Search

Introduction: To perform a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of point-of-care lung ultrasound, compared to chest radiography, in children and young people (0-21 years) who present to ambulatory settings with suspected community-acquired pneumonia., Methods: Registration: Prospero June 2021 CRD42021260552. Electronic searching performed on Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Science Citation Index from inception to 20 June 2023. Two researchers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for study selection. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. Meta-analysis of included studies., Results: The six studies included in this systematic review described point-of-care lung ultrasound performed primarily by paediatric emergency medicine clinicians on a total of 1099 paediatric patients, with a reference standard of chest radiography or chest radiography with clinical findings. The majority of included studies lacked clarity on training for the index test with potential bias around flow and timing of testing. Meta-analysis of the combined results of the included six studies calculated a pooled sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI [85.5%, 94.4%]) and pooled specificity of 80.7% (95% CI [63.6%, 91.0%])., Conclusions: Point-of-care lung ultrasound has high sensitivity but lower specificity to diagnose acute pneumonia in children. Further research is needed which overcomes issues around training in point-of-care lung ultrasound, study design and reliability of the reference test (chest radiography) to better evidence the role of point-of-care lung ultrasound in diagnosing pneumonia in children in ambulatory and resource-limited settings., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2024.)

Background: A self-harm episode is a major risk factor for repeat self-harm. Existing tools to assess and predict repeat self-harm have major methodological limitations, and few are externally validated., Objective: To develop and validate a risk assessment model of repeat self-harm up to 6 months after an episode of non-fatal self-harm that resulted in an emergency visit to hospital or specialised care., Methods: Using Swedish national registers, we identified 53 172 people aged≥10 years who self-harmed during 2008-2012. We allocated 37 523 individuals to development (2820 or 7.5% repeat self-harm incidents within 6 months) and 15 649 to geographic validation (1373 repeat episodes) samples, based on region of residence. In a temporal validation of people who self-harmed during 2018-2019, we identified 25 036 individuals (2886 repeat episodes). We fitted a multivariable accelerated failure time model to predict risk of repeat self-harm., Findings: In the external validations (n=40 685), rates of repeat self-harm were 8.8%-11.5% over 6 months. The final model retained 17 factors. Calibration and discrimination were similar in both validation samples, with observed-to-expected ratio=1.15 (95% CI=1.09 to 1.21) and c-statistic=0.72 (95% CI=0.70 to 0.73) in the geographical validation. At 6 months and a 10% risk cut-off, sensitivity was 51.5% (95% CI=48.8% to 54.2%) and specificity was 80.7% (95% CI=80.1% to 81.4%) in geographic validation; corresponding values were 56.9% (95% CI=55.1% to 58.7%) and 76.0% (95% CI=75.5% to 76.6%) in temporal validation. Discrimination was slightly worse at the 1-month prediction horizon (c-statistics of 0.66-0.68)., Conclusions: Using mostly routinely collected data, simple risk assessment models and tools can provide acceptable levels of accuracy for repeat of self-harm., Clinical Implications: This risk model (OXford SElf-harm repeat tool) may assist clinical decision-making., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HL reports receiving grants from Shire Pharmaceuticals; personal fees from and serving as a speaker for Medice, Shire/Takeda Pharmaceuticals and Evolan Pharma AB; all outside the submitted work. HL is editor-in-chief of JCPP Advances., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Temporal trends in comparative meta-analyses of interventions are well-recognized in the medical literature. For studies of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), evidence of temporal trends is growing and the importance of assessing and reporting them has been highlighted in recent guidelines on postmarket surveillance in several jurisdictions. In this study, we evaluate the prevalence and patterns of time trends using a larger and more up-to-date set of DTA systematic reviews than has previously been examined, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews., Study Design and Setting: Cumulative meta-analysis was conducted on bivariate random effects meta-analysis estimates of sensitivity and specificity, after ranking studies by publication date. Trends for all studies were assessed graphically using plots of summary estimates by study rank, and using receiver operating characteristic plots of sensitivity vs specificity. Linear trends were also described using weighted linear regression with autocorrelated errors of summary estimates against study rank. Various patterns of nonlinear trends were characterized descriptively., Results: The analysis included 46 reviews (92 meta-analyses) conducted between 2017 and 2022. The total number of studies within all reviews was 1486, with a median (IQR) 7134 (2782-16,406) participants per review. Reviews had a median (IQR) time span of 19 (15-25) publication years. Time trends in at least 1 DTA measure were observed in 40 (87%) reviews, and statistically significant linear trends in 32 (70%) reviews. Nonlinear time trends were observed in 14 (30%) reviews. There was no evidence for a trend in either DTA measure in 6 (13%) reviews., Conclusion: The study contributes evidence on the variety in patterns of linear and nonlinear temporal DTA trends which has not previously been described. We recommended researchers check statistical assumptions of trend analysis methods, eg, using graphical methods. Further research into potential reasons for time trends could contribute to the robustness of future meta-analyses., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest T.R.F received funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many clinical pathways for the diagnosis of disease are based on diagnostic tests that are performed in sequence. The performance of the full diagnostic sequence is dictated by the diagnostic performance of each test in the sequence as well as the conditional dependence between them, given true disease status. Resulting estimates of performance, such as the sensitivity and specificity of the test sequence, are key parameters in health-economic evaluations. We conducted a methodological review of statistical methods for assessing the performance of diagnostic tests performed in sequence, with the aim of guiding data analysts towards classes of methods that may be suitable given the design and objectives of the testing sequence., Methods: We searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for relevant papers describing methodology for analysing sequences of diagnostic tests. Papers were classified by the characteristics of the method used, and these were used to group methods into themes. We illustrate some of the methods using data from a cohort study of repeat faecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer in symptomatic patients, to highlight the importance of allowing for conditional dependence in test sequences and adjustment for an imperfect reference standard., Results: Five overall themes were identified, detailing methods for combining multiple tests in sequence, estimating conditional dependence, analysing sequences of diagnostic tests used for risk assessment, analysing test sequences in conjunction with an imperfect or incomplete reference standard, and meta-analysis of test sequences., Conclusions: This methodological review can be used to help researchers identify suitable analytic methods for studies that use diagnostic tests performed in sequence., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Interim analysis is a common methodology in randomised clinical trials but has received less attention in studies of diagnostic test accuracy. In such studies, early termination for futility may be beneficial if early evidence indicates that a diagnostic test is unlikely to achieve a clinically useful level of diagnostic performance, as measured by the sensitivity and specificity. In this paper, we describe relevant practical and analytical considerations when planning and performing interim analysis in diagnostic accuracy studies, focusing on stopping rules for futility. We present an adaptation of the exact group sequential method for diagnostic testing, with R code provided for implementing this method in practice. The method is illustrated using two simulated data sets and data from a published diagnostic accuracy study for point-of-care testing for SARS-CoV-2. The considerations described in this paper can be used to guide decisions as to when an interim analysis in a diagnostic accuracy study is suitable and highlight areas for further methodological development., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Serrated polyposis syndrome is the most common polyposis syndrome that has neoplastic potential. However, the natural history, genetic basis, and risk of dysplasia and neoplasia of serrated polyposis syndrome are incompletely understood. The objective of this study is to define the epidemiology of serrated polyposis syndrome. Using this data, we aim to evaluate candidate variables for predicting the risk of dysplasia and neoplasia in sessile serrated lesions found in serrated polyposis syndrome patients. Finally, we aim to use this data to create and evaluate clinical prediction models for accuracy in predicting dysplastic sessile serrated lesions in serrated polyposis syndrome patients., Methods: This was a regional Australian single-centre retrospective cohort study. Data was prospectively collected data from the clinical record database of a regional Australian gastroenterology practice. All patients undergoing colonoscopy at Port Macquarie Gastroenterology between January 2015 and September 2021 were screened for this study. Collected data included patient demographic, endoscopic, and histopathological findings. Clinical and endoscopic multivariate logistic regression models were created to predict dysplastic sessile serrated lesions. Model performance was examined using the area under the receiver operating curve., Results: In total 8401 patients underwent a colonoscopy procedure during the study period. Serrated polyposis syndrome was diagnosed in 247, representing a prevalence of 2.94% (mean age 67.15 years, 62.75% female). Logistic regression identified; older age at serrated polyposis syndrome diagnosis, a personal history of colorectal cancer, size of the largest sessile serrated lesions removed, and total sessile serrated lesions count as predictors of dysplastic sessile serrated lesions. The clinical and endoscopic model had an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.75., Conclusion: Serrated polyposis syndrome is more common than previously described. The clinical and endoscopic variables identified in logistic regression have acceptable accuracy in predicting the risk of dysplasia, however other populations need to be studied to achieve generalisability and improve model performance., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Data on imported infections in children and young people (CYP) are sparse., Aims: To describe imported infections in CYP arriving from malaria-endemic areas and presenting to UK emergency departments (ED) who were screened for malaria., Methods: This is a retrospective, multi-centre, observational study nested in a diagnostic accuracy study for malaria rapid diagnostic tests. Any CYP < 16 years presenting to a participating ED with a history of fever and travel to a malaria-endemic area between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2017 and who had a malaria screen as a part of standard care were included. Geographical risk was calculated for the most common tropical infections., Results: Of the 1414 CYP screened for malaria, 44.0% ( n  = 622) arrived from South Asia and 33.3% ( n  = 471) from sub-Saharan Africa. Half (50.0%) had infections common in both tropical and non-tropical settings such as viral upper respiratory tract infection (URTI); 21.0% of infections were coded as tropical if gastro-enteritis is included, with a total of 4.2% (60) cases of malaria. CYP diagnosed with malaria were 7.44 times more likely to have arrived from sub-Saharan Africa than from South Asia (OR 7.44, 3.78-16.41)., Conclusion: A fifth of CYP presenting to participating UK EDs with fever and a history of travel to a malaria-endemic area and who were screened for malaria had a tropical infection if diarrhoea is included. A third of CYP had no diagnosis. CYP arriving from sub-Saharan Africa had the greatest risk of malaria. Abbreviations: CYP: children and young people; ED: emergency department; PERUKI: Paediatric Emergency Research in the UK and Ireland; RDT: rapid diagnostic test; VFR: visiting friends and relatives.

Objective: We aimed to determine whether urine tenofovir (TFV) and dried blood spot (DBS) tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations are associated with concurrent HIV viraemia., Design: Cross-sectional study among people with HIV (PWH) receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART)., Methods: We used dual tandem liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry to measure urine TFV and DBS TFV-DP concentrations, and evaluated their associations with concurrent viraemia at least 1000 copies/ml using logistic regression models. In exploratory analyses, we used receiver operating curves (ROCs) to estimate optimal urine TFV and DBS TFV-DP thresholds to predict concurrent viraemia., Results: Among 124 participants, 68 (54.8%) were women, median age was 39 years [interquartile range (IQR) 34-45] and 74 (59.7%) were receiving efavirenz versus 50 (40.3%) receiving dolutegravir. Higher concentrations of urine TFV [1000 ng/ml increase, odds ratio (OR) 0.97 95% CI 0.94-0.99, P  = 0.005] and DBS TFV-DP (100 fmol/punch increase, OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86, P  < 0.001) were associated with lower odds of viraemia. There was evidence that these associations were stronger among people receiving dolutegravir than among people receiving efavirenz (urine TFV, P  = 0.072; DBS TFV-DP, P  = 0.003). Nagelkerke pseudo- R2 for the DBS TFV-DP models was higher for the urine TFV models, demonstrating a stronger relationship between DBS TFV-DP and viraemia. Among people receiving dolutegravir, a DBS TFV-DP concentration of 483 fmol/punch had 88% sensitivity and 85% specificity to predict concurrent viraemia ≥1000 copies/ml., Conclusion: Among PWH receiving TDF-based ART, urine TFV concentrations, and in particular DBS TFV-DP concentrations, were strongly associated with concurrent viraemia, especially among people receiving dolutegravir., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Objectives: Limited evidence exists for the diagnostic performance of point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in community healthcare. We carried out a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of the LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A or B assay in primary care., Methods: Total of 913 adults and children with symptoms of current SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited from 18 UK primary care practices during a period when Omicron was the predominant COVID variant of concern (June 2022 to December 2022). Trained health care staff performed the index test, with diagnostic accuracy parameters estimated for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza against real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rtRT-PCR)., Results: 151/887 participants were SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR positive, 109 positive for Influenza A, 6 for Influenza B. Index test sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was 80.8% (122 of the 151, 95% CI, 73.6-86.7%) and specificity 98.9% (728 of the 736, 95% CI, 97.9-99.5%). For influenza A, sensitivity was 61.5% (67 of the 109, 95% CI, 51.7-70.6%) and specificity 99.4% (771 of the 776, 95% CI, 98.5-99.8%). Sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza dropped sharply at rtRT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) > 30., Discussions: The LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B assay had moderate sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in primary care, with lower performance with high rtRT-PCR Ct. Negative results in this patient group cannot definitively rule out SARS-CoV-2 or influenza., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recurrent urinary tract infection (rUTI) contributes to significant morbidity and antibiotic usage., Objectives: To characterize the age of women experiencing rUTI, the microbiology of rUTIs, and the risk of further rUTIs in Oxfordshire, UK., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analysed de-identified linked microbiology and hospital admissions data (Infections in Oxfordshire Research Database), between 2008 and 2019, including positive urine cultures from women aged ≥16 years in community settings. We defined rUTI as ≥2 positive urine cultures within 6 months or ≥3 within 12 months., Results: Of 201 927 women with urine culture performed, 84 809 (42%) had ≥1 positive culture, and 15 617 (18%) of these experienced ≥1 rUTI over a median (IQR) follow-up of 6 (3-9) years. Women with rUTI were 17.0 (95% CI: 16.3-17.7) years older on average. rUTI was commonest (6204; 40%) in those aged 70-89 years. Post-rUTI, the risk of further UTI within 6 months was 29.4% (95% CI: 28.7-30.2). Escherichia coli was detected in 65% of positive cultures. Among rUTIs where the index UTI was E. coli associated, the second UTI was also E. coli associated in 81% of cases., Conclusions: rUTIs represent a substantial healthcare burden, particularly in women >60 years. One-third of women experiencing rUTI have a further microbiologically confirmed UTI within 6 months., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Background: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies., Objectives: To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco., Search Methods: We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE., Main Results: Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2)., Authors' Conclusions: The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Objectives: Given the lack of accurate rapid diagnostics for urinary tract infection (UTI) in women, many countries have developed guidelines aiming to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing, but some guidelines have not been validated. We performed a diagnostic accuracy validation study of two guidelines: Public Health England (GW-1263) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN160)., Methods: We used data from women with symptoms suggestive of uncomplicated UTI from a randomized controlled trial comparing urine collection devices. Symptom information was recorded via baseline questionnaire and primary care assessment. Women provided urine samples for dipstick testing and culture. We calculated the number within each risk category of diagnostic flowcharts who had positive/mixed growth/no significant growth urine culture. Results were presented as positive/negative predictive values, with 95% CIs., Results: Of women aged under 65 years, 311/509 (61.1%, 95% CI 56.7%-65.3%) classified to the highest risk category (recommended to consider immediate antibiotic prescribing) and 80/199 (40.2%, 95% CI 33.4%-47.4%) classified to the lowest risk category (recommended to reassure that UTI is less likely) by the GW-1263 guideline (n = 810) had positive culture. For the SIGN160 guideline (n = 814), the proportion with positive culture ranged from 60/82 (73.2%, 95% CI 62.1%-82.1%) in those for whom immediate treatment was indicated to 33/76 (43.4%, 95% CI 32.3%-55.3%) in those recommended a self-care/waiting strategy., Conclusions: Clinicians should be aware of the potential for diagnostic error when using diagnostic guidelines for managing uncomplicated UTI and making antimicrobial prescribing decisions. Infection cannot be excluded on the basis of symptoms and dipstick testing alone., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.)

Background and Objective: Point-of-care lateral flow device antigen testing has been used extensively to identify individuals with active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in routine community care., Methods: Adults and children with symptoms consistent with suspected current COVID-19 infection were prospectively recruited from 19 UK general practices and two COVID-19 testing centres between October 2020 and October 2021. Participants were tested by trained healthcare workers using at least one of two index POCTs (Roche-branded SD Biosensor Standard™ Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and/or BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2). The reference standard was laboratory triplex reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) using a combined nasal/oropharyngeal swab. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall, in relation to RT-PCR cycle threshold and in pre-specified subgroups., Results: Of 663 participants included in the primary analysis, 39.2% (260/663, 95% CI 35.5% to 43.0%) had a positive RT-PCR result. The SD Biosensor POCT had sensitivity 84.0% (178/212, 78.3% to 88.6%) and specificity 98.5% (328/333, 96.5% to 99.5%), and the BD Veritor POCT had sensitivity 76.5% (127/166, 69.3% to 82.7%) and specificity 98.8% (249/252, 96.6% to 99.8%) compared with RT-PCR. Sensitivity of both devices dropped substantially at cycle thresholds ≥30 and in participants more than 7 days after onset of symptoms., Conclusions: Both POCTs assessed exceed the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency target product profile's minimum acceptable specificity of 95%. Confidence intervals for both tests include the minimum acceptable sensitivity of 80%. In symptomatic patients, negative results on these two POCTs do not preclude the possibility of infection. Tests should not be expected to reliably detect disease more than a week after symptom onset, when viral load may be reduced., Registration: ISRCTN142269., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: The authorship declares funding support for this study from the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division Benefactors Urgent COVID-19 Fund, the National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research, and Urgent Public Health funding for the CONDOR Platform from the NIHR and Asthma+Lung UK. The RAPTOR-C19 study team received analysers and assays free of charge from Becton Dickinson for evaluation in this study. GNH declares funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) paid to the University of Oxford. KD declares grant funding from Alere Inc and Cepheid Inc paid to her institution for unrelated research. TRF declares NIHR support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC for diagnostic evaluation research. AJW declares grant funding received by the University of Oxford through a Wellcome Trust Enriching Engagement grant which has supported unrelated patient participation work carried out by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research Surveillance Centre (based at the University of Oxford) for surveillance work. GE declares funding support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC recieved by the University of Oxford. AM declares the support of a Wellcome Trust Doctoral Research Fellowship and an NIHR In-practice Fellowship unrelated to this research. PJT declares support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC for diagnostic evaluation research. PJT has provided expert support to the Longitude Prize AMR competition administration which is unrelated to this project and for which the University of Oxford received an honorarium. RB declares grant funding for this project from the NIHR and Asthma+Lung UK, with additional funding from the Department of Health and Social Care paid to his host institution. RB declares grants from Siemens Healthineers, Abbott Point-of-Care and Ancon, all paid to his institution for unrelated research. He declares consulting fees received by his institution from Roche, Siemens, Aptamer Group, LumiraDx, Beckman Coulter and Radiometer, with personal fees received from Psyros Diagnostics. RB has received support for attending meetings / travel from Roche and EMCREG International. RB has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for the unrelated FORCE Trial, REWIRE Trial, TARGET-CTA, and Magnetocardiography study (MAGNETIC - sponsored by Creavo). RB is the Deputy National Specialty Lead for Trauma & Emergency Care, National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network. RB declares receipt of donated reagents for research not detailed in this paper from Roche, LumiraDx, BD, iXensor, Abbott Point-of-Care, Randox, Avacta, Menarini, loan of analysers from Randox and Menarini, and assays run free of charge for research purposes by Chronomics, My110, and Ancon. JJL declares funding from an NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship which is unrelated to this research. LM declares support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC and other NIHR grants to the University of Oxford in support of this work. EL declares unrelated project funding received by the UKHSA Vaccine Evaluation Unit for contract research from GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi. MZ declares her unpaid activities as the Chair of the charitable organisation ISIRV and her membership of the UK SAGE, NERVTAG and JCVI groups. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Nicholson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) aims to replace nicotine from cigarettes. This helps to reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, and ease the transition from cigarette smoking to complete abstinence. Although there is high-certainty evidence that NRT is effective for achieving long-term smoking abstinence, it is unclear whether different forms, doses, durations of treatment or timing of use impacts its effects., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of different forms, deliveries, doses, durations and schedules of NRT, for achieving long-term smoking cessation., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group trials register for papers mentioning NRT in the title, abstract or keywords, most recently in April 2022., Selection Criteria: We included randomised trials in people motivated to quit, comparing one type of NRT use with another. We excluded studies that did not assess cessation as an outcome, with follow-up of fewer than six months, and with additional intervention components not matched between arms. Separate reviews cover studies comparing NRT to control, or to other pharmacotherapies., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods. We measured smoking abstinence after at least six months, using the most rigorous definition available. We extracted data on cardiac adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs) and study withdrawals due to treatment.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 68 completed studies with 43,327 participants, five of which are new to this update. Most completed studies recruited adults either from the community or from healthcare clinics. We judged 28 of the 68 studies to be at high risk of bias. Restricting the analysis only to those studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not significantly alter results for any comparisons apart from the preloading comparison, which tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day whilst still smoking.  There is high-certainty evidence that combination NRT (fast-acting form plus patch) results in higher long-term quit rates than single form (risk ratio (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.37; I 2 = 12%; 16 studies, 12,169 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, indicates that 42/44 mg patches are as effective as 21/22 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.29; I 2 = 38%; 5 studies, 1655 participants), and that 21 mg patches are more effective than 14 mg (24-hour) patches (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.08; 1 study, 537 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, also suggests a benefit of 25 mg over 15 mg (16-hour) patches, but the lower limit of the CI encompassed no difference (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.41; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 3446 participants). Nine studies tested the effect of using NRT prior to quit day (preloading) in comparison to using it from quit day onward. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, of a favourable effect of preloading on abstinence (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.44; I 2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4395 participants). High-certainty evidence from eight studies suggests that using either a form of fast-acting NRT or a nicotine patch results in similar long-term quit rates (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.05; I 2 = 0%; 8 studies, 3319 participants). We found no clear evidence of an effect of duration of nicotine patch use (low-certainty evidence); duration of combination NRT use (low- and very low-certainty evidence); or fast-acting NRT type (very low-certainty evidence). Cardiac AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment were all measured variably and infrequently across studies, resulting in low- or very low-certainty evidence for all comparisons. Most comparisons found no clear evidence of an effect on these outcomes, and rates were low overall. More withdrawals due to treatment were reported in people using nasal spray compared to patches in one study (RR 3.47, 95% CI 1.15 to 10.46; 1 study, 922 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and in people using 42/44 mg patches in comparison to 21/22 mg patches across two studies (RR 4.99, 95% CI 1.60 to 15.50; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 544 participants; low-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: There is high-certainty evidence that using combination NRT versus single-form NRT and 4 mg versus 2 mg nicotine gum can result in an increase in the chances of successfully stopping smoking. Due to imprecision, evidence was of moderate certainty for patch dose comparisons. There is some indication that the lower-dose nicotine patches and gum may be less effective than higher-dose products. Using a fast-acting form of NRT, such as gum or lozenge, resulted in similar quit rates to nicotine patches. There is moderate-certainty evidence that using NRT before quitting may improve quit rates versus using it from quit date only; however, further research is needed to ensure the robustness of this finding. Evidence for the comparative safety and tolerability of different types of NRT use is limited. New studies should ensure that AEs, SAEs and withdrawals due to treatment are reported., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Aims: Heart failure (HF) is a global health burden and new strategies to achieve timely diagnosis and early intervention are urgently needed. Natriuretic peptide (NP) testing can be used to screen for left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), but evidence on test performance is mixed, and international HF guidelines differ in their recommendations. Our aim was to summarize the evidence on diagnostic accuracy of NP screening for LVSD in general and high-risk community populations and estimate optimal screening thresholds., Methods: We searched relevant databases up to August 2020 for studies with a screened community population of over 100 adults reporting NP performance to diagnose LVSD. Study inclusion, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Diagnostic test meta-analysis used hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves to obtain estimates of pooled accuracy to detect LVSD, with optimal thresholds obtained to maximize the sum of sensitivity and specificity., Results: Twenty-four studies were identified, involving 26 565 participants: eight studies in high-risk populations (at least one cardiovascular risk factor), 12 studies in general populations, and four in both high-risk and general populations combined. For detecting LVSD in screened high-risk populations with N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), the pooled sensitivity was 0.87 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.94] and specificity 0.84 (95% CI 0.55-0.96); for BNP, sensitivity was 0.75 (95% CI 0.65-0.83) and specificity 0.78 (95% CI 0.72-0.84). Heterogeneity between studies was high with variations in positivity threshold. Due to a paucity of high-risk studies that assessed NP performance at multiple thresholds, it was not possible to calculate optimal thresholds for LVSD screening in high-risk populations alone. To provide an indication of where the positivity threshold might lie, the pooled accuracy for LVSD screening in high-risk and general community populations were combined and gave an optimal cut-off of 311 pg/mL [sensitivity 0.74 (95% CI 0.53-0.88), specificity 0.85 (95% CI 0.68-0.93)] for NT-proBNP and 49 pg/mL [sensitivity 0.68 (95% CI 0.45-0.85), specificity 0.81 (0.67-0.90)] for BNP., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that in high-risk community populations NP screening may accurately detect LVSD, potentially providing an important opportunity for diagnosis and early intervention. Our study highlights an urgent need for further prospective studies, as well as an individual participant data meta-analysis, to more precisely evaluate diagnostic accuracy and identify optimal screening thresholds in specifically defined community-based populations to inform future guideline recommendations., (© 2023 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Microscopy is the gold standard for malaria diagnosis but is dependent on trained personnel. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) form the mainstay of diagnosis in endemic areas without access to high-quality microscopy. We aimed to evaluate whether RDT alone could rule out imported malaria in children presenting to UK emergency departments (EDs)., Methods: UK-based, multi-center, retrospective, diagnostic accuracy study. Included: any child <16 years presenting to ED with history of fever and travel to a malaria-endemic country, between 01/01/2016 and 31/12/2017. Diagnosis: microscopy for malarial parasites (clinical reference standard) and RDT (index test). UK Health Research Authority approval: 20/HRA/1341., Results: There were 47 cases of malaria out of 1,414 eligible cases (prevalence 3.3%) in a cohort of children whose median age was 4 years (IQR 2-9), of whom 43% were female. Cases of Plasmodium falciparum totaled 36 (77%, prevalence 2.5%). The sensitivity of RDT alone to detect malaria infection due to any Plasmodium species was 93.6% (95% CI 82.5-98.7%), specificity 99.4% (95% CI 98.9-99.7%), positive predictive value 84.6% (95% CI 71.9-93.1%) and negative predictive value 99.8% (95% CI 99.4-100.0%). Sensitivity of RDT to detect P. falciparum infection was 100% (90.3-100%), specificity 98.8% (98.1-99.3%), positive predictive value 69.2% (54.9-81.2%, n = 46/52) and negative predictive value 100% (99.7-100%, n = 1,362/1,362)., Conclusions: RDTs were 100% sensitive in detecting P. falciparum malaria. However, lower sensitivity for other malaria species and the rise of pfhrp2 and pfhrp3 (pfhrp2/3) gene deletions in the P. falciparum parasite mandate the continued use of microscopy for diagnosing malaria., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.)

Background: Assessment of suicide risk in individuals who have self-harmed is common in emergency departments, but is often based on tools developed for other purposes., Objective: We developed and validated a predictive model for suicide following self-harm., Methods: We used data from Swedish population-based registers. A cohort of 53 172 individuals aged 10+ years, with healthcare episodes of self-harm, was split into development (37 523 individuals, of whom 391 died from suicide within 12 months) and validation (15 649 individuals, 178 suicides within 12 months) samples. We fitted a multivariable accelerated failure time model for the association between risk factors and time to suicide. The final model contains 11 factors: age, sex, and variables related to substance misuse, mental health and treatment, and history of self-harm. Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis guidelines were followed for the design and reporting of this work., Findings: An 11-item risk model to predict suicide was developed using sociodemographic and clinical risk factors, and showed good discrimination (c-index 0.77, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.78) and calibration in external validation. For risk of suicide within 12 months, using a 1% cut-off, sensitivity was 82% (75% to 87%) and specificity was 54% (53% to 55%). A web-based risk calculator is available (Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-harm or OxSATS)., Conclusions: OxSATS accurately predicts 12-month risk of suicide. Further validations and linkage to effective interventions are required to examine clinical utility., Clinical Implications: Using a clinical prediction score may assist clinical decision-making and resource allocation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Moderate certainty evidence supports use of nicotine electronic cigarettes to quit smoking combustible cigarettes. However, there is less certainty regarding how long people continue to use e-cigarettes after smoking cessation attempts. We set out to synthesise data on the proportion of people still using e-cigarettes or other study products at 6 months or longer in studies of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation. We updated Cochrane searches (November 2021). For the first time, we meta-analysed prevalence of continued e-cigarette use among individuals allocated to e-cigarette conditions, and among those individuals who had successfully quit smoking. We updated meta-analyses comparing proportions continuing product use among individuals allocated to use nicotine e-cigarettes and other treatments. We included 19 studies (n = 7787). The pooled prevalence of continued e-cigarette use at 6 months or longer was 54% (95% CI: 46% to 61%, I 2 86%, N = 1482) in participants assigned to e-cigarette conditions. Of participants who had quit combustible cigarettes overall 70% were still using e-cigarettes at six months or longer (95% CI: 53% to 82%, I 2 73%, N = 215). Heterogeneity in direction of effect precluded meta-analysis comparing long-term use of nicotine e-cigarettes with NRT. More people were using nicotine e-cigarettes at longest follow-up compared to non-nicotine e-cigarettes, but CIs included no difference (risk ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.41, n = 601). The levels of continued e-cigarette use observed may reflect the success of e-cigarettes as a quitting tool. Further research is needed to establish drivers of variation in and implications of continued use of e-cigarettes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, although some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit smoking, and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is a review update conducted as part of a living systematic review., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 July 2022, and reference-checked and contacted study authors.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants, or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses., Main Results: We included 78 completed studies, representing 22,052 participants, of which 40 were RCTs. Seventeen of the 78 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated ten (all but one contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 50 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was high certainty that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04; I 2 = 10%; 6 studies, 2378 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional four quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 6). There was moderate-certainty evidence (limited by imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar between groups (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1702 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.52; I 2 = 34%; 5 studies, 2411 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1840 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.79; I 2 = 0%; 8 studies, 1272 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.52 to 4.65; I 2 = 0%; 7 studies, 3126 participants). In absolute terms, this represents an additional two quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 3). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that (non-serious) AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I 2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants) and, again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97; I 2 = 38%; 9 studies, 1993 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued EC use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit., Authors' Conclusions: There is high-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and moderate-certainty evidence that they increase quit rates compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs nor between nicotine ECs and NRT. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect evidence of serious harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: Both authors have previously published research relating to the development and validation of risk prediction tools, including a suicide risk prediction tool for individuals with severe mental illness (OxMIS).

Aims: To investigate the comparative and combined effectiveness of four types of components of behavioural interventions for cigarette smoking cessation: behavioural (e.g. counselling), motivational (e.g. focus on reasons to quit), delivery mode (e.g. phone) and provider (e.g. nurse)., Design: Systematic review and component network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials identified from Cochrane reviews. Interventions included behavioural interventions for smoking cessation (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials), compared with another behavioural intervention or no support. Building on a 2021 review (CD013229), we conducted three analyses, investigating: comparative effectiveness of the components, whether models that allowed interactions between components gave different results to models assuming additivity, and predicted effect estimates for combined effects of components that had showed promise but where there were few trials., Setting: Community and health-care settings., Participants: Adults who smoke tobacco., Measurements: Smoking cessation at ≥6 months, preferring sustained, biochemically validated outcomes where available., Findings: Three hundred and twelve trials (250 563 participants) were included. Fifty were at high risk of bias using Cochrane risk of bias tool, V1 (ROB1); excluding these studies did not change findings. Head-to-head comparisons of components suggested that support via text message (SMS) compared with telephone (OR 1.48, 95% CrI 1.13-1.94) or print materials (OR 1.44, 95% CrI 1.14-1.83) was more effective, and individual delivery was less effective than delivery as part of a group (OR 0.78, 95% CrI 0.64-0.95). There was no conclusive evidence of synergistic or antagonistic interactions when combining components that were commonly used together. Adding multiple components that are commonly used in behavioural counselling suggested clinically relevant and statistically conclusive evidence of benefit. Components with the largest effects that could be combined, but rarely have been, were estimated to increase the odds of quitting between two and threefold. For example, financial incentives delivered via SMS, with tailoring and a focus on how to quit, had an estimated OR of 2.94 (95% CrI 1.91-4.52)., Conclusions: Among the components of behavioural support for smoking cessation, behavioural counselling and guaranteed financial incentives are associated with the greatest success. Incorporating additional components associated with effectiveness may further increase benefit, with delivery via text message showing particular promise., (© 2022 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Improving prescribing antibiotics appropriately for respiratory infections in primary care is an antimicrobial stewardship priority. There is limited evidence to support interventions to reduce prescribing antibiotics in out-of-hours (OOH) primary care. Herein, we report a service innovation where point-of-care C-Reactive Protein (CRP) machines were introduced to three out-of-hours primary care clinical bases in England from August 2018-December 2019, which were compared with four control bases that did not have point-of-care CRP testing. We undertook a mixed-method evaluation, including a comparative interrupted time series analysis to compare monthly antibiotic prescription rates between bases with CRP machines and those without, an analysis of the number of and reasons for the tests performed, and qualitative interviews with clinicians. Antibiotic prescription rates declined during follow-up, but with no clear difference between the two groups of out-of-hours practices. A single base contributed 217 of the 248 CRP tests performed. Clinicians reported that the tests supported decision making and communication about not prescribing antibiotics, where having 'objective' numbers were helpful in navigating non-prescribing decisions and highlighted the challenges of training a fluctuant staff group and practical concerns about using the CRP machine. Service improvements to reduce prescribing antibiotics in out-of-hours primary care need to be developed with an understanding of the needs and context of this service.

Background: In diagnostic evaluation, it is necessary to assess the clinical impact of a new diagnostic as well as its diagnostic accuracy. The comparative interrupted time series design has been proposed as a quasi-experimental approach to evaluating interventions. We show how it can be used in the design of a study to evaluate a point-of-care diagnostic test for C-reactive protein in out-of-hours primary care services, to guide antibiotic prescribing among patients presenting with possible respiratory tract infection. This study consisted of a retrospective phase that used routinely collected monthly antibiotic prescribing data from different study sites, and a prospective phase in which antibiotic prescribing rates were monitored after the C-reactive protein diagnostic was introduced at some of the sites., Methods: Of 8 study sites, 3 were assigned to receive the diagnostic and 5 were assigned as controls. We obtained retrospective monthly time series of respiratory tract targeted antibiotic prescriptions at each site. Separate ARIMA models at each site were used these to forecast monthly prescription counts that would be expected in the prospective phase, using simulation to obtain a set of 1-year predictions alongside their standard errors. We show how these forecasts can be combined to test for a change in prescription rates after introduction of the diagnostic and estimate power to detect this change., Results: Fitted time series models at each site were stationary and showed second-order annual seasonality, with a clear December peak in prescriptions, although the timing and extent of the peak varied between sites and between years. Mean one-year predictions of antibiotic prescribing rates based on the retrospective time series analysis differed between sites assigned to receive the diagnostic and those assigned to control. Adjusting for the trend in the retrospective time series at each site removed these differences., Conclusions: Quasi-experimental designs such as comparative interrupted time series can be used in diagnostic evaluation to estimate effect sizes before conducting a full randomised controlled trial or if a randomised trial is infeasible. In multi-site studies, existing retrospective data should be used to adjust for underlying differences between sites to make outcome data from different sites comparable, when possible., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To inform point-of-care test (POCT) development, we quantified the primary care demand for laboratory microbiology tests by describing their frequencies overall, frequencies of positives, most common organisms identified, temporal trends in testing and patterns of cotesting on the same and subsequent dates., Design: Retrospective cohort study., Setting: Primary care practices in Oxfordshire., Participants: 393 905 patients (65% female; 49% aged 18-49)., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The frequencies of all microbiology tests requested between 2008 and 2018 were quantified. Patterns of cotesting were investigated with heat maps. All analyses were done overall, by sex and age categories., Results: 1 596 752 microbiology tests were requested. Urine culture±microscopy was the most common of all tests (n=673 612, 42%), was mainly requested without other tests and was the most common test requested in follow-up within 7 and 14 days. Of all urine cultures, 180 047 (27%) were positive and 172 651 (26%) showed mixed growth, and Escherichia coli was the most prevalent organism (132 277, 73% of positive urine cultures). Antenatal urine cultures and blood tests in pregnancy (hepatitis B, HIV and syphilis) formed a common test combination, consistent with their use in antenatal screening., Conclusions: The greatest burden of microbiology testing in primary care is attributable to urine culture ± microscopy; genital and routine antenatal urine and blood testing are also significant contributors. Further research should focus on the feasibility and impact of POCTs for these specimen types., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020, the UK government began a mass severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing program. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of organized regular self-testing for SARS-CoV-2., Methods: This was a mixed-methods observational cohort study in asymptomatic students and staff at University of Oxford, who performed SARS-CoV-2 antigen lateral flow self-testing. Data on uptake and adherence, acceptability, and test interpretation were collected via a smartphone app, an online survey, and qualitative interviews., Results: Across 3 main sites, 551 participants (25% of those invited) performed 2728 tests during a follow-up of 5.6 weeks; 447 participants (81%) completed at least 2 tests, and 340 (62%) completed at least 4. The survey, completed by 214 participants (39%), found that 98% of people were confident to self-test and believed self-testing to be beneficial. Acceptability of self-testing was high, with 91% of ratings being acceptable or very acceptable. A total of 2711 (99.4%) test results were negative, 9 were positive, and 8 were inconclusive. Results from 18 qualitative interviews with students and staff revealed that participants valued regular testing, but there were concerns about test accuracy that impacted uptake and adherence., Conclusions: This is the first study to assess feasibility and acceptability of regular SARS-CoV-2 self-testing. It provides evidence to inform recruitment for, adherence to, and acceptability of regular SARS-CoV-2 self-testing programs for asymptomatic individuals using lateral flow tests. We found that self-testing is acceptable and people were able to interpret results accurately., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background and Objectives: As teaching technology advances, medical education is increasingly using digital mediums and exploring instructional models such as the flipped classroom and blended learning courses, where the in-class taught sessions are more groups on content delivered before class. Early evidence suggests lectures and foundational material can be equally provided online, but we have low-quality research to be convinced. We aim to test and develop an online evidence-based teaching resource that seeks to improve the availability and scalability of evidence-based medicine (EBM) learning tools. We evaluate the feasibility of a study design that could test for changes in academic performance in EBM skills using an online supplement., Methods: Mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in an undergraduate medical student cohort., Results: Of a small cohort (n=34), eight participants agreed to randomisation and completed the study. No study participant completed the EBM supplementary course in full. Students report time-management as a significant barrier in participation, and all aspects of the study and communications should be delivered with efficiency a key consideration., Conclusion: Randomising students to an online EBM supplement within a medical school programme presents challenges of recruitment and student motivation, but the study design is potentially feasible., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The online course intervention design and its implementation were a joint initiative of MCMcC and CH. DMcC and DY work within the medical sciences division to administer teaching in the medical school programme. DN and MCMcC have presented this course as part of a sample curriculum in teaching evidence-based medicine. CH, TRF and DN are paid faculty who teach on the evidence-based health care (EBHC) programme, Oxford University. MCMcC is also part-time lecturer on the EBHC programme., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Electronic cigarettes (ECs) are handheld electronic vaping devices which produce an aerosol formed by heating an e-liquid. Some people who smoke use ECs to stop or reduce smoking, but some organizations, advocacy groups and policymakers have discouraged this, citing lack of evidence of efficacy and safety. People who smoke, healthcare providers and regulators want to know if ECs can help people quit and if they are safe to use for this purpose. This is an update conducted as part of a living systematic review., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of using electronic cigarettes (ECs) to help people who smoke tobacco achieve long-term smoking abstinence., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to 1 May 2021, and reference-checked and contacted study authors. We screened abstracts from the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SRNT) 2021 Annual Meeting.   SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized cross-over trials, in which people who smoke were randomized to an EC or control condition. We also included uncontrolled intervention studies in which all participants received an EC intervention. Studies had to report abstinence from cigarettes at six months or longer or data on safety markers at one week or longer, or both., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening and data extraction. Our primary outcome measures were abstinence from smoking after at least six months follow-up, adverse events (AEs), and serious adverse events (SAEs). Secondary outcomes included the proportion of people still using study product (EC or pharmacotherapy) at six or more months after randomization or starting EC use, changes in carbon monoxide (CO), blood pressure (BP), heart rate, arterial oxygen saturation, lung function, and levels of carcinogens or toxicants or both. We used a fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous outcomes. For continuous outcomes, we calculated mean differences. Where appropriate, we pooled data in meta-analyses., Main Results: We included 61 completed studies, representing 16,759 participants, of which 34 were RCTs. Five of the 61 included studies were new to this review update. Of the included studies, we rated seven (all contributing to our main comparisons) at low risk of bias overall, 42 at high risk overall (including all non-randomized studies), and the remainder at unclear risk. There was moderate-certainty evidence, limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than in those randomized to nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (risk ratio (RR) 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.93; I 2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1924 participants). In absolute terms, this might translate to an additional three quitters per 100 (95% CI 1 to 6). There was low-certainty evidence (limited by very serious imprecision) that the rate of occurrence of AEs was similar (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 485 participants). SAEs were rare, but there was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates differed between groups due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.90: I 2 = 0; 4 studies, 1424 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence, again limited by imprecision, that quit rates were higher in people randomized to nicotine EC than to non-nicotine EC (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.13; I 2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1447 participants). In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional seven quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 16). There was moderate-certainty evidence of no difference in the rate of AEs between these groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.11; I 2 = 0%; 3 studies, 601 participants). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups, due to very serious imprecision (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.38; I 2 = 0; 5 studies, 792 participants). Compared to behavioural support only/no support, quit rates were higher for participants randomized to nicotine EC (RR 2.61, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.74; I 2 = 0%; 6 studies, 2886 participants). In absolute terms this represents an additional six quitters per 100 (95% CI 2 to 15). However, this finding was of very low certainty, due to issues with imprecision and risk of bias. There was some evidence that non-serious AEs were more common in people randomized to nicotine EC (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.32; I 2 = 41%, low certainty; 4 studies, 765 participants), and again, insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of SAEs differed between groups (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.70 to 3.24; I 2 = 0%; 7 studies, 1303 participants).  Data from non-randomized studies were consistent with RCT data. The most commonly reported AEs were throat/mouth irritation, headache, cough, and nausea, which tended to dissipate with continued use. Very few studies reported data on other outcomes or comparisons, hence evidence for these is limited, with CIs often encompassing clinically significant harm and benefit., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that ECs with nicotine increase quit rates compared to NRT and compared to ECs without nicotine. Evidence comparing nicotine EC with usual care/no treatment also suggests benefit, but is less certain. More studies are needed to confirm the effect size. Confidence intervals were for the most part wide for data on AEs, SAEs and other safety markers, with no difference in AEs between nicotine and non-nicotine ECs. Overall incidence of SAEs was low across all study arms. We did not detect  evidence of harm from nicotine EC, but longest follow-up was two years and the  number of studies was small. The main limitation of the evidence base remains imprecision due to the small number of RCTs, often with low event rates, but further RCTs are underway. To ensure the review continues to provide up-to-date information to decision-makers, this review is now a living systematic review. We run searches monthly, with the review updated when relevant new evidence becomes available. Please refer to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for the review's current status., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials)., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Main Results: We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I 2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I 2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I 2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I 2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I 2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Smoking is a leading cause of disease and death worldwide. In people who smoke, quitting smoking can reverse much of the damage. Many people use behavioural interventions to help them quit smoking; these interventions can vary substantially in their content and effectiveness., Objectives: To summarise the evidence from Cochrane Reviews that assessed the effect of behavioural interventions designed to support smoking cessation attempts and to conduct a network meta-analysis to determine how modes of delivery; person delivering the intervention; and the nature, focus, and intensity of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation influence the likelihood of achieving abstinence six months after attempting to stop smoking; and whether the effects of behavioural interventions depend upon other characteristics, including population, setting, and the provision of pharmacotherapy. To summarise the availability and principal findings of economic evaluations of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation, in terms of comparative costs and cost-effectiveness, in the form of a brief economic commentary., Methods: This work comprises two main elements. 1. We conducted a Cochrane Overview of reviews following standard Cochrane methods. We identified Cochrane Reviews of behavioural interventions (including all non-pharmacological interventions, e.g. counselling, exercise, hypnotherapy, self-help materials) for smoking cessation by searching the Cochrane Library in July 2020. We evaluated the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2 and synthesised data from the reviews narratively. 2. We used the included reviews to identify randomised controlled trials of behavioural interventions for smoking cessation compared with other behavioural interventions or no intervention for smoking cessation. To be included, studies had to include adult smokers and measure smoking abstinence at six months or longer. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment followed standard Cochrane methods. We synthesised data using Bayesian component network meta-analysis (CNMA), examining the effects of 38 different components compared to minimal intervention. Components included behavioural and motivational elements, intervention providers, delivery modes, nature, focus, and intensity of the behavioural intervention. We used component network meta-regression (CNMR) to evaluate the influence of population characteristics, provision of pharmacotherapy, and intervention intensity on the component effects. We evaluated certainty of the evidence using GRADE domains. We assumed an additive effect for individual components., Main Results: We included 33 Cochrane Reviews, from which 312 randomised controlled trials, representing 250,563 participants and 845 distinct study arms, met the criteria for inclusion in our component network meta-analysis. This represented 437 different combinations of components. Of the 33 reviews, confidence in review findings was high in four reviews and moderate in nine reviews, as measured by the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool. The remaining 20 reviews were low or critically low due to one or more critical weaknesses, most commonly inadequate investigation or discussion (or both) of the impact of publication bias. Of note, the critical weaknesses identified did not affect the searching, screening, or data extraction elements of the review process, which have direct bearing on our CNMA. Of the included studies, 125/312 were at low risk of bias overall, 50 were at high risk of bias, and the remainder were at unclear risk. Analyses from the contributing reviews and from our CNMA showed behavioural interventions for smoking cessation can increase quit rates, but effectiveness varies on characteristics of the support provided. There was high-certainty evidence of benefit for the provision of counselling (odds ratio (OR) 1.44, 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.22 to 1.70, 194 studies, n = 72,273) and guaranteed financial incentives (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 1.15 to 1.85, 19 studies, n = 8877). Evidence of benefit remained when removing studies at high risk of bias. These findings were consistent with pair-wise meta-analyses from contributing reviews. There was moderate-certainty evidence of benefit for interventions delivered via text message (downgraded due to unexplained statistical heterogeneity in pair-wise comparison), and for the following components where point estimates suggested benefit but CrIs incorporated no clinically significant difference: individual tailoring; intervention content including motivational components; intervention content focused on how to quit. The remaining intervention components had low-to very low-certainty evidence, with the main issues being imprecision and risk of bias. There was no evidence to suggest an increase in harms in groups receiving behavioural support for smoking cessation. Intervention effects were not changed by adjusting for population characteristics, but data were limited. Increasing intensity of behavioural support, as measured through the number of contacts, duration of each contact, and programme length, had point estimates associated with modestly increased chances of quitting, but CrIs included no difference. The effect of behavioural support for smoking cessation appeared slightly less pronounced when people were already receiving smoking cessation pharmacotherapies., Authors' Conclusions: Behavioural support for smoking cessation can increase quit rates at six months or longer, with no evidence that support increases harms. This is the case whether or not smoking cessation pharmacotherapy is also provided, but the effect is slightly more pronounced in the absence of pharmacotherapy. Evidence of benefit is strongest for the provision of any form of counselling, and guaranteed financial incentives. Evidence suggested possible benefit but the need of further studies to evaluate: individual tailoring; delivery via text message, email, and audio recording; delivery by lay health advisor; and intervention content with motivational components and a focus on how to quit. We identified 23 economic evaluations; evidence did not consistently suggest one type of behavioural intervention for smoking cessation was more cost-effective than another. Future reviews should fully consider publication bias. Tools to investigate publication bias and to evaluate certainty in CNMA are needed., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Physical health outcomes in severe mental illness are worse than in the general population. Routine physical health check completion in this group is poor., Aims: To quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate the impact of point of care (POC) blood testing on physical health check completion in community mental health services., Method: In a prospective cohort design, we equipped an early intervention service (EIS) and a community mental health team (CMHT) with a POC blood testing device for 6 months. We compared rates of blood test and full physical health check completion in the intervention teams with a matched EIS and CMHT, historically and during the intervention. We explored attitudes to POC testing using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with patients and clinicians., Results: Although the CMHT scarcely used the POC device and saw no change in outcomes, direct comparison of testing rates in the intervention period showed increased physical health check completion in the EIS with the device (rate ratio RR = 5.18; 95% CI 2.54-12.44; P < 0.001) compared with usual care. The rate was consistent with the EIS's increasing rate of testing over time (RR = 0.45; 95% 0.09-2.08; P = 0.32). Similar trends were seen in blood test completion. POC testing was acceptable to patients but clinicians reported usability, provision and impact on the therapeutic relationship as barriers to uptake., Conclusions: POC testing was beneficial and acceptable to patients and may increase physical health check uptake. Further research, accounting for clinician barriers, is needed to evaluate its clinical and cost-effectiveness.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Reactive arthritis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Guillain-Barré syndrome, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease may be sequelae of Campylobacter or non-typhoidal Salmonella (NTS) infections. Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) and antibiotics may increase the risk of gastrointestinal infections (GII); however, their impact on sequelae onset is unclear. We investigated the incidence of sequelae, their association with antibiotics and PPI prescription, and assessed the economic impact on the NHS., Methods: Data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink for patients consulting their GP for Campylobacter or NTS infection, during 2000-2015, were linked to hospital, mortality, and Index of Multiple Deprivation data. We estimated the incidence of sequelae and deaths in the 12 months following GII. We conducted logistic regression modelling for the adjusted association with prescriptions. We compared differences in resource use and costs pre- and post-infection amongst patients with and without sequelae., Findings: Of 20,471 patients with GII (Campylobacter 17,838), less than 2% (347) developed sequelae, with IBS (268) most common. Amongst Campylobacter patients, those with prescriptions for PPI within 12 months before and cephalosporins within 7-days before/after infection had elevated risk of IBS (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.1, 1.5-2.9) and (aOR 3.6, 1.1-11.7) respectively. Campylobacter sequelae led to ∼ £1.3 million, (£750,000, £1.7 million) in additional annual NHS expenditure., Interpretation: Sequelae of Campylobacter and NTS infections are rare but associated with increased NHS costs. Prior prescription of PPI may be a modifiable risk factor. Incidence of sequelae, healthcare resource use and costs are essential parameters for future burden of disease studies., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest RP received funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Co-operative, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration Oxford and Thames Valley, and the Oxford Martin School during the conduct of the study., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Acute lower respiratory tract infections (ALRTIs) account for most antibiotics prescribed in primary care despite lack of efficacy, partly due to clinician uncertainty about aetiology and patient concerns about illness course. Nucleic acid amplification tests could assist antibiotic targeting., Methods: In this prospective cohort study, 645 patients presenting to primary care with acute cough and suspected ALRTI, provided throat swabs at baseline. These were tested for respiratory pathogens by real-time polymerase chain reaction and classified as having a respiratory virus, bacteria, both or neither. Three hundred fifty-four participants scored the symptoms severity daily for 1 week in a diary (0 = absent to 4 = severe problem)., Results: Organisms were identified in 346/645 (53.6%) participants. There were differences in the prevalence of seven symptoms between the organism groups at baseline. Those with a virus alone, and those with both virus and bacteria, had higher average severity scores of all symptoms combined during the week of follow-up than those in whom no organisms were detected [adjusted mean differences 0.204 (95% confidence interval 0.010 to 0.398) and 0.348 (0.098 to 0.598), respectively]. There were no differences in the duration of symptoms rated as moderate or severe between organism groups., Conclusions: Differences in presenting symptoms and symptoms severity can be identified between patients with viruses and bacteria identified on throat swabs. The magnitude of these differences is unlikely to influence management. Most patients had mild symptoms at 7 days regardless of aetiology, which could inform patients about likely symptom duration., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)