to deliver such studies is increasingly concentrated in clinical trials units. This article will describe some of the challenges associated with clinical studies and the methods and personnel involved in a clinical trials unit.

Pleural Fluid Has Pro-Growth Biological Properties Which Enable Cancer Cell Proliferation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) or pleural metastases often present with malignant pleural effusion (MPE). This study aimed to analyze the effect of pleural fluid on cancer cells. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Established patient-derived cancer cell cultures derived from MPE (MPM, breast carcinoma, lung adenocarcinoma) were seeded in 100% pleural fluid (exudate MPM MPE, transudate MPE, non-MPE transudate fluid) and proliferation was monitored. In addition, the establishment of new MPM cell cultures, derived from MPE specimens, was attempted by seeding the cells in 100% MPE fluid. RESULTS: All established cancer cell cultures proliferated with similar growth rates in the different types of pleural fluid. Primary MPM cell culture success was similar with MPE fluid as with full culture medium. CONCLUSIONS: Pleural fluid alone is adequate for cancer cell proliferation in vitro, regardless of the source of pleural fluid. These results support the hypothesis that pleural fluid has important pro-growth biological properties, but the mechanisms for this effect are unclear and likely not malignant effusion specific.

SCJ osteoarthritis: The significance of joint surface location for diagnosis.

An evaluation of the method used to diagnose sternoclavicular joint (SCJ) osteoarthritis (OA) in skeletal remains is presented, with particular attention given to the anatomy of the joint. The current palaeopathological diagnostic criteria used to identify SCJ OA were found to be appropriate for both the sternal and clavicular surfaces of the SCJ, with eburnation indicating perforation of the intra-articular disc and advanced disease. Eburnation was found to occur rarely in the SCJ, and if used as the sole diagnostic criterion would result in an underestimation of SCJ OA prevalence in archaeological assemblages. A key finding was the identification of changes characteristic of OA but confined to the attachment zone of the intra-articular disc on the clavicular surface of the SCJ. As this area of the joint is non-articular, and not normally covered with articular cartilage, a diagnosis of OA would be inaccurate and instead it should be considered as an enthesopathy. It is likely that SCJ OA has been incorrectly identified and over-diagnosed in the archaeological record in the past. More histological research into the disc attachment and its degeneration is required before this can be confirmed.

Randomised Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax (RAMPP): protocol of an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Introduction: Pneumothorax is a common clinical problem. Primary spontaneous pneumothorax (PSP) occurs in otherwise fit young patients, but optimal management is not clearly defined and often results in a long hospital stay. Ambulatory treatment options are available, but the existing data on their efficacy are poor. The Randomised Ambulatory Management of Primary Pneumothorax trial is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing ambulatory management with standard care, specifically designed to safely and effectively reduce hospital stay. Methods and analysis: 236 patients with PSP will be recruited from UK hospitals. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to treatment to either the 'Intervention' arm (ambulatory device; Rocket Pleural Vent) or the 'Control' arm (aspiration ± standard chest drain insertion). Patients will be followed up for a total of 12 months to assess recurrence rates. The primary outcome is total length of stay in hospital (including readmissions) up to 30 days postrandomisation. The secondary outcomes are pain and breathlessness scores, air leak measurement and radiological evidence (on CT scanning) of emphysema-like changes, compared with short-term and long-term outcomes, respectively, and health economic analysis. Ethics and dissemination: The trial has received ethical approval from the National Research Ethics Service Committee South-Central Oxford A (15/SC/0240). Trial registration number: ISRCTN79151659.