Graves-PCD: protocol for a randomised, dose-finding, adaptive trial of the plasma cell-depleting agent daratumumab in severe Graves' disease.

INTRODUCTION: Severe Graves' disease is a life-changing condition with poor outcomes from currently available treatments. It is caused by directly pathogenic thyroid-stimulating hormone receptor-stimulating antibodies (TRAb), which are secreted from plasma cells. The human anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody daratumumab was developed to target plasma cells which express high levels of CD38, and is currently licensed for treatment of the plasma cell malignancy, myeloma. However, it can also deplete benign plasma cells with the potential to reduce TRAb and alter the natural history of severe Graves' disease. This study aims to establish proof of concept that daratumumab has efficacy in patients with severe Graves' disease and will provide important data to inform a choice of dosing regimen for subsequent trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Graves-PCD trial aims to determine if daratumumab modulates the humoral immune response in patients with severe Graves' disease, and if so, over what time period, and to find an optimal dose. It is a single-blinded, randomised, dose-finding, adaptive trial using four different doses of daratumumab or placebo in 30 adult patients. Part 1 of the trial is dose-finding and, following an interim analysis, in part 2, the remaining patients will be randomised between the chosen dose(s) from the interim analysis or placebo. The primary outcome is the percentage change in serum TRAb from baseline to 12 weeks. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received a favourable ethical opinion from London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee (reference 21/LO/0449). The results of this trial will be disseminated at international meetings, in the peer-reviewed literature and through partner patient group newsletters and presentations at patient education events. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81162400.

Antithrombotic therapy after heart valve surgery: contemporary practice in the UK.

OBJECTIVES: There is a lack of high-quality data informing the optimal antithrombotic drug strategy following bioprosthetic heart valve replacement or valve repair. Disparity in recommendations from international guidelines reflects this. This study aimed to document current patterns of antithrombotic prescribing after heart valve surgery in the UK. METHODS: All UK consultant cardiac surgeons were e-mailed a custom-designed survey. The use of oral anticoagulant (OAC) and/or antiplatelet drugs following bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement or mitral valve replacement, or mitral valve repair (MVrep), for patients in sinus rhythm, without additional indications for antithrombotic medication, was assessed. Additionally, we evaluated anticoagulant choice following MVrep in patients with atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: We identified 260 UK consultant cardiac surgeons from 36 units, of whom 103 (40%) responded, with 33 units (92%) having at least 1 respondent. The greatest consensus was for patients undergoing bioprosthetic aortic valve replacement, in which 76% of surgeons favour initial antiplatelet therapy and 53% prescribe lifelong treatment. Only 8% recommend initial OAC. After bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement, 48% of surgeons use an initial OAC strategy (versus 42% antiplatelet), with 66% subsequently prescribing lifelong antiplatelet therapy. After MVrep, recommendations were lifelong antiplatelet agent alone (34%) or following 3 months OAC (20%), no antithrombotic agent (20%), or 3 months OAC (16%). After MVrep for patients with established atrial fibrillation, surgeons recommend warfarin (38%), a direct oral anticoagulant (37%) or have no preference between the 2 (25%). CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variation in the use of antithrombotic drugs after heart valve surgery in the UK and a lack of high-quality evidence to guide practice, underscoring the need for randomized studies.

Defining predictors of responsiveness to advanced therapies in Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis: protocol for the IBD-RESPONSE and nested CD-metaRESPONSE prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study in precision medicine.

INTRODUCTION: Characterised by chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) symptoms including diarrhoea, abdominal pain and fatigue can significantly impact patient's quality of life. Therapeutic developments in the last 20 years have revolutionised treatment. However, clinical trials and real-world data show primary non-response rates up to 40%. A significant challenge is an inability to predict which treatment will benefit individual patients.Current understanding of IBD pathogenesis implicates complex interactions between host genetics and the gut microbiome. Most cohorts studying the gut microbiota to date have been underpowered, examined single treatments and produced heterogeneous results. Lack of cross-treatment comparisons and well-powered independent replication cohorts hampers the ability to infer real-world utility of predictive signatures.IBD-RESPONSE will use multi-omic data to create a predictive tool for treatment response. Future patient benefit may include development of biomarker-based treatment stratification or manipulation of intestinal microbial targets. IBD-RESPONSE and downstream studies have the potential to improve quality of life, reduce patient risk and reduce expenditure on ineffective treatments. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective, multicentre, observational study will identify and validate a predictive model for response to advanced IBD therapies, incorporating gut microbiome, metabolome, single-cell transcriptome, human genome, dietary and clinical data. 1325 participants commencing advanced therapies will be recruited from ~40 UK sites. Data will be collected at baseline, week 14 and week 54. The primary outcome is week 14 clinical response. Secondary outcomes include clinical remission, loss of response in week 14 responders, corticosteroid-free response/remission, time to treatment escalation and change in patient-reported outcome measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 (ref: 21/WA/0228). Recruitment is ongoing. Following study completion, results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific meetings. Publications will be summarised at www.ibd-response.co.uk. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN96296121.

Feasibility study of rehabilitation for cardiac patients aided by an artificial intelligence web-based programme: a randomised controlled trial (RECAP trial)-a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) delivered by rehabilitation specialists in a healthcare setting is effective in improving functional capacity and reducing readmission rates after cardiac surgery. It is also associated with a reduction in cardiac mortality and recurrent myocardial infarction. This trial assesses the feasibility of a home-based CR programme delivered using a mobile application (app). METHODS: The Rehabilitation through Exercise prescription for Cardiac patients using an Artificial intelligence web-based Programme (RECAP) randomised controlled feasibility trial is a single-centre prospective study, in which patients will be allocated on a 1:1 ratio to a home-based CR programme delivered using a mobile app with accelerometers or standard hospital-based rehabilitation classes. The home-based CR programme will employ artificial intelligence to prescribe exercise goals to the participants on a weekly basis. The trial will recruit 70 patients in total. The primary objectives are to evaluate participant recruitment and dropout rates, assess the feasibility of randomisation, determine acceptability to participants and staff, assess the rates of potential outcome measures and determine hospital resource allocation to inform the design of a larger randomised controlled trial for clinical efficacy and health economic evaluation. Secondary objectives include evaluation of health-related quality of life and 6 minute walk distance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: RECAP trial received a favourable outcome from the Berkshire research ethics committee in September 2022 (IRAS 315483).Trial results will be made available through publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN97352737.

Dual bronchodilators in Bronchiectasis study (DIBS): protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, three-arm, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial studying bronchodilators in preventing exacerbations of bronchiectasis.

INTRODUCTION: Bronchiectasis is a long-term lung condition, with dilated bronchi, chronic inflammation, chronic infection and acute exacerbations. Recurrent exacerbations are associated with poorer clinical outcomes such as increased severity of lung disease, further exacerbations, hospitalisations, reduced quality of life and increased risk of death. Despite an increasing prevalence of bronchiectasis, there is a critical lack of high-quality studies into the disease and no treatments specifically approved for its treatment. This trial aims to establish whether inhaled dual bronchodilators (long acting beta agonist (LABA) and long acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA)) taken as either a stand-alone therapy or in combination with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) reduce the number of exacerbations of bronchiectasis requiring treatment with antibiotics during a 12 month treatment period. METHODS: This is a multicentre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and embedded economic evaluation. 600 adult patients (≥18 years) with CT confirmed bronchiectasis will be recruited and randomised to either inhaled dual therapy (LABA+LAMA), triple therapy (LABA+LAMA+ICS) or matched placebo, in a 2:2:1 ratio (respectively). The primary outcome is the number of protocol defined exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics during the 12 month treatment period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion was received from the North East-Newcastle and North Tyneside 2 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/NE/0020). Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in the NIHR Health Technology Assessments journal and to participants and the public (using lay language). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15988757.

Minithoracotomy vs Conventional Sternotomy for Mitral Valve Repair: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The safety and effectiveness of mitral valve repair via thoracoscopically-guided minithoracotomy (minithoracotomy) compared with median sternotomy (sternotomy) in patients with degenerative mitral valve regurgitation is uncertain. Objective: To compare the safety and effectiveness of minithoracotomy vs sternotomy mitral valve repair in a randomized trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, multicenter, superiority, randomized clinical trial in 10 tertiary care institutions in the UK. Participants were adults with degenerative mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve repair surgery. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 with concealed allocation to receive either minithoracotomy or sternotomy mitral valve repair performed by an expert surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was physical functioning and associated return to usual activities measured by change from baseline in the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) version 2 physical functioning scale 12 weeks after the index surgery, assessed by an independent researcher masked to the intervention. Secondary outcomes included recurrent mitral regurgitation grade, physical activity, and quality of life. The prespecified safety outcomes included death, repeat mitral valve surgery, or heart failure hospitalization up to 1 year. Results: Between November 2016 and January 2021, 330 participants were randomized (mean age, 67 years, 100 female [30%]); 166 were allocated to minithoracotomy and 164 allocated to sternotomy, of whom 309 underwent surgery and 294 reported the primary outcome. At 12 weeks, the mean between-group difference in the change in the SF-36 physical function T score was 0.68 (95% CI, -1.89 to 3.26). Valve repair rates (≈ 96%) were similar in both groups. Echocardiography demonstrated mitral regurgitation severity as none or mild for 92% of participants at 1 year with no difference between groups. The composite safety outcome occurred in 5.4% (9 of 166) of patients undergoing minithoracotomy and 6.1% (10 of 163) undergoing sternotomy at 1 year. Conclusions and relevance: Minithoracotomy is not superior to sternotomy in recovery of physical function at 12 weeks. Minithoracotomy achieves high rates and quality of valve repair and has similar safety outcomes at 1 year to sternotomy. The results provide evidence to inform shared decision-making and treatment guidelines. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13930454.

Using the AR-V7 biomarker to determine treatment in metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer, a feasibility randomised control trial, conclusions from the VARIANT trial [version 2; peer review: 2 approved].

Background: Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed malignancy in the UK. Castrate resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) can be difficult to manage with response to next generation hormonal treatment variable. AR-V7 is a protein biomarker that can be used to predict response to treatment and potentially better inform management in these patients. Our aim was to establish the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical utility of AR-V7 biomarker assay in personalising treatments for patients with metastatic CRPC within the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS).  Due to a number of issues the trial was not completed successfully, we aim to discuss and share lessons learned herein. Methods: We conducted a randomised, open, feasibility trial, which aimed to recruit 70 adult men with metastatic CRPC within three secondary care NHS trusts in the UK to be run over an 18-month period. Participants were randomised to personalised treatment based on AR-V7 status (intervention) or standard care (control). The primary outcome was feasibility, which included: recruitment rate, retention and compliance. Additionally, a baseline prevalence of AR-V7 expression was to be estimated. Results: Fourteen participants were screened and 12 randomised with six into each arm over a nine-month period. Reliability issues with the AR-V7 assay meant prevalence was not estimated. Due to limited recruitment the study did not complete to target. Conclusions: Whilst the trial did not complete to target, we have ascertained that men with advanced cancer are willing to take part in trials utilising biomarker guided treatment. A number of issues were identified that serve as important learning points in future clinical trials.

Activation of telomerase by TA-65 enhances immunity and reduces inflammation post myocardial infarction.

Myocardial infarction (MI) accelerates immune ageing characterised by lymphopenia, expansion of terminally differentiated CD8+ T-lymphocytes (CD8+ TEMRA) and inflammation. Pre-clinical data showed that TA-65, an oral telomerase activator, reduced immune ageing and inflammation after MI. We conducted a double blinded randomised controlled pilot trial evaluating the use of TA-65 to reduce immune cell ageing in patients following MI. Ninety MI patients aged over 65 years were randomised to either TA-65 (16 mg daily) or placebo for 12 months. Peripheral blood leucocytes were analysed by flow cytometry. The pre-defined primary endpoint was the proportion of CD8+ T-lymphocytes which were CD8+ TEMRA after 12 months. Secondary outcomes included high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels. Median age of participants was 71 years. Proportions of CD8+ TEMRA did not differ after 12 months between treatment groups. There was a significant increase in mean total lymphocyte count in the TA-65 group after 12 months (estimated treatment effect: + 285 cells/µl (95% CI: 117-452 cells/ µ l, p < 0.004), driven by significant increases from baseline in CD3+, CD4+, and CD8+ T-lymphocytes, B-lymphocytes and natural killer cells. No increase in lymphocyte populations was seen in the placebo group. At 12 months, hsCRP was 62% lower in the TA-65 group compared to placebo (1.1 vs. 2.9 mg/L). Patients in the TA-65 arm experienced significantly fewer adverse events (130 vs. 185, p = 0.002). TA-65 did not alter CD8+ TEMRA but increased all major lymphocyte subsets and reduced hsCRP in elderly patients with MI after 12 months.

Prehabilitation in elective patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a randomised control trial (THE PrEPS TRIAL) - a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prehabilitation prior to surgery has been shown to reduce postoperative complications, reduce length of hospital stay and improve quality of life after cancer and limb reconstruction surgery. However, there are minimal data on the impact of prehabilitation in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, despite the fact these patients are generally older and have more comorbidities and frailty. This trial will assess the feasibility and impact of a prehabilitation intervention consisting of exercise and inspiratory muscle training on preoperative functional exercise capacity in adult patients awaiting elective cardiac surgery, and determine any impact on clinical outcomes after surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PrEPS is a randomised controlled single-centre trial recruiting 180 participants undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to standard presurgical care or standard care plus a prehabilitation intervention. The primary outcome will be change in functional exercise capacity measured as change in the 6 min walk test distance from baseline. Secondary outcomes will evaluate the impact of prehabilitation on preoperative and postoperative outcomes including; respiratory function, health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression, frailty, and postoperative complications and resource use. This trial will evaluate if a prehabilitation intervention can improve preoperative physical function, inspiratory muscle function, frailty and quality of life prior to surgery in elective patients awaiting cardiac surgery, and impact postoperative outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A favourable opinion was given by the Sheffield Research Ethics Committee in 2019. Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13860094.

Preventing cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer and lymphoma: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (PROACT).

INTRODUCTION: Anthracyclines are included in chemotherapy regimens to treat several different types of cancer and are extremely effective. However, it is recognised that a significant side effect is cardiotoxicity; anthracyclines can cause irreversible damage to cardiac cells and ultimately impaired cardiac function and heart failure, which may only be evident years after exposure. The PROACT trial will establish the effectiveness of the ACE inhibitor enalapril maleate (enalapril) in preventing cardiotoxicity in patients with breast cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PROACT is a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point, superiority trial which will recruit adult patients being treated for breast cancer and NHL at NHS hospitals throughout England. The trial aims to recruit 106 participants, who will be randomised to standard care (high-dose anthracycline-based chemotherapy) plus enalapril (intervention) or standard care alone (control). Patients randomised to the intervention arm will receive enalapril (starting at 2.5 mg two times per day and titrating up to a maximum dose of 10 mg two times per day), commencing treatment at least 2 days prior to starting chemotherapy and finishing 3 weeks after their last anthracycline dose. The primary outcome is the presence or absence of cardiac troponin T release at any time during anthracycline treatment, and 1 month after the last dose of anthracycline. Secondary outcomes will focus on cardiac function measured using echocardiogram assessment, adherence to enalapril and side effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A favourable opinion was given following research ethics committee review by West Midlands-Edgbaston REC, Ref: 17/WM/0248. Trial findings will be disseminated through engagement with patients, the oncology and cardiology communities, NHS management and commissioning groups and through peer-reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03265574.

Long-term outcomes of mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Aortic valve replacement (AVR) for severe symptomatic aortic stenosis is one of the most common cardiac surgical procedures with excellent long-term outcomes. Multiple previous studies have compared short-term outcomes of AVR with mini-sternotomy versus AVR with conventional sternotomy. We have previously reported the results of the randomized MAVRIC trial, which aimed to evaluate early postoperative morbidity among patients undergoing mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy AVR. We now report the long-term all-cause mortality, reoperation, MACE outcomes and echocardiographic data from this trial. METHODS: The prospective, randomized, single-centre, single-blind MAVRIC (manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement) trial compared manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy and conventional median sternotomy for the treatment of patients with severe aortic stenosis. The previously reported primary outcome was the proportion of patients receiving red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of the index procedure. Currently reported exploratory analyses of a combined long-term all-cause mortality and reoperation were compared between groups via the log-rank test. Sensitivity analyses reviewed individual components of the combined end point. The primary analysis and long-term exploratory analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and June 2016, 270 patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to undergo mini-sternotomy AVR (n = 135) or conventional median sternotomy AVR (n = 135). At the median follow-up of 6.1 years, the composite outcome of all-cause mortality and reoperation occurred in 18.5% (25/135) of patients in the conventional sternotomy group and in 17% (23/135) of patients in the mini-sternotomy group. The incidence of chronic kidney disease, cerebrovascular accident and myocardial infarction was not significantly different between 2 groups. Follow-up echocardiographic data suggested no difference in peak and mean gradients or incidence of aortic regurgitation between 2 approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This exploratory long-term analysis demonstrated that, in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing isolated AVR, there was no significant difference between manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy and conventional sternotomy with respect to all-cause mortality, rate of reoperation, MACE events and echocardiographic data at the median of 6.1-year follow-up.

Practical guidance for planning resources required to support publicly-funded adaptive clinical trials.

Adaptive designs are a class of methods for improving efficiency and patient benefit of clinical trials. Although their use has increased in recent years, research suggests they are not used in many situations where they have potential to bring benefit. One barrier to their more widespread use is a lack of understanding about how the choice to use an adaptive design, rather than a traditional design, affects resources (staff and non-staff) required to set-up, conduct and report a trial. The Costing Adaptive Trials project investigated this issue using quantitative and qualitative research amongst UK Clinical Trials Units. Here, we present guidance that is informed by our research, on considering the appropriate resourcing of adaptive trials. We outline a five-step process to estimate the resources required and provide an accompanying costing tool. The process involves understanding the tasks required to undertake a trial, and how the adaptive design affects them. We identify barriers in the publicly funded landscape and provide recommendations to trial funders that would address them. Although our guidance and recommendations are most relevant to UK non-commercial trials, many aspects are relevant more widely.

Non-anemic iron deficiency predicts prolonged hospitalisation following surgical aortic valve replacement: a single-centre retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency has deleterious effects in patients with cardiopulmonary disease, independent of anemia. Low ferritin has been associated with increased mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, but modern indices of iron deficiency need to be explored in this population. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-centre observational study of 250 adults in a UK academic tertiary hospital undergoing median sternotomy for non-emergent isolated aortic valve replacement. We characterised preoperative iron status using measurement of both plasma ferritin and soluble transferrin receptor (sTfR), and examined associations with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Measurement of plasma sTfR gave a prevalence of iron deficiency of 22%. Patients with non-anemic iron deficiency had clinically significant prolongation of total hospital stay (mean increase 2.2 days; 95% CI: 0.5-3.9; P = 0.011) and stay within the cardiac intensive care unit (mean increase 1.3 days; 95% CI: 0.1-2.5; P = 0.039). There were no deaths. Defining iron deficiency as a plasma ferritin < 100 µg/L identified 60% of patients as iron deficient and did not predict length of stay. No significant associations with transfusion requirements were evident using either definition of iron deficiency. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that when defined using sTfR rather than ferritin, non-anemic iron deficiency predicts prolonged hospitalisation following surgical aortic valve replacement. Further studies are required to clarify the role of contemporary laboratory indices in the identification of preoperative iron deficiency in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. An interventional study of intravenous iron targeted at preoperative non-anemic iron deficiency is warranted.

Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials. METHODS: We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences. RESULTS: Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had. CONCLUSIONS: This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials.

Impact of prehabilitation on objectively measured physical activity levels in elective surgery patients: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the impact of prehabilitation on objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels in elective surgery patients. DATA SOURCES: Articles published in Web of Science Core Collections, PubMed, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), PsycInfo (EBSCOHost) and CENTRAL through August 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that met the following criteria: (1) written in English, (2) quantitatively described the effect(s) of a PA intervention among elective surgery patients prior to surgery and (3) used and reported objective measures of PA in the study. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Participant characteristics, intervention details, PA measurement, and clinical and health-related outcomes were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed following the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneity, therefore narrative synthesis was used. RESULTS: 6533 unique articles were identified in the search; 21 articles (based on 15 trials) were included in the review. There was little evidence to suggest that prehabilitation is associated with increases in objectively measured PA, but this may be due to insufficient statistical power as most (n=8) trials included in the review were small feasibility/pilot studies. Where studies tested associations between objectively measured PA during the intervention period and health-related outcomes, significant beneficial associations were reported. Limitations in the evidence base precluded any assessment via meta-regression of the association between objectively measured PA and clinical or health-related outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Additional large-scale studies are needed, with clear and consistent reporting of objective measures including accelerometry variables and outcome variables, to improve our understanding of the impact of changes in PA prior to surgery on surgical and health-related outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019151475.

Minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for Mitral valve repair: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial (UK Mini Mitral).

INTRODUCTION: Numbers of patients undergoing mitral valve repair (MVr) surgery for severe mitral regurgitation have grown and will continue to rise. MVr is routinely performed via median sternotomy; however, there is a move towards less invasive surgical approaches.There is debate within the clinical and National Health Service (NHS) commissioning community about widespread adoption of minimally invasive MVr surgery in the absence of robust research evidence; implementation requires investment in staff and infrastructure.The UK Mini Mitral trial will provide definitive evidence comparing patient, NHS and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing MVr surgery. It will establish the best surgical approach for MVr, setting a standard against which emerging percutaneous techniques can be measured. Findings will inform optimisation of cost-effective practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: UK Mini Mitral is a multicentre, expertise based randomised controlled trial of minimally invasive thoracoscopically guided right minithoracotomy versus conventional sternotomy for MVr. The trial is taking place in NHS cardiothoracic centres in the UK with established minimally invasive mitral valve surgery programmes. In each centre, consenting and eligible patients are randomised to receive surgery performed by consultant surgeons who meet protocol-defined surgical expertise criteria. Patients are followed for 1 year, and consent to longer term follow-up.Primary outcome is physical functioning 12 weeks following surgery, measured by change in Short Form Health Survey (SF-36v2) physical functioning scale. Early and 1 year echo data will be reported by a core laboratory. Estimates of key clinical and health economic outcomes will be reported up to 5 years.The primary economic outcome is cost effectiveness, measured as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained over 52 weeks following index surgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A favourable opinion was given by Wales REC 6 (16/WA/0156). Trial findings will be disseminated to patients, clinicians, commissioning groups and through peer reviewed publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13930454.

Mini-sternotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement: a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care). DESIGN: A single-blind, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Single centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention was manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy performed using a 5-7 cm midline incision. Usual care was median sternotomy performed using a midline incision from the sternal notch to the xiphisternum. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received a red cell transfusion postoperatively and within 7 days of index surgery. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients receiving a non-red cell blood component transfusion and number of units transfused within 7 days and during index hospital stay, quality of life and cost-effectiveness analyses. RESULTS: 270 patients were randomised, received surgery and contributed to the intention to treat analysis. No difference between mini and conventional sternotomy in red-cell transfusion within 7 days was found; 23/135 patients in each arm received a transfusion, OR 1.0 (95% CI 0.5 to 2.0) and risk difference 0.0 (95% CI -0.1 to 0.1). Mini-sternotomy reduced chest drain losses (mean 181.6 mL (SD 138.7) vs conventional, mean 306·9 mL (SD 348.6)); this did not reduce red-cell transfusions. Mean valve size and postoperative valve function were comparable between mini-sternotomy and conventional groups; 23 mm vs 24 mm and 6/134 moderate or severe aortic regurgitation vs 3/130, respectively. Mini-sternotomy resulted in longer bypass (82.7 min (SD 23.5) vs 59.6 min (SD 15.1)) and cross-clamp times (64.1 min (SD 17.1) vs 46·3 min (SD 10.7)). Conventional sternotomy was more cost-effective with only a 5.8% probability of mini-sternotomy being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of £20 000/QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). CONCLUSIONS: AVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN29567910; Results.

Does Blood Transfusion Have an Effect on Outcomes After Aortic Valve Replacement Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: Long-term outcomes following surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) are excellent. However, there is a significant early morbidity burden. Red cell transfusion is common in the perioperative period and deleterious effects of receiving a transfusion on early postoperative morbidity are well described in observational studies. This study aimed to assess the effect of transfusion on ischaemic or infective outcomes after aortic valve replacement. METHODS: Data from 270 patients enrolled in the Manubrium-limited ministernotomy versus conventional sternotomy for aortic valve replacement (MAVRIC) randomised controlled trial was used to create two cohorts, patients that received red cell transfusions following AVR and those that did not. Propensity score matching was performed to limit the effect of confounding variables. Strict transfusion thresholds were maintained, with patients receiving a transfusion if haemoglobin concentration fell below 80 g/L, or if significant bleeding or haemodynamic instability occurred. The primary outcome was a composite of ischaemic event (myocardial infarction, permanent stroke, gut ischaemia or acute kidney injury) or serious infection (sepsis, endocarditis, respiratory tract or wound infection). Patients were followed for 12 weeks following surgery. RESULTS: Sixty-three (63) of 270 patients received a red cell transfusion (23.3%). Transfused patients had significantly lower body mass index (BMI), a higher proportion of females, a lower preoperative haemoglobin and haematocrit, a higher EuroSCORE II score, worse renal function and were more likely to have undergone urgent surgery compared to the unadjusted control cohort. Once matched, there was no difference in the primary outcome between cohorts. There was a significantly increased length of hospital stay in the transfused group (median 7 days transfused, median 5 days not-transfused, p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Red cell transfusion, using a transfusion threshold of 80 g/L, does not appear to be associated with adverse ischaemic or infective outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

Ensuring that COVID-19 research is inclusive: guidance from the NIHR INCLUDE project.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance to researchers, funders, regulators and study delivery teams to ensure that research on COVID-19 is inclusive, particularly of groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and who may have been historically under-served by research. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Groups who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19 include (but are not limited to) older people, people with multiple long-term conditions, people with disabilities, people from Black, Asian and Ethnic minority groups, people living with obesity, people who are socioeconomically deprived and people living in care homes. All these groups are under-served by clinical research, and there is an urgent need to rectify this if COVID-19 research is to deliver relevant evidence for these groups who are most in need. We provide a framework and checklists for addressing key issues when designing and delivering inclusive COVID-19 research, based on the National Institute for Health Research INnovations in CLinical trial design and delivery for the UnDEr-served project roadmap. Strong community engagement, codevelopment and prioritisation of research questions and interventions are essential. Under-served groups should be represented on funding panels and ethics committees, who should insist on the removal of barriers to participation. Exclusion criteria should be kept to a minimum; intervention delivery and outcome measurement should be simple, flexible and tailored to the needs of different groups, and local advice on the best way to reach and engage with under-served communities should be taken by study delivery teams. Data on characteristics that allow identification of under-served groups must be collected, analyses should include these data to enable subgroup comparisons and results should be shared with under-served groups at an early stage. CONCLUSION: Inclusive COVID-19 research is a necessity, not a luxury, if research is to benefit all the communities it seeks to serve. It requires close engagement with under-served groups and attention to aspects of study topic, design, delivery, analysis and dissemination across the research life cycle.

Telomerase Activation to Reverse Immunosenescence in Elderly Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: Protocol for a Randomized Pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation plays a key role in the pathophysiology of coronary heart disease (CHD) and its acute manifestation, acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Aging is associated with a decline of the immune system, a process known as immunosenescence. This is characterized by an increase in highly proinflammatory T cells that are involved in CHD progression, plaque destabilization, and myocardial ischemia-reperfusion injury. Telomere dysfunction has been implicated in immunosenescence of T lymphocytes. Telomerase is the enzyme responsible for maintaining telomeres during cell divisions. It has a protective effect on cells under oxidative stress and helps regulate flow-mediated dilation in microvasculature. OBJECTIVE: The TACTIC (Telomerase ACTivator to reverse Immunosenescence in Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial will investigate whether a telomerase activator, TA-65MD, can reduce the proportion of senescent T cells in patients with ACS with confirmed CHD. It will also assess the effect of TA-65MD on decreasing telomere shortening, reducing oxidative stress, and improving endothelial function. METHODS: The study was designed as a single-center, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase II trial. Recruitment started in January 2019. A total of 90 patients, aged 65 years or older, with treated ACS who have had CHD confirmed by angiography will be enrolled. They will be randomized to one of two groups: TA-65MD oral therapy (8 mg twice daily) or placebo taken for 12 months. The primary outcome is the effect on immunosenescence determined by a decrease in the proportion of CD8+ TEMRA (T effector memory cells re-expressing CD45RA [CD45 expressing exon A]) cells at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include leukocyte telomere length, endothelial function, cardiac function as measured by echocardiography and NT-proBNP (N-terminal fragment of the prohormone brain-type natriuretic peptide), systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, and telomerase activity. RESULTS: The study received National Health Service (NHS) ethics approval on August 9, 2018; Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency approval on October 19, 2018; and NHS Health Research Authority approval on October 22, 2018. The trial began recruiting participants in January 2019 and completed recruitment in March 2020; the trial is due to report results in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial in older patients with CHD will explore outcomes not previously investigated outside in vitro or preclinical models. The robust design ensures that bias has been minimized. Should the results indicate reduced frequency of immunosenescent CD8+ T cells as well as improvements in telomere length and endothelial function, we will plan a larger, multicenter trial in patients to determine if TA-65MD is beneficial in the treatment of CHD in elderly patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN16613292; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16613292 and European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), European Union Clinical Trials Register 2017-002876-26; https://tinyurl.com/y4m2so8g. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/19456.