Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveTo systematically review the impact of prehabilitation on objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels in elective surgery patients.Data sourcesArticles published in Web of Science Core Collections, PubMed, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOHost), PsycInfo (EBSCOHost) and CENTRAL through August 2020.Study selectionStudies 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 synthesisParticipant 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.Results6533 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.ConclusionsAdditional 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 numberCRD42019151475.

IntroductionSepsis is a life-threatening syndrome resulting from a dysregulated immune response to an infection. Patients with sepsis can become critically ill and require advanced organ support in a hospital critical care setting. Antibiotics are lifesaving in sepsis, but overuse is associated with harm and promotes antimicrobial resistance, a rising global challenge making antibiotic treatment less effective. The prevalence of antibiotic use is very high in patients admitted to critical care. Research indicates that shorter courses of antibiotics are as effective as longer durations in the treatment of certain infections, but uncertainty remains for patients with sepsis. The aim of SHORTER is to investigate whether treating critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed sepsis with a fixed 5-day, short course of antibiotics is clinically and cost-effective compared with standard of care.Methods and analysisSHORTER is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. 2244 adults treated with antibiotics for suspected or confirmed sepsis in a critical care setting will be recruited from 50 UK National Health Service hospitals. Participants will be randomised to either a fixed 5-day index course of antibiotics (intervention) or standard of care duration antibiotics (control). The coprimary outcomes are 28-day mortality (non-inferiority) and antibiotic treatment days (superiority). Secondary outcomes will assess the effect of short-duration antibiotic therapy on 90-day mortality, hospital readmissions, further infection rates and health economic impacts. A process evaluation will be embedded in the trial.Ethics and disseminationFavourable ethical opinion has been received from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 4 (Ref: 23/WA/0197) and Scotland A REC (Ref: 24/SS/0013). Results will be publicly disseminated via Patient Public Involvement and Engagement representatives, charities and media, and to the clinical community via professional societies, peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN40090372.

ObjectiveTo compare clinical and health economic outcomes after manubrium-limited mini-sternotomy (intervention) and conventional median sternotomy (usual care).DesignA single-blind, randomised controlled trial.SettingSingle centre UK National Health Service tertiary hospital.ParticipantsAdult patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR) surgery.InterventionsIntervention 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 measuresThe 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.Results270 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).ConclusionsAVR via mini-sternotomy did not reduce red blood cell transfusion within 7 days following surgery when compared with conventional sternotomy.Trial registration numberISRCTN29567910; Results.

IntroductionCharacterised 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 analysisThis 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 disseminationEthical 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.

IntroductionBipolar disorder affects around 2% of the population and is linked with reduced life expectancy and socioeconomic burden. Depressive episodes are difficult to treat and typically more prevalent, enduring and burdensome than manic episodes. The use of antidepressants alone has limited effect and is associated with significant clinical risk through polarity switch. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines recommend quetiapine, olanzapine (with or without fluoxetine) and lamotrigine; however, these medications have limited efficacy, tolerability and acceptability. The ASCEnD study aims to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of aripiprazole plus sertraline compared with quetiapine, offering potential improvements for outcomes in bipolar depression. The study is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR132773).Methods and analysisASCEnD is a prospective, two-arm, superiority, individually 1:1 randomised, controlled, pragmatic, parallel group, type A open-label clinical trial of aripiprazole/sertraline medication combination compared with quetiapine for bipolar depression. The study is conducted in the UK National Health Service setting with the aim of recruiting and randomising 270 participants followed-up for 24 weeks. Adults with bipolar disorder self-refer or are recruited through primary and secondary care services. The primary outcome is change in depressive symptoms 12–16 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include measures of symptom change, treatment satisfaction, tolerability, medication adherence, concomitant medication use, psychosocial functioning, quality of life and cost-effectiveness and informal carer measures of quality of life and costs of caring. The exploratory outcome is change in participant reward and punishment responsiveness. Analysis will follow a prespecified statistical analysis plan. A nested qualitative study is included to examine feasibility and acceptability of the trial design.Ethics and disseminationA Clinical Trial Authorisation from Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and approval from the Health Research Authority (IRAS 1007468) and North East – Newcastle and North Tyneside 1 Research Ethics Committee (23/NE/0132) were obtained. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and lay summaries for participants and patient and public groups.Trial registration numberISRCTN63917405.

IntroductionPrimary biliary cholangitis (PBC) is a rare chronic cholestatic disease that despite current therapy has significant ongoing unmet needs, including risks of cirrhosis and life-impairing symptoms. The current treatment approach is a step-up model, wherein first-line therapy, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), is given for a minimum of 12 months before the addition of second-line therapy is considered for non-responding patients. This ‘waiting to fail’ approach, focused on the needs of low-risk patients, allows, we postulate, a key process of biliary epithelial cell (BEC) senescence to become established, driving accelerated bile duct loss and aggressive disease. Preclinical mouse modelling has shown that early use of the farnesoid X receptor agonist obeticholic acid (OCA), currently only used as second-line therapy following UDCA failure, reverses BEC senescence, changing the clinical course of disease. Here, we describe the design of the Optimising Primary thErapy in pRimAry biliary cholangitis (OPERA) trial. The aim of OPERA is to explore a new paradigm for disease-modifying treatment of PBC: risk-informed early treatment stratification, with patients at increased risk offered UDCA and OCA combination with the goal of complete biochemical remission.Methods and analysisOPERA is a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of OCA in combination with UDCA, as first-line treatment for high-risk PBC. This is a multicentre trial in England, which will be undertaken in specialist clinics in secondary/tertiary referral centres (or as per local set up). These centres will be specialists in the area of PBC management and will manage patients from across their local region. OPERA will recruit and randomise 106 adults, within 6 months of PBC diagnosis, who are at an enhanced risk of non-response to standard first-line therapy, between either: (1) UDCA and OCA or (2) UDCA and matched placebo in a 1:1 ratio. The primary efficacy outcome measure is the percentage of participants showing normalisation of serum alkaline phosphatase and total bilirubin values at 26 weeks (disease remission).Ethics and disseminationFavourable ethical opinion was received from London – Riverside Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/LO/0878). Potential participants will be fully informed of their rights and the benefits and harms of the trial by the research team before giving informed consent to participate in the trial. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, at national and international conferences, in peer-reviewed journals and to participants and the public (using lay language).Trial registration numberISRCTN17176388.

IntroductionSkeletal muscle dysfunction is central to both sarcopenia and physical frailty, which are associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes including falls and fractures, longer hospital stays, dependency and the need for care. Resistance training may prevent and treat sarcopenia and physical frailty, but not everyone can or wants to exercise. Finding alternatives is critical to alleviate the burden of adverse outcomes associated with sarcopenia and physical frailty. This trial will provide proof-of-concept evidence as to whether metformin can improve physical performance in older people with sarcopenia and physical prefrailty or frailty.Methods and analysisMET-PREVENT is a parallel group, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept trial. Trial participants can participate from their own homes, including completing informed consent and screening assessments. Eligible participants with low grip strength or prolonged sit-to-stand time together with slow walk speed will be randomised to either oral metformin hydrochloride 500 mg tablets or matched placebo, taken three times a day for 4 months. The recruitment target is 80 participants from two secondary care hospitals in Newcastle and Gateshead, UK. Local primary care practices will act as participant identification centres. Randomisation will be performed using a web-based minimisation system with a random element, balancing on sex and baseline walk speed. Participants will be followed up for 4 months post-randomisation, with outcomes collected at baseline and 4 months. The primary outcome measure is the four metre walk speed at the 4-month follow-up visit.Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been approved by the Liverpool NHS Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0470), the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority (EudraCT 2020-004023-16) and the UK Health Research Authority (IRAS 275219). Results will be made available to participants, their families, patients with sarcopenia, the public, regional and national clinical teams, and the international scientific community.Trial registration numberISRCTN29932357.

IntroductionAnthracyclines 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 analysisPROACT 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 disseminationA 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 numberNCT03265574.

IntroductionNumbers 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 analysisUK 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 disseminationA 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 numberISRCTN13930454.

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.