Introduction Obesity affects over a quarter of the UK population and can lead to serious health issues. NHS Specialist Weight Management Services (WMS) offer treatments including lifestyle advice, psychological support and medications, but access and availability vary by region. Although around 4 million people could be eligible for NHS Specialist WMS annually, capacity is limited to 35 000, severely limiting overall access for those who need it. While digital technology has started to be used in WMS, more evidence is needed to confirm its long-term effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness. This study explores the use of Gro Health W8Buddy, a digital platform and app providing remote Specialist WMS. It aims to determine the long-term health benefits of remote WMS pathway Gro Health W8Buddy compared with standard NHS WMS delivered in hospitals, and to improve patients access to services.Methods and analysis The study is a real-world evaluation with observational data collection. We will recruit 450 study participants from four NHS specialist WMS who will choose either standard NHS WMS or the digital pathway Gro Health W8Buddy. Participants are being given the option to choose their pathway to generate real-world evidence. We will measure and analyse health outcomes including weight loss, time taken to be treated and cost-effectiveness, at 18 months and follow up at 24 months for later analysis (outside of this core funding). We will gather experiential data from patients and healthcare professionals through surveys, observation and interviews.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval has been obtained from NHS Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW) (Supplementary Figure 3) (REC reference: 25/EM/0147). Our findings will be disseminated through academic publications, conference presentations and stakeholder engagement.Trial registration ISRCTN89168871; Pre-results.

There are significant regional disparities in NHS Tier 3 specialist weight management services (SWMS) across the UK. In the context of an ongoing policy shift from hospital to community-based care, a detailed examination of the components of Tier 3 services is needed to clarify the distribution of responsibilities across the weight management pathway. We conducted a comparative service mapping of SWMS across four NHS sites in England and Wales, with on-site observation, staff interviews and document review. While the core structure and service delivery at the four sites broadly aligned with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, substantial variations were identified in service accessibility and content, alongside widespread resource constraints and communication challenges. These findings suggest that the strategic shift of SWMS care from hospitals to community settings is proceeding without an infrastructure to meet anticipated demand. Clearer definitions of service requirements within SWMS, sustainable funding mechanisms and data-driven commissioning may help reduce regional variation and inequalities in service provision.

Objectives The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing an online exercise rehabilitation and behavioural/motivational support intervention for people with postural tachycardia syndrome (PoTS).Design Feasibility RCT.Setting Two secondary care centres.Participants Adults aged 18 to 60 years with PoTS. Exclusions were serious mental health/cognitive problem preventing safe participation; currently undertaking physical activity equivalent to the Chief Medical Officer guidelines; pregnancy.Interventions Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to best-practice usual care (a single 1:1 session of advice) or the ‘postural tachycardia syndrome exercise’ (PULSE) intervention: (1) individual online consultation, (2) 12 weeks of supervised online group exercise and behavioural/motivational support, and (3) home exercise programme with recumbent exercise bike.Outcomes The primary outcome was feasibility: (1) patients screened, eligible, recruited, randomised, withdrawn; (2) adherence; (3) physiological, clinical and patient-reported outcomes (4 and 7 months); and (4) embedded qualitative study to evaluate acceptability.Results 209 patients screened between 5 May 2021 and 1 December 2022, 44 (female 98%; age 29.9 SD, 7.5) were randomised to usual care (n=21) or PULSE (n=23) (71% of target). Follow-up at 4 months was n=12 and n=17 respectively (66% of target). Median live exercise/support session attendance was 15 (IQR 12 to 17) of 18 sessions. Home exercise bike usage was highly variable. There were two serious adverse events in each treatment arm, both unrelated to the trial. Exercise rehabilitation was considered important by participants, and trial procedures, outcomes and interventions were acceptable.Conclusions The PULSE trial procedures and interventions were acceptable, and important design considerations were identified. A definitive RCT testing a remotely supervised exercise rehabilitation and behavioural/motivational support intervention for people with PoTS is feasible in the UK National Health Service.Trial registration number ISRCTN45323485.

Objective: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) compared with moderate intensity steady-state (MISS) training in people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Design: Secondary cost-effectiveness analysis of a prospective, assessor-blind, parallel group, multi-center RCT. Setting: Six outpatient National Health Service cardiac rehabilitation centers in England and Wales, UK. Participants: 382 participants with CAD (N=382). Interventions: Participants were randomized to twice-weekly usual care (n=195) or HIIT (n=187) for 8 weeks. Usual care was moderate intensity continuous exercise (60%-80% maximum capacity, MISS), while HIIT consisted of 10 pound 1-minute intervals of vigorous exercise (>85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1-minute periods of recovery. Main Outcome Measures: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the HIIT or MISS UK trial. Health related quality of life was measured with the EQ-5D-5L to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were estimated with health service resource use and intervention delivery costs. Cost-utility analysis measured the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Bootstrapping assessed the probability of HIIT being cost-effective according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) threshold value (20,000 pound per QALY). Missing data were imputed. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Assumptions were tested using univariate/1-way sensitivity analysis. Results: 124 (HIIT, n=59; MISS, n=65) participants completed questionnaires at baseline, 8 weeks, and 12 months. Mean combined health care use and delivery cost was 676 pound per participant for HIIT, and 653 pound for MISS. QALY changes were 0.003 and-0.013, respectively. For complete cases, the ICER was 1448 pound per QALY for HIIT compared with MISS. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of 20,000 pound per QALY, the probability of HIIT being cost-effective was 96% (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.95). Conclusion: For people with CAD attending CR, HIIT was cost-effective compared with MISS. These findings are important to policy makers, commissioners, and service providers across the health care sector.

Abstract Introduction Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a rare, idiopathic, progressive, neuromuscular disease. The prevalence in England and Wales is between 4 and 5 cases per 100,000. A significant proportion of ALS cases are complicated by respiratory and sleep impairment which can reduce health related quality of life (HRQOL) and survival. Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is the standard of care to treat respiratory and sleep symptoms. Patients who are compliant with NIV have improved survival, HRQOL and reduced symptoms. Different modes of NIV are available and broadly fall into two categories: pressure support ventilation (PSV) and volume assured pressure support (VAPS) ventilation. A clinically enhanced version of VAPS in the form of intelligent volume assured pressure support with automatic EPAP (iVAPS-AE) is now widely available and although spontaneous timed (ST) mode is the preferred choice in ALS, to date no one mode has been shown to be superior. In this single-centre randomised controlled trial we will explore the differences in NIV compliance and effect on HRQOL, between ST and iVAPS-AE NIV modes in patients diagnosed with respiratory failure due to ALS. We also want to explore the optimal NIV mode for patients diagnosed with ALS. This trial is still in the data collection phase and has the potential to guide changes in clinical respiratory practice in ALS. Methods and Analysis VOP ALS is a single blinded, single centre, RCT exploring the impact of iVAPS-AE on patient outcomes compared to ST-mode in patients diagnosed with ALS related respiratory impairment. Primary outcome is mean NIV compliance and secondary outcome is health reported quality of life, both measured over 90 days. The study aimed to recruit 40 patients, but it was revised to 15 because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis will be mainly descriptive by treatment arms and summarised with 95% confidence interval. Ethics and Dissemination VOP ALS is sponsored in the UK by University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust and has been granted ethical approval by Northwest - Haydock Research Ethics Committee Ethics Committee (REC ref: 21/NW/0326). Publication of results in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations are expected. Trial Registration Number: NCT05328492. Registered 4th April 2022 - Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05328492

Background Chronic headache disorders are disabling. The CHESS trial studied the effects of a short non-pharmacological intervention of education with self-management support for people affected by migraine and/or tension type headache for at least 15 days per month for at least three months. There were no statistically significant effects on the Headache Impact Test-6 (HIT-6) at 12-months. However, we observed improvement in pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) and short-term HIT-6. We explored the impact of the CHESS intervention on PSEQ, and subsequently, on the HIT-6 and chronic headache quality of life questionnaire (CH-QLQ) at four, eighth and 12 months.Methods We included all 736 participants from the CHESS trial. We used simple linear regression models to explore the change of HIT-6 and CH-QLQ with treatment and PSEQ at baseline (predictor analysis), and the interaction between treatment and baseline PSEQ (moderator analysis). We considered the change of PSEQ from baseline to four months as a mediator in the mediation analysis.Results Baseline PSEQ neither predicted nor moderated outcomes. The prediction effect on change of HIT-6 from baseline to 12 months was 0.01 (95% CI, -0.03 to 0.04) and the interaction (moderation) effect was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.15 to 0.002). However, the change of PSEQ from baseline to 4-month mediated the HIT-6 (baseline to 8-, and 12-month) and all components of CH-QLQ (baseline to 8-, and 12-month). The CHESS intervention improved the mediated variable, PSEQ, by 2.34 (95% CI, 0.484 to 4.187) units and this corresponds to an increase of 0.21 (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.45) units in HIT-6 at 12-months. The largest mediated effect was observed on the CH-QLQ Emotional Function, an increase of 1.12 (95% CI, 0.22 to 2.20).Conclusions PSEQ was not an effective predictor of outcome. However, change of short-term PSEQ mediated all outcomes, albeit minimally. Future behavioural therapy for chronic headache may need to consider how to achieve larger, and more sustained increases level of self-efficacy than that achieved within the CHESS trial.Trial registration ISRCTN79708100.

BACKGROUND:Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with significant morbidity/mortality. AF-ablation is an increasingly used treatment. Currently, first-time AF-ablation success is 40-80% at 1-year, depending on individual factors. There is growing evidence for improved outcomes through management of AF risk-factors/comorbidities via patient education/exercise-rehabilitation. There are no studies assessing combined prehabilitation/rehabilitation in this cohort. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to assess efficacy of comprehensive prehabilitation/rehabilitation and combining supervised exercise-training with AF risk-factor modification/education compared with standard care in people undergoing first-time AF ablation. METHODS:This single-centre pragmatic randomised controlled trial will recruit 106 adults with paroxysmal/persistent AF listed for first-time AF-ablation. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to cardiac prehabilitation/rehabilitation/education (CREED AF) intervention or standard care. Both groups will undergo AF-ablation at 8-weeks post-randomisation as per usual care. The CREED AF intervention will involve 6-weeks of prehabilitation (before AF-ablation) followed by 6-weeks rehabilitation (after AF-ablation) consisting of risk factor education/modification and supervised exercise training. Standard care will include a single 30-minute session of risk-factor education. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 10-weeks and 12-months post AF-ablation, by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The primary outcome is cardiorespiratory-fitness (peak oxygen uptake, VO2peak) assessed using cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) at 10-weeks post-ablation. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life, AF recurrence/burden assessed by 7-day Holter-monitor, requirement for repeat AF-ablation, study defined major adverse cardiovascular events, and cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY)). CONCLUSIONS:This study will assess clinical-efficacy/cost-effectiveness of comprehensive prehabilitation/rehabilitation/patient-education for people undergoing first time AF-ablation. Results will inform clinical care and design of future multi-centre clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT06042231.Date registered: September 18, 2023.

Supplementary Data from Clinical Benefit of Allogeneic Melanoma Cell Lysate–Pulsed Autologous Dendritic Cell Vaccine in MAGE-Positive Colorectal Cancer Patients

BackgroundThere is a lack of international consensus regarding the prescription of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) for people with coronary artery disease (CAD) attending cardiac rehabilitation (CR).AimsTo assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of low-volume HIIT compared with moderate-intensity steady-state (MISS) exercise training for people with CAD.Methods and resultsWe conducted a multi-centre RCT, recruiting 382 patients from 6 outpatient CR centres. Participants were randomized to twice-weekly HIIT (n = 187) or MISS (n = 195) for 8 weeks. HIIT consisted of 10 x 1 min intervals of vigorous exercise (> 85% maximum capacity) interspersed with 1 min periods of recovery. MISS was 20-40 min of moderate-intensity continuous exercise (60-80% maximum capacity). The primary outcome was the change in cardiorespiratory fitness [peak oxygen uptake (VO2 peak)] at 8 week follow-up. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular disease risk markers, cardiac structure and function, adverse events, and health-related quality of life. At 8 weeks, VO2 peak improved more with HIIT (2.37 mL.kg(-1).min(-1); SD, 3.11) compared with MISS (1.32 mL.kg(-1).min(-1); SD, 2.66). After adjusting for age, sex, and study site, the difference between arms was 1.04 mL.kg(-1).min(-1) (95% CI, 0.38 to 1.69; P = 0.002). Only one serious adverse event was possibly related to HIIT.ConclusionsIn stable CAD, low-volume HIIT improved cardiorespiratory fitness more than MISS by a clinically meaningful margin. Low volume HIIT is a safe, well-tolerated, and clinically effective intervention that produces short-term improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness. It should be considered by all CR programmes as an adjunct or alternative to MISS.

Background and Objectives Chronic headache disorders are a major cause of pain and disability. Education and supportive self-management approaches could reduce the burden of headache disability. We tested the effectiveness of a group educational and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic headaches. Methods This was a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Participants were aged 18 years or older with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache, with or without medication overuse headache. We primarily recruited from general practices. Participants were assigned to either a 2-day group education and self-management program, a one-to-one nurse interview, and telephone support or to usual care plus relaxation material. The primary outcome was headache related-quality of life using the Headache Impact Test (HIT)-6 at 12 months. The primary analysis used intention-to-treat principles for participants with migraine and both baseline and 12-month HIT-6 data. Results Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomized 736 participants. Because only 9 participants just had tension-type headache, our main analyses were on the 727 participants with migraine. Of them, 376 were allocated to the self-management intervention and 351 to usual care. Data from 586 (81%) participants were analyzed for primary outcome. There was no between-group difference in HIT-6 (adjusted mean difference = -0.3, 95% CI -1.23 to 0.67) or headache days (0.9, 95% CI -0.29 to 2.05) at 12 months. The Chronic Headache Education and Self-management Study intervention generated incremental adjusted costs of 268 pound (95% CI, 176- pound 377) pound (USD383 [95% CI USD252-USD539]) and incremental adjusted quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of 0.031 (95% CI -0.005 to 0.063). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 8,617 pound (USD12,322) per QALY gained. Discussion These findings conclusively show a lack of benefit for quality of life or monthly headache days from a brief group education and supportive self-management program for people living with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache with episodic migraine.

Background Early phase dose-finding (EPDF) trials are crucial for the development of a new intervention and influence whether it should be investigated in further trials. Guidance exists for clinical trial protocols and completed trial reports in the SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines, respectively. However, both guidelines and their extensions do not adequately address the characteristics of EPDF trials. Building on the SPIRIT and CONSORT checklists, the DEFINE study aims to develop international consensus-driven guidelines for EPDF trial protocols (SPIRIT-DEFINE) and reports (CONSORT-DEFINE). Methods The initial generation of candidate items was informed by reviewing published EPDF trial reports. The early draft items were refined further through a review of the published and grey literature, analysis of real-world examples, citation and reference searches, and expert recommendations, followed by a two-round modified Delphi process. Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) was pursued concurrently with the quantitative and thematic analysis of Delphi participants’ feedback. Results The Delphi survey included 79 new or modified SPIRIT-DEFINE ( n = 36) and CONSORT-DEFINE ( n = 43) extension candidate items. In Round One, 206 interdisciplinary stakeholders from 24 countries voted and 151 stakeholders voted in Round Two. Following Round One feedback, one item for CONSORT-DEFINE was added in Round Two. Of the 80 items, 60 met the threshold for inclusion (≥ 70% of respondents voted critical: 26 SPIRIT-DEFINE, 34 CONSORT-DEFINE), with the remaining 20 items to be further discussed at the consensus meeting. The parallel PPIE work resulted in the development of an EPDF lay summary toolkit consisting of a template with guidance notes and an exemplar. Conclusions By detailing the development journey of the DEFINE study and the decisions undertaken, we envision that this will enhance understanding and help researchers in the development of future guidelines. The SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE guidelines will allow investigators to effectively address essential items that should be present in EPDF trial protocols and reports, thereby promoting transparency, comprehensiveness, and reproducibility. Trial registration SPIRIT-DEFINE and CONSORT-DEFINE are registered with the EQUATOR Network ( https://www.equator-network.org/ ).

Background The GARFIELD-AF tool is a novel risk tool that simultaneously assesses the risk of all-cause mortality, stroke or systemic embolism, and major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Aim To validate the GARFIELD-AF tool using UK primary care electronic records. Design and setting A retrospective cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Method Discrimination was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and calibration was evaluated using calibration-in-the-large regression and calibration plots. Results A total of 486818 patients aged >= 18 years with incident diagnosis of non-valvular AF between 2 January 1998 and 31 July 2020 were included; 50.6% (n = 246 425/486 818)received anticoagulation at diagnosis The GARFIELD-AF models outperformed the CHA(2)DS(2)VASc and HAS-BLED scores in discrimination ability of death, stroke,and major bleeding at all the time points. The AUC for events at 1 year for the 2017 models were: death 0.747 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.744 to 0.751) versus 0.635 (95% CI= 0.631 to 0.639) for CHA(2)DS(2)VASc; stroke 0.666 (95% CI = 0.663 to 0.669) versus 0.625 (95%CI = 0.622 to 0.628) for CHA(2)DS(2)VASc; and major bleeding 0.602 (95% CI = 0.598 to 0.606) versus 0.558 (95% CI = 0.554 to 0.562) for HAS-BLED. Calibration between predicted and Kaplan-Meier observed events was inadequate with the GARFIELD-AF models. Conclusion The GARFIELD-AF models were superior to the CHA(2)DS(2)VASc score for discriminating stroke and death and superior to the HAS-BLED score for discriminating major bleeding. The models consistently underpredicted the level of risk, suggesting that a recalibration is needed to optimise its use in the UK population.

Background Headaches are a leading cause of years lived with disability. For some people, headaches become chronic and disabling, with treatment options being primarily pharmaceutical. Non-pharmacological alternative treatment approaches are worthy of exploration. Aim To develop and test an educational and supportive self-management intervention for people with chronic headaches. Objectives To develop and evaluate a brief diagnostic interview to support diagnosis for people with chronic headaches, and then to develop and pilot an education and self-management support intervention for the management of common chronic headache disorders (the CHESS intervention). To select the most appropriate outcome measures for a randomised controlled trial of the CHESS intervention, and then to conduct a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of the CHESS intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Design Developmental and feasibility studies followed by a randomised controlled trial. Setting General practice and community settings in the Midlands and London, UK. Participants For our feasibility work, 14 general practices recruited 131 people with chronic headaches (headaches on ≥15 days per month for >3 months). People with chronic headaches and expert clinicians developed a telephone classification interview for chronic headache that we validated with 107 feasibility study participants. We piloted the CHESS intervention with 13 participants and refined the content and structure based on their feedback. People with chronic headaches contributed to the decisions about our primary outcome and a core outcome set for chronic and episodic migraine. For the randomised controlled trial, we recruited adults with chronic migraine or chronic tension-type headache and episodic migraine, with or without medication overuse headache, from general practices and via self-referral. Our main analyses were on people with migraine. Interventions The CHESS intervention consisted of two 1-day group sessions focused on education and self-management to promote behaviour change and support learning strategies to manage chronic headaches. This was followed by a one-to-one nurse consultation and telephone support. The control intervention consisted of feedback from classification interviews, headache management leaflet and a relaxation compact disc. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was headache-related quality of life measured using the Headache Impact Test-6 at 12 months. The secondary outcomes included the Chronic Headache Quality of Life Questionnaire; headache days, duration and severity; EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Short Form Questionnaire-12 items; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire scores. We followed up participants at 4, 8 and 12 months. Results Between April 2017 and March 2019, we randomised 736 participants from 164 general practices. Nine participants (1%) had chronic tension-type headache only. Our main analyses were on the remaining 727 participants with migraine (376 in the intervention arm and 351 in the usual-care arm). Baseline characteristics were well matched. For the primary outcome we had analysable data from 579 participants (80%) at 12 months. There was no between-group difference in the Headache Impact Test-6 at 12 months, (adjusted mean difference –0.3, 95% confidence interval –1.23 to 0.67; p = 0.56). The limits of the 95% confidence interval effectively exclude the possibility of the intervention having a worthwhile benefit. At 4 months there was a difference favouring the CHESS self-management programme on the Headache Impact Test-6 (adjusted mean difference –1.0, 95% confidence interval –1.91 to –0.006; p = 0.049). However, the self-management group also reported 1.5 (95% confidence interval 0.48 to 2.56) more headache days in the previous 28 days. Apart from improved pain self-efficacy at 4 and 12 months, there were few other statistically significant between-group differences in the secondary outcomes. The CHESS intervention generated 0.031 (95% confidence interval –0.005 to 0.063) additional quality-adjusted life-years and increased NHS and Personal Social Services costs by £268 (95% confidence interval £176 to £377), on average, generating an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £8617 with an 83% chance of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. The CHESS intervention was well received and fidelity was good. No process-related issues were identified that would explain why the intervention was ineffective. Limitations Only 288 out of 376 (77%) of those randomised to the CHESS intervention attended one or more of the intervention sessions. Conclusions This short, non-pharmacological, educational self-management intervention is unlikely to be effective for the treatment of people with chronic headaches and migraine. Future work There is a need to develop and test more sustained non-pharmacological interventions for people with chronic headache disorders. Patient and public involvement Substantial patient and public involvement went into the design, conduct and interpretation of the CHESS programme. This helped direct the research and ensured that the patient voice was embedded in our work. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN79708100. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further information.

Introduction Demand for colonoscopies and CT colonography (CTC) is exceeding capacity in National Health Service Trusts. In many patients colonoscopies and CTCs show no significant bowel disease (SBD). Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) is being introduced to prioritise patients for colonoscopies but is insufficient to identify non-SBD patients meaning colonoscopy and CTC demand remains high. The REducing Colonoscopies in patients without significant bowEl DiseasE (RECEDE) study aims to test urine volatile organic compound (VOC) analysis alongside FIT to improve detection of SBD and to reduce the number of colonoscopies and CTCs.Methods and analysis This is a multicentre, prospective diagnostic accuracy study evaluating whether stool FIT plus urine VOC compared with stool FIT alone improves detection of SBD in patients referred for colonoscopy or CTC due to persistent lower gastrointestinal symptoms. To ensure SBD is not missed, the dual test requires a high sensitivity, set at 97% with 95% CI width of 5%. Our assumption is that to achieve this sensitivity requires 200 participants with SBD. Further assuming 19% of all participants will have SBD and 55% of all participants will return both stool and urine samples we will recruit 1915 participants. The thresholds for FIT and VOC results diagnosing SBD have been pre-set. If either FIT or VOC exceeds the respective threshold, the participant will be classed as having suspected SBD. As an exploratory analysis we will be testing different thresholds. The reference comparator will be a complete colonoscopy or CTC. Secondary outcomes will look at optimising the FIT and VOC thresholds for SBD detection. An economic evaluation, using a denovo decision analytic model, will be carried out determine the costs, benefits and overall cost-effectiveness of FIT +VOC vs FIT followed by colonoscopy.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained by Liverpool Central Research Ethics Committee (20/NW/0346).Trial registration number RECEDE is registered on Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04516785 & ISRCTN14982373. This protocol was written and published before results of the trial were available.

Abstract Background Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is an autonomic nervous system disorder causing an abnormal cardiovascular response to upright posture. It affects around 0.2% of the population, most commonly women aged 13 to 50 years. POTS can be debilitating; prolonged episodes of pre-syncope and fatigue can severely affect activities of daily living and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Medical treatment is limited and not supported by randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence. Lifestyle interventions are first-line treatment, including increased fluid and salt intake, compression tights and isometric counter-pressure manoeuvres to prevent fainting. Observational studies and small RCTs suggest exercise training may improve symptoms and HRQoL in POTS, but evidence quality is low. Methods Sixty-two people (aged 18–40 years) with a confirmed diagnosis of POTS will be invited to enrol on a feasibility RCT with embedded qualitative study. The primary outcome will be feasibility; process-related measures will include the number of people eligible, recruited, randomised and withdrawn, along with indicators of exercise programme adherence and acceptability. Secondary physiological, clinical and health-related outcomes including sub-maximal recumbent bike exercise test, active stand test and HRQoL will be measured at 4 and 7 months post-randomisation by researchers blinded to treatment allocation. The PostUraL tachycardia Syndrome Exercise (PULSE) intervention consists of (1) individual assessment; (2) 12-week, once to twice-weekly, supervised out-patient exercise training; (3) behavioural and motivational support; and (4) guided lifestyle physical activity. The control intervention will be best-practice usual care with a single 30-min, one-to-one practitioner appointment, and general advice on safe and effective physical activity. For the embedded qualitative study, participants (n = 10 intervention, n = 10 control) will be interviewed at baseline and 4 months post-randomisation to assess acceptability and the feasibility of progressing to a definitive trial. Discussion There is very little high-quality research investigating exercise rehabilitation for people with POTS. The PULSE study will be the first randomised trial to assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive multicentre RCT testing supervised exercise rehabilitation with behavioural and motivational support, compared to best-practice usual care, for people with POTS. Trial registration ISRCTN45323485 registered on 7 April 2020.

ABSTRACT Background Both continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) have been recommended for acute respiratory failure in COVID-19. However, uncertainty exists regarding effectiveness and safety. Methods In the Recovery-Respiratory Support multi-center, three-arm, open-label, adaptive, randomized controlled trial, adult hospitalized patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19, deemed suitable for treatment escalation, were randomly assigned to receive CPAP, HFNO, or conventional oxygen therapy. Comparisons were made between each intervention and conventional oxygen therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days. Results Over 13-months, 1272 participants were randomized and included in the analysis (380 (29.9%) CPAP; 417 (32.8%) HFNO; 475 (37.3%) conventional oxygen therapy). The need for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30-days was lower in the CPAP group (CPAP 137 of 377 participants (36.3%) vs conventional oxygen therapy 158 of 356 participants (44.4%); unadjusted odds ratio 0.72; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.96, P=0.03). There was no difference between HFNO and conventional oxygen therapy (HFNO 184 of 414 participants (44.4%) vs conventional oxygen therapy 166 of 368 participants (45.1%); unadjusted odds ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.29, P=0.85). Conclusions CPAP, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, reduced the composite outcome of intubation or death within 30 days of randomisation in hospitalized adults with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19. There was no effect observed, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, with the use of HFNO. (Funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research; ISRCTN 16912075 ).

Background Proven treatments for low back pain, at best, only provide modest overall benefits. Matching people to treatments that are likely to be most effective for them may improve clinical outcomes and makes better use of health care resources. Methods We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of three types of therapist delivered interventions for low back pain (active physical, passive physical and psychological treatments). We applied two statistical methods (recursive partitioning and adaptive risk group refinement) to identify potential subgroups who might gain greater benefits from different treatments from our individual participant data meta-analysis. Results We pooled data from 19 randomised controlled trials, totalling 9328 participants. There were 5349 (57%) females with similar ratios of females in control and intervention arms. The average age was 49 years (standard deviation, SD, 14). Participants with greater psychological distress and physical disability gained most benefit in improving on the mental component scale (MCS) of SF-12/36 from passive physical treatment than non-active usual care (treatment effects, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, CI, 3.39 to 5.15). Recursive partitioning method found that participants with worse disability at baseline gained most benefit in improving the disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) outcome from psychological treatment than non-active usual care (treatment effects, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.31). Adaptive risk group refinement did not find any subgroup that would gain much treatment effect between psychological and non-active usual care. Neither statistical method identified any subgroups who would gain an additional benefit from active physical treatment compared to non-active usual care. Conclusions Our methodological approaches worked well and may have applicability in other clinical areas. Passive physical treatments were most likely to help people who were younger with higher levels of disability and low levels of psychological distress. Psychological treatments were more likely to help those with severe disability. Despite this, the clinical importance of identifying these subgroups is limited. The sizes of sub-groups more likely to benefit and the additional effect sizes observed are small. Our analyses provide no evidence to support the use of sub-grouping for people with low back pain.

Aim The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is currently utilized in both symptomatic and screening populations, but little is known about factors that affect its performance. For example, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy has been purported to increase false negative rates. This has significant implications given the extent of PPI prescriptions. The aim of this work was to evaluate the performance of the FIT for the detection of colorectal neoplasms and the impact of PPI therapy on its diagnostic accuracy. Method Symptomatic patients referred on the suspected cancer pathway and those on polyp surveillance between 2015 and 2019 were approached to participate. Estimates of the accuracy of FIT at different cut-off levels in diagnosing colorectal neoplasms were made. Logistic regression was used to assess the effect of PPIs on the FIT results. Results A total of 667 participants were eligible for the final analysis. At a cut-off of 10 mu g/g faeces, the overall sensitivity and specificity of FIT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) was 0.85 (95% CI 0.71-0.94) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.78-0.84), respectively. For the detection of advanced neoplasia, the sensitivity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.58-0.79) and the specificity was 0.83 (95% CI 0.80-0.86). At higher thresholds, the sensitivity steadily declined whilst specificity increased. PPI therapy did not have a significant effect on performance of the FIT. Conclusion FIT is a good rule-out test for the detection of CRC and advanced neoplasia at lower thresholds. PPI therapy does not appear to have an effect on its diagnostic performance.

IntroductionChronic headaches are poorly diagnosed and managed and can be exacerbated by medication overuse. There is insufficient evidence on the non-pharmacological approaches to helping people living with chronic headaches.Methods and analysisChronic Headache Education and Self-management Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management education support programme on top of usual care for patients with chronic headaches against a control of usual care and relaxation. The intervention is a 2-day group course based on education, personal reflection and a cognitive behavioural approach, plus a nurse-led one-to-one consultation and follow-up over 8 weeks. We aim to recruit 689 participants (356 to the intervention arm and 333 to the control) from primary care and self-referral in London and the Midlands. The trial is powered to show a difference of 2.0 points on the Headache Impact Test, a patient-reported outcome measure at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include health related quality of life, self-efficacy, social activation and engagement, anxiety and depression and healthcare utilisation. Outcomes are being measured at 4, 8 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.Ethics and disseminationThis trial will provide data on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management support programme for chronic headaches. The results will inform commissioning of services and clinical practice. North West – Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee have approved the trial. The current protocol version is 3.6 date 7 March 2019.Trial registration numberISRCTN79708100.

For a trial of supportive self-management for people with chronic headache we needed to develop and validate a telephone classification interview that can be used by a non-headache specialist to classify common chronic headache types in primary care. We aimed to specifically: exclude secondary headaches other than medication overuse, exclude primary headache disorders other than migraine and tension type headache (TTH), distinguish between chronic migraine and chronic TTH, and identify medication overuse headache.