Search

Key Points: Question: For people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at high risk of exacerbations, does bisoprolol reduce the number of exacerbations? Finding: In this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of 515 people with COPD, the number of exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both did not differ significantly with use of bisoprolol (mean exacerbations, 2.03/y) vs placebo (mean exacerbations, 2.01/y). Meaning: Treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. This randomized clinical trial examines whether the addition of bisoprolol to treatment of people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at high risk of exacerbation reduces the rate of moderate to severe exacerbations. Importance: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Observational studies report that β-blocker use may be associated with reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. However, a recent trial reported that metoprolol did not reduce COPD exacerbations and increased COPD exacerbations requiring hospital admission. Objective: To test whether bisoprolol decreased COPD exacerbations in people with COPD at high risk of exacerbations. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bisoprolol in COPD Study (BICS) was a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in 76 UK sites (45 primary care clinics and 31 secondary clinics). Patients with COPD who had at least moderate airflow obstruction on spirometry (ratio of forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration [FEV1] to forced vital capacity <0.7; FEV1 <80% predicted) and at least 2 COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both in the prior 12 months were enrolled from October 17, 2018, to May 31, 2022. Follow-up concluded on April 18, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to bisoprolol (n = 261) or placebo (n = 258). Bisoprolol was started at 1.25 mg orally daily and was titrated as tolerated during 4 sessions to a maximum dose of 5 mg/d, using a standardized protocol. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was the number of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both during the 1-year treatment period. Safety outcomes included serious adverse events and adverse reactions. Results: Although the trial planned to enroll 1574 patients, recruitment was suspended from March 16, 2020, to July 31, 2021, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Two patients in each group were excluded postrandomization. Among the 515 patients (mean [SD] age, 68 [7.9] years; 274 men [53%]; mean FEV1, 50.1%), primary outcome data were available for 514 patients (99.8%) and 371 (72.0%) continued taking the study drug. The primary outcome of patient-reported COPD exacerbations treated with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both was 526 in the bisoprolol group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.03/y, vs 513 exacerbations in the placebo group, with a mean exacerbation rate of 2.01/y. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.84-1.13; P =.72). Serious adverse events occurred in 37 of 255 patients in the bisoprolol group (14.5%) vs 36 of 251 in the placebo group (14.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.62-1.66; P =.96). Conclusions and Relevance: Among people with COPD at high risk of exacerbation, treatment with bisoprolol did not reduce the number of self-reported COPD exacerbations requiring treatment with oral corticosteroids, antibiotics, or both. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN10497306 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Beta blockers are well-established drugs widely used to treat cardiovascular conditions. Observational studies consistently report that beta blocker use in people with COPD is associated with a reduced risk of COPD exacerbations. The bisoprolol in COPD study (BICS) investigates whether adding bisoprolol to routine COPD treatment has clinical and cost-effective benefits. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure to investigate whether any beneficial effect of bisoprolol is restricted to those with unrecognised heart disease.Methods: BICS is a pragmatic randomised parallel group double-blind placebo-controlled trial conducted in UK primary and secondary care sites. The major inclusion criteria are an established predominant respiratory diagnosis of COPD (post-bronchodilator FEV1 < 80% predicted, FEV1/FVC < 0.7), a self-reported history of ≥ 2 exacerbations requiring treatment with antibiotics and/or oral corticosteroids in a 12-month period since March 2019, age ≥ 40 years and a smoking history ≥ 10 pack years. A computerised randomisation system will allocate 1574 participants with equal probability to intervention or control groups, stratified by centre and recruitment in primary/secondary care. The intervention is bisoprolol (1.25 mg tablets) or identical placebo. The dose of bisoprolol/placebo is titrated up to a maximum of 4 tablets a day (5 mg bisoprolol) over 4-7 weeks depending on tolerance to up-dosing of bisoprolol/placebo-these titration assessments are completed by telephone or video call. Participants complete the remainder of the 52-week treatment period on the final titrated dose (1, 2, 3, 4 tablets) and during that time are followed up at 26 and 52 weeks by telephone or video call. The primary outcome is the total number of participant reported COPD exacerbations requiring oral corticosteroids and/or antibiotics during the 52-week treatment period. A sub-study will risk stratify participants for heart failure by echocardiography and measurement of blood biomarkers.Discussion: The demonstration that bisoprolol reduces the incidence of exacerbations would be relevant not only to patients and clinicians but also to healthcare providers, in the UK and globally.Trial Registration: Current controlled trials ISRCTN10497306 . Registered on 16 August 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we examine the efforts of a University in south-west England to develop long-standing relationships with some partnership schools into a richer association modelled on university practice schools. These are used widely in countries such as Finland, Japan and Hungary, and offer trainee teachers high-quality practica with expert teachers while providing opportunities for university staff to keep their practice up to date and to collaborate in school-based research. Using the research approach of ‘Appreciative Inquiry’, which builds on the strengths of a social system to shape future sustainability and development, we focus on the experience of three partnerships. In each school a University-based Researcher-in-Residence was paired with a partner teacher or senior leader. We draw on the notion of a ‘third space’ to examine the ways in and the extent to which the partners in each school have created a non-hierarchical space for collaborative working. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction The UK National Stroke Strategy ( Department of Health 2007) states that patients should have access to a stroke service with neurointerventional capacity. This survey was conducted by the Clinical Standards Committee of the British Association of Stroke Physicians to get a snapshot of the availability of interventional treatments for stroke in the United Kingdom. Methods Questionnaires covering availability of endovascular treatments for stroke, e.g. intra-arterial thrombolysis and mechanical thrombectomy, were emailed to all British Association of Stroke Physicians members in October 2010. Where more than one response was received from the same hospital, the data were only entered once. If there was a discrepancy between different respondents for the same hospital, details were cross-checked with the respondents to ensure accuracy. Results Responses were received from 58 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Intra-arterial thrombolysis and/or mechanical thrombectomy were available in 23 hospitals. Of these, three had not performed any procedures in 2010. Twenty centres had conducted a mean (range) of eight (2-20) procedures during the 10-month period. Thirty-five hospitals were not offering endovascular treatments. Sixteen of these were not referring patients to centres which could provide interventional treatments. Hospitals offering endovascular treatments had a mean (range) of 5·2 (2-12) stroke physicians, 2·3 (0-4) interventional neuroradiologists, and 3·6 (0-9) noninterventional neuroradiologists. Only two hospitals providing interventions had four or more interventional neuroradiologists. Conclusions Only a small number of hospitals in the United Kingdom provide interventional treatments for stroke. Almost 50% of hospitals not providing interventions had no processes in place for referral to providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The aim of this study was to assure the validity and reliability of the Intercollegiate Stroke Audit Package as used in the National Sentinel Audit of Stroke. The Intercollegiate Working Party for Stroke, which included most stakeholders, including patients, devised the audit standards. These were submitted to a formal consensus (modified Delphi) survey before the audit questions were developed and piloted for validity and reliability. Following the pilot, Help Booklets were developed to promote the involvement of all disciplines as auditors in the national sentinel audit of stroke and ensure inter-rater reliability. During the national audit each Trust was asked to double rate the first five cases with auditors of different disciplines working independently. A total of 886 case notes were double-rated in 184 separate sites (median 5, range 1–5 per site). Trusts used auditors from different disciplines in 77% of cases. After excluding the ‘No answer’ cases the kappa score for items ranged from 0.49 to 0.87 (median 0.70, IQR 0.63–0.78). Very good agreement was found for seven of the 45 items, good agreement for 30 items, and moderate agreement for eight items. This large study, across a range of hospital sites and involving many disciplines, demonstrates that careful piloting of audit tools, with use of clear instructions to auditors, promotes the reliability of data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the different correspondence on health issues in Great Britain. Sources of interobserver variation in the measurement of blood pressure; Reduction of serum cholesterol; Problems of cigarette smokers receiving coronary bypass surgery.