Search

Diabetes therapy 13(1), 57-73 (2022). doi:10.1007/s13300-021-01179-8, Published by Springer Healthcare Communications, New York, NY [u.a.]

INTRODUCTION There is limited data using continuous monitoring to assess outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. This study assessed long-term outcomes of AF ablation in patients with implantable cardiac devices. METHODS 207 patients (mean age 68.1 ± 9.5, 50.3% men) undergoing ablation for symptomatic AF were followed up for a mean period of 924.5 ± 636.7 days. Techniques included The Pulmonary Vein Ablation Catheter (PVAC) (59.4%), cryoablation (17.4%), point by point (14.0%) and The Novel Irrigated Multipolar Radiofrequency Ablation Catheter (nMARQ) (9.2%). RESULTS 130 (62.8%) patients had paroxysmal AF (PAF) and 77 (37.2%) persistent AF. First ablation and repeat ablation reduced AF burden significantly (relative risk 0.91, [95% CI 0.89 to 0.94]; P

Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has shown that second‐generation basal insulin (BI) analogues, insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla‐300) and insulin degludec (IDeg), provide similar glycaemic control, with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia compared with the first‐generation BI analogue insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Gla‐100) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the highly selected participants and frequent follow‐up of RCTs may not be truly representative of real‐life clinical practice. It is important to assess the safety and effectiveness of these second‐generation BI analogues in real‐life clinical practice settings. The DELIVER programme utilized electronic healthcare records from the United States to compare clinical outcomes in people with T2D who received either Gla‐300 or other BI analogues in real‐world clinical practice. This review provides a concise overview of the results of the DELIVER studies. Overall, Gla‐300 provided similar antihyperglycaemic effectiveness and a lower risk of hypoglycaemia versus the first‐generation BI analogues Gla‐100 and insulin detemir in people with T2D who had switched BIs. In those who were insulin‐naïve, initiation with Gla‐300 versus Gla‐100 was associated with significantly better antihyperglycaemic effectiveness and similar or lower hypoglycaemic risk. Both glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia risk were also shown to be similar with Gla‐300 and IDeg, in people who had switched BIs and in those who were insulin‐naïve. In addition, the DELIVER 2 study reported that people with T2D who switched to Gla‐300 had reduced healthcare resource utilization, with an overall saving of US$1439 per person per year compared with those who switched to another BI analogue. Overall, the real‐world DELIVER programme showed that the glycaemic control with a low risk of hypoglycaemia observed with Gla‐300 in RCTs was also seen in standard clinical practice.

ObjectivesA major incident is any emergency requiring special arrangements by the emergency services. All hospitals are required by law to keep a major incident plan (MIP) detailing the response to such events. In 2006 and 2019, we assessed the preparedness and knowledge of key individuals in hospitals across England and found a substantial gap in responding to the MIP. In this report, we compare responses from doctors at major trauma centres (MTCs) and other hospitals (non-MTCs).MethodsWe identified trusts in England that received over 30 000 patients through the ED in the fourth quarter of 2016/2017. We contacted the on-call anaesthetic, emergency, general surgery and trauma and orthopaedic registrar at each location and asked three questions assessing their confidence in using their hospital’s MIP: (1) Have you read your hospital’s MIP? (2) Do you know where you can access your hospital’s MIP guidelines? (3) Do you know what role you would play if an MIP came into effect while you are on call?We compared data from MTCs and non-MTCs using multinomial mixed proportional odds models.ResultsThere was a modest difference between responses from individuals at MTCs and non-MTCs for question 2 (OR=2.43, CI=1.03 to 5.73, p=0.04) but no evidence of a difference between question 1 (OR=1.41, CI=0.55 to 3.63, p=0.47) and question 3 (OR=1.78, CI=0.86 to 3.69, p=0.12). Emergency medicine and anaesthetic registrars showed significantly higher preparedness and knowledge across all domains. No evidence of a systematic difference in specialty response by MTC or otherwise was identified.ConclusionsConfidence in using MIPs among specialty registrars in England remains low. Doctors at MTCs tended to be better prepared and more knowledgeable, but this effect was only marginally significant. We make several recommendations to improve education on major incidents.

Diabetes therapy 12(4), 1073-1097 (2021). doi:10.1007/s13300-021-01030-0, Published by Springer Healthcare Communications, New York, NY [u.a.]

Hypoglycemia is a major barrier impeding glycemic control in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus and creates a substantial burden on the healthcare system. Certain populations that require special attention, such as older adults and individuals with renal impairment, a longer duration of diabetes or those who have experienced prior hypoglycemia, may be at a higher risk of hypoglycemia, particularly with insulin treatment. Second-generation basal insulin analogues (insulin glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) have demonstrated reductions in hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL although evidence of this benefit across specific populations is less clear. In this review we summarize the literature with respect to the efficacy and safety data for second-generation basal insulin analogues in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are at risk of hypoglycemia or who require special attention. Randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses and real-world evidence demonstrate that the use of second-generation basal insulin analogues is associated with less hypoglycemia compared with insulin glargine 100 U/mL without compromising glycated hemoglobin control. A reduced risk of hypoglycemia with second-generation basal insulin analogues was evident in older adults and in individuals with obesity, renal impairment, a history of cardiovascular disease or a long duration of insulin use. Further studies are needed in other populations, including those with more severe renal impairment or hepatic dysfunction, the hospitalized population and those with cognitive impairment. Overall, less hypoglycemia associated with second-generation basal insulin analogues may help reduce barriers for insulin use, improve adherence and offset the costs of hypoglycemia-related healthcare resource utilization.

Aims To compare 12‐month clinical effectiveness of insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla‐300) versus first‐generation basal insulin analogues (BIAs) (insulin glargine 100 units/mL [Gla‐100] or insulin detemir [IDet]) in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were at high risk of hypoglycaemia and switched from one BIA to a different one (Gla‐300 or Gla‐100/IDet) in a real‐world setting. Methods DELIVER High Risk was a retrospective observational cohort study of 2550 patients with T2D who switched BIA to Gla‐300 (Gla‐300 switchers) and were propensity score‐matched (1:1) to patients who switched to Gla‐100 or IDet (Gla‐100/IDet switchers). Outcomes were change in glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), attainment of HbA1c goals (, In patients with type 2 diabetes at high risk of hypoglycaemia, risk of inpatient/emergency department‐related hypoglycaemia was significantly lower during 12 months after switching to insulin glargine 300 units/mL, compared with switching to insulin glargine 100 units/mL or insulin detemir.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common mental health condition with considerable negative impact on health and well-being. Although antidepressants are recommended as first-line treatment, there is limited evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of long-term maintenance antidepressants for preventing relapse.OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to calculate the mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months of discontinuing long-term antidepressant medication in well patients compared with maintenance, using patient-level trial data.METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis of 478 participants from 150 UK general practices recruited to a randomised, double-blind trial (ANTLER). QALYs were calculated from EQ-5D-5L and 12-Item Short Form survey (SF-12) results, with primary analysis using the EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Resource use was collected from primary care patient electronic medical records and self-completed questionnaires capturing mental-health-related resource use. Costs were calculated by applying standard UK unit costs to resource use. Adjustments were made for baseline variables.RESULTS: Participants randomised to discontinuation had significantly worse utility scores at 3 months (- 0.032; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.053 to - 0.011) but no significant difference in QALYs (- 0.011; 95% CI - 0.026 to 0.003) or costs (£3.11; 95% CI - 41.28 to 47.50) at 12 months. The probability that discontinuation was cost effective compared with maintenance was 12.9% at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained.CONCLUSIONS: Discontinuation of antidepressants was unlikely to be cost effective compared with maintenance for currently well patients on long-term antidepressants. However, this analysis provides no information on the wider impact of antidepressants. Our findings provide information on the potential impact of discontinuing long-term maintenance antidepressants and facilitate improving guidance for shared patient-clinician decision making.TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number 2015-004210-26; ISRCTN number ISRCTN15969819.

Background There has been a steady increase in the number of primary care patients receiving long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, despite limited evidence of a benefit of this treatment beyond 8 months. Objective The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant medication in preventing relapse in UK primary care. Design This was a Phase IV, double-blind, pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised parallel-group controlled trial, with follow-up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Participants were randomised using minimisation on centre, type of antidepressant and baseline depressive symptom score above or below the median using Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised (two categories). Statisticians were blind to allocation for the outcome analyses. Setting General practices in London, Bristol, Southampton and York. Participants Individuals aged 18–74 years who had experienced at least two episodes of depression and had been taking antidepressants for ≥ 9 months but felt well enough to consider stopping their medication. Those who met an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of depression or with other psychiatric conditions were excluded. Intervention At baseline, participants were taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg. They were randomised to either remain on their current medication or discontinue medication after a tapering period. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the time, in weeks, to the beginning of the first depressive episode after randomisation. This was measured by a retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised that assessed the onset of a depressive episode in the previous 12 weeks, and was conducted at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The depression-related resource use was collected over 12 months from medical records and patient-completed questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Results Between 9 March 2017 and 1 March 2019, we randomised 238 participants to antidepressant continuation (the maintenance group) and 240 participants to antidepressant discontinuation (the discontinuation group). The time to relapse of depression was shorter in the discontinuation group, with a hazard ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 2.70; p Conclusions Patients who discontinue long-term maintenance antidepressants in primary care are at increased risk of relapse and withdrawal symptoms. However, a substantial proportion of patients can discontinue antidepressants without relapse. Our findings will give patients and clinicians an estimate of the likely benefits and harms of stopping long-term maintenance antidepressants and improve shared decision-making. The participants may not have been representative of all people on long-term maintenance treatment and we could study only a restricted range of antidepressants and doses. Identifying patients who will not relapse if they discontinued antidepressants would be clinically important. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15969819 and EudraCT 2015-004210-26. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 69. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUNDPatients with depression who are treated in primary care practices may receive antidepressants for prolonged periods. Data are limited on the effects of maintaining or discontinuing antidepressant therapy in this setting.METHODSWe conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving adults who were being treated in 150 general practices in the United Kingdom. All the patients had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants for 2 years or longer and felt well enough to consider stopping antidepressants. Patients who had received citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to maintain their current antidepressant therapy (maintenance group) or to taper and discontinue such therapy with the use of matching placebo (discontinuation group). The primary outcome was the first relapse of depression during the 52-week trial period, as evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical and withdrawal symptoms, quality of life, time to stopping an antidepressant or placebo, and global mood ratings.RESULTSA total of 1466 patients underwent screening. Of these patients, 478 were enrolled in the trial (238 in the maintenance group and 240 in the discontinuation group). The average age of the patients was 54 years; 73% were women. Adherence to the trial assignment was 70% in the maintenance group and 52% in the discontinuation group. By 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 92 of 238 patients (39%) in the maintenance group and in 135 of 240 (56%) in the discontinuation group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 2.70; PCONCLUSIONSAmong patients in primary care practices who felt well enough to discontinue antidepressant therapy, those who were assigned to stop their medication had a higher risk of relapse of depression by 52 weeks than those who were assigned to maintain their current therapy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ANTLER ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15969819. opens in new tab.)

BackgroundSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) lineage B.1.1.7 has been associated with an increased rate of transmission and disease severity among subjects testing positive in the community. Its impact on hospitalised patients is less well documented.MethodsWe collected viral sequences and clinical data of patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 and hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs), sampled 16/11/2020 - 10/01/2021, from eight hospitals participating in the COG-UK-HOCI study. Associations between the variant and the outcomes of all-cause mortality and intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission were evaluated using mixed effects Cox models adjusted by age, sex, comorbidities, care home residence, pregnancy and ethnicity.ResultsSequences were obtained from 2341 inpatients (HOCI cases = 786) and analysis of clinical outcomes was carried out in 2147 inpatients with all data available. The hazard ratio (HR) for mortality of B.1.1.7 compared to other lineages was 1.01 (95% CI 0.79-1.28, P=0.94) and for ITU admission was 1.01 (95% CI 0.75-1.37, P=0.96). Analysis of sex-specific effects of B.1.1.7 identified increased risk of mortality (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.95-1.78) and ITU admission (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.15-2.90) in females infected with the variant but not males (mortality HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61-1.10; ITU HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52-1.04).ConclusionsIn common with smaller studies of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2 we did not find an overall increase in mortality or ITU admission associated with B.1.1.7 compared to other lineages. However, women with B.1.1.7 may be at an increased risk of admission to intensive care and at modestly increased risk of mortality.

Background In primary care there is uncertainty about which patients with acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) benefit from antibiotics. Objectives To identify which types of COPD patients get the most antibiotics in primary care to support targeted antibiotic stewardship. Methods Observational study of COPD patients using a large English primary care database with 12 month follow-up. We estimated the incidence of and risk factors for antibiotic prescribing relative to the number of AECOPD during follow-up, considering COPD severity, smoking, obesity and comorbidity. Results From 157 practices, 19594 patients were diagnosed with COPD, representing 2.6% of patients and 11.5% of all prescribed antibiotics. Eight hundred and thirty-three (4.5%) patients with severe COPD and frequent AECOPD were prescribed six to nine prescriptions per year and accounted for 13.0% of antibiotics. Individuals with mild to moderate COPD and zero or one AECOPD received one to three prescriptions per year but accounted for 42.5% of all prescriptions. In addition to COPD severity, asthma, chronic heart disease, diabetes, heart failure and influenza vaccination were independently associated with increased antibiotic use. Conclusions Patients with severe COPD have the highest rates of antibiotic prescribing but most antibiotics are prescribed for patients with mild to moderate COPD. Antibiotic stewardship should focus on the dual goals of safely reducing the volume of prescribing in patients with mild to moderate COPD, and optimizing prescribing in patients with severe disease who are at significant risk of drug resistance.

Introduction To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg monotherapy administered every 2 weeks (q2w) versus other monotherapies of biologic, targeted and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs, tsDMARDs, csDMARDs) at recommended doses for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in patients who are intolerant of or inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR). Methods A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted on 24-week efficacy outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) score, American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70 criteria, and European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28)

Several external cardiac monitors (ECMs) have recently been developed. These have never been compared to ‘gold standard’ monitoring with concurrently implanted DDDRP pacemakers. The accuracy of AF detection of Zio XT Monitor (ZM), NUUBO Vest (NV) and Carnation Ambulatory Monitor (CAM) compared with Novacor ‘R’ Test 4 (RT) in patients (pts) with DDDRP PPM advanced Holters as the comparator, was evaluated. Twenty-one pts. with AF and a DDDRP PPM, each acting as their own control subject, wore every ECM for 2 weeks in randomized order. PPM downloads were performed at application and removal. Device ECGs were compared for AF burden and individual AF episodes with PPM Holters. Pt acceptability, wear time, costs and time expenditure were evaluated. RT AF burden was less accurate than the ZM, NV or CAM (p

This article reviews the context and evidence of recent myocardial revascularization trials that compared percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of left main and multivessel coronary artery disease. We develop the rationale that some of the knowledge synthesis resulting from these trials, particularly with regard to the claimed noninferiority of percutaneous coronary intervention beyond nondiabetic patients with low anatomic complexity, may have been affected by trial design, patient selection based on suitability for percutaneous coronary intervention, and end point optimization favoring percutaneous coronary intervention over coronary artery bypass grafting. We provide recommendations that include holding a circumspect interpretation of the currently available evidence, as well as suggestions for the collaborative design and conduct of future clinical trials in this and other fields.

INTRODUCTION Patients with decompensated cirrhosis and hyponatremia have a poor prognosis. We investigated Albumin to Prevent Infection in Chronic Liver Failure trial data to determine whether targeted albumin infusions improved outcome in patients with hyponatremia at baseline. METHODS We examined the interaction between targeted albumin and standard care for the composite primary end point, stratifying by baseline sodium ≥ and

Objective\ud The extant literature is inconsistent over whether manic symptoms in first‐episode psychosis (FEP) impact on its development and trajectory. This study addressed the following: (1) Does Duration of Untreated Illness (DUI) and Duration of Untreated Psychosis (DUP) differ between FEP patients with and without manic symptoms? (2) Do manic symptoms in FEP have an impact on time to remission over 1 year?\ud \ud Methods\ud We used data from the National EDEN study, a longitudinal cohort of patients with FEP accessing early intervention services (EIS) in England, which measured manic, positive and negative psychotic symptoms, depression and functioning at service entry and 1 year. Data from 913 patients with FEP (639 without manic symptoms, 237 with manic symptoms) were analysed using both general linear modelling and survival analysis.\ud \ud Results\ud Compared to FEP patients without manic symptoms, those with manic symptoms had a significantly longer DUI, though no difference in DUP. At baseline, people with manic symptoms had higher levels of positive and negative psychotic symptoms, depression and worse functioning. At 12 months, people with manic symptoms had significantly poorer functioning and more positive psychotic symptoms. The presence of manic symptoms delayed time to remission over 1 year. There was a 19% reduced rate of remission for people with manic symptoms compared to those without.\ud \ud Conclusions\ud Manic symptoms in FEP are associated with delays to treatment. This poorer trajectory persists over 1 year. They appear to be a vulnerable and under‐recognised group for poor outcome and need more focussed early intervention treatment.

Objectives The objective of this trial is to assess whether early antiviral therapy in outpatients with COVID-19 with either favipiravir plus lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir alone, or favipiravir alone, is associated with a decrease in viral load of SARS-CoV-2 compared with placebo. Trial design FLARE is a phase IIA randomised, double-blind, 2x2 factorial placebo-controlled, interventional trial. Participants This trial is being conducted in the United Kingdom, with Royal Free Hospital, London as the lead site. Participants are non-hospitalised adults with highly suspected COVID-19 within the first 5 days of symptom onset, or who have tested positive with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 within the first 7 days of symptom onset, or who are asymptomatic but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 for the first time within the last 48 hours. Inclusion criteria are as follows: Any adult with the following: Symptoms compatible with COVID-19 disease (Fever >37.8°C on at least one occasion AND either cough and/ or anosmia) within the first 5 days of symptom onset (date/time of enrolment must be within the first 5 days of symptom onset) OR ANY symptoms compatible with COVID-19 disease (may include, but are not limited to fever, cough, shortness of breath, malaise, myalgia, headache, coryza) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the first 7 days of symptom onset) (date/time of enrolment must be within the first 7 days of symptom onset) OR no symptoms but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the last 48 hours (date/time of test must be within 48 hours of enrolment) Male or female aged 18 years to 70 years old inclusive at screening Willing and able to take daily saliva samples Able to provide full informed consent and willing to comply with trial-related procedures Exclusion criteria are as follows: Known hypersensitivity to any of the active ingredients or excipients in favipiravir and matched placebo, and in lopinavir/ritonavir and matched placebo (See Appendix 2) Chronic liver disease at screening (known cirrhosis of any aetiology, chronic hepatitis (e.g. autoimmune, viral, steatohepatitis), cholangitis or any known elevation of liver aminotransferases with AST or ALT > 3 X ULN)* Chronic kidney disease (stage 3 or beyond) at screening: eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 * HIV infection, if untreated, detectable viral load or on protease inhibitor therapy Any clinical condition which the investigator considers would make the participant unsuitable for the trial Concomitant medications known to interact with favipiravir and matched placebo, and with lopinavir/ritonavir and matched placebo, and carry risk of toxicity for the participant Current severe illness requiring hospitalisation Pregnancy and/ or breastfeeding Eligible female participants of childbearing potential and male participants with a partner of childbearing potential not willing to use highly effective contraceptive measures during the trial and within the time point specified following last trial treatment dose. Participants enrolled in any other interventional drug or vaccine trial (co-enrolment in observational studies is acceptable) Participants who have received the COVID-19 vaccine *Considering the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 to impact viral load, the absence of known chronic liver/ kidney disease will be confirmed verbally by the participant during pre-screening and Screening/Baseline visit. Safety blood samples will be collected at Screening/Baseline visit (Day 1) and test results will be examined as soon as they become available and within 24 hours. Intervention and comparator Participants will be randomised 1:1:1:1 using a concealed online minimisation process into one of the following four arms: Arm 1: Favipiravir + Lopinavir/ritonavir Oral favipiravir at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 2: Favipiravir + Lopinavir/ritonavir placebo Oral favipiravir at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir matched placebo at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 3: Favipiravir placebo + Lopinavir/ritonavir Oral favipiravir matched placebo at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 4: Favipiravir placebo + Lopinavir/ritonavir placebo Oral favipiravir matched placebo at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir matched placebo at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Main outcomes The primary outcome is upper respiratory tract viral load at Day 5. Secondary outcomes: Percentage of participants with undetectable upper respiratory tract viral load after 5 days of therapy Proportion of participants with undetectable stool viral load after 7 days of therapy Rate of decrease in upper respiratory tract viral load during 7 days of therapy Duration of fever following commencement of trial medications Proportion of participants with hepatotoxicity after 7 days of therapy Proportion of participants with other medication-related toxicity after 7 days of therapy and 14 days post-randomisation Proportion of participants admitted to hospital with COVID-19 related illness Proportion of participants admitted to ICU with COVID-19 related illness Proportion of participants who have died with COVID-19 related illness Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of favipiravir Exploratory: Proportion of participants with deleterious or resistance-conferring mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Randomisation Participants will be randomised 1:1:1:1 using a concealed online minimisation process, with the following factors: trial site, age (≤ 55 vs > 55 years old), gender, obesity (BMI Blinding (masking) Participants and investigators will both be blinded to treatment allocation (double-blind). Numbers to be randomised (sample size) 240 participants, 60 in each arm. Trial Status Protocol version 4.0 dated 7th January 2021. Date of first enrolment: October 2020. Recruitment is ongoing, with anticipated finish date of 31st March 2021. Trial registration The FLARE trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, trial identifying number NCT04499677, date of registration 4th August 2020. Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

BackgroundAccording to the cognitive neuropsychological model, antidepressants reduce symptoms of depression and anxiety by increasing positive relative to negative information processing. Most studies of whether antidepressants alter emotional processing use small samples of healthy individuals, which lead to low statistical power and selection bias and are difficult to generalise to clinical practice. We tested whether the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) sertraline altered recall of positive and negative information in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) of patients with depressive symptoms recruited from primary care.MethodsThe PANDA trial was a pragmatic multicentre double-blind RCT comparing sertraline with placebo. Memory for personality descriptors was tested at baseline and 2 and 6 weeks after randomisation using a computerised emotional categorisation task followed by a free recall. We measured the number of positive and negative words correctly recalled (hits). Poisson mixed models were used to analyse longitudinal associations between treatment allocation and hits.ResultsA total of 576 participants (88% of those randomised) completed the recall task at 2 and 6 weeks. We found no evidence that positive or negative hits differed according to treatment allocation at 2 or 6 weeks (adjusted positive hits ratio = 0.97, 95% CI 0.90–1.05, p = 0.52; adjusted negative hits ratio = 0.99, 95% CI 0.90–1.08, p = 0.76).ConclusionsIn the largest individual placebo-controlled trial of an antidepressant not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, we found no evidence that sertraline altered positive or negative recall early in treatment. These findings challenge some assumptions of the cognitive neuropsychological model of antidepressant action.

Psychosis is a major mental illness with first onset in young adults. The prognosis is poor in around half of the people affected, and difficult to predict. The few tools available to predict prognosis have major weaknesses which limit their use in clinical practice. We aimed to develop and validate a risk prediction model of symptom nonremission in first-episode psychosis. Our development cohort consisted of 1027 patients with first-episode psychosis recruited between 2005 and 2010 from 14 early intervention services across the National Health Service in England. Our validation cohort consisted of 399 patients with first-episode psychosis recruited between 2006 and 2009 from a further 11 English early intervention services. The one-year nonremission rate was 52% and 54% in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop a risk prediction model for nonremission, which was externally validated. The prediction model showed good discrimination C-statistic of 0.73 (0.64, 0.81) and adequate calibration with intercept alpha of –0.014 (–0.34, 0.31) and slope beta of 0.85 (0.42, 1.27). Our model improved the net-benefit by 16% at a risk threshold of 50% compared to the strategy of treating all, equivalent to 16 more detected nonremitted first-episode psychosis individuals per 100 without incorrectly classifying remitted cases. Once prospectively validated, our first episode psychosis prediction model could help identify patients at increased risk of nonremission at initial clinical contact.

Diabetes therapy 12(4), 1159-1174 (2021). doi:10.1007/s13300-021-01031-z, Published by Springer Healthcare Communications, New York, NY [u.a.]

Background: Recently emerging SARS-CoV-2 variants have been associated with an increased rate of transmission within the community. Little is known about the impact their increased infectivity has on transmission within hospitals. Methods: We collected viral sequences and epidemiological data of patients with community and healthcare associated SARS-CoV-2 infections, sampled from 16th November 2020 to 10th January 2021, from nine hospitals participating in the COG-UK HOCI study. Outbreaks were identified using ward information, lineage and pairwise genetic differences between viral sequences. Findings: Mixed effects logistic regression analysis of 4184 sequences showed healthcare-acquired infections were no more likely to be identified as the Alpha variant than community acquired infections. Nosocomial outbreaks were investigated based on overlapping ward stay and SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence similarity. There was no significant difference in the number of patients involved in outbreaks caused by the Alpha variant compared to outbreaks caused by other lineages. Interpretation: Notwithstanding evidence from community studies that the Alpha variant is more transmissible, we find no evidence to support it causing more nosocomial transmission than previous lineages. This suggests that the stringent infection prevention measures already in place in UK hospitals contained the spread of the Alpha variant as effectively as other less transmissible lineages, providing reassurance of their efficacy against emerging variants of concern. Funding Information: COG-UK HOCI funded by COG-UK consortium. The COG-UK consortium is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute. Declaration of Interests: None to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: Ethical approval for the HOCI study was provided by REC 20/EE/0118.

OBJECTIVES To determine the 5-year outcome in patients treated by isolated transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) or surgical aortic valve replacement (sAVR)—a prospective observational cohort study. METHODS A total of 18 010 patients were included (n = 8942 TAVI and n = 9068 sAVR) in the German Aortic Valve Registry (GARY) who were treated in 2011 and 2012 at 92 sites in central Germany. Eligible patients with TAVI and sAVR were matched using propensity scores in a nearest-neighbour approach. Patients with repeat procedures or unequivocal indication for one treatment option (e.g. frailty) were excluded (n = 4785 for TAVI and n = 2 for sAVR). This led to 13 223 patients (4157 TAVI and 9066 sAVR) as an unmatched subcohort. The main outcome measure was the 5-year all-cause mortality. RESULTS TAVI patients were significantly older (80.9 ± 6.1 vs 68.5 ± 11.1 years, P CONCLUSIONS The 5-year follow-up data show that TAVI patients were significantly older and had a higher STS score than sAVR patients. After propensity score matching, TAVI with early-generation prosthesis was associated with significantly higher 5-year all-cause mortality than sAVR.

IntroductionIn the UK, a compulsory ‘6-week hip check’ is performed in primary care for the detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). However, missed diagnoses and infants incorrectly labelled with DDH remain a problem, potentially leading to adverse consequences for infants, their families and the National Health Service. National policy states that infants should be referred to hospital if the 6-week check suggests DDH, though there is no available tool to aid examination or offer guidelines for referral. We developed standardised diagnostic criteria for DDH, based on international Delphi consensus, and a 9-item checklist that has the potential to enable non-experts to diagnose DDH in a manner approaching that of experts.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a controlled trial randomised by practice that will compare a diagnostic aid against standard care for the hip check. The primary objective is to determine whether an aid to the diagnosis of DDH reduces the number of clinically insignificant referrals from primary care to hospital and the number of late diagnosed DDH. The trial will include a qualitative process evaluation, an assessment of professional behavioural change and a full health economic evaluation. We will recruit 152 general practitioner practices in England. These will be randomised to conduct the hip checks with use of the study diagnostic aid and/or as per usual practice. The total number of infants seen during a 15-month recruitment period will be 110 per practice. Two years after the 6-week hip check, we will measure the number of referred infants that are (1) clinically insignificant for DDH and (2) those that constitute appropriate referrals.Ethics and disseminationThis study has approval from the Health Research Authority (16/1/2020) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (18/2/2020). Results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, disseminated to patient organisations and the media.Trial registration numberNCT04101903; Pre-results.

Background Treatment resistance causes significant burden in psychosis. Clozapine is the only evidence-based pharmacologic intervention available for people with treatment-resistant schizophrenia; current guidelines recommend commencement after two unsuccessful trials of standard antipsychotics. Aims This paper aims to explore the prevalence of treatment resistance and pathways to commencement of clozapine in UK early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services. Method Data were taken from the National Evaluation of the Development and Impact of Early Intervention Services study (N = 1027) and included demographics, medication history and psychosis symptoms measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at baseline, 6 months and 12 months. Prescribing patterns and pathways to clozapine were examined. We adopted a strict criterion for treatment resistance, defined as persistent elevated positive symptoms (a PANSS positive score ≥16, equating to at least two items of at least moderate severity), across three time points. Results A total of 143 (18.1%) participants met the definition of treatment resistance of having continuous positive symptoms over 12 months, despite treatment in EIP services. Sixty-one (7.7%) participants were treatment resistant and eligible for clozapine, having had two trials of standard antipsychotics; however, only 25 (2.4%) were prescribed clozapine over the 12-month study period. Treatment-resistant participants were more likely to be prescribed additional antipsychotic medication and polypharmacy, instead of clozapine. Conclusions Prevalent treatment resistance was observed in UK EIP services, but prescription of polypharmacy was much more common than clozapine. Significant delays in the commencement of clozapine may reflect a missed opportunity to promote recovery in this critical period.

BackgroundGeneralised anxiety disorder and symptoms are associated with poor physical, emotional and social functioning and frequent primary and acute care visits. We investigated recent temporal trends in anxiety and related mental illness in UK general practice.AimsThe aims of this analysis are to examine temporal changes in recording of generalised anxiety in primary care and initial pharmacologic treatments.MethodAnnual incidence rates of generalised anxiety diagnoses and symptoms were calculated from 795 UK general practices contributing to The Health Improvement Network (THIN) database between 1998 and 2018. Poisson mixed regression was used to account for age, gender and general practitioner practice. Subsequent pharmacologic treatment was examined.ResultsGeneralised anxiety recording rates increased in both genders aged 18–24 between 2014 and 2018. For women, the increase was from 17.06 to 23.33/1000 person years at risk (PYAR); for men, 8.59 to 11.65/1000 PYAR. Increases persisted for a composite of anxiety and depression (49.74 to 57.81/1000 PYAR for women; 25.41 to 31.45/1000 PYAR for men). Smaller increases in anxiety were seen in both genders age 25–34 and 35–44. Anxiety rates among older patients remained stable, although a composite of anxiety and depression decreased for older women. About half of drug-naïve patients were prescribed anxiety drugs within 1 year following diagnosis. The most common choice was a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. Benzodiazepine prescription rate has fallen steadily.ConclusionsWe observed a substantial increase in general practitioner consulting for generalised anxiety and depression recently, concentrated within younger people and in particular women.

Background Research has questioned the safety of delaying or withholding antibiotics for suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in older patients. We evaluated the association between antibiotic treatment for lower UTI and risk of bloodstream infection (BSI) in adults aged ≥65 years in primary care. Methods and findings We analyzed primary care records from patients aged ≥65 years in England with community-onset UTI using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2007–2015) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and census data. The primary outcome was BSI within 60 days, comparing patients treated immediately with antibiotics and those not treated immediately. Crude and adjusted associations between exposure and outcome were estimated using generalized estimating equations. A total of 147,334 patients were included representing 280,462 episodes of lower UTI. BSI occurred in 0.4% (1,025/244,963) of UTI episodes with immediate antibiotics versus 0.6% (228/35,499) of episodes without immediate antibiotics. After adjusting for patient demographics, year of consultation, comorbidities, smoking status, recent hospitalizations, recent accident and emergency (A&E) attendances, recent antibiotic prescribing, and home visits, the odds of BSI were equivalent in patients who were not treated with antibiotics immediately and those who were treated on the date of their UTI consultation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.13, 95% CI 0.97–1.32, p-value = 0.105). Delaying or withholding antibiotics was associated with increased odds of death in the subsequent 60 days (aOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09–1.26, p-value < 0.001), but there was limited evidence that increased deaths were attributable to urinary-source BSI. Limitations include overlap between the categories of immediate and delayed antibiotic prescribing, residual confounding underlying differences between patients who were/were not treated with antibiotics, and lack of microbiological diagnosis for BSI. Conclusions In this study, we observed that delaying or withholding antibiotics in older adults with suspected UTI did not increase patients’ risk of BSI, in contrast with a previous study that analyzed the same dataset, but mortality was increased. Our findings highlight uncertainty around the risks of delaying or withholding antibiotic treatment, which is exacerbated by systematic differences between patients who were and were not treated immediately with antibiotics. Overall, our findings emphasize the need for improved diagnostic/risk prediction strategies to guide antibiotic prescribing for suspected UTI in older adults., In a study of electronic health record data, Laura Shallcross, Patrick Rockenschaub and colleagues investigate the associations between initiation of antibiotic treatment for UTI and blood stream infection and mortality among older adults in England., Author summary Why was this study done? Urinary tract infections (UTI) are common in older adults and, alongside respiratory infections, account for the majority of antibiotics prescribed in primary care Antibiotics are often prescribed inappropriately for UTI in the elderly, but the need to reduce prescribing must be balanced against the risk of increasing rare but severe outcomes, such as bloodstream infection, if antibiotic treatment is delayed A recent study in patients aged >65 years found that those who did not receive immediate antibiotic treatment for UTI were more likely to develop bloodstream infection What did the researchers do and find? We reanalyzed the relationship between the timing of antibiotic prescribing for UTI and subsequent risk of bloodstream infection (BSI) using the same dataset We did not find evidence to suggest that not immediately prescribing antibiotics for UTI increased a patient’s risk of bloodstream infection, but we did find some evidence of increased mortality. Women were less likely to develop BSI compared with men (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43–0.55, p-value < 0.001). Increasing age (aOR 1.22, 95% CI 1.18–1.27 per 5 years, p-value < 0.001) and social deprivation (Q5 versus Q1: aOR 1.45; 95% CI 1.19–1.76, p-value < 0.001) were also independently associated with BSI. Systematic differences between patients who were/were not treated immediately with antibiotics (residual confounding) remains a potential explanation for our findings in relation to mortality. What do these findings mean? This population-based study highlights uncertainty around whether delaying antibiotics in older adults with suspected UTI increases their risk of adverse outcomes. The reasons for the systematic differences identified between patients who were and were not treated immediately with antibiotics warrants further study. Adverse consequences of antibiotic treatment in this population and the public health need to tackle antibiotic resistance highlight the need for novel diagnostic and/or risk prediction strategies to guide antibiotic prescribing decisions for suspected UTI.

Background Urinary tract infection (UTI) is a leading cause of hospital admissions and is diagnosed based on urinary symptoms and microbiological cultures. Due to lags in the availability of culture results of up to 72 h, and the limitations of routine diagnostics, many patients with suspected UTI are started on antibiotic treatment unnecessarily. Predictive models based on routinely collected clinical information may help clinicians to rule out a diagnosis of bacterial UTI in low-risk patients shortly after hospital admission, providing additional evidence to guide antibiotic treatment decisions. Methods Using electronic hospital records from Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEHB) collected between 2011 and 2017, we aim to develop a series of models that estimate the probability of bacterial UTI at presentation in the emergency department (ED) among individuals with suspected UTI syndromes. Predictions will be made during ED attendance and at different time points after hospital admission to assess whether predictive performance may be improved over time as more information becomes available about patient status. All models will be externally validated for expected future performance using QEHB data from 2018/2019. Discussion Risk prediction models using electronic health records offer a new approach to improve antibiotic prescribing decisions, integrating clinical and demographic data with test results to stratify patients according to their probability of bacterial infection. Used in conjunction with expert opinion, they may help clinicians to identify patients that benefit the most from early antibiotic cessation.

IntroductionAntipsychotic medication is effective in reducing acute symptoms of psychosis, but it has a range of potentially serious and debilitating adverse effects and is often disliked by patients. It is therefore essential it is only used when benefits outweigh harms. Although multiple trials conducted with people with schizophrenia indicate an increased risk of relapse in the short-term following abrupt antipsychotic discontinuation, there is little evidence about the long-term outcome of a gradual process of reduction and discontinuation on social functioning, relapse and other outcomes.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving people with schizophrenia and related disorders who have had more than one episode. Participants are randomised to have a clinically-supervised, gradual reduction of antipsychotic medication, leading to discontinuation when possible, or to continue with maintenance treatment. Blinded follow-up assessments are conducted at 6, 12 and 24 months and the primary outcome is social functioning, measured by the Social Functioning Scale at 24 months. A minimum of 134 evaluable participants provides 90% power to detect a five-point difference, and 206 to detect a four-point difference. Secondary outcomes include severe relapse (admission to hospital) and the study is also intended to detect a minimum 10% difference in severe relapse, which requires 402 participants, assuming a 15% loss to follow-up. Other secondary outcomes include all relapses, as identified by an independent and blinded endpoint committee, symptoms measured by the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, quality of life, adverse effects, self-rated recovery and neuropsychological measures. Enrolment started in 2016. The trial is scheduled to finish in June 2022.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was initially obtained on 27 October 2016 (UK Research Ethics Committee reference 16/LO/1507). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to the public.Trial registration numberISRCTN90298520. EudraCT: 2016-000709-36. Pre-results.

Background: Delayed treatment for first episodes of psychosis predicts worse outcomes. We hypothesised that delaying treatment makes all symptoms more refractory, with harm worsening first quickly, then more slowly. We also hypothesised that although delay impairs treatment response, worse symptoms hasten treatment, which at presentation mitigates the detrimental effect of treatment delay on symptoms. Methods: In this longitudinal analysis and modelling study, we included two longitudinal cohorts of patients with first-episode psychosis presenting to English early intervention services from defined catchments: NEDEN (recruiting 1003 patients aged 14–35 years from 14 services between Aug 1, 2005, and April 1, 2009) and Outlook (recruiting 399 patients aged 16–35 years from 11 services between April 1, 2006, and Feb 28, 2009). Patients were assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months with the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale (PANSS), Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, Mania Rating Scale, Insight Scale, and Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale. Regression was used to compare different models of the relationship between duration of untreated psychosis (DUP) and total symptoms at 6 months. Growth curve models of symptom subscales tested predictions arising from our hypotheses. Findings: We included 948 patients from the NEDEN study and 332 patients from the Outlook study who completed baseline assessments and were prescribed dopamine antagonist antipsychotics. For both cohorts, the best-fitting models were logarithmic, describing a curvilinear relationship of DUP to symptom severity: longer DUP predicted reduced treatment response, but response worsened more slowly as DUP lengthened. Increasing DUP by ten times predicted reduced improvement in total symptoms (ie, PANSS total) by 7·339 (95% CI 5·762 to 8·916; p

Introduction Orthostasis induces a rapid and large gravity-related shift of 500-1000mls of blood volume from the thorax to below the diaphragm. It has been reported that the central mechanism in patients with orthostatic intolerance is due to this gravity shift and related hypotension. The ROX Coupler is a device that allows creation of a central arteriovenous anastomosis at the iliac level resulting in an A-V shunt of 0.8L/m. We performed a prospective controlled study investigating the effects of the ROX Coupler on cardiac haemodynamics and right heart parameters during orthostasis compared to age matched controls. Methods 10 patients with a ROX Coupler were compared to 10 age matched controls during an active stand at baseline, 30, 60, 90 and 120 seconds. Cardiac haemodynamics were measured using impedance cardiography and non-invasive beat-to-beat monitoring (Task Force® Monitor) along with right-sided echocardiography. An independent-group t-test was used to compare baseline variables and demographics. Differences in cardiac haemodynamics and right-sided echocardiography were compared within each group at the specific time intervals using repeated measures analysis of variance. Significance was established at P Results There was no significant difference in age (68.40 ± 7.09 vs 69.40 ± 11.09, p = 0.81) or BMI (29.1± 4.52 vs 27.72 ± 4.8, p = 0.51) between ROX Coupler patients and controls. At baseline ROX Coupler patients had a significantly higher cardiac index and lower indexed total peripheral resistance (Table 1). ROX Coupler patients also had a significantly higher right ventricular end systolic volume (RV ESV), right ventricular end diastolic volume (RVEDV) and right atrial end diastolic volume (RAEDV) than controls (Table 2). During active stand there was a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline in controls (p=0.04) however in ROX Coupler patients systolic blood pressure was non-significantly different from baseline (p = 0.59) as shown in figure 1. There was no significant difference in indexed total peripheral resistance from baseline in either group. Cardiac index and total thoracic content significantly reduced from baseline in both groups. There was no significant difference in RV ESV, RV EDV, RV ejection fraction, RA EDV or RA ESV during active stand. Conclusions The Rox Coupler resulted in a reduction in immediate orthostatic hypotension compared to age matched controls. Cardiac index was higher in ROX Coupler patients, which is expected given the higher pre load effects of the anastomosis. The higher cardiac output and right-sided volumes may explain the maintenance in systolic blood pressure during orthostasis and warrants further investigation. Conflict of Interest None

Background Suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) syndromes are a common reason for empirical antibiotics to be prescribed in the Emergency Department (ED), but differentiating UTI from other conditions with a similar presentation is challenging. We investigated how often an ED diagnosis of UTI is confirmed clinically/microbiologically, and described conditions which present as UTI syndromes. Methods Observational study using electronic health records from patients who attended the ED with suspected UTI and had a urine sample submitted for culture. We compared the ED diagnosis to diagnosis at discharge from hospital (ICD-10 codes), and estimated the proportion of cases with clinical/microbiological evidence of UTI. Results Two hundred eighty nine patients had an ED diagnosis of UTI syndrome comprising: lower UTI (191), pyelonephritis (56) and urosepsis (42). In patients admitted to hospital with an ED diagnosis of lower UTI, pyelonephritis or urosepsis, clinical/microbiological evidence of UTI was lacking in 61/103, 33/54 and 31/42 cases respectively. The ED diagnosis was concordant with the main reason for admission in less than 40% of patients with UTI syndromes, and antibiotics were stopped within 72 h in 37/161 patients. Conclusions Clinical/microbiological evidence of UTI was lacking in 60–70% of patients, suggesting scope to revise empirical prescribing decisions for UTI syndromes in light of microbial culture and clinical progression.

BackgroundResearch has questioned the safety of delaying or withholding antibiotics for suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in older patients. We evaluated the association between antibiotic treatment for lower UTI and risk of bloodstream infection (BSI) in adults aged ≥65 years in primary care.MethodsWe analysed primary care records from patients aged ≥65 years in England with community-onset UTI using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2007-2015) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and census data. The primary outcome was BSI within 60 days, comparing patients treated immediately with antibiotics and those not treated immediately.Findings147,334 patients were included representing 280,462 episodes of lower UTI. BSI occurred in 0·4% (1,025 / 244,963) of UTI episodes with immediate antibiotics versus 0·6% (228 / 35,499) of episodes without immediate antibiotics. The odds of BSI were equivalent in patients who were not treated with antibiotics immediately and those who were treated on the date of their UTI consultation (adjusted odds ratio aOR 1·13; 95%-CI: 0·97-1·31). However, delaying or withholding antibiotics was associated with increased odds of death in the subsequent 60 days (aOR 1·17; 95% CI: 1·09-1·26).InterpretationEvidence on the safety of delaying or withholding antibiotics in older adults with suspected UTI is conflicting. Given the prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria in this population, their risk of antibiotic-related side effects, and the public health need to tackle antibiotic resistance, we recommend a trial to address this uncertainty.

Aims The optimal method of revascularization for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been considered the gold standard therapy, and recent randomized trials comparing CABG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) have reported conflicting outcomes. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis comparing CABG to PCI with DES for the treatment of LMCAD. Methods and results We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing PCI with DES vs. CABG in patients with LMCAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization. All analyses were by intention-to-treat. There were five eligible trials in which 4612 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the risk of all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81–1.32; P = 0.779] or cardiac death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79–1.34; P = 0.817). There were also no significant differences in the risk of stroke (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.35–1.50; P = 0.400) or MI (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.96–1.56; P = 0.110). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased risk of unplanned revascularization (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.49–2.02; P

IntroductionType 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a common and heterogeneous disease. Using advanced analytic approaches to explore real-world data may identify different disease characteristics, responses to treatment and progression patterns. Insulin glargine 300 units/mL (Gla-300) is a second-generation basal insulin analogue with preserved glucose-lowering efficacy but reduced risk of hypoglycaemia. The purpose of the REALI pooled analysis described in this paper is to advance the understanding of the effectiveness and real-world safety of Gla-300 based on a large European patient database of postmarketing interventional and observational studies.Methods and analysisIn the current round of pooling, REALI will include data from up to 10 000 subjects with diabetes mellitus (mostly T2DM) from 20 European countries. Outcomes of interest include change from baseline to week 24 in haemoglobin A1c, fasting plasma glucose, self-measured plasma glucose, body weight, insulin dose, incidence and rate of any-time-of-the-day and nocturnal hypoglycaemia. The data pool is being investigated using two complementary methodologies: a conventional descriptive, univariate and multivariable prognostic analysis; and a data-mining approach using subgroup discovery to identify phenotypic clusters of patients who are highly associated with the outcome of interest. By mid-2019, deidentified data of 7584 patients were included in the REALI database, with a further expected increase in patient number in 2020 as a result of pooling additional studies.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed study does not involve collection of primary data. Moreover, all individual study protocols were approved by independent local ethics committees, and all study participants provided written informed consent. Furthermore, patient data is deidentified before inclusion in the REALI database. Hence, there is no requirement for ethical approval. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and presentations at international congresses as data are analysed.

International audience; Objective: To compare real-world outcomes with newer (insulin glargine 300 U/mL; Gla-300) versus standard of care (SoC) basal insulins (BIs) in the REACH (insulin-naïve; NCT02967224) and REGAIN (basal insulin-treated; NCT02967211) studies in participants with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2DM) in Europe and Brazil.Methods: In these open-label, parallel-group, pragmatic studies, patients (HbA1c > 7.0%) were randomized to Gla-300 or SoC BI for a 6-month treatment period (to demonstrate non-inferiority of Gla-300 vs SoC BIs for HbA1c change [non-inferiority margin 0.3%]) and a 6-month extension period (continuing with their assigned treatment). Insulin titration/other medication changes were at investigator/patient discretion post-randomization.Results: Overall, 703 patients were randomized to treatment in REACH (Gla-300, n = 352; SoC, n = 351) and 609 (Gla-300, n = 305, SoC, n = 304) in REGAIN. The primary outcome, non-inferiority of Gla-300 versus SoC for HbA1c change from baseline to month 6, was met in REACH (least squares [LS] mean difference 0.12% [95% CI –0.046 to 0.281]) but not REGAIN (LS mean difference 0.17% [0.015–0.329]); no between-treatment difference in HbA1c change was shown after 12 months in either study. BI dose increased minimally from baseline to 12 months in REACH (Gla-300, +0.17 U/kg; SoC, +0.15 U/kg) and REGAIN (Gla-300, +0.11 U/kg; SoC, +0.07 U/kg). Hypoglycemia incidence was low and similar between treatment arms in both studies.Conclusions: In both REACH and REGAIN, no differences in glycemic control or hypoglycemia outcomes with Gla-300 versus SoC BIs were seen over 12 months. However, the suboptimal insulin titration in REACH and REGAIN limits comparisons of outcomes between treatment arms and suggests that more titration instruction/support may be required for patients to fully derive the benefits from newer basal insulin formulations.

Background: Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causal treatment for respiratory allergy. Long-term real-life effectiveness of AIT remains to be demonstrated beyond the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: REACT (Real world effectiveness in allergy immunotherapy) is a retrospective cohort study using claims data between 2007 and 2017. Study eligibility was a confirmed diagnosis of allergic rhinitis (AR), with or without asthma, and AIT. To ensure comparable groups, AIT-treated subjects were propensity score matched 1:1 with control subjects, using characteristic and potential confounding variables. Outcomes were analysed as within (pre vs post AIT) and between (AIT vs control) group differences across 9 years of follow-up (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT04125888). Findings: 46,024 AIT-treated subjects were matched with control subjects and 14,614 were included in the pre-existing asthma cohort. AIT-treated subjects were 29·5 (16·3) years and 53% were male. Compared to pre-index year, AIT was consistently associated with greater reductions compared to control subjects in AR and asthma prescriptions, including both asthma controller and reliever prescriptions. Additionally, the AIT group had significantly greater likelihood of stepping down asthma treatment (P

Good clinical care depends on accurate and precise measurement and is essential throughout medicine. Many decisions about patient care in ophthalmology are based on changes in the measurement of characteristics over time (intraocular pressure in glaucoma, central retinal thickness in medical retina studies, Kmax readings in keratoconus) or differences between the measurements for an individual and the ‘normal’ population (or more strictly speaking those without the condition of interest). We want to know the true value of the characteristic, but this is obtained with measurement error. Measurement error is the difference between the known measured quantity and its unknown true value. It has two main components: random error due to chance and systematic error (sometimes known as systematic bias) not due to chance. Precision is related to random error while accuracy is related to systematic error. Measurement error may cause inappropriate patient management or harm.1 No method of measurement is completely without measurement error. Often less invasive and cheaper methods of measurement have more measurement error. One has to balance the desire for an accurate measurement, against being overly invasive to the patient or too time-consuming to incorporate in a routine clinical setting. Medicine moves at a rapid rate and new measurement technologies frequently arrive in the marketplace. While once there was a single method to measure intraocular pressure (Goldmann Applanation Tonometry), now there are many different methods and different machines on the market for example, non-contact tonometers, hand-held devices, etc. Newer methods may be more accurate and precise than older methods or may be cheaper or quicker to use. Some methods may be more convenient to use, but can have greater measurement error. The regulatory framework for devices within the UK is very different to that of medicines and while safety of the new instrument must be demonstrated, …

ObjectivesTo date the reported outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are mainly in the settings of trials comparing it with evolving transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We set out to examine characteristics and outcomes in people who underwent SAVR reflecting a national cohort and therefore ‘real-world’ practice.DesignRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive people who underwent SAVR with or without coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery between April 2013 and March 2018 in the UK. This included elective, urgent and emergency operations. Participants’ demographics, preoperative risk factors, operative data, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications and effect of the addition of CABG to SAVR were analysed.Setting27 (90%) tertiary cardiac surgical centres in the UK submitted their data for analysis.Participants31 277 people with AVR were identified. 19 670 (62.9%) had only SAVR and 11 607 (37.1%) had AVR+CABG.ResultsIn-hospital mortality for isolated SAVR was 1.9% (95% CI 1.6% to 2.1%) and was 2.4% for AVR+CABG. Mortality by age category for SAVR only were: 75 years=2.2%. For SAVR+CABG these were; 2.2%, 1.8% and 3.1%. For different categories of EuroSCORE, mortality for SAVR in low risk people was 1.3%, in intermediate risk 1% and for high risk 3.9%. 74.3% of the operations were elective, 24% urgent and 1.7% emergency/salvage. The incidences of resternotomy for bleeding and stroke were 3.9% and 1.1%, respectively. Multivariable analyses provided no evidence that concomitant CABG influenced outcome. However, urgency of the operation, poor ventricular function, higher EuroSCORE and longer cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times adversely affected outcomes.ConclusionsSurgical SAVR±CABG has low mortality risk and a low level of complications in the UK in people of all ages and risk factors. These results should inform consideration of treatment options in people with aortic valve disease.

Despite an increasing number of patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) in the older population, clinical evidence for different therapeutic strategies in the elderly is poor. Therefore, we used the REALI pooled database, which includes a large number of studies conducted in different European countries to evaluate the impact of initiating insulin glargine 300 U/mL (Gla-300) in older patients with T2D. Pooled efficacy and safety analyses of data from three interventional and five observational studies (pooled treated patients, n=5806) were performed on three age groups of patients: Disclosure R.C. Bonadonna: Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sanofi-Aventis. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi-Aventis. D. Mauricio: Advisory Panel; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Almirall, S.A., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Lilly Diabetes, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Urgo Medical. D. Müller-Wieland: Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. N. Freemantle: Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Allergan, AstraZeneca, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. G. Bigot: None. C. Mauquoi: None. A. Ciocca: Employee; Self; Sanofi. M. Bonnemaire: Employee; Self; Sanofi. P. Gourdy: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Board Member; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott, Amgen Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Funding Sanofi

DELIVER - High Risk study compared long-term clinical outcomes for patients with T2D and high hypoglycemia risk on first-generation BIs who were switched to Gla-300 or other first-generation BIs (other switchers). Electronic medical record data from the PHIE database were used. Eligible patients (age >18 years) had ≥1 criterion for high hypoglycemia risk (age >64 years; basal-bolus insulin use; renal impairment; uncontrolled baseline A1C; sulfonylurea use; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; history indicating high risk, including ≥1 severe hypoglycemic episode (prior 12 months). Endpoints were A1C reduction from baseline to 9-12 months, attainment of A1C goals ( Disclosure S.D. Sullivan: Research Support; Self; Sanofi. N. Freemantle: Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Allergan, AstraZeneca, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Sanofi. A.A. Menon: None. R. Gupta: None. J. Wu: Employee; Self; Sanofi US. C. Nicholls: Employee; Self; Sanofi. J. Westerbacka: Employee; Self; Sanofi. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Sanofi. T.S. Bailey: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott. Consultant; Self; Capillary Biomedical, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Abbott, Ascensia Diabetes Care, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Calibra Medical, Capillary Biomedical, Inc., Companion Medical, Dance Biopharm Holdings Inc., Dexcom, Inc., Diasome Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, GlySens Incorporated, Kowa Pharmaceutical Europe Co. Ltd., Lexicon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medtronic, Novo Nordisk Inc., POPS! Diabetes Care, POPS! Diabetes Care, Sanofi, Senseonics, vTv Therapeutics, Xeris Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Zealand Pharma A/S. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Abbott, MannKind Corporation, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US, Senseonics. Funding Sanofi

REALI pooled database, encompassing Gla-300 studies conducted in different European countries, is a platform to identify factors contributing to glycemic control in patients with uncontrolled T2D initiated on Gla-300. A stepwise multivariable regression analysis was performed on selected demographic and baseline characteristics associated with achieving HbA1c target Disclosure N. Freemantle: Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Akcea Therapeutics, Allergan, AstraZeneca, Ipsen Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Sanofi. G. Bigot: None. M. Bonnemaire: Employee; Self; Sanofi. D. Mauricio: Advisory Panel; Self; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Almirall, S.A., Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Lilly Diabetes, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi, Urgo Medical. R.C. Bonadonna: Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Sanofi-Aventis. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi-Aventis. P. Gourdy: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca. Board Member; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott, Amgen Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. A. Ciocca: Employee; Self; Sanofi. D. Müller-Wieland: Advisory Panel; Self; Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer AG, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH. Funding Sanofi

Background Antidepressants are used both for treating acute episodes and for prophylaxis to prevent future episodes of depression, also called maintenance treatment. This article describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (ANTLER: ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession) to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in UK primary care of continuing on long-term maintenance antidepressants compared with a placebo in preventing relapse of depression in those who have taken antidepressants for more than 9 months and who are currently well enough to consider stopping maintenance treatment. Methods/design The ANTLER trial is an individually randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which participants are randomised to remain on active medication or to take an identical placebo after a tapering period of 2 months. Eligible participants are those who: are between the ages of 18 and 74 years; have had at least two episodes of depression; and have been taking antidepressants for 9 months or more and are currently taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg but are well enough to consider stopping their medication. The participants will be followed up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The primary outcome will be the time in weeks to the beginning of the first episode of depression after randomisation. This will be measured using a retrospective version of the Clinical Interview Schedule—Revised administered at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Secondary outcomes will include depressive and anxiety symptoms, adverse effects, withdrawal symptoms, emotional processing tasks, quality of life and the resources and costs used. We will also perform a cost-effectiveness analysis based on results of the trial. Discussion The ANTLER trial findings will inform primary care prescribing practice by providing a valid and generalisable estimate of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of long-term maintenance treatment with antidepressants in UK primary care. Trial registration Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN15969819. Registered on 21 September 2015. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3390-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.