Search

Objective: Despite widespread monotherapy use of lamotrigine or levetiracetam during pregnancy, prospectively collected, blinded child development data are still limited. The NaME (Neurodevelopment of Babies Born to Mothers With Epilepsy) Study prospectively recruited a new cohort of women with epilepsy and their offspring for longitudinal follow‐up. Methods: Pregnant women of <21 weeks gestation (n = 401) were recruited from 21 hospitals in the UK. Data collection occurred during pregnancy (recruitment, trimester 3) and at 12 and 24 months of age. The primary outcome was blinded assessment of infant cognitive, language, and motor development on the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (3rd edition) at 24 months of age with supplementary parent reporting on the Vinelands Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd edition). Results: There were 394 live births, with 277 children (70%) completing the Bayley assessment at 24 months. There was no evidence of an association of prenatal exposure to monotherapy lamotrigine (−.74, SE = 2.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −6.5 to 5.0, p =.80) or levetiracetam (−1.57, SE = 3.1, 95% CI = −4.6 to 7.7, p =.62) with poorer infant cognition, following adjustment for other maternal and child factors in comparison to nonexposed children. Similar results were observed for language and motor scores. There was no evidence of an association between increasing doses of either lamotrigine or levetiracetam. Nor was there evidence that higher dose folic acid supplementation (≥5 mg/day) or convulsive seizure exposure was associated with child development scores. Continued infant exposure to antiseizure medications through breast milk was not associated with poorer outcomes, but the number of women breastfeeding beyond 3 months was low. Significance: These data are reassuring for infant development following in utero exposure to monotherapy lamotrigine or levetiracetam, but child development is dynamic, and future follow‐up is required to rule out later emerging effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Twice weekly lateral flow tests (LFTs) for secondary school children was UK Government policy from 8 March 2021. We evaluate use of LFTs (both supervised at test centres, and home test kits) in school-aged children in Cheshire and Merseyside. Methods We report (i) number of LFT positives (ii) proportion of LFT positive with confirmatory reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test within 2 days, and (iii) agreement between LFT-positive and confirmatory PCR, and dependence of (i–iii) on COVID-19 prevalence. Findings 1 248 468 LFTs were taken by 211 255 12–18 years old, and 163 914 by 52 116 5–11 years old between 6 November 2020 and 31 July 2021. Five thousand three hundred and fourteen (2.5%) 12–18 years old and 1996 (3.8%) 5–11 years old returned LFT positives, with 3829 (72.1%) and 1535 (76.9%) confirmatory PCRs, and 3357 (87.7%) and 1383 (90.1%) confirmatory PCR-positives, respectively. Monthly proportions of LFT positive with PCR negative varied between 4.7% and 35.3% in 12–18 years old (corresponding proportion of all tests positive: 9.7% and 0.3%). Deprivation and non-White ethnicity were associated with reduced uptake of confirmatory PCR. Interpretation Substantial inequalities in confirmatory testing need more attention to avoid further disadvantage through education loss. When prevalence is low additional measures, including confirmatory testing, are needed. Local Directors of Public Health taking more control over schools testing may be needed. Funding DHSC, MRC, NIHR, EPSRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Care homes have been severely affected by the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Rapid antigen testing could identify most SARS-CoV-2 infected staff and visitors before they enter homes. We explored implementation of staff and visitor testing protocols using lateral flow devices (LFDs). Methods An evaluation of a SARS-CoV-2 LFD-based testing protocol in 11 care homes in Liverpool, UK, including staff and visitor testing, plus a qualitative exploratory study in nine of these homes. The proportion of pilot homes with outbreaks, and outbreak size, were compared to non-pilot homes in Liverpool. Adherence to testing protocols was evaluated. Fifteen staff were interviewed, and transcript data were thematically coded using an iterative analysis to identify and categorize factors influencing testing implementation. Results In total, 1,638 LFD rapid tests were performed on 407 staff. Protocol adherence was poor with 8.6% of staff achieving >75% protocol adherence, and 25.3% achieving |$\ge$| 50%. Six care homes had outbreaks during the study. Compared to non-pilot care homes, there was no evidence of significant difference in the proportion of homes with outbreaks, or the size of outbreaks. Qualitative data showed difficulty implementing testing strategies due to excessive work burden. Factors influencing adherence related to test integration and procedural factors, socio-economic factors, cognitive overload and the emotional value of testing. Conclusion Implementation of staff and visitor care home LFD testing protocols was poorly adhered to and consequently did not reduce the number or scale of COVID-19 outbreaks. More focus is needed on the contextual and behavioural factors that influence protocol adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mortality rates in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in the UK appeared to decline during the first wave of the pandemic. We aimed to quantify potential drivers of this change and identify groups of patients who remain at high risk of dying in hospital. In this multicentre prospective observational cohort study, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK recruited a prospective cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 247 acute hospitals in England, Scotland, and Wales during the first wave of the pandemic (between March 9 and Aug 2, 2020). We included all patients aged 18 years and older with clinical signs and symptoms of COVID-19 or confirmed COVID-19 (by RT-PCR test) from assumed community-acquired infection. We did a three-way decomposition mediation analysis using natural effects models to explore associations between week of admission and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for confounders (demographics, comorbidities, and severity of illness) and quantifying potential mediators (level of respiratory support and steroid treatment). The primary outcome was weekly in-hospital mortality at 28 days, defined as the proportion of patients who had died within 28 days of admission of all patients admitted in the observed week, and it was assessed in all patients with an outcome. This study is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN66726260. Between March 9, and Aug 2, 2020, we recruited 80 713 patients, of whom 63 972 were eligible and included in the study. Unadjusted weekly in-hospital mortality declined from 32·3% (95% CI 31·8–32·7) in March 9 to April 26, 2020, to 16·4% (15·0–17·8) in June 15 to Aug 2, 2020. Reductions in mortality were observed in all age groups, in all ethnic groups, for both sexes, and in patients with and without comorbidities. After adjustment, there was a 32% reduction in the risk of mortality per 7-week period (odds ratio [OR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·65–0·71]). The higher proportions of patients with severe disease and comorbidities earlier in the first wave (March and April) than in June and July accounted for 10·2% of this reduction. The use of respiratory support changed during the first wave, with gradually increased use of non-invasive ventilation over the first wave. Changes in respiratory support and use of steroids accounted for 22·2%, OR 0·95 (0·94–0·95) of the reduction in in-hospital mortality. The reduction in in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 during the first wave in the UK was partly accounted for by changes in the case-mix and illness severity. A significant reduction in in-hospital mortality was associated with differences in respiratory support and critical care use, which could partly reflect accrual of clinical knowledge. The remaining improvement in in-hospital mortality is not explained by these factors, and could be associated with changes in community behaviour, inoculum dose, and hospital capacity strain. National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To understand severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission risks, perceived risks and the feasibility of risk mitigations from experimental mass cultural events before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions were lifted., Design: Prospective, population-wide observational study., Setting: Four events (two nightclubs, an outdoor music festival and a business conference) open to Liverpool City Region UK residents, requiring a negative lateral flow test (LFT) within the 36 h before the event, but not requiring social distancing or face-coverings., Participants: A total of 12,256 individuals attending one or more events between 28 April and 2 May 2021., Main Outcome Measures: SARS-CoV-2 infections detected using audience self-swabbed (5-7 days post-event) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, with viral genomic analysis of cases, plus linked National Health Service COVID-19 testing data. Audience experiences were gathered via questionnaires, focus groups and social media. Indoor CO 2 concentrations were monitored., Results: A total of 12 PCR-positive cases (likely 4 index, 8 primary or secondary), 10 from the nightclubs. Two further cases had positive LFTs but no PCR. A total of 11,896 (97.1%) participants with scanned tickets were matched to a negative pre-event LFT: 4972 (40.6%) returned a PCR within a week. CO 2 concentrations showed areas for improving ventilation at the nightclubs. Population infection rates were low, yet with a concurrent outbreak of >50 linked cases around a local swimming pool without equivalent risk mitigations. Audience anxiety was low and enjoyment high., Conclusions: We observed minor SARS-CoV-2 transmission and low perceived risks around events when prevalence was low and risk mitigations prominent. Partnership between audiences, event organisers and public health services, supported by information systems with real-time linked data, can improve health security for mass cultural events., Competing Interests: DeclarationsCompeting Interests: The City of Liverpool received a donation from Innova Medical Group Inc. towards the foundation of the Liverpool Pandemic Institute after the conduct of this study. None of that donation has supported the research reported here or any of the authors’ work to date. WJE was a member of the UK Events Research Programme Science Board. This paper was commisioned by Commissioned by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport.

Aims: Systematic annual screening to detect sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) is established in the United Kingdom. We designed an observational cohort study to provide up-to-date data for policy makers and clinical researchers on incidence of key screening endpoints in people with diabetes attending one screening programme running for over 30 years., Methods: All people with diabetes aged ≥12 years registered with general practices in the Liverpool health district were offered inclusion. Data sources comprised: primary care (demographics, systemic risk factors), Liverpool Diabetes Eye Screening Programme (retinopathy grading), Hospital Eye Services (slit lamp biomicroscopy assessment of screen positives)., Results: 133,366 screening episodes occurred in 28,384 people over 11 years. Overall incidences were: screen positive 6.7% (95% CI 6.5-6.8), screen positive for retinopathy 3.1% (3.0-3.1), unassessable images 2.6% (2.5-2.7), other significant eye diseases 1.0% (1.0-1.1). 1.6% (1.6-1.7) had sight-threatening retinopathy confirmed by slit lamp biomicroscopy. The annual incidence of screen positive and screen positive for retinopathy showed consistent declines from 8.8%-10.6% and 4.4%-4.6% in 2007/09 to 4.4%-6.8% and 2.3%-2.9% in 2013/17, respectively. Rates of STDR (true positive) were consistently below 2% after 2008/09. Screen positive rates were higher in first time attenders (9.9% [9.4-10.2] vs. 6.1% [6.0-6.2]) in part due to ungradeable images (4.1% vs. 2.3%) and other eye disease (2.4% vs. 0.8%). 4.5% (3.9-5.2) of previous non-attenders had sight-threatening retinopathy. Compared with people with type 2 diabetes, those with type 1 disease demonstrated higher rates of screen positive (11.9% vs. 6.0%) and STDR (6.4% vs. 1.2%). Overall prevalence of any retinopathy was 27.2% (27.0-27.4)., Conclusions: In an established screening programme with a stable population screen, positive rates show a consistent fall over time to a low level. Of those who are screen positive, fewer than 50% are screen positive for diabetic retinopathy. Most are due to sight threatening maculopathy. The annual incidence of STDR is under 2% suggesting future work on redefining screen positive and supporting extended intervals for people at low risk. Higher rates of screen positive and STDR are seen in first time attenders. Those who have never attended for screening should be specifically targeted., (© 2021 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK.)

Aims/hypothesis: Using variable diabetic retinopathy screening intervals, informed by personal risk levels, offers improved engagement of people with diabetes and reallocation of resources to high-risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. However, safety data on extending screening intervals are minimal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised, variable-interval, risk-based population screening compared with usual care, with wide-ranging input from individuals with diabetes., Methods: This was a two-arm, parallel-assignment, equivalence RCT (minimum 2 year follow-up) in individuals with diabetes aged 12 years or older registered with a single English screening programme. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 at baseline to individualised screening at 6, 12 or 24 months for those at high, medium and low risk, respectively, as determined at each screening episode by a risk-calculation engine using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control group). Screening staff and investigators were observer-masked to allocation and interval. Data were collected within the screening programme. The primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from National Health Service and societal perspectives., Results: A total of 4534 participants were randomised. After withdrawals, there were 2097 participants in the individualised screening arm and 2224 in the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between the two arms (individualised screening 83.6%; control arm 84.7%; difference -1.0 [95% CI -3.2, 1.2]), while sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non-inferior in the individualised screening arm (individualised screening 1.4%, control arm 1.7%; difference -0.3 [95% CI -1.1, 0.5]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. No important adverse events were observed. Mean differences in complete case quality-adjusted life-years (EuroQol Five-Dimension Questionnaire, Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero; multiple imputation supported the dominance of individualised screening. Incremental cost savings per person with individualised screening were £17.34 (95% CI 17.02, 17.67) from the National Health Service perspective and £23.11 (95% CI 22.73, 23.53) from the societal perspective, representing a 21% reduction in overall programme costs. Overall, 43.2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm., Conclusions/interpretation: Stakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this study, which is the largest ophthalmic RCT in diabetic retinopathy screening to date, that extended and individualised, variable-interval, risk-based screening is feasible and can be safely and cost-effectively introduced in established systematic programmes. Because of the 2 year time horizon of the trial and the long time frame of the disease, robust monitoring of attendance and retinopathy rates should be included in any future implementation., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 87561257 FUNDING: The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Graphical abstract.

Introduction: Currently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK., Methods and Analysis: PWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West - Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN87561257; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)