Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionLung cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide and surgery remains the main treatment for early stage disease. Prior to the introduction of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), lung resection for cancer was undertaken through an open thoracotomy. To date, the evidence base supporting the different surgical approaches is based on non-randomised studies, small randomised trials and is focused mainly on short-term in-hospital outcomes.Methods and analysisThe VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer study is a UK multicentre parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with blinding of outcome assessors and participants (to hospital discharge) comparing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of VATS lobectomy versus open lobectomy for treatment of lung cancer. We will test the hypothesis that VATS lobectomy is superior to open lobectomy with respect to self-reported physical function 5 weeks after randomisation (approximately 1 month after surgery). Secondary outcomes include assessment of efficacy (hospital stay, pain, proportion and time to uptake of chemotherapy), measures of safety (adverse health events), oncological outcomes (proportion of patients upstaged to pathologic N2 (pN2) disease and disease-free survival), overall survival and health related quality of life to 1 year. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention is integrated into the trial to optimise recruitment.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by the UK (Dulwich) National Research Ethics Service Committee London. Findings will be written-up as methodology papers for conference presentation, and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Many aspects of the feasibility work will inform surgical RCTs in general and these will be reported at methodology meetings. We will also link with lung cancer clinical studies groups. The patient and public involvement group that works with the Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit at the Brompton Hospital will help identify how we can best publicise the findings.Trial registration number ISRCTN13472721

The optimal timing of anticoagulation for patients with acute ischaemic stroke with atrial fibrillation is uncertain. We investigated the efficacy and safety of early compared with delayed initiation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with acute ischaemic stroke associated with atrial fibrillation. We performed a multicentre, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group, phase 4, randomised controlled trial at 100 UK hospitals. Adults with atrial fibrillation and a clinical diagnosis of acute ischaemic stroke and whose physician was uncertain of the optimal timing for DOAC initiation were eligible for inclusion in the study. We randomly assigned participants (1:1) to early (ie, ≤4 days from stroke symptom onset) or delayed (ie, 7–14 days) anticoagulation initiation with any DOAC, using an independent online randomisation service with random permuted blocks and varying block length, stratified by stroke severity at randomisation. Participants and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment assignment, but all outcomes were adjudicated by a masked independent external adjudication committee using all available clinical records, brain imaging reports, and source images. The primary outcome was a composite of recurrent ischaemic stroke, symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism incidence at 90 days in a modified intention-to-treat population. We used a gatekeeper approach by sequentially testing for a non-inferiority margin of 2 percentage points, followed by testing for superiority. OPTIMAS is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN17896007) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03759938), and the trial is ongoing. Between July 5, 2019, and Jan 31, 2024, 3648 patients were randomly assigned to early or delayed DOAC initiation. 27 participants did not fulfil the eligibility criteria or withdrew consent to include their data, leaving 3621 patients (1814 in the early group and 1807 in the delayed group; 1981 men and 1640 women) in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome occurred in 59 (3·3%) of 1814 participants in the early DOAC initiation group compared with 59 (3·3%) of 1807 participants in the delayed DOAC initiation group (adjusted risk difference [RD] 0·000, 95% CI –0·011 to 0·012). The upper limit of the 95% CI for the adjusted RD was less than the non-inferiority margin of 2 percentage points (pnon-inferiority=0·0003). Superiority was not identified (psuperiority=0·96). Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 11 (0·6%) participants allocated to the early DOAC initiation group compared with 12 (0·7%) participants allocated to the delayed DOAC initiation group (adjusted RD 0·001, –0·004 to 0·006; p=0·78). Early DOAC initiation within 4 days after ischaemic stroke associated with atrial fibrillation was non-inferior to delayed initiation for the composite outcome of ischaemic stroke, intracranial haemorrhage, unclassifiable stroke, or systemic embolism at 90 days. Our findings do not support the current common and guideline-supported practice of delaying DOAC initiation after ischaemic stroke with atrial fibrillation. British Heart Foundation.