No abstract

Aims Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. Methods and results We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients’ symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46–2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67–4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). Conclusion Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. Clinical Trial Registration ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688

Background Despite a recent decline in the annual incidence of tuberculosis (TB) in the UK, rates remain higher than in most Western European countries. The detection and treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI) is an essential component of the UK TB control programme. Objectives To assess the prognostic value and cost-effectiveness of the current two interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) compared with the standard tuberculin skin test (TST) for predicting active TB among untreated individuals at increased risk of TB: (1) contacts of active TB cases and (2) new entrants to the UK from high-TB-burden countries. Design A prospective cohort study and economic analysis. Participants and setting Participants were recruited in TB clinics, general practices and community settings. Contacts of active TB cases and migrants who were born in high-TB-burden countries arriving in the UK were eligible to take part if they were aged ≥ 16 years. Main outcome measures Outcomes include incidence rate ratios comparing the incidence of active TB in those participants with a positive test result and those with a negative test result for each assay, and combination of tests and the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) for each screening strategy. Results A total of 10,045 participants were recruited between May 2010 and July 2015. Among 9610 evaluable participants, 97 (1.0%) developed active TB. For the primary analysis, all test data were available for 6380 participants, with 77 participants developing active TB. A positive result for TSTa (positive if induration is ≥ 5 mm) was a significantly poorer predictor of progression to active TB than a positive result for any of the other tests. Compared with TSTb [positive if induration is ≥ 6 mm without prior bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) alone, T-SPOT®.TB (Oxford Immunotec Ltd, Oxford, UK), TSTa + T-SPOT.TB, TSTa + IGRA and the three combination strategies including TSTb were significantly superior predictors of progression. Compared with the T-SPOT.TB test alone, TSTa + T-SPOT.TB, TSTb + QuantiFERON® TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT; QIAGEN GmbH, Hilden, Germany) and TSTb + IGRA were significantly superior predictors of progression and, compared with QFT-GIT alone, T-SPOT.TB, TSTa + T-SPOT.TB, TSTa + QFT-GIT, TSTa + IGRA, TSTb + T-SPOT.TB, TSTb + QFT-GIT and TSTb + IGRA were significantly superior predictors of progression. When evaluating the negative predictive performance of tests and strategies, negative results for TSTa + QFT-GIT were significantly poorer predictors of non-progression than negative results for TSTa, T-SPOT.TB and TSTa + IGRA. The most cost-effective LTBI testing strategies are the dual-testing strategies. The cost and QALY differences between the LTBI testing strategies were small; in particular, QFT-GIT, TSTb + T-SPOT.TB and TSTb + QFT-GIT had very similar incremental net benefit estimates. Conclusion This study found modest differences between tests, or combinations of tests, in identifying individuals who would go on to develop active TB. However, a two-step approach that combined TSTb with an IGRA was the most cost-effective testing option. Implications for practice and future research The two-step TSTb strategy, which stratified the TST by prior BCG vaccination followed by an IGRA, was the most cost-effective approach. The limited ability of current tests to predict who will progress limits the clinical utility of tests. The implications of these results for the NHS England/Public Health England national TB screening programme for migrants should be investigated. Study registration This study is registered as NCT01162265. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background Poor diet and lack of physical activity are strongly linked to non-communicable disease risk, but modifying them is challenging. There is increasing recognition that adolescence is an important time to intervene; habits formed during this period tend to last, and physical and psychological changes during adolescence make it an important time to help individuals form healthier habits. Improving adolescents’ health behaviours is important not only for their own health now and in adulthood, but also for the health of any future children. Building on LifeLab—an existing, purpose-built educational facility at the University of Southampton—we have developed a multi-component intervention for secondary school students called Engaging Adolescents in Changing Behaviour (EACH-B) that aims to motivate and support adolescents to eat better and be more physically active. Methods A cluster randomised controlled trial is being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the EACH-B intervention. The primary outcomes of the intervention are self-reported dietary quality and objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels, both assessed at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The EACH-B intervention consists of three linked elements: professional development for teachers including training in communication skills to support health behaviour change; the LifeLab educational module comprising in-school teaching of nine science lessons linked to the English National Curriculum and a practical day visit to the LifeLab facility; and a personalised digital intervention that involves social support and game features that promote eating better and being more active. Both the taught module and the LifeLab day are designed with a focus on the science behind the messages about positive health behaviours, such as diet and PA, for the adolescents now, in adulthood and their future offspring, with the aim of promoting personal plans for change. The EACH-B research trial aims to recruit approximately 2300 secondary school students aged 12–13 years from 50 schools (the clusters) from Hampshire and neighbouring counties. Participating schools will be randomised to either the control or intervention arm. The intervention will be run during two academic years, with continual recruitment of schools throughout the school year until the sample size is reached. The schools allocated to the control arm will receive normal schooling but will be offered the intervention after data collection for the trial is complete. An economic model will be developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the EACH-B intervention compared with usual schooling. Discussion Adolescents’ health needs are often ignored and they can be difficult to engage in behaviour change. Building a cheap, sustainable way of engaging them in making healthier choices will benefit their long-term health and that of their future children. Trial registration ISRCTN 74109264. Registered on 30 August 2019. EACH-B is a cluster randomised controlled trial, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-0216-20004).

Background The EndoBarrier® (GI Dynamics Inc., Boston, MA, USA) is an endoluminal duodenal–jejunal bypass liner developed for the treatment of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Meta-analyses of its effects on glycaemia and weight have called for larger randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up. Objectives The primary objective was to compare intensive medical therapy with a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner with intensive medical therapy without a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner, comparing effectiveness on the metabolic state as defined by the International Diabetes Federation as a glycated haemoglobin level reduction of ≥ 20%. The secondary objectives were to compare intensive medical therapy with a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner with intensive medical therapy without a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner, comparing effectiveness on the metabolic state as defined by the International Diabetes Federation as a glycated haemoglobin level of < 42 mmol/mol, blood pressure of < 135/85 mmHg, and the effectiveness on total body weight loss. Additional secondary outcomes were to investigate the cost-effectiveness and mechanism of action of the effect of a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner on brain reward system responses, insulin sensitivity, eating behaviour and metabonomics. Design A multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Setting Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. Participants Patients aged 18–65 years with a body mass index of 30–50 kg/m2 and with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus who were on oral glucose-lowering medications. Interventions Participants were randomised equally to receive intensive medical therapy alongside a duodenal–jejunal bypass liner device (n = 85) or intensive medical therapy alone for 12 months (n = 85), and were followed up for a further 12 months. Results There was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients achieving the glycaemic primary or secondary outcomes [primary outcome at 12 months: duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 54.5% vs. control group 55.2% (odds ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.98; p = 0.85); primary outcome at 24 months: duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 39.7% vs. control group 36.5% (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 2.47; p = 0.75)]. Significantly more patients in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group than in the control group lost > 15% of their total body weight (duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 24.2% vs. control group 3.7%; odds ratio 8.33, 95% confidence interval 1.78 to 39.0; p = 0.007) and achieved blood pressure targets (duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group 68.2% vs. control group 44.4%; odds ratio 2.57, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 5.48; p = 0.014). These differences were observed at 12 months but not at 24 months. There were more adverse events in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group, including one liver abscess. The increase in peripheral insulin sensitivity was superior in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group. Spectroscopic analyses of plasma, urine and faeces revealed several distinct metabolic perturbations in the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner group but not in the control group. Brain reward responses to food cues were not different between groups. The number of mean quality-adjusted life-years gained was similar in both groups and the additional costs of the duodenal–jejunal bypass liner may outweigh the value of the health benefits by £2560 per patient treated. Conclusions The results show that the endoluminal duodenal–jejunal bypass liner was not superior to intensive medical therapy for glycaemic control and was associated with more adverse events. The duodenal–jejunal bypass liner was associated with significant weight loss and improvement in cardiometabolic parameters at 12 months but not at 24 months. Economic evaluation showed that the bypass liner was not cost-effective for glycaemic control or for weight loss. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30845205. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 7, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This study was executed with the support of GI Dynamics Inc. and with the kind support of Nutricia Advanced Medical Nutrition for providing oral nutritional supplements.