Search

Introduction and hypothesis Obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) is a common urogynaecology presentation. This study compares two questionnaires, the electronic Personal Assessment Questionnaire (e-PAQ), used in urogynaecology clinics, with the ODS-Score (ODS-S), a simple validated scoring system used in colorectal clinics for diagnosing ODS, to identify patients with an ODS-S cut-off ≥9. Methods A total of 221 paired ODS-S and e-PAQ questionnaires were completed; 80 during the second trimester of pregnancy, 73 during the third and 68 post-natally, including women sustaining obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI). e-PAQ score and ODS-S were compared and Pearson’s correlation coefficient calculated. Areas under the curve assessed the diagnostic ability of e-PAQ scores to identify patients with ODS-S of ≥9. Results The e-PAQ and ODS-S scores showed a positive correlation in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy, post-natally and following OASI. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated (0.77; p p p = 0.001 and 0.79; p 0.90 for all groups. Conclusions Comparison of e-PAQ evacuatory domain scores and ODS-S show a strong correlation, with an e-PAQ score of ≥33 promising for identifying women with an ODS score of ≥9, indicating ODS. This study will enable us to identify women during pregnancy and post-natally with ODS for whom early recognition and intervention may be beneficial.

Objective Investigate feasibility and acceptability of prism adaptation training for people with inattention (spatial neglect), early after stroke, during usual care. Design Phase II feasibility randomised controlled trial with 3:1 stratified allocation to standard occupational therapy with or without intervention, and nested process evaluation. Setting Ten hospital sites providing in-patient stroke services. Participants Screened positive for inattention more than one-week post-stroke; informal carers. Occupational therapists participated in qualitative interviews. Intervention Adjunctive prism adaptation training at the start of standard occupational therapy sessions for three weeks. Main measures Feasibility measures included recruitment and retention rates, intervention fidelity and attrition. Outcomes collected at baseline, 3 weeks and 12 weeks tested measures including Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale. Acceptability was explored through qualitative interviews and structured questions. Results Eighty (31%) patients were eligible, 57 (71%) consented, 54 randomised (40:13, +1 exclusion) and 39 (74%) completed 12-week outcomes. Treatment fidelity was good: participants received median eight intervention sessions (IQR: 5, 12) lasting 4.7 min (IQR: 4.1, 5.0). All six serious adverse events were unrelated. There was no signal that patients allocated to intervention did better than controls. Twenty five of 35 recruited carers provided outcomes with excellent data completeness. Therapists, patients and carers found prism adaptation training acceptable. Conclusions It is feasible and acceptable to conduct a high-quality definitive trial of prism adaptation training within occupational therapy early after stroke in usual care setting, but difficult to justify given no sign of benefit over standard occupational therapy. Clinical trial registration https://www.isrctn.com/ Ref ISRCTN88395268.

BackgroundConcern remains about how occupational SARS-CoV-2 risk has evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to ascertain occupations with the greatest risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and explore how relative differences varied over the pandemic.MethodsAnalysis of cohort data from the UK Office of National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey from April 2020 to November 2021. This survey is designed to be representative of the UK population and uses regular PCR testing. Cox and multilevel logistic regression were used to compare SARS-CoV-2 infection between occupational/sector groups, overall and by four time periods with interactions, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, region, household size, urban/rural neighbourhood and current health conditions.ResultsBased on 3 910 311 observations (visits) from 312 304 working age adults, elevated risks of infection can be seen overall for social care (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.24), education (HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.39), bus and coach drivers (1.43; 95% CI 1.03 to 1.97) and police and protective services (HR 1.45; 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62) when compared with non-essential workers. By time period, relative differences were more pronounced early in the pandemic. For healthcare elevated odds in the early waves switched to a reduction in the later stages. Education saw raises after the initial lockdown and this has persisted. Adjustment for covariates made very little difference to effect estimates.ConclusionsElevated risks among healthcare workers have diminished over time but education workers have had persistently higher risks. Long-term mitigation measures in certain workplaces may be warranted.

Background: Although many people infected with SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) experience no or mild symptoms, some individuals can develop severe illness and may die, particularly older people and those with underlying medical problems. Providing evidence-based interventions to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection has become more urgent with the spread of more infectious SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VoC), and the potential psychological toll imposed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Controlling exposures to occupational hazards is the fundamental method of protecting workers. When it comes to the transmission of viruses, such as SARS-CoV-2, workplaces should first consider control measures that can potentially have the most significant impact. According to the hierarchy of controls, one should first consider elimination (and substitution), then engineering controls, administrative controls, and lastly, personal protective equipment (PPE). Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions, or no intervention. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS), Clinicaltrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 14 September 2021. We will conduct an update of this review in six months. Selection criteria: We included randomised control trials (RCT) and planned to include non-randomised studies of interventions. We included adult workers, both those who come into close contact with clients or customers (e.g. public-facing employees, such as cashiers or taxi drivers), and those who do not, but who could be infected by co-workers. We excluded studies involving healthcare workers. We included any intervention to prevent or reduce workers' exposure to SARS-CoV-2 in the workplace, defining categories of intervention according to the hierarchy of hazard controls, i.e. elimination; engineering controls; administrative controls; personal protective equipment. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were incidence rate of SARS-CoV-2 infection (or other respiratory viruses), SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, and absenteeism from work. Our secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, hospitalisation, and uptake, acceptability, or adherence to strategies. We used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool to assess the risk of bias, and GRADE methods to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Main results: Elimination of exposure interventions. We included one study examining an intervention that focused on elimination of hazards. This study is an open-label, cluster-randomised, non-inferiority trial, conducted in England in 2021. The study compared standard 10-day self-isolation after contact with an infected person to a new strategy of daily rapid antigen testing and staying at work if the test is negative (test-based attendance). The trialists hypothesised that this would lead to a similar rate of infections, but lower COVID-related absence. Staff (N = 11,798) working at 76 schools were assigned to standard isolation, and staff (N = 12,229) at 86 schools to the test-based attendance strategy. The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of symptomatic PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection rate ratio ((RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence)). The results between test-based attendance and standard 10-day self-isolation were inconclusive for the rate of any PCR-positive SARS-COV-2 infection (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.21; 1 study, very low-certainty evidence). COVID-related absenteeism rates were 3704 absence days in 566,502 days-at-risk (6.5 per 1000 days at risk) in the control group and 2932 per 539,805 days-at-risk (5.4 per 1000 days at risk) in the intervention group (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.25). The certainty of the evidence was downgraded to low, due to imprecision. Uptake of the intervention was 71 % in the intervention group, but not reported for the control intervention. The trial did not measure other outcomes, SARS-CoV-2-related mortality, adverse events, all-cause mortality, quality of life, and hospitalisation. We found one ongoing RCT about screening in schools, using elimination of hazard strategies. Personal protective equipment. We found one ongoing non-randomised study on the effects of closed face shields to prevent COVID-19 transmission. Other intervention categories. We did not find studies in the other intervention categories. Authors' conclusions: We are uncertain whether a test-based attendance policy affects rates of PCR-postive SARS-CoV-2 infection (any infection; symptomatic infection) compared to standard 10-day self-isolation amongst school and college staff. Test-based attendance policy may result in little to no difference in absence rates compared to standard 10-day self-isolation. As a large part of the population is exposed in the case of a pandemic, an apparently small relative effect that would not be worthwhile from the individual perspective may still affect many people, and thus, become an important absolute effect from the enterprise or societal perspective. The included study did not report on any other primary outcomes of our review, i.e. SARS-CoV-2-related mortality and adverse events. No completed studies were identified on any other interventions specified in this review, but two eligible studies are ongoing. More controlled studies are needed on testing and isolation strategies, and working from home, as these have important implications for work organisations.

Introduction: Nigeria has a large estimated burden of AIDS-related mycoses. We aimed to determine the proportion of pa- tients with AIDS-related opportunistic fungal infections (OFIs) at an urban antiretroviral treatment (ART) centre in Nigeria. Methods: A retrospective analysis of a cohort of ART-naïve, HIV-infected patients, assessed for ART eligibility and ART- experience at the PEPFAR outpatient clinic at Lagos University Teaching Hospital over a 12-year period (April 2004-Feb- ruary 2016) was conducted. Results: During this period, 7,034 patients visited the clinic: 4,797 (68.2%) were female; 6161 patients had a recorded base- line CD4 count, and the median CD4 count was 184 cells/µl (IQR, 84-328). A baseline HIV-1 viral load (VL) was recorded for 5,908 patients; the median VL was 51,194 RNA copies/ml (IQR, 2,316-283,508) and 6,179/7046(88%) had initiated ART. Some 2,456 (34.9%) had a documented opportunistic infections, of whom 1,306 (18.6%) had an opportunistic fungal infection. The total number of OFI episodes was 1,632: oral candidiasis (n=1,473, 90.3%), oesophageal candidiasis (n=118; 8%), superficial mycoses (n=23; 1.6%), Pneumocystis pneumonia (PJP) (n=13; 0.8%), and cryptococcal meningitis(CM) (n=5; 0.4%). 113 (1.6%) were known to have died in the cohort. Conclusion: Approximately 1 in 5 HIV-infected patients in this retrospective cohort, most of whom had initiated ART, were clinically diagnosed with an OFI. Improved access to simple accurate diagnostic tests for CM and PJP should be pri- oritised for this setting. Keywords: Opportunistic fungal infections; ART Adherence; Advanced HIV disease.

BackgroundRisk of SARS-CV-2 infection has been strongly linked to occupation, with specific occupational sectors such as health care, food production, and transport, particularly affected. To better understand the potential risks by occupational sector we investigated the reported risks of COVID-19 infection and mortality for employees in the three sectors.MethodsWe performed a rapid review of observational studies reporting COVID-19 risk for employees in health care, food manufacturing, and transport sectors. All studies published in the peer-review and pre-print literature between March 2020 and June 2021 were considered. The primary outcome measure was COVID-19 infection, with COVID-19 related mortality and hospitalisation considered as secondary measures. We extracted odds ratios/relative risks (and standard errors) comparing workers in each sector to within study reference category. To avoid complications due to study heterogeneity, we simply produced descriptive forest plots where possible utilising the odds ratios that have been adjusted for demographics.ResultsEight studies were identified from Norway (one), and California (one), and the UK (five). Three studies at time of writing were peer reviewed, and five of the eight were cohort studies. Food production was the least well investigated with limited evidence of increased infection, severe infection or mortality compared to the ‘other’ groups. Healthcare and transport show wide variation in the odds ratios reported. Public facing roles did indicate greater infection risk, specifically in the first wave. ConclusionsConsiderable study heterogeneity is present, particularly with respect to the chosen reference groups, meaning objective comparisons are limited here. However, as would be expected public facing roles, especially in the first wave, did appear to experience increased infection. Further prospective work with subject level data is needed to better understand the occupational risks.

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. To assess the benefits and harms of interventions in non-healthcare-related workplaces to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection relative to other interventions or no intervention.

A barrier to Lynch syndrome testing is the need for prior genetic counselling, a resource demanding process for both patients and healthcare services. We explored the impact of gynaecologist led Lynch syndrome testing in women with endometrial cancer. Women were approached before surgery, on the day of surgery or during routine follow up. Lynch syndrome testing was offered irrespective of age, family history or tumour characteristics. Women&rsquo, s reasons for being tested were explored using the Motivations and Concerns for GeNEtic Testing (MACGNET) instrument. The short form State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-6) was used to measure anxiety levels. Only 3/305 women declined Lynch syndrome testing. In total, 175/220 completed MACGNET and STAI-6 psychological instruments. The consent process took an average of 7min 36sec (SD 5min 16sec) to complete. The point of care at which consent was taken (before, day of surgery, during follow up) did not influence motivation for Lynch syndrome testing. Anxiety levels were significantly lower when women were consented during follow up (mean reversed STAI-6 score 32 vs 42, p = 0.001). Anxiety levels were not affected by familial cancer history (p = 0.41). Gynaecologist led Lynch syndrome testing is feasible and may even be desirable in endometrial cancer, especially when offered during routine follow up.

Sir, We would like to thank Sharma and colleagues for their interest in our recent study evaluating the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions for Bartholin’s cyst or abscess.1Their response highlights the unique opportunity offered by randomised trials, and their syntheses into meta‐analyses, to assess patient reported outcomes. We would strongly encourage researchers to select, collect and report patient reported outcomes in future research evaluating interventions for Bartholin’s cyst or abscess.2The primary outcome should be the outcome of greatest therapeutic importance to the study’s prospective hypothesis. There is currently no consensus regarding the selection of outcomes and methods of definition or measurement for randomized trials evaluating interventions for Bartholin’s cyst or abscess.3 In the absence of a standardized approach, researchers have made arbitrary decisions when choosing among several important outcomes.4 It would be useful for healthcare professionals, researchers, and women with lived experience of Bartholin’s cyst or abscess to engage in a formal consensus development process to agree appropriate primary and secondary outcomes.3We agree the use of adjuvant antibiotics is an important consideration. They were not reported by any of the included trials.5We have no experience of marsupialization performed under local anaesthetic. In our opinion, this approach would need to be evaluated within a research setting. The recent COVID-19 pandemic would provide additional impetus to undertake this much needed research.James M. N. Duffy 1,2, Emma Kirk 3, BJG Illingworth 4, K Stocking 5,Marian Showell 61 Institute for Women’s Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.2 King’s Fertility, Fetal Medicine Research Foundation, London, United Kingdom.3 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Free London NHS Trust, London, United Kingdom.4 North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Peterborough City Hospital, Peterborough, UK5 Centre for Biostatistics, Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK6 Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) is a conservative management option for atypical hyperplasia (AH) and low grade early stage endometrial cancer (EEC), but around 1 in 3 patients fail to respond to treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate if serum and/or tissue HE4 expression could predict response to LNG-IUS therapy. Patients with AH or presumed Stage I EEC had serum and endometrial samples taken at baseline and at 3-month intervals over 12 months post-insertion of LNG-IUS. 74 patients were recruited and baseline demographics recorded. Of 57 patients for whom response was histologically determinable, 39 (68%) were responders and 18 (32%) non-responders. Mean baseline serum HE4 was significantly lower in responders (62.1 &plusmn, 1.1 pM, 95% confidence interval (CI) 52.7&ndash, 73.2), compared to non-responders (125.6 &plusmn, 1.3 pM, 95% CI 74.5&ndash, 211.7, p = 0.014), including when considering age, BMI, menopausal status, smoking status, and histological grade as covariables (p = 0.005). Baseline tissue HE4 expression was not significantly different in responders compared to non-responders (p = 0.999). Responders showed a significant mean reduction (&minus, 9.8 &plusmn, 3.4%, 95% CI &minus, 16.7 to &minus, 2.8%, p = 0.008) in serum HE4 between baseline and 3 months (p = 0.008), whereas non-responders showed no significant change (p = 0.676). Neither responders nor non-responders showed a significant percentage change in serum HE4 from baseline beyond 3 months (p &gt, 0.05). Change in serum HE4 between baseline and 3 and 6 months and tissue HE4 tissue expression between baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months was not significantly different in responders compared to non-responders (p &gt, 0.05). This study suggests that baseline serum HE4, but not baseline tissue HE4 expression, is independently predictive of response to the LNG-IUS and could be used to guide management decisions.

There are important differences in the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and death depending on occupation. Infections in healthcare workers have received the most attention, and there are clearly increased risks for intensive care unit workers who are caring for COVID-19 patients. However, a number of other occupations may also be at an increased risk, particularly those which involve social care or contact with the public. A large number of data sets are available with the potential to assess occupational risks of COVID-19 incidence, severity, or mortality. We are reviewing these data sets as part of the Partnership for Research in Occupational, Transport, Environmental COVID Transmission (PROTECT) initiative, which is part of the National COVID-19 Core Studies. In this report, we review the data sets available (including the key variables on occupation and potential confounders) for examining occupational differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 incidence, severity and mortality. We also discuss the possible types of analyses of these data sets and the definitions of (occupational) exposure and outcomes. We conclude that none of these data sets are ideal, and all have various strengths and weaknesses. For example, mortality data suffer from problems of coding of COVID-19 deaths, and the deaths (in England and Wales) that have been referred to the coroner are unavailable. On the other hand, testing data is heavily biased in some periods (particularly the first wave) because some occupations (e.g. healthcare workers) were tested more often than the general population. Random population surveys are, in principle, ideal for estimating population prevalence and incidence, but are also affected by non-response. Thus, any analysis of the risks in a particular occupation or sector (e.g. transport), will require a careful analysis and triangulation of findings across the various available data sets.

IntroductionNovel, evidence-based treatments are required for treatment-resistant post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) has beneficially augmented psychotherapy in several small clinical trials.ObjectivesTo review the use of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in treatment-resistant PTSD.MethodsSystematic searches of four databases were conducted from inception to February 2020. A meta-analysis was performed on trials which were double-blinded, randomised, and compared MDMA-assisted psychotherapy to psychotherapy and placebo. The primary outcomes were the differences in Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS-IV) score and Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI). Secondary outcome measures included neurocognitive and physical adverse effects, at the time, and within seven days of intervention.ResultsFour randomised controlled trials (RCTs) met inclusion criteria. When compared to active placebo, intervention groups taking 75mg (MD -46.90; 95% CI -58.78, -35.02), 125mg (MD -20.98; 95% CI -34.35, -7.61) but not 100mg (MD -12.90; 95% CI -36.09, 10.29) of MDMA with psychotherapy, had significant decreases in CAPS-IV scores, as did the inactive placebo arm (MD -33.20; 95% CI -40.53, -25.87). A significant decrease in BDI when compared to active placebo (MD -10.80; 95% CI -20.39, -1.21) was only observed at 75mg. Compared to placebo, participants reported significantly more episodes of low mood, nausea and jaw-clenching during sessions and lack of appetite after seven days.ConclusionsThese results demonstrate potential therapeutic benefit with minimal physical and neurocognitive risk for the use of MDMA-assisted psychotherapy in TR-PTSD, despite little effect on Beck’s Depression Inventory. Better powered RCTs are required to investigate further.DisclosureJames Rucker has attended trial related meetings paid for by Compass Pathways Ltd.