Challenges in IBD Research: Precision Medicine.

Precision medicine is part of five focus areas of the Challenges in IBD research document, which also includes preclinical human IBD mechanisms, environmental triggers, novel technologies, and pragmatic clinical research. The Challenges in IBD Research document provides a comprehensive overview of current gaps in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) research and delivers actionable approaches to address them. It is the result of a multidisciplinary input from scientists, clinicians, patients, and funders, and represents a valuable resource for patient centric research prioritization. In particular, the precision medicine section is focused on highlighting the main gap areas that must be addressed to get closer to treatments tailored to the biological and clinical characteristics of each patient, which is the aim of precision medicine. The main gaps were identified in: 1) understanding and predicting the natural history of IBD: disease susceptibility, activity, and behavior; 2) predicting disease course and treatment response; and 3) optimizing current and developing new molecular technologies. Suggested approaches to bridge these gaps include prospective longitudinal cohort studies to identify and validate precision biomarkers for prognostication of disease course, and prediction and monitoring of treatment response. To achieve this, harmonization across studies is key as well as development of standardized methods and infrastructure. The implementation of state-of-the-art molecular technologies, systems biology and machine learning approaches for multi-omics and clinical data integration and analysis will be also fundamental. Finally, randomized biomarker-stratified trials will be critical to evaluate the clinical utility of validated signatures and biomarkers in improving patient outcomes and cost-effective care.

Partial ablation versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate-risk prostate cancer: the PART feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVES: To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture. DESIGN: We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation. SETTING: Five NHS hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa. INTERVENTIONS: Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The randomisation of 80 men. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and 'tips' documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) - with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants - than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only. CONCLUSIONS: Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted. FUTURE WORK: Men recruited to the feasibility study will be followed up for 36 months in accordance with the protocol. We will design a full RCT, taking into account the lessons learnt from this study. CRFs will be streamlined, and the length and frequency of PROMs and resource use diaries will be reviewed to reduce the burden on patients and research nurses and to optimise data completeness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99760303. 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. 22, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Modelling-based evaluation of the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of multipathogen point-of-care tests for sexually transmitted infections in symptomatic genitourinary medicine clinic attendees.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of three multipathogen point-of-care (POC) testing strategies for detecting common sexually transmitted infections (STIs) compared with standard laboratory testing. DESIGN: Modelling study. SETTING: Genitourinary medicine (GUM) services in England. POPULATION: A hypothetical cohort of 965 988 people, representing the annual number attending GUM services symptomatic of lower genitourinary tract infection. INTERVENTIONS: The decision tree model considered costs and reimbursement to GUM services associated with diagnosing and managing STIs. Three strategies using hypothetical point-of-care tests (POCTs) were compared with standard care (SC) using laboratory-based testing. The strategies were: A) dual POCT for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG); B) triplex POCT for CT-NG and Mycoplasma genitalium (MG); C) quadruplex POCT for CT-NG-MG and Trichomonas vaginalis (TV). Data came from published literature and unpublished estimates. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were total costs and benefits (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) for each strategy (2016 GB, £) and associated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) between each of the POC strategies and SC. Secondary outcomes were inappropriate treatment of STIs, onward STI transmission, pelvic inflammatory disease in women, time to cure and total attendances. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, POC strategy C, a quadruplex POCT, was the most cost-effective relative to the other strategies, with an ICER of £36 585 per QALY gained compared with SC when using microcosting, and cost-savings of £26 451 382 when using tariff costing. POC strategy C also generated the most benefits, with 240 467 fewer clinic attendances, 808 fewer onward STI transmissions and 235 135 averted inappropriate treatments compared with SC. CONCLUSIONS: Many benefits can be achieved by using multipathogen POCTs to improve STI diagnosis and management. Further evidence is needed on the underlying prevalence of STIs and SC delivery in the UK to reduce uncertainty in economic analyses.

Economic analysis of oral dexamethasone for symptom relief of sore throat: the UK TOAST study.

OBJECTIVES: To undertake an economic analysis assessing the cost-effectiveness of a single dose of oral dexamethasone compared with placebo for the relief of sore throat. DESIGN: A UK-based, multicentre, two arm, individually randomised, double blind trial. SETTING AND POPULATION: Adults (≥18 years) with acute sore throat and painful swallowing judged to be infective in origin, recruited and randomised in primary care. INTERVENTION: a single dose of 10 mg oral dexamethasone compared with placebo given at primary care visit. MAIN OUTCOME: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), cost per quality-adjusted symptom resolution using the EuroQol-five dimensions-five levels instrument, were estimated as part of a cost-utility analysis performed on an intention-to-treat cohort adopting a health payers perspective. RESULTS: Differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 7 days from baseline and at 24 hours in the dexamethasone compared with the placebo group (2.9% and 2.5% higher, respectively) were observed. After controlling for the baseline HRQoL imbalances, the economic impact of the intervention was not statistically significant: the quality-adjusted life year difference was -0.00005 (95% CI -0.0002 to 0.00011) equivalent to a loss in HRQoL of a half hour in the dexamethasone group. The average cost per patient associated in the dexamethasone and placebo groups in the basecase analysis was £73 and £69, respectively. In the basecase probabilistic analysis, the mean ICER was -£6440 (95% CI -£132 151 to £126 335) and the median ICER was -£304 (IQR-£5816 to £3877); suggesting considerable uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The economic burden associated with sore throat is substantial and was estimated at £2.35 billion to the healthcare services payer based on reported resource use and 2015 UK unit costs. There is considerable uncertainty regarding the cost-effectiveness of a single dose of oral dexamethasone as a treatment strategy and therefore insufficient evidence to support its use in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17435450; Post-results.

Supporting prostate cancer survivors in primary care: Findings from a pilot trial of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention (PROSPECTIV).

PURPOSE: This study sought to test the acceptability and feasibility of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention (NLPI) delivered in primary care to prostate cancer survivors, and to provide preliminary estimates of the effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS: Men who reported an ongoing problem with urinary, bowel, sexual or hormone-related functioning/vitality on a self-completion questionnaire were invited to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to the NLPI plus usual care, or to usual care alone. Recruitment and retention rates were assessed. Prostate-related quality of life, self-efficacy, unmet needs, and psychological morbidity were measured at baseline and 9 months. Health-care resource use data was also collected. An integrated qualitative study assessed experiences of the intervention. RESULTS: 61% eligible men (83/136) participated in the trial, with an 87% (72/83) completion rate. Interviews indicated that the intervention filled an important gap in care following treatment completion, helping men to self-manage, and improving their sense of well-being. However, only a small reduction in unmet needs and small improvement in self-efficacy was observed, and no difference in prostate-related quality of life or psychological morbidity. Patients receiving the NLPI recorded more primary care visits, while the usual care group recorded more secondary care visits. Most men (70%; (21/30)) felt the optimal time for the intervention was around the time of diagnosis/before the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention in primary care is feasible, acceptable and potentially useful to prostate cancer survivors.

Factors driving inequality in prostate cancer survival: a population based study.

PURPOSE: As cancer control strategies have become more successful, issues around survival have become increasingly important to researchers and policy makers. The aim of this study was to examine the role of a range of clinical and socio-demographic variables in explaining variations in survival after a prostate cancer diagnosis, paying particular attention to the role of healthcare provider(s) i.e. private versus public status. METHODS: Data were extracted from the National Cancer Registry Ireland, for patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 1998-2009 (N = 26,183). A series of multivariate Cox and logistic regression models were used to examine the role of healthcare provider and socio-economic status (area-based deprivation) on survival, controlling for age, stage, Gleason grade, marital status and region of residence. Survival was based on all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Older individuals who were treated in a private care setting were more likely to have survived than those who had not, when other factors were controlled for. Differences were evident with respect to marital status, region of residence, clinical stage and Gleason grade. The effect of socio-economic status was modified by healthcare provider, such that risk of death was higher in those men of lower socio-economic status treated by public, but not private providers in the Cox models. The logistic models revealed a socio-economic gradient in risk of death overall; the gradient was larger for those treated by public providers compared to those treated by private providers when controlling for a range of other confounding factors. CONCLUSION: The role of healthcare provider and socio-economic status in survival of men with prostate cancer may give rise to concerns that warrant further investigation.