Neuromuscular electrical stimulation as an adjunct to standard care in improving walking distances in intermittent claudication patients: the NESIC RCT

Background Peripheral arterial disease is common and associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. While patients with peripheral arterial disease are known to benefit from supervised exercise therapy, it is not always available. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices may offer a similar benefit. A randomised controlled trial was required to ascertain whether such devices can benefit patients who receive supervised exercise therapy and those who do not. Objective(s) The primary objective was to assess the mean difference in absolute walking distance at 3 months in intermittent claudication patients receiving either a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device and local standard care (intervention), or local standard care alone (control). Design A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial stratified by centre. Setting Secondary-care National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants Patients aged ≥18 years, with a diagnosis of intermittent claudication according to the Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaire and ankle–brachial pressure index (or stress test), without contraindications to neuromuscular electrical stimulation were deemed eligible to partake. Interventions Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either local standard care or local standard care and neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Due to the nature of the intervention, it was unfeasible to blind the research nurse or participant to the study allocation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was absolute walking distance measured by treadmill testing at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included change in initial claudication distance, quality of life, compliance with interventions and haemodynamic assessments. Results Two hundred patients underwent randomisation, with 160 patients having analysable primary outcome data for the intention-to-treat analysis intervention (n = 80); control (n = 80). As the data were right-censored, a Tobit regression model was used to analyse the primary outcome, utilising the square root of the absolute walking distance to accommodate the skewed data. However, as this made the data difficult to interpret, a Tobit regression model using raw absolute walking distance data was used as well. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation improved the difference in absolute walking distance at 3 months but this was not statistically significant (square root of absolute walking distance: 0.835 units, 95% confidence interval −0.67 to 2.34 units; p = 0.28/absolute walking distance raw data: 27.18 m, 95% confidence interval −26.92 to 81.28 m; p = 0.323). Supervised exercise therapy participants showed a markedly improved absolute walking distance compared with patients receiving best medical therapy only at 3 months (square root of absolute walking distance: 3.295 units 95% confidence interval 1.77 to 4.82; p < 0.001/absolute walking distance raw data: 121.71 m, 95% confidence interval 67.32 to 176.10; p ≤ 0.001). Neuromuscular electrical stimulation significantly improved absolute walking distance at 3 months for mild claudicants (square root of absolute walking distance: 2.877 units, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 5.25; p = 0.019/absolute walking distance raw data: 120.55 m, 95% confidence interval 16.03 to 225.06; p = 0.03) compared to the control arm. This was an unplanned (post hoc) analysis. There were no clear differences in mechanistic measurements between the two treatment groups over the follow-up period. Serious adverse events were evenly reported between the two groups; all being classified as either not related or unlikely to be related to the study device. Limitations Absolute walking distance was used as the primary outcome measure; there was a large range of baseline distances in both groups with right-skewed distribution. We did not stratify by baseline absolute walking distance for the primary outcome analysis. Additionally, only 160 patients had analysable primary outcome data due to missing treadmill data. Conclusions Supervised exercise therapy is an effective treatment for intermittent claudication. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation appears to be beneficial as an adjunct to supervised exercise therapy and on its own in mild claudicants. Future work Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in combination with supervised exercise therapy, and in mild to moderate claudicants in a larger sample size. Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN18242823. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership (project number 15/180/68). This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Infrastructure support for this research was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (with others, e.g. NIHR Imperial CRF, Imperial College ECMC, NIHR Imperial PSTRC, NIHR London MIC, etc.)

Metastatic prostate cancer men’s attitudes towards treatment of the local tumour and metastasis evaluative research (IP5-MATTER) : protocol for a prospective, multicentre discrete choice experiment study

Acknowledgements We would like to thank all the participants, study PIs, trial clinicians, research nurses, Imperial Clinical Trial Unit staff and other site staff who have been responsible for setting up, recruiting participants and collecting the data for the IP5-MATTER trial. We are also grateful for the ongoing support of the Trial Management Group and our IP5-MATTER patient representatives. Finally, we would like to thank our trial funder the Wellcome Trust and University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Charity. Funding MJC’s research is support by University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Charity and the Wellcome Trust. Mesfin Genie and Verity Watson are based at the Health Economics Research Unit (HERU), University of Aberdeen. HERU is funded by the Chief Scientists Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. KTJ acknowledges research grant from the UK National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network Eastern and has received educational grants from Bayer UK, Janssen Oncology, Pfizer, Roche, and Takeda. HUA’s research is supported by core funding from the United Kingdom’s National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Duodenal-Jejunal bypass liner for the management of Type 2 Diabetes mellitus and obesity - a multicenter randomized controlled trial

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the clinical efficacy and safety of the duodenal-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) while in situ for 12 months and for 12 months after explantation. Summary Background Data: This is the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the DJBL, a medical device used for the treatment of people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity. Endoscopic interventions have been developed as potential alternatives to those not eligible or fearful of the risks of metabolic surgery. Methods: In this multicenter open-label RCT, 170 adults with inadequately controlled T2DM and obesity were randomized to intensive medical care with or without the DJBL. Primary outcome was the percentage of participants achieving a glycated hemoglobin reduction of ≥20% at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included weight loss and cardiometabolic risk factors at 12 and 24 months. Results: There were no significant differences in the percentage of patients achieving the primary outcome between both groups at 12 months [DJBL 54.6% (n = 30) vs control 55.2% (n = 32); odds ratio (OR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44–2.0; P = 0.85]. Twenty-four percent (n = 16) patients achieved ≥15% weight loss in the DJBL group compared to 4% (n = 2) in the controls at 12 months (OR 8.3, 95% CI: 1.8–39; P = .007). The DJBL group experienced superior reductions in systolic blood pressure, serum cholesterol, and alanine transaminase at 12 months. There were more adverse events in the DJBL group. Conclusions: The addition of the DJBL to intensive medical care was associated with superior weight loss, improvements in cardiometabolic risk factors, and fatty liver disease markers, but not glycemia, only while the device was in situ. The benefits of the devices need to be balanced against the higher rate of adverse events when making clinical decisions

Feasibility of comparative health research outcome of novel surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS): statistical analysis plan for the randomised feasibility phase of the CHRONOS study

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for surgical interventions have often proven difficult with calls for innovative approaches. The Imperial Prostate (IP4) Comparative Health Research Outcomes of Novel Surgery in prostate cancer (IP4-CHRONOS) study aims to deliver level 1 evidence on outcomes following focal therapy which involves treating just the tumour rather than whole-gland surgery or radiotherapy. Our aim is to test the feasibility of two parallel RCTs within an overarching strategy that fits with existing patient and physician equipoise and maximises the chances of success and potential benefit to patients and healthcare services. Methods and design: IP4-CHRONOS is a randomised, unblinded multi-centre study, including two parallel randomised controlled trials targeting the same patient population: IP4-CHRONOS-A and IP4-CHRONOS-B. IP4-CHRONOS-A is a 1:1 RCT and the other is a multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) RCT starting with three arms and a 1:1:1 randomisation. The two linked RCTs are discussed with patients at the time of consent and the choice of A or B is dependent on physician and patient equipoise. The primary outcome is the feasibility of recruitment, acceptance of randomisation and compliance to allocated arm. Results: This paper describes the statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the feasibility study within IP4-CHRONOS given its innovative approach. Version 1.0 of the SAP has been reviewed by the Trial Steering Committee (TSC), Chief Investigator (CI), Senior Statistician and Trial Statistician and signed off. The study is ongoing and recruiting. Recruitment is scheduled to finish later in 2021. The SAP documents approved methods and analyses that will be conducted. Since this is written in advance of the analysis, we avoid bias arising from prior knowledge of the study data and findings. Discussion: Our feasibility analysis will demonstrate if IP4-CHRONOS is feasible in terms of recruitment, randomisation and compliance, and whether to continue both A and B or just one to the main stage. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN17796995. Registered on 08 October 2019</p

The effect of a duodenal-jejunal bypass liner on lipid profile and blood concentrations of long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids

Background &amp; aims: Duodenal-jejunal bypass liners (DJBLs) prevent absorption in the proximal small intestine, the site of fatty acid absorption. We sought to investigate the effects of a DJBL on blood concentrations of essential fatty acids (EFAs) and bioactive polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). Methods: Sub-study of a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial with two treatment groups. Patients aged 18–65 years with type-2 diabetes mellitus and body mass index 30–50 kg/m 2 were randomised to receive a DJBL for 12 months or best medical therapy, diet and exercise. Whole plasma PUFA concentrations were determined at baseline, 10 days, 6 and 11.5 months; data were available for n = 70 patients per group. Results: Weight loss was significantly greater in the DJBL group compared to controls after 11.5 months: total body weight loss 11.3 ± 5.3% versus 6.0 ± 5.7% (mean difference [95% CI] = 5.27% [3.75, 6.80], p &lt; 0.001). Absolute concentrations of both EFAs, linoleic acid and α-linolenic acid, and their bioactive derivatives, arachidonic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid, docosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, were significantly lower in the DJBL group than in the control group at 6 and 11.5 months follow-up. Total serum cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and HDL-cholesterol were also significantly lower in the DJBL group. Conclusion: One year of DJBL therapy is associated with superior weight loss and greater reductions in total serum cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol, but also depletion of EFAs and their longer chain derivatives. DJBL therapy may need to be offset by maintaining an adequate dietary intake of PUFAs or by supplementation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02459561. </p

Neuromuscular electrical stimulation as an adjunct to standard care in improving walking distances in intermittent claudication patients: the NESIC RCT

Background Peripheral arterial disease is common and associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. While patients with peripheral arterial disease are known to benefit from supervised exercise therapy, it is not always available. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices may offer a similar benefit. A randomised controlled trial was required to ascertain whether such devices can benefit patients who receive supervised exercise therapy and those who do not. Objective(s) The primary objective was to assess the mean difference in absolute walking distance at 3 months in intermittent claudication patients receiving either a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device and local standard care (intervention), or local standard care alone (control). Design A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial stratified by centre. Setting Secondary-care National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom. Participants Patients aged ≥18 years, with a diagnosis of intermittent claudication according to the Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaire and ankle–brachial pressure index (or stress test), without contraindications to neuromuscular electrical stimulation were deemed eligible to partake. Interventions Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to either local standard care or local standard care and neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Due to the nature of the intervention, it was unfeasible to blind the research nurse or participant to the study allocation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was absolute walking distance measured by treadmill testing at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included change in initial claudication distance, quality of life, compliance with interventions and haemodynamic assessments. Results Two hundred patients underwent randomisation, with 160 patients having analysable primary outcome data for the intention-to-treat analysis intervention (n = 80); control (n = 80). As the data were right-censored, a Tobit regression model was used to analyse the primary outcome, utilising the square root of the absolute walking distance to accommodate the skewed data. However, as this made the data difficult to interpret, a Tobit regression model using raw absolute walking distance data was used as well. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation improved the difference in absolute walking distance at 3 months but this was not statistically significant (square root of absolute walking distance: 0.835 units, 95% confidence interval −0.67 to 2.34 units; p = 0.28/absolute walking distance raw data: 27.18 m, 95% confidence interval −26.92 to 81.28 m; p = 0.323). Supervised exercise therapy participants showed a markedly improved absolute walking distance compared with patients receiving best medical therapy only at 3 months (square root of absolute walking distance: 3.295 units 95% confidence interval 1.77 to 4.82; p < 0.001/absolute walking distance raw data: 121.71 m, 95% confidence interval 67.32 to 176.10; p ≤ 0.001). Neuromuscular electrical stimulation significantly improved absolute walking distance at 3 months for mild claudicants (square root of absolute walking distance: 2.877 units, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 5.25; p = 0.019/absolute walking distance raw data: 120.55 m, 95% confidence interval 16.03 to 225.06; p = 0.03) compared to the control arm. This was an unplanned (post hoc) analysis. There were no clear differences in mechanistic measurements between the two treatment groups over the follow-up period. Serious adverse events were evenly reported between the two groups; all being classified as either not related or unlikely to be related to the study device. Limitations Absolute walking distance was used as the primary outcome measure; there was a large range of baseline distances in both groups with right-skewed distribution. We did not stratify by baseline absolute walking distance for the primary outcome analysis. Additionally, only 160 patients had analysable primary outcome data due to missing treadmill data. Conclusions Supervised exercise therapy is an effective treatment for intermittent claudication. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation appears to be beneficial as an adjunct to supervised exercise therapy and on its own in mild claudicants. Future work Further studies are needed to confirm the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in combination with supervised exercise therapy, and in mild to moderate claudicants in a larger sample size. Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN18242823. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership (project number 15/180/68). This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Infrastructure support for this research was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (with others, e.g. NIHR Imperial CRF, Imperial College ECMC, NIHR Imperial PSTRC, NIHR London MIC, etc.). Plain language summary Why did we conduct this research? Patients with intermittent claudication present with pain in the lower limbs on exercising, relieved by rest. This negatively impacts on exercise tolerance and quality of life. Initially, such patients should be offered best medical therapy, including exercise advice, and a supervised exercise therapy programme. Supervised exercise therapy involves leg and feet exercises supervised by health-care professionals and, despite evidence favouring supervised versus unsupervised exercise, are underutilised in the United Kingdom. Therefore, there remains a significant difference between recommended standard care (best medical therapy and supervised exercise therapy) and ‘real-world’ standard care (best medical therapy only). Neuromuscular electrical stimulation devices have emerged as safe, portable and readily accessible, with some evidence suggesting they can improve outcomes, including pain-free walking distance and quality of life. This study investigated whether a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device improved the walking distance of patients with intermittent claudication compared to local standard care available (which may include supervised exercise therapy). What did we do? Two hundred patients diagnosed with intermittent claudication at 11 hospitals in England took part. A computer program randomly assigned half the patients to local standard care only, while the other half were given a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device which delivers electrical stimulation to leg and feet muscles through foot-pads, plus local standard care. What did we find? There was no clear difference in maximal walking distances between those who received a device and those who didn’t. However, neuromuscular electrical stimulation improved walking distances in patients who attended a supervised exercise therapy programme (although not significant), and clearly improved walking distances in those patients with a good baseline upper walking limit. Supervised exercise therapy significantly improved walking distances. What could be done next? Future research studies should further evaluate the effectiveness of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in combination with supervised exercise therapy, and in patients who have a good baseline walking distance in a larger sample of patients with intermittent claudication. Scientific summary Background Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a common condition that is predominantly caused by atherosclerosis, resulting in a reduced blood flow to the affected limb. It presents a significant global health burden, affecting over 200 million people worldwide. These individuals are at higher risk of other cardiovascular events and PAD itself has its own associated sequelae – for example, ulcer development. Intermittent claudication (IC) is the commonest symptom of PAD, patients experiencing leg pain while walking which is relieved by rest. This has a significant impact on exercise tolerance and quality of life. According to National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, all patients suffering from IC should receive both first-line treatment of best medical therapy (BMT) (including exercise advice) and supervised exercise therapy (SET). SET is known to significantly improve absolute walking distance (AWD) in IC patients but despite these guidelines, recommended care for the first-line management of claudication is significantly below standard, largely due to lack of National Health Service capability. Without a demonstrable benefit of non-invasive strategies for the management of IC, there is an increased likelihood of invasive treatment options. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is an emerging technology and such devices are readily accessible and can be used in the patient’s own home. Although some evidence of the efficacy of NMES in the management of patients with IC exists, in improving both functional and quality-of-life measures, further high-quality research is required. The NESIC (A Multicenter Randomised Controlled Study: Does Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Improve the Absolute Walking Distance in Patients with Intermittent Claudication (NESIC) compared to best available treatment?) study provides an evidence base for the efficacy of the REVITIVE IXTM (Actegy Health Ltd, Bracknell, UK) device in the non-invasive management of claudicants and assesses the cost-effectiveness of the device compared to SET. Objectives (list of research questions) 1.Primary objective: To assess the clinical efficacy of a NMES device as an adjunct to the local standard care available at the study randomisation sites to improve AWD in patients with IC. 2.Secondary objectives: a.To understand the underlying mechanisms for change in clinical and subjective outcomes in the form of lower-limb gross (duplex ultrasound) and superficial haemodynamic assessment (laser doppler flowmetry) b.To determine compliance with NMES device and SET programme c.To compare quality of life between those receiving local standard care alone and those receiving both local standard care and NMES d.To assess the actual cost-effectiveness of the NMES device compared to SET. Methods Design A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised clinical trial to compare the mean difference in AWD in patients with IC who are given NMES in addition to local standard care and those receiving local standard care only. Setting Eleven secondary-care NHS hospitals across England; a combination of centres with and without established provision of SET. Participants Between March 2018 and 17 March 2020, 200 participants were randomised into the NESIC trial. Follow-up was completed on 31 March 2021. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants, who then underwent eligibility assessments. Participants, as defined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were randomised 1 : 1 to either local standard care alone (standard care), or NMES and local standard care (intervention). Inclusion criteria •positive Edinburgh Claudication Questionnaire •ankle–brachial pressure index 30 mmHg, 40 seconds post 1 minute treadmill at 10% gradient, 4 km/hour) •able to give informed consent to participate in the trial after reading the patient information documentation •age ≥18 years. Exclusion criteria •severe IC requiring invasive intervention as determined by the treating clinician •critical limb ischaemia as defined by the European Consensus Document •comorbid disease prohibiting walking on a treadmill or taking part in SET •able to walk for longer than 15 minutes on the study treadmill assessment •have attended SET classes in the previous 6 months •popliteal entrapment syndrome •commenced vascular-symptom-specific medication in previous 6 months – for example, naftidrofuryl oxalate, cilostazol •pregnancy •any implanted electronic, cardiac or defibrillator device •acute deep vein thrombosis •broken or bleeding skin, including leg ulceration •peripheral neuropathy •recent lower-limb injury or lower back pain •already using a NMES device. Randomisation Randomisation (1 : 1) was web-based and hosted by Oracle Health Sciences InForm™ (Oracle®; Health Sciences, Austin, TX, USA) electronic data capture on an Oracle platform. Randomisation used random block size and was stratified by centres. Interventions The NMES device (REVITIVE IX) can be used in the patient’s own home. It delivers a 30-minute pre-programmed session of electrical stimulation to the lower-limb muscles through foot pads while the patient is in a seated position. The user controls the intensity of the impulses, and therapeutic benefit is deemed to occur when impulses are sufficient to cause contraction of the calf muscles, increasing venous return to the heart. The IsoRocker feature allows the device to tilt back and forth as the muscles contract and relax. The device is to be used for at least one 30-minute session daily (up to a maximum of six sessions) for 3 months (treatment period). Diabetic patients are to use the device for a minimum of two 30-minute sessions daily for the duration of the treatment period to better reflect the evidence supporting the diabetic patient group and improvement of their symptoms. A SET programme is usually led by a physiotherapist or allied health-care provider supervising exercise, usually within the physiotherapy gymnasium with equipment including a treadmill, steps and walking cones. SET classes usually involve a circuit of lower-limb exercises, for a minimum of 30 minutes per week, and usually over a 3-month duration. Outcomes and follow-up The primary outcome was AWD at 3 months, measured by treadmill testing. Secondary outcomes included quality of life over 12 months as measured by generic health-related quality of life tools, European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L®) (EuroQol Group, Rotterdam, The Netherlands), Short-Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36®) (RAND Health Care, Santa Monica, CA, USA) and the intermittent claudication questionnaire; compliance with NMES and SET as measured against self-report participant diaries and device data loggers; change in initial claudication distance measured by treadmill testing; and haemodynamic assessments measured by duplex ultrasound and laser doppler flowmetry. Participants in both groups were followed up for 12 months post randomisation. In-person visits were performed at screening/baseline (randomisation), 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. The treadmill assessment (Gardner-Skinner protocol) and laser doppler flowmetry of the foot were completed at each visit and the duplex ultrasound was performed by a vascular scientist at baseline and 3 months only. Self-report health resource-use participant diaries were completed throughout the 12-month duration of the study. Additionally, the self-report exercise diaries were completed by all participants for 3 months or for the duration of the SET programme, and the device compliance diaries were completed by participants randomised to NMES for the duration of the treatment period. A device experience questionnaire was completed at 3 months for participants in the NMES arm of the trial. The quality-of-life questionnaires were administered at baseline and each follow-up either in person, via the telephone or via post. Participant follow-up is summarised in Appendix 1. Due to the COVID-19 crisis, a substantial amendment was submitted to Ethics in April 2020 to allow all follow-up visits to take place remotely (i.e. over the telephone completely or in combination with postal questionnaires) in the event that the participant was unable to attend in clinic or the site was unable to accommodate the on-site visit. Missed (physical) assessments as a result of a remote visit were rescheduled at a later date as a separate on-site visit, where possible. If an on-site visit was rescheduled at a later date, all quality-of-life questionnaires that were completed remotely were repeated at the on-site visit. Results (research findings) Two hundred participants underwent randomisation and 160 were included in the intention-to-treat primary analysis [intervention (n = 80); control (n = 80)]. NMES improved AWD in patients with IC following the 3-month treatment period but this was not statistically significant [square root of AWD: 0.835 units, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.67 to 2.34; p = 0.276/AWD raw data: 27.18 m, 95% CI −26.92 to 81.28; p = 0.323]. Participants who had access to a SET programme showed a clear improvement in AWD compared with patients who received BMT only at 3 months (square root of AWD: 3.295 units, 95% CI 1.77 to 4.82; p < 0.001/AWD raw data: 121.1 m, 95% CI 67.32 to 176.10; p < 0.001). Improvements in the AWD at 3 months were seen when NMES was used in combination with SET, but this was not significant (square root of AWD: 1.724 units, 95% CI −0.56 to 4.01; p = 0.137/AWD raw data: 64.26 units, 95% CI −20.03 to 148.54; p = 0.13). NMES significantly improved AWD at 3 months for patients who could walk for more than 340 m at baseline (square root of AWD: 2.877 units, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.25; p = 0.019/AWD raw data: 120.55 m, 95% CI 16.03 to 225.06; p = 0.03) compared to the control arm. Mechanistic findings of the laser doppler flowmetry found no clear differences in blood flux between the two treatment groups over the 12-month follow-up period, nor any significant differences in volume flow or time average mean velocity (duplex ultrasound) groups at 3 months. Serious adverse events (n = 29) were reported in 24 participants, with all events being classified as either not related or unlikely to be related to the study device. The number of SAEs in the treatment arm was 13 and 16 in the control arm. Most of the events required hospitalisation; there were four deaths. Conclusions The results of the NESIC trial indicate that SET is the most effective treatment option for patients with IC. Although not significant, NMES improves walking distances when used in combination with a SET programme, and significantly improves AWD in mild claudicants. Implications for health care Findings from this trial suggest that all IC patients should have access to a SET programme and changes to such programmes may need to be made to encourage and/or retain participants. NMES may be an effective adjunct to SET and in patients with a good baseline walking distance. Recommendations for research (numbered in priority order) 1.Randomised controlled trial of NMES as an adjunct to SET in IC patients stratified by baseline AWD, as the NESIC study showed promise of non-invasive effectiveness in mild and/or moderate claudicants at improving walking distances, but larger numbers are required to validate this finding. 2.Research to examine the poor patient motivation and adherence to SET, as SET is clearly an effective treatment option for claudicants as seen in this study and many other studies but uptake/compliance remains an issue. 3.Research to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of SET programmes on maximal walking distance (MWD) and secondary outcomes such as quality of life and long-term engagement in physical activity. The NESIC study showed the effectiveness of SET at 12 months at improving AWD but longer-term follow-up is required to evaluate whether this is sustained years later. Previous studies have shown mixed results on the impact of SET on other outcomes, such as quality of life, and therefore further research is required. Study registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN18242823. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership (project number 15/180/68). This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 10, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Infrastructure support for this research was provided by the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) (with others, e.g. NIHR Imperial CRF, Imperial College ECMC, NIHR Imperial PSTRC, NIHR London MIC, etc.)

Additional Treatments to the Local tumour for metastatic prostate cancer - Assessment of Novel Treatment Algorithms (IP2-ATLANTA): Protocol for a multicentre, phase II randomised controlled trial

Introduction Survival in men diagnosed with de novo synchronous metastatic prostate cancer has increased following the use of upfront systemic treatment, using chemotherapy and other novel androgen receptor targeted agents, in addition to standard androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). Local cytoreductive and metastasis-directed interventions are hypothesised to confer additional survival benefit. In this setting, IP2-ATLANTA will explore progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes with the addition of sequential multimodal local and metastasis-directed treatments compared with standard care alone. Methods A phase II, prospective, multicentre, three-arm randomised controlled trial incorporating an embedded feasibility pilot. All men with new histologically diagnosed, hormone-sensitive, metastatic prostate cancer, within 4 months of commencing ADT and of performance status 0 to 2 are eligible. Patients will be randomised to Control (standard of care (SOC)) OR Intervention 1 (minimally invasive ablative therapy to prostate±pelvic lymph node dissection (PLND)) OR Intervention 2 (cytoreductive radical prostatectomy±PLND OR prostate radiotherapy±pelvic lymph node radiotherapy (PLNRT)). Metastatic burden will be prespecified using the Chemohormonal Therapy Versus Androgen Ablation Randomized Trial for Extensive Disease (CHAARTED) definition. Men with low burden disease in intervention arms are eligible for metastasis-directed therapy, in the form of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) or surgery. Standard systemic therapy will be administered in all arms with ADT±upfront systemic chemotherapy or androgen receptor agents. Patients will be followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. Primary outcome: PFS. Secondary outcomes include predictive factors for PFS and overall survival; urinary, sexual and rectal side effects. Embedded feasibility sample size is 80, with 918 patients required in the main phase II component. Study recruitment commenced in April 2019, with planned follow-up completed by April 2024. Ethics and dissemination Approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) Research Ethics Committee Wales-5 (19/WA0005). Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals