Blackburn

Pfizer MEVPRO-1 (C2321014) is a randomized, open-label, multi-center clinical trial evaluating whether combining the study medicine (PF-06821497) with enzalutamide is safe and effective compared to physician's choice of either second-line androgen receptor (AR) directed therapy with enzalutamide or docetaxel (chemotherapy) for treating metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) after progression on prior abiraterone acetate treatment. The primary objective of this clinical trial is to assess the radiographic progression free survival (rPFS) of the combination of PF-06821497 plus enzalutamide versus physician's choice of enzalutamide or docetaxel.

This is a global, multicenter, randomized Phase 3 study evaluating PF-06821497 (mevrometostat) in combination with enzalutamide versus placebo in combination with enzalutamide in participants with mCRPC where no systemic anti-cancer treatments have been initiated after documentation of mCRPC with the exception of ADT (androgen deprivation therapy) and first-generation anti-androgen agents. Prior treatment with any of the ARSi's enzalutamide, darolutamide, apalutamide, or abiraterone acetate, is not permitted in any setting. Chemotherapy is permitted in the castrate sensitive setting. This study consists of a Screening Phase, Randomization, Treatment Phase, Safety Follow-up, and Long-Term Follow-up. Participants will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive (Arm A) PF-06821497 in combination with enzalutamide, or (Arm B) placebo in combination with enzalutamide.

Sepsis results from overwhelming reactions to microbial infections where the immune system initiates dysregulated responses that lead to remote organ dysfunction, shock and ultimately death. Sepsis remains a significant global issue - as well as direct mortality, survivors suffer long term reductions in patient centred outcomes, with reduced quality of life and functional status. Patients with hypotension and organ hypoperfusion as a result of sepsis have poorer outcomes by dysregulated inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, immune suppression, and organ dysfunction. Current guidelines highlight the importance of early fluid resuscitation, but the association of early fluid therapy with improved outcomes is unclear. In the resuscitation phase, current practice is to give intravenous (IV) fluid and intermittent vasopressor boluses if required, before, for some patients, continuous vasopressor infusion via a central venous line in Intensive Care (ICU). An alternative, early continuous peripheral vasopressor infusion (PVI) is not routine practice in the UK. Current practice in the UK is guided by NICE Sepsis guidance and the international Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) consensus recommendations. Both specify intravenous fluid administration as a central tenet of early resuscitation of patients with septic shock, with intravenous vasopressor administration recommended after intravenous fluid resuscitation. NICE recommend boluses of 500ml of crystalloid and "refer to critical care for review of management including need for central venous access and initiation of vasopressors". SSC recommend 30ml/kg crystalloid in first hour, followed by vasopressors to maintain MAP\>65. The current NICE fluid resuscitation guideline, November 2020, continues to emphasise 500ml boluses of crystalloid as usual care. A recent international survey of 100 critical care and EM physicians regarding intravenous fluid resuscitation practice, confirmed that an initial bolus of 1000ml of crystalloid, followed by 500ml boluses of crystalloid remained the most common management strategy for the initial treatment of septic shock. This persisted despite the lack of benefit demonstrated in three landmark trials of protocolised sepsis management. In recent years, there has been increasing acceptance of peripheral administration of norepinephrine, based on evidence of safety and efficacy. The Intensive Care Society published guidance on peripheral vasopressor infusion in November 2020. We have recently conducted a survey amongst ED and ICU clinicians in the UK regarding attitudes and current practice related to the use of intravenous peripheral vasopressors. Eighty two respondents provided the following answers 1. Experience of use of any intravenous vasopressor in ED was high (81%); 2. Exclusive PVI made up 23% of all vasopressor use in ED; 3. Norepinephrine (norepinephrine) was the most common vasopressor (54%); 4. Barriers to PVI were local protocols and an appropriate level of care in the destination ward for a patient on vasopressor infusion.

This study is open to adults with chronic kidney disease at risk of progression. People with and without type 2 diabetes can take part in this study. The study is open to people who take other medicines called angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). People who already take empagliflozin or any other sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) can also join. The study is also open to people who currently do not take any of these treatments. The purpose of this study is to find out whether a medicine called BI 690517 helps people with chronic kidney disease when taken in combination with a study medicine called empagliflozin. Worsening of kidney function increases the risk for kidney failure, cardiovascular disease, and heart disease. This study has 2 parts. In the first part, participants get empagliflozin or placebo matching BI 690517 for at least 6 weeks. Participants continue taking ACEi or ARB throughout the study if such treatments are indicated. In the second part, participants are divided into 2 groups by chance. One group takes BI 690517 tablets and the other group takes placebo tablets. Placebo tablets look like BI 690517 tablets but do not contain any medicine. Participants take 1 tablet once a day in addition to empagliflozin for the duration of the study. The doctors document when participants experience worsening of their kidney disease, go to hospital due to heart failure, or die of cardiovascular problems during the study. The time to these events is compared between the 2 treatment groups to see whether the treatment works. The study continues until the required number of events have occurred which is about 3 to 4 years. During this time, participants visit the study site about 4 times within the first 6 months. Then they visit the study site every 6 months. At the visits, doctors regularly check participants' health, take blood and urine samples, measure blood pressure and weight, check kidney function, and take note of any unwanted effects.

This study is open to adults with type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. People can join the study if they have these conditions and do not have a history of heart failure. The purpose of this study is to find out if a medicine called vicadrostat, when taken with empagliflozin, helps reduce cardiovascular risk in people with these conditions. The study will compare this combination to a placebo version of vicadrostat with empagliflozin. Participants are put into 2 groups randomly, which means by chance. One group takes vicadrostat and empagliflozin tablets, and the other group takes placebo tablets with empagliflozin. Placebo tablets look like vicadrostat tablets but do not contain any medicine. Participants take a tablet once per day for 2 and a half years and up to 4 years and 3 months. All participants also continue their medication for type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. Participants have an equal chance of receiving the study medicine or placebo. Participants are in the study for up to 4 years and 3 months. During this time, they visit the study site regularly. During these visits, doctors collect information about participants' health and take blood samples. The doctors document when participants experience cardiovascular events. The doctors also regularly check participants' health and take note of any unwanted effects.

One in three people over the age of 65 and one in two over the age of 80 will fall each year. A fall is the main reason older people attend A and E. Falls can result in soft tissue injuries and broken bones, the most significant being a hip fracture, and these often require physiotherapy input. Locally, we have above average rates of hip fracture. Falling also reduces confidence and further mobility, which can also impact on developing long term health conditions. Research has shown that exercise can help improve the strength and balance in people over 60 at risk of falls. Balance and strength exercises have been shown in previous research to reduce the risk of falls by 25% in patient's over 60. However, in other research, 78% of patients over the age of 75 have not done exercises at home in the last 5 years. Exploring patient views on exercises and their physiotherapy experience will help us understand why patients engage or not with exercise and improve our services. Patients who are at risk (identified through the EMIS template) of falls and have expressed an interest in being involved in research and who meet the additional eligibility criteria will be approached by the researcher. Eligible participants interested in participating will be contacted and sent the patient information sheet and consent form. They will be contacted within two weeks to see if they want to participate and assistance with the consent form either over phone or face to face. A copy of the consent form will be scanned into the participant notes on EMIS, and paper copies stored securely in a locked filing cabinet. All participants will have the opportunity to ask any questions regarding consent and the study prior to commencing the interviews and data collection. The right of the participant to refuse to participate in research study without giving reasons will be respected. All participants are free to withdraw at any time without giving reasons and without prejudicing further treatment. Face to face interviews will be recorded via an encrypted voice Dictaphone recorder. If conducting interviews via telephone call or MS teams, then voice recordings using the encrypted dictaphone will also be used. The interview will take approximately half an hour, and patients will only be interviewed once, there will be no follow up in this study. All participant identifiable information will be kept confidential, and a participant number will be used. Recordings will be loaded onto a password protected secure trust server, accessible only to the researcher and the original recording deleted off the Dictaphone within 48 hours (about 2 days). Once transcribed, the recording on the drive will then be deleted. Anonymised qualitative data will be transcribed by an NIHR transcriber. Then it will be analysed using thematic analysis using NVivo version 12, or the most up to date version of NVivo, a qualitative data analysis software. All data will be anonymised prior to analysis using an allocated participant ID number. In the unlikely event that distress will be identified, the interview will be stopped, and the reason for the distress dealt with as per normal clinical practice. The participant will be given the option to stop participating (see withdrawal from participating below), or to continue with the interview at a later time. Participants can withdraw at any time up to once the interviews have been transcribed. Data will then be used to improve patient services in physiotherapy, as well as highlight any service pathway and health inequality needs.

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) that is of sufficient severity to require admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with substantial mortality. Patients with pneumonia who are being treated in an ICU will receive therapy that consists of many different treatments, as many as 20 or 30. These treatments act together to treat both the infection and its effects on the body. When treating a patient, doctors choose from many different treatments, most of which are known or believed to be safe and effective. However, doctors don't always know which treatment option is the better one, as individuals or groups of individuals may respond differently. This study aims to help doctors understand which treatments work best. This clinical study has been designed in a way that allows the information from patients already in the study to help new patients joining the study. Most studies aren't able to do that. REMAP-CAP has been designed to: * Evaluate multiple treatment strategies, at the same time, in the same patient. * Reach platform conclusions when sufficient data is accrued, rather than when a pre-specified sample size is reached * Utilise data that is already accrued to increase the likelihood that patients within the trial are randomised to treatments that are more likely to be beneficial * New questions can be substituted into the trial as initial questions are answered, meaning that the trial can be perpetual or open-ended * Interactions between interventions in different domains can be evaluated It is reasonable to presume that any pandemic respiratory infection of major significance to public health will manifest as life-threatening respiratory infection including Severe Acute Respiratory illness and severe Community Acquired Pneumonia (CAP) with concomitant admission to hospital, and for some patients, admission to an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Previous pandemics and more localized outbreaks of respiratory emerging infections have resulted in severe CAP and ICU admission. Previous pandemics and outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases have outlined the urgent need for evidence, preferably from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), to guide best treatment. However, there are substantial challenges associated with being able to organize such trials when the time of onset of a pandemic and its exact nature are unpredictable. As an adaptive platform trial that enrolls patients during the interpandemic period, REMAP-CAP is ideally positioned to adapt, in the event of a respiratory pandemic, to evaluate existing treatments as well as novel approaches.

1. FULL TITLE OF THE PROJECT Should we use post-operative antibiotics following surgery for patients with mandible fractures? The MANTRA trial (MANdibular TRauma and Antibiotic use) 2. SUMMARY OF RESEARCH (ABSTRACT) Research Question: Are post-operative antibiotics required following surgery for patients with mandible fractures? Background: Mandible fractures are the commonest facial fractures needing surgery and account for a significant percentage of the acute workload in Oral \& Maxillofacial Surgery (OMFS) units. The UK records over 6000 new cases per year. Patients having surgery for mandible fractures have a theoretical risk of developing surgical site infection, due to the proximity of the fracture lines to the oral cavity microbes and the presence of foreign body (titanium fixation miniplates). For this reason, clinicians often prescribe antibiotics after surgery, to reduce the risk of infection. Previous systematic reviews and a multicentre cohort study performed by this team, revealed significant clinical variation in post-operative antibiotic prescription amongst UK OMFS clinicians and the presence of clinical equipoise. Antibiotic overuse can lead to antibiotic resistance and other antibiotic-related side effects; judicious antibiotic use and stewardship is of paramount importance. Aim: To determine whether post-operative antibiotics are required at all, following surgery for mandible fractures, and, if so, what is the most clinically- and cost-effective regimen Objectives: Primary Objective To conduct a Randomized Controlled Trial (MANTRA) in order to establish the non-inferiority (or not) of not giving post-operative antibiotics versus 2 other post-operative antibiotic regimens. An internal pilot phase will optimise recruitment and retention. Secondary Objectives * Measure the cost-effectiveness of the proposed antibiotic pathways * Assess patient and clinician acceptability to change clinical practice * Process evaluation to inform dissemination and implementation Methods: The investigators designed and propose the MANTRA RCT to compare 3 post-operative antibiotic approaches to prevent Surgical Site Infections (SSIs) following surgery for mandible fractures. The MANTRA trial is a large open label, multicentre study in NHS OMFS units. The 3 study arms represent the most common clinical pathways in the UK based on previous work; the control group is the approach prescribed by most UK OMFS clinicians. All patients will receive 1 dose of IV antibiotics (co-amoxiclav 1.2g, if no penicillin allergy, which is the most commonly used prophylactic antibiotic currently) on induction of anaesthesia, prior to their surgery. The participants will be randomised to the following (1:1:1): Group A: No further antibiotics Group B: 2 further postoperative IV doses of co-amoxiclav 1.2g Group C: 2 further postoperative IV doses (as above), followed by a 5-day course of oral co-amoxiclav 625mg every 8 hours if no penicillin allergy (Control). Trial processes will be optimised by an internal pilot phase ensuring we recruit, randomise, and retain participants with clear progression criteria. We will also conduct cost-effectiveness analyses and process evaluation for dissemination and implementation Timeline: Start of grant: 1st July 2023 Start of RCT / pilot: 1st January 2024 End of pilot: 30th June 2024 End of recruitment: 31st December 2026 End of follow-up: 30th June 2027 Completion: 31st December 2027 Impact and dissemination: * Practice changing outputs that standardise the use of antibiotics in mandible fractures in the NHS and provide a framework for other surgical prophylaxis research * A bespoke clinical dissemination plan via an engagement and training legacy * Cost-effectiveness data to inform policy making * A research legacy and change of culture in the specialty of OMFS

This is a global, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase 3 study evaluating mevrometostat in combination with enzalutamide versus placebo in combination with enzalutamide in participants with mCSPC who have not received systemic anticancer treatments with the exception of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and first-generation antiandrogen agents. Prior therapy with up to 3 months of ADT (chemical or surgical) is allowed, with no radiographic evidence of disease progression or rising PSA levels prior to Day 1. This study consists of a Screening Phase, Randomization, Treatment Phase, Safety Follow-up, and Long-Term Follow-up. Participants will be randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive (Arm A) mevrometostat (PF-06821497) in combination with enzalutamide, or (Arm B) placebo in combination with enzalutamide.

TRACC Part B: Despite potentially curative surgery +/- adjuvant chemotherapy, a proportional of patients with early stage CRC will experience disease relapse. Current tools for surveillance, e.g., blood sampling for tumour markers (CEA) are neither sensitive nor specific. We hypothesise that detection of mutations in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma can predict relapse in patients with early stage CRC. Circulating cell free tumour DNA (ctDNA) maintains the same mutations that are present in tumour. In colorectal cancer CRC, primary tumours and\& metastases exhibit high genomic concordance. Therefore the TRACC study TRACC Part B is investigating whether serial blood samples taken from in patients with stage II and III fully resected early stage CRC colorectal cancer that have undergone potentially curative surgery, blood samples to can be used to detect and\& quantify ctDNA may in order to identify minimal residual disease MRD and predict relapse earlier than existing methods. CtDNA may ultimately help identify a subset of patients that are or are unlikely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and could therefore safely spare some patients from receiving unnecessary chemotherapy \& its associated side-effects. TRACC Part C: We hypothesis that ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy administration will enable biomarker driven selection of patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and thereby reduce the proportion of patient receiving unnecessary adjuvant chemotherapy, reducing the potential side effects associated with it, but without compromising disease free survival (DFS). : This part of the study will use tThe blood test ctDNA result from a post-operative blood sample willto guide adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. The study aims to demonstrate that athe de -escalation strategy of ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to standard of care treatment as measured by 3 year DFS in patients with high risk stage II and stage III CRC, in those who have no evidence of MRD (ctDNA negative). after surgery for patients with colorectal cancer who are following the standard of care pathway. Patients are randomised at the post- operative time point to: Arm A (standard of care adjuvant chemotherapy), or Arm B (ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy) arm. For the ct DNA guided arm, patients who are ctDNA negative at this time point will have their chemotherapy de-escalated.