Regular clinical reviews of people with COPD provide an opportunity to optimise management and are recommended in national and international guidelines. However, there are limited data about the relationship between having an annual review and other aspects of care quality, which might influence decision-making by healthcare professionals and commissioners.

Using data from 74 827 people with COPD completing the Asthma+Lung UK COPD Patient Passport, between 2014 and 2022, we conducted adjusted logistic regression (adjusting for year) and compared receipt of key items of care between those reporting that they had had an annual review (65.3%) and those who did not (34.7%). To further capture patient experience, we also analysed 4228 free-text responses to the 2021 Asthma+Lung UK annual COPD survey to the question ‘What is the one thing that could improve your COPD care?’

We found that the absence of an annual review was associated with significantly worse COPD care across all domains studied; in particular, inhaler training (yes: 80.8% vs no: 38.4%, adjusted OR (AOR): 8.18, 95% CI (7.89 to 8.47), having a written care plan (89.6% vs 56.9%, AOR 6.68 (95% CI 6.35 to 7.05) and medication knowledge (72.6% vs 33.6%, AOR 5.73 (95% CI 5.51 to 5.96). Thematic analysis of the 2021 COPD survey responses identified three areas to improve care: (1) access and support from healthcare services, (2) improved treatment effectiveness and (3) interaction between COPD and the social environment.

Failure to deliver annual COPD reviews is associated with worse patient-reported experience of care quality. In parallel, people with COPD express a desire for greater support and access to healthcare services.

Preoperative anxiety and depression symptoms among older surgical patients are associated with poor postoperative outcomes, yet evidence-based interventions for anxiety and depression have not been applied within this setting. We present a protocol for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in three surgical cohorts: cardiac, oncological and orthopaedic, investigating whether a perioperative mental health intervention, with psychological and pharmacological components, reduces perioperative symptoms of depression and anxiety in older surgical patients.

Adults ≥60 years undergoing cardiac, orthopaedic or oncological surgery will be enrolled in one of three-linked type 1 hybrid effectiveness/implementation RCTs that will be conducted in tandem with similar methods. In each trial, 100 participants will be randomised to a remotely delivered perioperative behavioural treatment incorporating principles of behavioural activation, compassion and care coordination, and medication optimisation, or enhanced usual care with mental health-related resources for this population. The primary outcome is change in depression and anxiety symptoms assessed with the Patient Health Questionnaire-Anxiety Depression Scale from baseline to 3 months post surgery. Other outcomes include quality of life, delirium, length of stay, falls, rehospitalisation, pain and implementation outcomes, including study and intervention reach, acceptability, feasibility and appropriateness, and patient experience with the intervention.

The trials have received ethics approval from the Washington University School of Medicine Institutional Review Board. Informed consent is required for participation in the trials. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, presented at clinical research conferences and disseminated via the Center for Perioperative Mental Health website.

NCT05575128, NCT05685511, NCT05697835, pre-results.

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.

The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Many rural communities bear a disproportionate share of drug-related harms. Innovative harm reduction service models, such as vending machines or kiosks, can expand access to services that reduce drug-related harms. However, few kiosks operate in the USA, and their implementation, impact and cost-effectiveness have not been adequately evaluated in rural settings. This paper describes the Kentucky Outreach Service Kiosk (KyOSK) Study protocol to test the effectiveness, implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness of a community-tailored, harm reduction kiosk in reducing HIV, hepatitis C and overdose risk in rural Appalachia.

KyOSK is a community-level, controlled quasi-experimental, non-randomised trial. KyOSK involves two cohorts of people who use drugs, one in an intervention county (n=425) and one in a control county (n=325). People who are 18 years or older, are community-dwelling residents in the target counties and have used drugs to get high in the past 6 months are eligible. The trial compares the effectiveness of a fixed-site, staffed syringe service programme (standard of care) with the standard of care supplemented with a kiosk. The kiosk will contain various harm reduction supplies accessible to participants upon valid code entry, allowing dispensing data to be linked to participant survey data. The kiosk will include a call-back feature that allows participants to select needed services and receive linkage-to-care services from a peer recovery coach. The cohorts complete follow-up surveys every 6 months for 36 months (three preceding kiosk implementation and four post-implementation). The study will test the effectiveness of the kiosk on reducing risk behaviours associated with overdose, HIV and hepatitis C, as well as implementation outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

The University of Kentucky Institutional Review Board approved the protocol. Results will be disseminated in academic conferences and peer-reviewed journals, online and print media, and community meetings.

NCT05657106.

Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) is increasingly used as treatment for patients with active multiple sclerosis (MS), typically after failure of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). A recent phase III trial, ‘Multiple Sclerosis International Stem Cell Transplant, MIST’, showed that aHSCT resulted in prolonged time to disability progression compared with DMTs in patients with relapsing remitting MS (RRMS). However, the MIST trial did not include many of the current high-efficacy DMTs (alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab or cladribine) in use in the UK within the control arm, which are now offered to patients with rapidly evolving severe MS (RES-MS) who are treatment naïve. There remain, therefore, unanswered questions about the relative efficacy and safety of aHSCT over these high-efficacy DMTs in these patient groups. The StarMS trial (Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation versus Alemtuzumab, Ocrelizumab, Ofatumumab or Cladribine in Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis) will assess the efficacy, safety and long-term impact of aHSCT compared with high-efficacy DMTs in patients with highly active RRMS despite the use of standard DMTs or in patients with treatment naïve RES-MS.

StarMS is a multicentre parallel-group rater-blinded randomised controlled trial with two arms. A total of 198 participants will be recruited from 19 regional neurology secondary care centres in the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the aHSCT arm or DMT arm in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will remain in the study for 2 years with follow-up visits at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months postrandomisation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve ‘no evidence of disease activity’ during the 2-year postrandomisation follow-up period in an intention to treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and immune reconstitution of aHSCT and the four high-efficacy DMTs.

The study was approved by the Yorkshire and Humber—Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (20/YH/0061). Participants will provide written informed consent prior to any study specific procedures. The study results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and abstracts will be submitted to relevant national and international conferences.

ISRCTN88667898.

Aspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy.

We conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants’ acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework.

Online survey and remote interviews.

We recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50–70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents.

In the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals.

Among the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.

Lyme disease (LD) is the most frequent tick-borne disease in the moderate climates of Europe. This study will inform the phase III efficacy study for Pfizer and Valneva’s investigational Lyme disease vaccine, VLA15. VLA15 phase III will be conducted in the USA and Europe due to the vaccine’s serotype coverage and public health burden of LD. In Europe, the existence and location of sites that have access to populations with high LD annual incidence is uncertain. This active, prospective surveillance study assesses annual LD incidence at general practice (GP)/primary care sites, allowing for phase III site vetting and better characterisation of LD burden in selected regions for study size calculations.

This burden of Lyme disease (BOLD) study will assess LD incidence overall and by site at 15 GP/primary care practices in endemic areas of 6 European countries from Spring 2021 to December 2022 and will be summarised with counts (n), percentages (%) and associated 95% CIs. Suspected LD cases identified from site’s practice panels are documented on screening logs, where clinical LD manifestations, diagnoses and standard of care diagnostic results are recorded. In the initial 12-month enrolment phase, suspected LD cases are offered enrolment. Participants undergo interview and clinical assessments to establish medical history, final clinical diagnosis, clinical manifestations and quality of life impact. Study-specific procedures include LD serology, skin punch biopsies and Lyme manifestation photographs. For every enrolled participant diagnosed with LD, 6–10 age-matched controls are randomly selected and offered enrolment for an embedded LD risk factor analysis. Persistent symptoms or post-treatment LD will be assessed at follow-up visits up to 2 years after initial diagnosis, while patients remain symptomatic.

This study has been approved by all sites’ local ethics committees. The results will be presented at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Inflammation is a key mediator in the development and progression of the atherosclerotic disease process as well as its resultant complications, like myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and cardiovascular (CV) death, and is emerging as a novel treatment target. Trials involving anti-inflammatory medications have demonstrated outcome benefit in patients with known CV disease. In this regard, colchicine appears to hold great promise. However, there are potential drawbacks to colchicine use, as some studies have identified an increased risk of infection, and a non-significant trend for increased all-cause mortality. Thus, a more thorough understanding of the underlying mechanism of action of colchicine is needed to enable a better patient selection for this novel CV therapy.

The primary objective of the Canadian Study of Arterial Inflammation in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Vascular Events, Evaluation of Colchicine Effectiveness (CADENCE) trial is to assess the effect of colchicine on vascular inflammation in the carotid arteries and ascending aorta measured with ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) or pre-diabetes who have experienced a recent vascular event (acute coronary syndrome (ACS)/MI, transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke). Secondary objectives include determining colchicine’s effect on inflammatory biomarkers (high-sensitivity C reactive protein (hs-CRP) and interleukin-6 (IL-6)). Additionally, we will assess if baseline inflammation imaging or biomarkers are associated with a treatment response to colchicine determined by imaging. Exploratory objectives will look at: (1) the difference in the inflammatory response to colchicine in patients with coronary events compared with patients with cerebral events; (2) the difference in the inflammatory response to colchicine in different vascular beds; (3) the relationship of FDG-PET imaging markers with serum biomarkers and (4) assessment of quality-of-life changes.

CADENCE is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to determine the effect of colchicine on arterial inflammation as assessed with imaging and circulatory biomarkers, specifically carotid arteries and aortic FDG uptake as well as hs-CRP and IL-6 among others. Patients with T2DM or pre-diabetes who have recently experienced a CV event (within 30–120 days after an ACS (ie, ST-elevation MI (STEMI) or non-STEMI)) or TIA/stroke with documented large vessel atherosclerotic disease will be randomised to treatment with either colchicine 0.6 mg oral daily or placebo. Participants will undergo baseline clinical evaluation including EQ5D assessment, blood work for inflammatory markers and FDG PET/CT scan of the ascending aorta and left and right carotid arteries. Patients will undergo treatment for 6 months and have repeat clinical evaluation including EQ5D assessment, blood work for inflammatory markers and FDG PET/CT scan at the conclusion of the study. The primary outcome will be the change in the maximum target to background ratio (TBR_max) in the ascending aorta (or carotid arteries) from baseline to follow-up on FDG PET/CT imaging.

Colchicine is an exciting potential new therapy for CV risk reduction. However, its use is associated with side effects and greater understanding of its underlying mechanism of action is needed. Importantly, the current study will determine whether its anti-inflammatory action is an indirect systemic effect, or a more local plaque action that decreases inflammation. The results will also help identify patients who will benefit most from such therapy.

NCT04181996.