Significant advances in systemic therapy have improved survival for patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, the present treatment strategies and dose-fractionation for high-dose palliative radiotherapy (RT) are based on trials from the 1990s, when RT planning was simple with less precise delivery. Contemporary lung RT uses 4D-CT, volumetric modulated arc radiotherapy, aided by online verification using cone beam CT, which enables greater accuracy and better target volume coverage, while reducing doses to normal organs at risk. The Shortened High-dose Palliative Radiotherapy for Lung Cancer study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of reducing the number of RT fractions and RT duration, using contemporary planning, verification and delivery techniques.

This single-arm, multicentre, phase-II study will test the shortened hypofractionated accelerated palliative RT regimen of 30 Gy in 6 alternate-day fractions, with strict normal tissue dose constraints. We aim to recruit 37 patients across 4 sites within the West Midlands. Quality assurance for the RT is supported by the Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group (RTTQA). Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, who are candidates for high-dose palliative RT, before or after first-line systemic therapy, are eligible for recruitment. The primary objective of this study is to assess the safety of the proposed dose-fractionation. Secondary objectives include evaluating toxicity profiles, patient-reported outcome measures, time to progression, feasibility and the National Health Service cost-saving.

This study is conducted in accordance with the International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP) guidelines and all applicable regulatory frameworks, including, but not limited to, the UK policy framework for health and social care research, as well as the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales regulations. Approval for the study was granted on 18 April 2024 (IRAS project ID: 332998; REC reference: 24/WM/0032). The chief investigator is responsible for obtaining informed consent from participants. Any individual delegated this responsibility is thoroughly authorised, trained and competent to conduct the informed consent process. On completion of the trial, the results will be shared with participants in a plain language summary and will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. If successful, this study will inform a phase III randomised controlled trial to assess efficacy. For updates on the study, visit the study web page (https://research.mededcoventry.org/About-Us/Meet-The-Team/TMU/Ship-Rt).

NCT06483308.

To evaluate the incremental diagnostic value and sub-phenotyping capability of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) compared with Transthoracic Echocardiography (TTE) in patients with elevated left ventricular filling pressure (LVFP).

Prospective registry study. [Results from ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT05114785]

A single NHS hospital in the UK.

The primary outcome was the rate of diagnostic discordance between TTE and CMR. Secondary outcomes included the characterisation of specific pathologies identified by CMR where TTE was normal, non-diagnostic or provided a non-specific diagnosis.

CMR demonstrated diagnostic discordance with TTE in 74% (n=194) of cases. In patients with a normal TTE (n=54), CMR identified heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in 46% (n=25) and ischaemic heart disease (IHD) in 19% (n=10). For non-diagnostic TTE cases (n=15), CMR detected HFpEF in 53.3% (n=8) and IHD in 26.7% (n=4). Among those with non-specific left ventricular hypertrophy on TTE (n=47), CMR revealed HFpEF in 45% (n=21) and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in 34% (n=16).

CMR markedly improves diagnostic precision and sub-phenotyping in patients with elevated LVFP, identifying key conditions like HFpEF, IHD and specific cardiomyopathies that TTE frequently misses. These findings highlight CMR’s critical role as a complementary imaging tool for refining diagnoses and informing management strategies in cardiovascular conditions.

Gram negative bloodstream infections (GN BSI) are a leading cause of mortality worldwide, and antibiotic treatment approaches remain understudied. BALANCE+ is a perpetual Bayesian adaptive platform trial to test multiple treatment questions for hospitalised patients with GN BSI. The vanguard phase objective was to test the feasibility of the main trial.

Adaptive platform trial with five initial domains of investigation, each with open label 1:1 randomisation.

Ten hospitals across four Canadian provinces.

Individuals admitted to hospital with blood cultures yielding Gram negative bacteria.

The five initial domains of investigation included: antibiotic de-escalation versus no de-escalation; oral transition to beta-lactam versus non-beta-lactam treatment; routine versus no routine follow-up blood cultures (FUBCs); central vascular catheter replacement versus retention; and, ceftriaxone versus carbapenem treatment for low risk AmpC organisms.

Domain-specific recruitment rates and protocol adherence.

During the vanguard phase, 719 patients were screened, of whom 563 (78.3%) were eligible, with 179 (31.8%) enrolled into the platform. The platform recruitment rate was 1.37 patients/site-week. Recruitment varied by domain: routine versus no FUBC domain 1.23 patients/site-week; oral beta-lactam versus non-beta-lactam domain 0.48; de-escalation versus no de-escalation domain 0.28; low risk AmpC domain 0.02; catheter replacement versus retention domain 0.01. Domain specific protocol adherence rates were 145/158 (91.8%) for routine versus no routine FUBC, 53/60 (88.3%) for oral beta-lactam versus non-beta-lactam, 26/33 (78.8%) for de-escalation versus no de-escalation, 3/3 (100%) for low risk AmpC, and 0/1 (0%) for line replacement versus retention. There was complete ascertainment of all study outcomes in hospital 170/170 (100%) and near complete ascertainment at 90 days 162/170 (95.3%).

The vanguard phase demonstrated overall trial feasibility by recruitment rate and protocol adherence, with differences across interventions, leading to a transition to the main BALANCE+ platform trial with minimal protocol modifications.

NCT05893147.

Addressing physical inactivity is a promising dementia risk reduction strategy due to its direct benefits for brain health, and indirect benefits for other modifiable dementia risk factors. A potential limitation of previous interventions is that they often overlook how increasing physical activity affects other behaviours throughout the 24-hour day, such as sleep and sedentary behaviour, which are also important for brain health. Further, interventions are rarely tailored to the individual, considering their needs, preferences and constraints that may serve as barriers or facilitators to behaviour change. The current phase I randomised controlled trial, Small Steps, aims to investigate feasibility, acceptability and preliminary effectiveness of a personalised 24-hour time-use intervention to improve lifestyle and cognitive health in older adults.

Participants aged ≥65 years from Adelaide, South Australia will be recruited and randomised to either the Extended or Condensed programme. During the first 12 weeks, participants in the Extended programme will use a tailored website to set personalised weekly goals to move towards their ‘optimal’ 24-hour day for brain health, facilitated by weekly website ‘check-ins’ and weekly phone calls with a research staff member. Participants randomised to the Condensed programme will have access to the website educational resources only but will not undergo personalised goal setting or telephone calls. Following the introductory phase (first 12 weeks), phone calls will be gradually withdrawn for the Extended programme. Primary (feasibility and acceptability) and secondary outcomes (changes in time use, cognitive function and behaviour change metrics) will be assessed 12, 24 and 36 weeks after the beginning of the intervention.

Ethics approval has been obtained from the University of South Australia’s Human Research Ethics Committee (205989). Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles, conference presentations, media releases and community engagement.

NCT06291909).

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) in pregnancy can cause blindness. National guidelines recommend at least one eye examination in early pregnancy, then ideally 3-monthly, through to the postpartum for pregnant women with pregestational diabetes. Here we examined adherence rates, barriers and enablers to recommended DR screening guidelines.

Cross-sectional survey study, as part of a larger prospective cohort study.

Participants were recruited from two tertiary maternity hospitals in Melbourne, Australia.

Of the 173 pregnant women with type 1 (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the main cohort study, with an additional four who participated solely in this survey study, 130 (74.3%) completed the survey.

This study calculated rates of adherence to guideline-recommended DR screening schedules and collected data on the enablers and barriers to attendance using a modified Compliance with Annual Diabetic Eye Exams Survey. Each of the 5-point Likert-scale survey items was compared between adherent and non-adherent participants using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test and logistic regression models were constructed to quantify associations as ORs.

A retinal assessment was undertaken at least once during pregnancy in 86.3% of participants, but only 40.9% attended during their first trimester and only 21.2% attended the recommended number of examinations. Competing priorities were the main barriers to adherence, with eye examinations ranked as the fourth priority (IQR 4th–5th) among other health appointments during pregnancy. Meanwhile, knowledge of the benefits of eye screening examinations, eye-check reminders and support from relatives was identified as enablers.

Despite the risk of worsening DR during pregnancy, less than half of the participants adhered to recommended screening guidelines, suggesting that eye health is not a priority. Proactive measures to integrate care are needed to prevent visual loss in this growing population.

Lower gastrointestinal symptoms attributed to colorectal disease are common. Early diagnosis of serious colorectal disease such as colorectal cancer (CRC), precancerous growths (polyps) and inflammation is important to ensure the best possible outcomes for a patient. The current ‘gold standard’ diagnostic test is colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is an invasive procedure. Some people struggle to cope with it and require intravenous sedation and/or analgesia. It is also resource-intensive, needing to be performed in specialist endoscopy units by a trained team. Across the UK, the demand for colonoscopy is outstripping capacity and the diagnosis of colorectal disease is being delayed. A colon capsule endoscope (CCE) is an alternative colorectal diagnostic. It is a ‘camera in a pill’ that can be swallowed and which passes through the gastrointestinal tract, obtaining visual images on the colon. There is now established experience of CCE in the UK. CCE might provide a less invasive method to diagnose colorectal disease if found to be accurate and effective and provide a means by which to increase the National Health Service (NHS) diagnostic capacity.

The aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of CCE when compared with colonoscopy in representative and clinically meaningful cohorts of patients. An evaluation of the experiences of CCE for the patient and clinical team and an assessment of cost effectiveness will be undertaken.

We will undertake three research workstreams (WS). In WS1, we shall perform a paired (back-to-back) study. Each participant will swallow the CCE and then later on the same day they will have a colonoscopy. The study has been designed in collaboration with our Patient Advisory Group and as closely mirrors standard care as is possible. 973 participants will be recruited from three representative clinical contexts; suspected CRC, suspected inflammatory bowel disease and postpolypectomy surveillance. Up to 30 sites across the UK will be involved to maximise inclusivity. Measures of diagnostic accuracy will be reported along with CCE completion rates, number of colonoscopy procedures potentially prevented and adverse events, such as capsule retention. A nested substudy of intraobserver and interobserver agreement will be performed. WS2 will develop models of cost-effectiveness and WS3 will evaluate the patient and clinician experience, with reference to acceptability and choice.

The study findings will provide the evidence base to inform future colorectal diagnostic services.

The study has approval from the North East—Tyne and Wear South research ethics committee (REC reference 24/NE/0178, IRAS 331349). The findings will be disseminated to the NHS, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, other clinical stakeholders and participants, patients and the public.

ISRCTN16126290.

Endovascular therapy is the main treatment for chronic limb-threatening ischaemia in the UK. Despite a restenosis risk of 50% over 2 years, reintervention rates are low, potentially resulting in preventable amputations. European guidelines recommend ultrasound surveillance to facilitate early treatment of restenosis. This study will investigate the use of duplex ultrasound after endo revascularisation (DUSTER). The aim is to assess the feasibility, acceptability and impact on clinical decision-making of a 1-year integrated ultrasound surveillance programme after lower limb endovascular therapy.

DUSTER is a mixed-methods study. Phase I is a three-site, feasibility, open-label, randomised controlled trial. The standard of care, the control arm, is standard clinical surveillance by a vascular specialist at 1, 6 and 12 months. The intervention arm will receive integrated ultrasound (ankle-brachial pressure index, toe pressure and duplex) plus standard clinical surveillance. Primary outcomes are rates of attendance and completion of ultrasound surveillance tests, as well as the percentage of participants undergoing reintervention for restenosis. Secondary outcomes are limb salvage, amputation-free survival, reasons for amputation, complications, serious adverse events and mortality.

Phase II comprises independent semistructured interviews with intervention arm participants. The interviews will explore barriers and facilitators to ultrasound surveillance and the effect of ultrasound surveillance on patients’ lives.

Phase III has two separate focus groups for participants and clinical stakeholders to identify which outcomes matter most in any subsequent large-scale effectiveness trials.

This research has been approved by a UK (West Midlands, Black Country) Research Ethics Committee (reference 24/WM/0232) and the Health Research Authority (IRAS 349192). Dissemination of results will be by the DUSTER co-investigators in peer-reviewed journals, to the National Institute for Health and Care Research and to a lay audience via the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundations Trust website.

NCT06702306.