Study protocol for VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer, a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot (the VIOLET study)

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide and surgery remains the main treatment for early stage disease. Prior to the introduction of video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS), lung resection for cancer was undertaken through an open thoracotomy. To date, the evidence base supporting the different surgical approaches is based on non-randomised studies, small randomised trials and is focused mainly on short-term in-hospital outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The VIdeo assisted thoracoscopic lobectomy versus conventional Open LobEcTomy for lung cancer study is a UK multicentre parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with blinding of outcome assessors and participants (to hospital discharge) comparing the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of VATS lobectomy versus open lobectomy for treatment of lung cancer. We will test the hypothesis that VATS lobectomy is superior to open lobectomy with respect to self-reported physical function 5 weeks after randomisation (approximately 1 month after surgery). Secondary outcomes include assessment of efficacy (hospital stay, pain, proportion and time to uptake of chemotherapy), measures of safety (adverse health events), oncological outcomes (proportion of patients upstaged to pathologic N2 (pN2) disease and disease-free survival), overall survival and health related quality of life to 1 year. The QuinteT Recruitment Intervention is integrated into the trial to optimise recruitment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the UK (Dulwich) National Research Ethics Service Committee London. Findings will be written-up as methodology papers for conference presentation, and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Many aspects of the feasibility work will inform surgical RCTs in general and these will be reported at methodology meetings. We will also link with lung cancer clinical studies groups. The patient and public involvement group that works with the Respiratory Biomedical Research Unit at the Brompton Hospital will help identify how we can best publicise the findings

COVID-19: Rapid antigen detection for SARS-CoV-2 by lateral flow assay: A national systematic evaluation of sensitivity and specificity for mass-testing

Background Lateral flow device (LFD) viral antigen immunoassays have been developed around the world as diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection. They have been proposed to deliver an infrastructure-light, cost-economical solution giving results within half an hour. Methods LFDs were initially reviewed by a Department of Health and Social Care team, part of the UK government, from which 64 were selected for further evaluation from 1st August to 15th December 2020. Standardised laboratory evaluations, and for those that met the published criteria, field testing in the Falcon-C19 research study and UK pilots were performed (UK COVID-19 testing centres, hospital, schools, armed forces). Findings 4/64 LFDs so far have desirable performance characteristics (orient Gene, Deepblue, Abbott and Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test). All these LFDs have a viral antigen detection of >90% at 100,000 RNA copies/ml. 8951 Innova LFD tests were performed with a kit failure rate of 5.6% (502/8951, 95% CI: 5.1–6.1), false positive rate of 0.32% (22/6954, 95% CI: 0.20–0.48). Viral antigen detection/sensitivity across the sampling cohort when performed by laboratory scientists was 78.8% (156/198, 95% CI 72.4–84.3). Interpretation Our results suggest LFDs have promising performance characteristics for mass population testing and can be used to identify infectious positive individuals. The Innova LFD shows good viral antigen detection/sensitivity with excellent specificity, although kit failure rates and the impact of training are potential issues. These results support the expanded evaluation of LFDs, and assessment of greater access to testing on COVID-19 transmission. Funding Department of Health and Social Care. University of Oxford. Public Health England Porton Down, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, National Institute of Health Research

A novel formulation of inhaled sodium cromoglicate (PA101) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial

Background Cough can be a debilitating symptom of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and is difficult to treat. PA101 is a novel formulation of sodium cromoglicate delivered via a high-efficiency eFlow nebuliser that achieves significantly higher drug deposition in the lung compared with the existing formulations. We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of inhaled PA101 in patients with IPF and chronic cough and, to explore the antitussive mechanism of PA101, patients with chronic idiopathic cough (CIC) were also studied. Methods This pilot, proof-of-concept study consisted of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with IPF and chronic cough and a parallel study of similar design in patients with CIC. Participants with IPF and chronic cough recruited from seven centres in the UK and the Netherlands were randomly assigned (1:1, using a computer-generated randomisation schedule) by site staff to receive PA101 (40 mg) or matching placebo three times a day via oral inhalation for 2 weeks, followed by a 2 week washout, and then crossed over to the other arm. Study participants, investigators, study staff, and the sponsor were masked to group assignment until all participants had completed the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in objective daytime cough frequency (from 24 h acoustic recording, Leicester Cough Monitor). The primary efficacy analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline efficacy measurement. Safety analysis included all those who took at least one dose of study drug. In the second cohort, participants with CIC were randomly assigned in a study across four centres with similar design and endpoints. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02412020) and the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT Number 2014-004025-40) and both cohorts are closed to new participants. Findings Between Feb 13, 2015, and Feb 2, 2016, 24 participants with IPF were randomly assigned to treatment groups. 28 participants with CIC were enrolled during the same period and 27 received study treatment. In patients with IPF, PA101 reduced daytime cough frequency by 31·1% at day 14 compared with placebo; daytime cough frequency decreased from a mean 55 (SD 55) coughs per h at baseline to 39 (29) coughs per h at day 14 following treatment with PA101, versus 51 (37) coughs per h at baseline to 52 (40) cough per h following placebo treatment (ratio of least-squares [LS] means 0·67, 95% CI 0·48–0·94, p=0·0241). By contrast, no treatment benefit for PA101 was observed in the CIC cohort; mean reduction of daytime cough frequency at day 14 for PA101 adjusted for placebo was 6·2% (ratio of LS means 1·27, 0·78–2·06, p=0·31). PA101 was well tolerated in both cohorts. The incidence of adverse events was similar between PA101 and placebo treatments, most adverse events were mild in severity, and no severe adverse events or serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation This study suggests that the mechanism of cough in IPF might be disease specific. Inhaled PA101 could be a treatment option for chronic cough in patients with IPF and warrants further investigation

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders

Cognitive and psychiatric symptom trajectories 2–3 years after hospital admission for COVID-19: a longitudinal, prospective cohort study in the UK

Background COVID-19 is known to be associated with increased risks of cognitive and psychiatric outcomes after the acute phase of disease. We aimed to assess whether these symptoms can emerge or persist more than 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, to identify which early aspects of COVID-19 illness predict longer-term symptoms, and to establish how these symptoms relate to occupational functioning. Methods The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) who were hospitalised with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 at participating National Health Service hospitals across the UK. In the C-Fog study, a subset of PHOSP-COVID participants who consented to be recontacted for other research were invited to complete a computerised cognitive assessment and clinical scales between 2 years and 3 years after hospital admission. Participants completed eight cognitive tasks, covering eight cognitive domains, from the Cognitron battery, in addition to the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Fatigue Scale, and the 20-item Cognitive Change Index (CCI-20) questionnaire to assess subjective cognitive decline. We evaluated how the absolute risks of symptoms evolved between follow-ups at 6 months, 12 months, and 2–3 years, and whether symptoms at 2–3 years were predicted by earlier aspects of COVID-19 illness. Participants completed an occupation change questionnaire to establish whether their occupation or working status had changed and, if so, why. We assessed which symptoms at 2–3 years were associated with occupation change. People with lived experience were involved in the study. Findings 2469 PHOSP-COVID participants were invited to participate in the C-Fog study, and 475 participants (191 [40·2%] females and 284 [59·8%] males; mean age 58·26 [SD 11·13] years) who were discharged from one of 83 hospitals provided data at the 2–3-year follow-up. Participants had worse cognitive scores than would be expected on the basis of their sociodemographic characteristics across all cognitive domains tested (average score 0·71 SD below the mean [IQR 0·16–1·04]; p<0·0001). Most participants reported at least mild depression (263 [74·5%] of 353), anxiety (189 [53·5%] of 353), fatigue (220 [62·3%] of 353), or subjective cognitive decline (184 [52·1%] of 353), and more than a fifth reported severe depression (79 [22·4%] of 353), fatigue (87 [24·6%] of 353), or subjective cognitive decline (88 [24·9%] of 353). Depression, anxiety, and fatigue were worse at 2–3 years than at 6 months or 12 months, with evidence of both worsening of existing symptoms and emergence of new symptoms. Symptoms at 2–3 years were not predicted by the severity of acute COVID-19 illness, but were strongly predicted by the degree of recovery at 6 months (explaining 35·0–48·8% of the variance in anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive decline); by a biocognitive profile linking acutely raised D-dimer relative to C-reactive protein with subjective cognitive deficits at 6 months (explaining 7·0–17·2% of the variance in anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive decline); and by anxiety, depression, fatigue, and subjective cognitive deficit at 6 months. Objective cognitive deficits at 2–3 years were not predicted by any of the factors tested, except for cognitive deficits at 6 months, explaining 10·6% of their variance. 95 of 353 participants (26·9% [95% CI 22·6–31·8]) reported occupational change, with poor health being the most common reason for this change. Occupation change was strongly and specifically associated with objective cognitive deficits (odds ratio [OR] 1·51 [95% CI 1·04–2·22] for every SD decrease in overall cognitive score) and subjective cognitive decline (OR 1·54 [1·21–1·98] for every point increase in CCI-20). Interpretation Psychiatric and cognitive symptoms appear to increase over the first 2–3 years post-hospitalisation due to both worsening of symptoms already present at 6 months and emergence of new symptoms. New symptoms occur mostly in people with other symptoms already present at 6 months. Early identification and management of symptoms might therefore be an effective strategy to prevent later onset of a complex syndrome. Occupation change is common and associated mainly with objective and subjective cognitive deficits. Interventions to promote cognitive recovery or to prevent cognitive decline are therefore needed to limit the functional and economic impacts of COVID-19. Funding National Institute for Health and Care Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre, Wolfson Foundation, MQ Mental Health Research, MRC-UK Research and Innovation, and National Institute for Health and Care Research

Post-acute COVID-19 neuropsychiatric symptoms are not associated with ongoing nervous system injury

A proportion of patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 experience a range of neuropsychiatric symptoms months after infection, including cognitive deficits, depression and anxiety. The mechanisms underpinning such symptoms remain elusive. Recent research has demonstrated that nervous system injury can occur during COVID-19. Whether ongoing neural injury in the months after COVID-19 accounts for the ongoing or emergent neuropsychiatric symptoms is unclear. Within a large prospective cohort study of adult survivors who were hospitalized for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, we analysed plasma markers of nervous system injury and astrocytic activation, measured 6 months post-infection: neurofilament light, glial fibrillary acidic protein and total tau protein. We assessed whether these markers were associated with the severity of the acute COVID-19 illness and with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms (as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression, the General Anxiety Disorder assessment for anxiety, the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for objective cognitive deficit and the cognitive items of the Patient Symptom Questionnaire for subjective cognitive deficit) at 6 months and 1 year post-hospital discharge from COVID-19. No robust associations were found between markers of nervous system injury and severity of acute COVID-19 (except for an association of small effect size between duration of admission and neurofilament light) nor with post-acute neuropsychiatric symptoms. These results suggest that ongoing neuropsychiatric symptoms are not due to ongoing neural injury

Large-scale phenotyping of patients with long COVID post-hospitalization reveals mechanistic subtypes of disease

One in ten severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections result in prolonged symptoms termed long coronavirus disease (COVID), yet disease phenotypes and mechanisms are poorly understood1. Here we profiled 368 plasma proteins in 657 participants ≥3 months following hospitalization. Of these, 426 had at least one long COVID symptom and 233 had fully recovered. Elevated markers of myeloid inflammation and complement activation were associated with long COVID. IL-1R2, MATN2 and COLEC12 were associated with cardiorespiratory symptoms, fatigue and anxiety/depression; MATN2, CSF3 and C1QA were elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms and C1QA was elevated in cognitive impairment. Additional markers of alterations in nerve tissue repair (SPON-1 and NFASC) were elevated in those with cognitive impairment and SCG3, suggestive of brain–gut axis disturbance, was elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) was persistently elevated in some individuals with long COVID, but virus was not detected in sputum. Analysis of inflammatory markers in nasal fluids showed no association with symptoms. Our study aimed to understand inflammatory processes that underlie long COVID and was not designed for biomarker discovery. Our findings suggest that specific inflammatory pathways related to tissue damage are implicated in subtypes of long COVID, which might be targeted in future therapeutic trials

Accelarated immune ageing is associated with COVID-19 disease severity

Background The striking increase in COVID-19 severity in older adults provides a clear example of immunesenescence, the age-related remodelling of the immune system. To better characterise the association between convalescent immunesenescence and acute disease severity, we determined the immune phenotype of COVID-19 survivors and non-infected controls. Results We performed detailed immune phenotyping of peripheral blood mononuclear cells isolated from 103 COVID-19 survivors 3–5 months post recovery who were classified as having had severe (n = 56; age 53.12 ± 11.30 years), moderate (n = 32; age 52.28 ± 11.43 years) or mild (n = 15; age 49.67 ± 7.30 years) disease and compared with age and sex-matched healthy adults (n = 59; age 50.49 ± 10.68 years). We assessed a broad range of immune cell phenotypes to generate a composite score, IMM-AGE, to determine the degree of immune senescence. We found increased immunesenescence features in severe COVID-19 survivors compared to controls including: a reduced frequency and number of naïve CD4 and CD8 T cells (p < 0.0001); increased frequency of EMRA CD4 (p < 0.003) and CD8 T cells (p < 0.001); a higher frequency (p < 0.0001) and absolute numbers (p < 0.001) of CD28−ve CD57+ve senescent CD4 and CD8 T cells; higher frequency (p < 0.003) and absolute numbers (p < 0.02) of PD-1 expressing exhausted CD8 T cells; a two-fold increase in Th17 polarisation (p < 0.0001); higher frequency of memory B cells (p < 0.001) and increased frequency (p < 0.0001) and numbers (p < 0.001) of CD57+ve senescent NK cells. As a result, the IMM-AGE score was significantly higher in severe COVID-19 survivors than in controls (p < 0.001). Few differences were seen for those with moderate disease and none for mild disease. Regression analysis revealed the only pre-existing variable influencing the IMM-AGE score was South Asian ethnicity ( = 0.174, p = 0.043), with a major influence being disease severity ( = 0.188, p = 0.01). Conclusions Our analyses reveal a state of enhanced immune ageing in survivors of severe COVID-19 and suggest this could be related to SARS-Cov-2 infection. Our data support the rationale for trials of anti-immune ageing interventions for improving clinical outcomes in these patients with severe disease