Search

Background Depression is common in people with dementia, and negatively affects quality of life. Aims This paper aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intervention for depression in mild and moderate dementia caused by Alzheimer's disease over 12 months (PATHFINDER trial), from both the health and social care and societal perspectives. Method A total of 336 participants were randomised to receive the adapted PATH intervention in addition to treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 168) or TAU alone (n = 168). Health and social care resource use were collected with the Client Service Receipt Inventory and health-related quality-of-life data with the EQ-5D-5L instrument at baseline and 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-up points. Principal analysis comprised quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) calculated from the participant responses to the EQ-5D-5L instrument. Results The mean cost of the adapted PATH intervention was estimated at £1141 per PATHFINDER participant. From a health and social care perspective, the mean difference in costs between the adapted PATH and control arm at 12 months was −£74 (95% CI −£1942 to £1793), and from the societal perspective was −£671 (95% CI −£9144 to £7801). The mean difference in QALYs was 0.027 (95% CI −0.004 to 0.059). At £20 000 per QALY gained threshold, there were 74 and 68% probabilities of adapted PATH being cost-effective from the health and social care and societal perspective, respectively. Conclusions The addition of the adapted PATH intervention to TAU for people with dementia and depression generated cost savings alongside a higher quality of life compared with TAU alone; however, the improvements in costs and QALYs were not statistically significant.

Abstract Background Rates of compulsory (also known as involuntary) detention under mental health legislation have been rising over several decades in countries including England. Avoiding such detentions should be a high priority given their potentially traumatic nature and departure from usual ethical principles of consent and collaboration. Those who have been detained previously are at high risk of being detained again, and thus a priority group for preventive interventions. In a very sparse literature, interventions based on crisis planning emerge as having more supporting evidence than other approaches to preventing compulsory detention. Method We have adapted and manualised an intervention previously trialled in Zürich Switzerland, aimed at reducing future compulsory detentions among people being discharged following a psychiatric admission that has included a period of compulsory detention. A co-production group including people with relevant lived and clinical experience has co-designed the adaptations to the intervention, drawing on evidence on crisis planning and self-management and on qualitative interviews with service users and clinicians. We will conduct a randomised controlled feasibility trial of the intervention, randomising 80 participants to either the intervention in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures will be assessed through process evaluation (including rates of randomisation, recruitment, and retention) and qualitative interviews. We will also assess and report on planned trial outcomes. The planned primary outcome for a full trial is repeat compulsory detention within one year of randomisation, and secondary outcomes include compulsory detention within 2 years, and symptoms, service satisfaction, self-rated recovery, self-management confidence, and service engagement. A health economic evaluation is also included. Discussion This feasibility study, and any subsequent full trial, will add to a currently limited literature on interventions to prevent involuntary detention, a goal valued highly by service users, carers, clinicians, and policymakers. There are significant potential impediments to recruiting and retaining this group, whose experiences of mental health care have often been negative and traumatising, and who are at high risk of disengagement. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN11627644. Registered 25th May 2022, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN11627644 .

Background: Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) can be administered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) injections in the clinic or as sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) tablets at home after initiation under medical supervision. To achieve long-term, sustained effects, a 3-year treatment duration is recommended. Objective: Our aim was to assess the association of AIT (SCIT and SLIT tablets) with long-term health care resource use (HRU) and costs in subjects with allergic rhinitis. Methods: REACT was a retrospective propensity score–matched cohort study using claims data from a German health insurance database (2007-2017), with up to 9 years of follow-up after AIT initiation. HRU and costs were evaluated for hospitalizations, ambulatory care visits, and prescriptions, in subjects who received AIT versus in matched controls with allergic rhinitis who had not received AIT, as well as for SCIT and SLIT tablets. Results: Across all 9 years, the subjects who received AIT had a significantly lower incidence of hospitalization than the controls did. Generally, proportions of subjects with ambulatory care visits and hospitalizations were lower, and length of hospitalization was shorter, for those receiving SLIT tablets than those who received SCIT. Total costs were significantly higher with AIT versus for the controls during the treatment period (years 1 to 3), driven by prescriptions and ambulatory care visits, but they were lower in years 4 to 9. During years 1 to 3, prescription costs were generally higher for SLIT tablets than for SCIT, whereas ambulatory care costs were numerically lower. In most years, hospitalization costs were numerically lower for SLIT tablets than for SCIT. Conclusion: Initial higher HRU and costs of AIT during the expected treatment period are offset in the long term. At-home administration of SLIT tablets may further reduce ambulatory care costs.

ObjectiveThe best aortic prosthesis type in 60-70 year old patients is not established. Our aim was to evaluate the survival in a National cohort of patients between 60-70 years old who required surgical aortic valve replacement for aortic stenosis (SAVR) with either a mechanical (MP) or bioprosthesis (BP) valve.MethodsThis is a retrospective study using national data from the Ministry of Health. We included all patients between 60 to 70 years old who underwent SAVR for aortic stenosis in Uruguay from 2011 to 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival according to type of prosthesis used stratified by effect modifiers. The independent effects of gender and use of statins were evaluated.ResultsWe included 1196 patients (66±3.0 years old; 39.1% female). Mortality was higher for BP (296, 29.9%%) than MP (36, 17.1%; pConclusionThe use of BP was associated with worse survival in male patients and patients not taking statins. Gender and statins use should contribute to type of prosthesis decision in the 60-69 age group.

Introduction Care home residents have experienced significant morbidity, mortality and disruption following outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of care home staff was introduced to reduce transmission of infection, but it is unclear whether this remains beneficial. This trial aims to investigate whether use of regular asymptomatic staff testing, alongside funding to reimburse sick pay for those who test positive and meet costs of employing agency staff, is a feasible and effective strategy to reduce COVID-19 impact in care homes.Methods and analysis The VIVALDI-Clinical Trial is a multicentre, open-label, cluster randomised controlled, phase III/IV superiority trial in up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. All regular and agency staff will be enrolled, excepting those who opt out. Homes will be randomised to the intervention arm (twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2) or the control arm (current national testing guidance). Staff who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 will self-isolate and receive sick pay. Care providers will be reimbursed for costs associated with employing temporary staff to backfill for absence arising directly from the trial.The trial will be delivered by a multidisciplinary research team through a series of five work packages.The primary outcome is the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of outbreaks and home closures. Health economic and modelling analyses will investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost consequences of the testing intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews will be conducted to understand intervention roll out and identify areas for optimisation to inform future intervention scale-up, should the testing approach prove effective and cost-effective. Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to enable the sector to plan for results and their implications and to coproduce recommendations on the use of testing for policy-makers.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by the London—Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number 22/LO/0846) and the Health Research Authority (22/CAG/0165). The results of the trial will be disseminated regardless of the direction of effect. The publication of the results will comply with a trial-specific publication policy and will include submission to open access journals. A lay summary of the results will also be produced to disseminate the results to participants.Trial registration number ISRCTN13296529.

Abstract Background Bacterial infection is a major cause of mortality in patients with cirrhosis. Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is a serious and common infection in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Secondary prophylactic antibiotic therapy has been shown to improve outcomes after an episode of SBP but primary prophylaxis to prevent the first episode of SBP remains contentious. The aim of this trial is to assess whether primary antibiotic prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole improves overall survival compared to placebo in adults with cirrhosis and ascites. Methods The ASEPTIC trial is a multicentre, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) in England, Scotland, and Wales. Patients aged 18 years and older with cirrhosis and ascites requiring diuretic treatment or paracentesis, and no current or previous episodes of SBP, are eligible, subject to exclusion criteria. The trial aims to recruit 432 patients from at least 30 sites. Patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either oral co-trimoxazole 960 mg or an identical placebo once daily for 18 months, with 6 monthly follow-up visits thereafter (with a maximum possible follow-up period of 48 months, and a minimum of 18 months). The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include the time to the first incidence of SBP, hospital admission rates, incidence of other infections (including Clostridium difficile) and antimicrobial resistance, patients’ health-related quality of life, health and social care resource use, incidence of cirrhosis-related decompensation events, liver transplantation, and treatment-related serious adverse events. Discussion This trial will investigate the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of co-trimoxazole for patients with liver cirrhosis and ascites to determine whether this strategy improves clinical outcomes. Given there are no treatments that improve survival in decompensated cirrhosis outside of liver transplant, if the trial has a positive outcome, we anticipate widespread adoption of primary antibiotic prophylaxis. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT043955365 . Registered on 18 April 2020. Research ethical approval was granted by the Research Ethics Committee (South Central – Oxford B; REC 19/SC/0311) and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a major cause of emergency hospital admissions, but it remains challenging to diagnose them reliably. Application of machine learning (ML) to routine patient data could support clinical decision-making. We developed a ML model predicting bacteriuria in the ED and evaluated its performance in key patient groups to determine scope for its future use to improve UTI diagnosis and thus guide antibiotic prescribing decisions in clinical practice. We used retrospective electronic health records from a large UK hospital (2011-2019). Non-pregnant adults who attended the ED and had a urine sample cultured were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was predominant bacterial growth ≥104 cfu/mL in urine. Predictors included demography, medical history, ED diagnoses, blood tests, and urine flow cytometry. Linear and tree-based models were trained via repeated cross-validation, re-calibrated, and validated on data from 2018/19. Changes in performance were investigated by age, sex, ethnicity, and suspected ED diagnosis, and compared to clinical judgement. Among 12,680 included samples, 4,677 (36.9%) showed bacterial growth. Relying primarily on flow cytometry parameters, our best model achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.813 (95% CI 0.792-0.834) in the test data, and achieved both higher sensitivity and specificity compared to proxies of clinician's judgement. Performance remained stable for white and non-white patients but was lower during a period of laboratory procedure change in 2015, in patients ≥65 years (AUC 0.783, 95% CI 0.752-0.815), and in men (AUC 0.758, 95% CI 0.717-0.798). Performance was also slightly reduced in patients with recorded suspicion of UTI (AUC 0.797, 95% CI 0.765-0.828). Our results suggest scope for use of ML to inform antibiotic prescribing decisions by improving diagnosis of suspected UTI in the ED, but performance varied with patient characteristics. Clinical utility of predictive models for UTI is therefore likely to differ for important patient subgroups including women

Summary: Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly prescribed to prevent and treat upper gastrointestinal ulceration and bleeding. Studies have identified increased incidence of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and hepatic encephalopathy (HE) in cirrhosis patients taking PPIs. However, results are conflicting, and as PPIs are prescribed for variceal bleeding, a major risk factor for infection and HE, it is challenging to discern whether these associations are causal. Methods: In this post-hoc analysis of the ATTIRE trial, we pooled all patient data to investigate the effects of PPI use on clinical outcomes. ATTIRE was a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial of targeted 20% human albumin solution (HAS) daily infusions versus standard care involving 777 adults with decompensated cirrhosis hospitalised with acute complications and albumin 10 times the incidence of variceal bleeding and near double the 28-day mortality compared to non-PPI patients. However, propensity score matching was not possible as there was such a strong selection of patients for PPI use, that we could not find sufficient non-PPI patients to match to. We found no impact of PPI use on plasma markers of bacterial translocation, infection or systemic inflammation. Interpretations: Our real-world data from a completed randomised trial show that PPIs are widely prescribed in the UK and judicious use appears safe in patients hospitalised with decompensated cirrhosis. However, patients prescribed PPIs had fundamentally different phenotypes to those not prescribed PPIs, a form of confounding by indication, which should be strongly considered when interpreting studies and making recommendations about their use. Funding: Wellcome Trust and Department of Health and Social Care.

ObjectivesIn randomized-controlled crossover design trials, overall survival (OS) treatment effect estimates are often confounded by the control group benefiting from treatment received post-progression. We estimated the adjusted OS treatment effect in EMPOWER-Lung 1 (NCT03088540) by accounting for the potential impact of crossover to cemiplimab among controls and continued cemiplimab treatment post-progression.MethodsPatients were randomly assigned 1:1 to cemiplimab 350 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) or platinum-doublet chemotherapy. Patients with disease progression while on or after chemotherapy could receive cemiplimab 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 weeks. Those who experienced progression on cemiplimab could continue cemiplimab at 350 mg Q3W for ≤108 additional weeks with four chemotherapy cycles added. Three adjustment methods accounted for crossover and/or continued treatment: simplified two-stage correction (with or without recensoring), inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW), and rank-preserving structural failure time model (RPSFT; with or without recensoring).ResultsIn the programmed cell death-ligand 1 ≥50% population (N=563; median 10.8-month follow-up), 38.2% (n=107/280) crossed over from chemotherapy to cemiplimab (71.3%, n=107/150, among those with confirmed progression) and 16.3% (n=46/283) received cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy (38.7%, n=46/119, among those with confirmed progression). The unadjusted OS hazard ratio (HR) with cemiplimab versus chemotherapy was 0.566 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.418, 0.767). Simplified two-stage correction—the most suitable method based on published guidelines and trial characteristics—produced an OS HR of 0.490 (95% CI: 0.365, 0.654) without recensoring and 0.493 (95% CI: 0.361, 0.674) with recensoring. The IPCW and RPSFT methods produced estimates generally consistent with simplified two-stage correction.ConclusionsAfter adjusting for treatment crossover and continued cemiplimab treatment after progression with the addition of histology-specific chemotherapy observed in EMPOWER-Lung 1, cemiplimab continued to demonstrate a clinically important and statistically significant OS benefit versus chemotherapy, consistent with the primary analysis.

BackgroundRespiratory allergy, commonly manifesting as allergic rhinitis (AR) and asthma, is a chronic progressive disease that frequently starts in childhood. Allergy immunotherapy (AIT) is the only causal treatment for respiratory allergy with the potential to modify the underlying cause of allergy and, ultimately, prevent disease progression. This analysis aimed to determine if AIT is received sufficiently early to halt the progression of allergic disease, by characterizing the burden and progression of disease in children prior to AIT initiation in real-life clinical practice.MethodsThe REAl-world effeCtiveness in allergy immunoTherapy (REACT) study was a large retrospective cohort study using German claims data between 2007 and 2017. Characteristics of two pre-defined AIT age cohorts from the REACT study – children (aged

Abstract Background Antipsychotic medication can reduce psychotic symptoms and risk of relapse in people with schizophrenia and related disorders, but it is not always effective and adverse effects can be significant. We know little of patients’ views about continuing or discontinuing antipsychotic treatment. Aims To explore the views of people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders about continuing their antipsychotic medication or attempting to reduce or discontinue this medication with clinical support. Methods We collected quantitative and qualitative data by conducting semi-structured interviews in London, UK. Factors predicting a desire to discontinue medication were explored. Content analysis of qualitative data was undertaken. Results We interviewed 269 participants. 33% (95% CI, 27 to 39%) were content with taking long-term antipsychotic medication. Others reported they took it reluctantly (19%), accepted it on a temporary basis (24%) or actively disliked it (18%). 31% (95% CI, 25 to 37%) said they would like to try to stop medication with professional support, and 45% (95% CI, 39 to 51%) wanted the opportunity to reduce medication. People who wanted to discontinue had more negative attitudes towards the medication but were otherwise similar to other participants. Wanting to stop or reduce medication was motivated mainly by adverse effects and health concerns. Professional support was identified as potentially helpful to achieve reduction. Conclusions This large study reveals that patients are commonly unhappy about the idea of taking antipsychotics on a continuing or life-long basis. Professional support for people who want to try to reduce or stop medication is valued.

Summary: Background: Nonselective B-blockers (NSBBs) are believed to have pleiotropic effects beyond reducing portal pressure. However, studies also report potential harm in patients hospitalized with cirrhosis and ascites. We therefore investigated whether NSBB use at ATTIRE trial entry (Albumin to prevent infection in chronic liver failure, 2016-19) was associated with increased renal or cardiovascular dysfunction, compared the incidence of infection and plasma markers of systemic inflammation, and examined mortality at 28-days, 3 and 6-months. Methods: In ATTIRE patients grouped by NSBB use at trial entry, we studied infection at baseline, hospital acquired infection and organ dysfunction during trial treatment period and mortality, with propensity score matching to account for differences in disease severity. Findings: There were no differences in renal or cardiovascular dysfunction between patients treated with NSBBs or not, during days 3–15 of hospitalization, despite elevated serum creatinine in NSBB patients at hospitalisation. Use of NSBBs was associated with a significant reduction in infection at hospitalization (p = 0.006), lower white cell counts throughout hospital stay (p

Abstract Early psychosis is characterised by heterogeneity in illness trajectories, where outcomes remain poor for many. Understanding psychosis symptoms and their relation to illness outcomes, from a novel network perspective, may help to delineate psychopathology within early psychosis and identify pivotal targets for intervention. Using network modelling in first episode psychosis (FEP), this study aimed to identify: (a) key central and bridge symptoms most influential in symptom networks, and (b) examine the structure and stability of the networks at baseline and 12-month follow-up. Data on 1027 participants with FEP were taken from the National EDEN longitudinal study and used to create regularised partial correlation networks using the ‘EBICglasso’ algorithm for positive, negative, and depressive symptoms at baseline and at 12-months. Centrality and bridge estimations were computed using a permutation-based network comparison test. Depression featured as a central symptom in both the baseline and 12-month networks. Conceptual disorganisation, stereotyped thinking, along with hallucinations and suspiciousness featured as key bridge symptoms across the networks. The network comparison test revealed that the strength and bridge centralities did not differ significantly between the two networks (C = 0.096153; p = 0.22297). However, the network structure and connectedness differed significantly from baseline to follow-up (M = 0.16405, p =

BackgroundEarly antiviral treatment is effective for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) but currently available agents are expensive. Favipiravir is routinely used in many countries, but efficacy is unproven. Antiviral combinations have not been systematically studied. We aimed to evaluate the effect of favipiravir, lopinavir-ritonavir or the combination of both agents on Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) viral load trajectory when administered early.Methods and findingsWe conducted a Phase 2, proof of principle, randomised, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial, double-blind trial of ambulatory outpatients with early COVID-19 (within 7 days of symptom onset) at 2 sites in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomised using a centralised online process to receive: favipiravir (1,800 mg twice daily on Day 1 followed by 400 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7) plus lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200 mg/50 mg 4 times daily on Days 2 to 7), favipiravir plus lopinavir-ritonavir placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir plus favipiravir placebo, or both placebos. The primary outcome was SARS-CoV-2 viral load at Day 5, accounting for baseline viral load. Between 6 October 2020 and 4 November 2021, we recruited 240 participants. For the favipiravir+lopinavir-ritonavir, favipiravir+placebo, lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo, and placebo-only arms, we recruited 61, 59, 60, and 60 participants and analysed 55, 56, 55, and 58 participants, respectively, who provided viral load measures at Day 1 and Day 5. In the primary analysis, the mean viral load in the favipiravir+placebo arm had changed by -0.57 log10 (95% CI -1.21 to 0.07, p = 0.08) and in the lopinavir-ritonavir+placebo arm by -0.18 log10 (95% CI -0.82 to 0.46, p = 0.58) compared to the placebo arm at Day 5. There was no significant interaction between favipiravir and lopinavir-ritonavir (interaction coefficient term: 0.59 log10, 95% CI -0.32 to 1.50, p = 0.20). More participants had undetectable virus at Day 5 in the favipiravir+placebo arm compared to placebo only (46.3% versus 26.9%, odds ratio (OR): 2.47, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.65; p = 0.03). Adverse events were observed more frequently with lopinavir-ritonavir, mainly gastrointestinal disturbance. Favipiravir drug levels were lower in the combination arm than the favipiravir monotherapy arm, possibly due to poor absorption. The major limitation was that the study population was relatively young and healthy compared to those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsAt the current doses, no treatment significantly reduced viral load in the primary analysis. Favipiravir requires further evaluation with consideration of dose escalation. Lopinavir-ritonavir administration was associated with lower plasma favipiravir concentrations.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT04499677 EudraCT: 2020-002106-68.

Background: For patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and high (⩾50%) programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression, effective first-line immune-oncology monotherapies with significant survival benefits are approved, cemiplimab being the most recent. In a phase III trial, cemiplimab demonstrated significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus chemotherapy in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%. A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to identify/compare the efficacy/safety of cemiplimab versus pembrolizumab or other immune-oncology monotherapies from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2010 to November 2020. Methods: Relevant RCTs were identified by searching databases and conference proceedings as per ISPOR, NICE, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. NMA with time-varying hazard ratios (HRs) was performed for OS and PFS. Analyses were conducted for objective response rate (ORR) and safety/tolerability. Fixed-effect models were used due to limited evidence. Various sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the base case analyses. Results: The feasibility assessment determined that EMPOWER-Lung 1, KEYNOTE-024, and KEYNOTE-042 trials were eligible. IMpower110 was excluded because an incompatible PD-L1 assay (SP142) was used for patient selection. For first-line advanced NSCLC with PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab was associated with statistically significant improvements in PFS [HR (95% credible interval [CrI]): 0.65 (0.50–0.86), 1–12 months] and ORR [odds ratio (OR) (95% CrI): 1.64 (1.04–2.62)], and comparable OS [HR (95% CrI): 0.77 (0.54–1.10), 1–12 months] versus pembrolizumab. There was no evidence of differences between cemiplimab and pembrolizumab for Grade 3–5 adverse events (AEs) [OR (95% CrI): 1.47 (0.83–2.60)], immune-mediated AEs [1.75 (0.33–7.49)], and all-cause discontinuation due to AEs [1.21 (0.58–2.61)]. Conclusions: Considering the limitations of indirect treatment comparisons, in patients with advanced NSCLC and PD-L1 ⩾50%, cemiplimab monotherapy demonstrated significant improvements in PFS and ORR, comparable OS, and no evidence of differences in safety/tolerability versus pembrolizumab.

Abstract Objectives The objective of this trial is to assess whether early antiviral therapy in outpatients with COVID-19 with either favipiravir plus lopinavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir alone, or favipiravir alone, is associated with a decrease in viral load of SARS-CoV-2 compared with placebo. Trial design FLARE is a phase IIA randomised, double-blind, 2x2 factorial placebo-controlled, interventional trial. Participants This trial is being conducted in the United Kingdom, with Royal Free Hospital, London as the lead site. Participants are non-hospitalised adults with highly suspected COVID-19 within the first 5 days of symptom onset, or who have tested positive with SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19 within the first 7 days of symptom onset, or who are asymptomatic but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 for the first time within the last 48 hours. Inclusion criteria are as follows: 1. Any adult with the following: Symptoms compatible with COVID-19 disease (Fever >37.8°C on at least one occasion AND either cough and/ or anosmia) within the first 5 days of symptom onset (date/time of enrolment must be within the first 5 days of symptom onset) OR ANY symptoms compatible with COVID-19 disease (may include, but are not limited to fever, cough, shortness of breath, malaise, myalgia, headache, coryza) and tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the first 7 days of symptom onset) (date/time of enrolment must be within the first 7 days of symptom onset) OR no symptoms but tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within the last 48 hours (date/time of test must be within 48 hours of enrolment) 2. Male or female aged 18 years to 70 years old inclusive at screening 3. Willing and able to take daily saliva samples 4. Able to provide full informed consent and willing to comply with trial-related procedures Exclusion criteria are as follows: 1. Known hypersensitivity to any of the active ingredients or excipients in favipiravir and matched placebo, and in lopinavir/ritonavir and matched placebo (See Appendix 2) 2. Chronic liver disease at screening (known cirrhosis of any aetiology, chronic hepatitis (e.g. autoimmune, viral, steatohepatitis), cholangitis or any known elevation of liver aminotransferases with AST or ALT > 3 X ULN)* 3. Chronic kidney disease (stage 3 or beyond) at screening: eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 * 4. HIV infection, if untreated, detectable viral load or on protease inhibitor therapy 5. Any clinical condition which the investigator considers would make the participant unsuitable for the trial 6. Concomitant medications known to interact with favipiravir and matched placebo, and with lopinavir/ritonavir and matched placebo, and carry risk of toxicity for the participant 7. Current severe illness requiring hospitalisation 8. Pregnancy and/ or breastfeeding 9. Eligible female participants of childbearing potential and male participants with a partner of childbearing potential not willing to use highly effective contraceptive measures during the trial and within the time point specified following last trial treatment dose. 10. Participants enrolled in any other interventional drug or vaccine trial (co-enrolment in observational studies is acceptable) 11. Participants who have received the COVID-19 vaccine *Considering the importance of early treatment of COVID-19 to impact viral load, the absence of known chronic liver/ kidney disease will be confirmed verbally by the participant during pre-screening and Screening/Baseline visit. Safety blood samples will be collected at Screening/Baseline visit (Day 1) and test results will be examined as soon as they become available and within 24 hours. Intervention and comparator Participants will be randomised 1:1:1:1 using a concealed online minimisation process into one of the following four arms: Arm 1: Favipiravir + Lopinavir/ritonavir Oral favipiravir at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 2: Favipiravir + Lopinavir/ritonavir placebo Oral favipiravir at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir matched placebo at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 3: Favipiravir placebo + Lopinavir/ritonavir Oral favipiravir matched placebo at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Arm 4: Favipiravir placebo + Lopinavir/ritonavir placebo Oral favipiravir matched placebo at 1800mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 400mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7 PLUS lopinavir/ritonavir matched placebo at 400mg/100mg twice daily on Day 1, followed by 200mg/50mg four (4) times daily from Day 2 to Day 7. Main outcomes The primary outcome is upper respiratory tract viral load at Day 5. Secondary outcomes: Percentage of participants with undetectable upper respiratory tract viral load after 5 days of therapy Proportion of participants with undetectable stool viral load after 7 days of therapy Rate of decrease in upper respiratory tract viral load during 7 days of therapy Duration of fever following commencement of trial medications Proportion of participants with hepatotoxicity after 7 days of therapy Proportion of participants with other medication-related toxicity after 7 days of therapy and 14 days post-randomisation Proportion of participants admitted to hospital with COVID-19 related illness Proportion of participants admitted to ICU with COVID-19 related illness Proportion of participants who have died with COVID-19 related illness Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of favipiravir Exploratory: Proportion of participants with deleterious or resistance-conferring mutations in SARS-CoV-2 Randomisation Participants will be randomised 1:1:1:1 using a concealed online minimisation process, with the following factors: trial site, age (≤ 55 vs > 55 years old), gender, obesity (BMI

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

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

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

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

Background: There has been a steady increase in the number of primary care patients receiving long-term maintenance antidepressant treatment, despite limited evidence of a benefit of this treatment beyond 8 months. Objective: The ANTidepressants to prevent reLapse in dEpRession (ANTLER) trial investigated the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant medication in preventing relapse in UK primary care. Design: This was a Phase IV, double-blind, pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised parallel-group controlled trial, with follow-up at 6, 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. Participants were randomised using minimisation on centre, type of antidepressant and baseline depressive symptom score above or below the median using Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised (two categories). Statisticians were blind to allocation for the outcome analyses. Setting: General practices in London, Bristol, Southampton and York. Participants: Individuals aged 18–74 years who had experienced at least two episodes of depression and had been taking antidepressants for ≥ 9 months but felt well enough to consider stopping their medication. Those who met an International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, diagnosis of depression or with other psychiatric conditions were excluded. Intervention: At baseline, participants were taking citalopram 20 mg, sertraline 100 mg, fluoxetine 20 mg or mirtazapine 30 mg. They were randomised to either remain on their current medication or discontinue medication after a tapering period. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the time, in weeks, to the beginning of the first depressive episode after randomisation. This was measured by a retrospective Clinical Interview Schedule – Revised that assessed the onset of a depressive episode in the previous 12 weeks, and was conducted at 12, 26, 39 and 52 weeks. The depression-related resource use was collected over 12 months from medical records and patient-completed questionnaires. Quality-adjusted life-years were calculated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. Results: Between 9 March 2017 and 1 March 2019, we randomised 238 participants to antidepressant continuation (the maintenance group) and 240 participants to antidepressant discontinuation (the discontinuation group). The time to relapse of depression was shorter in the discontinuation group, with a hazard ratio of 2.06 (95% confidence interval 1.56 to 2.70; p

Objectives To date the reported outcomes of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) are mainly in the settings of trials comparing it with evolving transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We set out to examine characteristics and outcomes in people who underwent SAVR reflecting a national cohort and therefore ‘real-world’ practice.Design Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of consecutive people who underwent SAVR with or without coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery between April 2013 and March 2018 in the UK. This included elective, urgent and emergency operations. Participants’ demographics, preoperative risk factors, operative data, in-hospital mortality, postoperative complications and effect of the addition of CABG to SAVR were analysed.Setting 27 (90%) tertiary cardiac surgical centres in the UK submitted their data for analysis.Participants 31 277 people with AVR were identified. 19 670 (62.9%) had only SAVR and 11 607 (37.1%) had AVR+CABG.Results In-hospital mortality for isolated SAVR was 1.9% (95% CI 1.6% to 2.1%) and was 2.4% for AVR+CABG. Mortality by age category for SAVR only were: 75 years=2.2%. For SAVR+CABG these were; 2.2%, 1.8% and 3.1%. For different categories of EuroSCORE, mortality for SAVR in low risk people was 1.3%, in intermediate risk 1% and for high risk 3.9%. 74.3% of the operations were elective, 24% urgent and 1.7% emergency/salvage. The incidences of resternotomy for bleeding and stroke were 3.9% and 1.1%, respectively. Multivariable analyses provided no evidence that concomitant CABG influenced outcome. However, urgency of the operation, poor ventricular function, higher EuroSCORE and longer cross clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times adversely affected outcomes.Conclusions Surgical SAVR±CABG has low mortality risk and a low level of complications in the UK in people of all ages and risk factors. These results should inform consideration of treatment options in people with aortic valve disease.

Rationale Clinical trials are the gold standard for testing interventions. COVID-19 has further raised their public profile and emphasised the need to deliver better, faster, more efficient trials for patient benefit. Considerable overlap exists between data required for trials and data already collected routinely in electronic healthcare records (EHRs). Opportunities exist to use these in innovative ways to decrease duplication of effort and speed trial recruitment, conduct and follow-up.Approach The National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), Health Data Research UK and Clinical Practice Research Datalink co-organised a national workshop to accelerate the agenda for ‘data-enabled clinical trials’. Showcasing successful examples and imagining future possibilities, the plenary talks, panel discussions, group discussions and case studies covered: design/feasibility; recruitment; conduct/follow-up; collecting benefits/harms; and analysis/interpretation.Reflection Some notable studies have successfully accessed and used EHR to identify potential recruits, support randomised trials, deliver interventions and supplement/replace trial-specific follow-up. Some outcome measures are already reliably collected; others, like safety, need detailed work to meet regulatory reporting requirements. There is a clear need for system interoperability and a ‘route map’ to identify and access the necessary datasets. Researchers running regulatory-facing trials must carefully consider how data quality and integrity would be assessed. An experience-sharing forum could stimulate wider adoption of EHR-based methods in trial design and execution.Discussion EHR offer opportunities to better plan clinical trials, assess patients and capture data more efficiently, reducing research waste and increasing focus on each trial’s specific challenges. The short-term emphasis should be on facilitating patient recruitment and for postmarketing authorisation trials where research-relevant outcome measures are readily collectable. Sharing of case studies is encouraged. The workshop directly informed NIHR’s funding call for ambitious data-enabled trials at scale. There is the opportunity for the UK to build upon existing data science capabilities to identify, recruit and monitor patients in trials at scale.

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

Background SARS-CoV-2 lineage B.1.1.7 has been associated with an increased rate of transmission and disease severity among subjects testing positive in the community. Its impact on hospitalised patients is less well documented.Methods We collected viral sequences and clinical data of patients admitted with SARS-CoV-2 and hospital-onset COVID-19 infections (HOCIs), sampled 16 November 2020 to 10 January 2021, from eight hospitals participating in the COG-UK-HOCI study. Associations between the variant and the outcomes of all-cause mortality and intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission were evaluated using mixed effects Cox models adjusted by age, sex, comorbidities, care home residence, pregnancy and ethnicity.Findings Sequences were obtained from 2341 inpatients (HOCI cases=786) and analysis of clinical outcomes was carried out in 2147 inpatients with all data available. The HR for mortality of B.1.1.7 compared with other lineages was 1.01 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.28, p=0.94) and for ITU admission was 1.01 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.37, p=0.96). Analysis of sex-specific effects of B.1.1.7 identified increased risk of mortality (HR 1.30, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.78, p=0.096) and ITU admission (HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.90, p=0.011) in females infected with the variant but not males (mortality HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10, p=0.177; ITU HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.04, p=0.086).Interpretation In common with smaller studies of patients hospitalised with SARS-CoV-2, we did not find an overall increase in mortality or ITU admission associated with B.1.1.7 compared with other lineages. However, women with B.1.1.7 may be at an increased risk of admission to intensive care and at modestly increased risk of mortality.

Introduction In the UK, a compulsory ‘6-week hip check’ is performed in primary care for the detection of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH). However, missed diagnoses and infants incorrectly labelled with DDH remain a problem, potentially leading to adverse consequences for infants, their families and the National Health Service. National policy states that infants should be referred to hospital if the 6-week check suggests DDH, though there is no available tool to aid examination or offer guidelines for referral. We developed standardised diagnostic criteria for DDH, based on international Delphi consensus, and a 9-item checklist that has the potential to enable non-experts to diagnose DDH in a manner approaching that of experts.Methods and analysis We will conduct a controlled trial randomised by practice that will compare a diagnostic aid against standard care for the hip check. The primary objective is to determine whether an aid to the diagnosis of DDH reduces the number of clinically insignificant referrals from primary care to hospital and the number of late diagnosed DDH. The trial will include a qualitative process evaluation, an assessment of professional behavioural change and a full health economic evaluation. We will recruit 152 general practitioner practices in England. These will be randomised to conduct the hip checks with use of the study diagnostic aid and/or as per usual practice. The total number of infants seen during a 15-month recruitment period will be 110 per practice. Two years after the 6-week hip check, we will measure the number of referred infants that are (1) clinically insignificant for DDH and (2) those that constitute appropriate referrals.Ethics and dissemination This study has approval from the Health Research Authority (16/1/2020) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (18/2/2020). Results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, disseminated to patient organisations and the media.Trial registration number NCT04101903; Pre-results.

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

BackgroundResearch has questioned the safety of delaying or withholding antibiotics for suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in older patients. We evaluated the association between antibiotic treatment for lower UTI and risk of bloodstream infection (BSI) in adults aged ≥65 years in primary care.Methods and findingsWe analyzed primary care records from patients aged ≥65 years in England with community-onset UTI using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (2007-2015) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and census data. The primary outcome was BSI within 60 days, comparing patients treated immediately with antibiotics and those not treated immediately. Crude and adjusted associations between exposure and outcome were estimated using generalized estimating equations. A total of 147,334 patients were included representing 280,462 episodes of lower UTI. BSI occurred in 0.4% (1,025/244,963) of UTI episodes with immediate antibiotics versus 0.6% (228/35,499) of episodes without immediate antibiotics. After adjusting for patient demographics, year of consultation, comorbidities, smoking status, recent hospitalizations, recent accident and emergency (A&E) attendances, recent antibiotic prescribing, and home visits, the odds of BSI were equivalent in patients who were not treated with antibiotics immediately and those who were treated on the date of their UTI consultation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.13, 95% CI 0.97-1.32, p-value = 0.105). Delaying or withholding antibiotics was associated with increased odds of death in the subsequent 60 days (aOR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09-1.26, p-value < 0.001), but there was limited evidence that increased deaths were attributable to urinary-source BSI. Limitations include overlap between the categories of immediate and delayed antibiotic prescribing, residual confounding underlying differences between patients who were/were not treated with antibiotics, and lack of microbiological diagnosis for BSI.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that delaying or withholding antibiotics in older adults with suspected UTI did not increase patients' risk of BSI, in contrast with a previous study that analyzed the same dataset, but mortality was increased. Our findings highlight uncertainty around the risks of delaying or withholding antibiotic treatment, which is exacerbated by systematic differences between patients who were and were not treated immediately with antibiotics. Overall, our findings emphasize the need for improved diagnostic/risk prediction strategies to guide antibiotic prescribing for suspected UTI in older adults.

BackgroundMovement disorders associated with exposure to antipsychotic drugs are common and stigmatising but underdiagnosed.AimsTo develop and evaluate a new clinical procedure, the ScanMove instrument, for the screening of antipsychotic-associated movement disorders for use by mental health nurses.MethodItem selection and content validity assessment for the ScanMove instrument were conducted by a panel of neurologists, psychiatrists and a mental health nurse, who operationalised a 31-item screening procedure. Interrater reliability was measured on ratings for 30 patients with psychosis from ten mental health nurses evaluating video recordings of the procedure. Criterion and concurrent validity were tested comparing the ScanMove instrument-based rating of 13 mental health nurses for 635 community patients from mental health services with diagnostic judgement of a movement disorder neurologist based on the ScanMove instrument and a reference procedure comprising a selection of commonly used rating scales.ResultsInterreliability analysis showed no systematic difference between raters in their prediction of any antipsychotic-associated movement disorders category. On criterion validity testing, the ScanMove instrument showed good sensitivity for parkinsonism (90%) and hyperkinesia (89%), but not for akathisia (38%), whereas specificity was low for parkinsonism and hyperkinesia, and moderate for akathisia.ConclusionsThe ScanMove instrument demonstrated good feasibility and interrater reliability, and acceptable sensitivity as a mental health nurse-administered screening tool for parkinsonism and hyperkinesia.Declaration of interestNone.

Abstract Background Economic evaluation normally requires information to be collected on outcome improvement using utility values. This is often not collected during the treatment of substance use disorders making cost-effectiveness evaluations of therapy difficult. One potential solution is the use of mapping to generate utility values from clinical measures. This study develops and evaluates mapping algorithms that could be used to predict the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5 L) and the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) from the three commonly used clinical measures; the CORE-OM, the LDQ and the TOP measures. Methods Models were estimated using pilot trial data of heroin users in opiate substitution treatment. In the trial the EQ-5D-5 L, ICECAP-A, CORE-OM, LDQ and TOP were administered at baseline, three and twelve month time intervals. Mapping was conducted using estimation and validation datasets. The normal estimation dataset, which comprised of baseline sample data, used ordinary least squares (OLS) and tobit regression methods. Data from the baseline and three month time periods were combined to create a pooled estimation dataset. Cluster and mixed regression methods were used to map from this dataset. Predictive accuracy of the models was assessed using the root mean square error (RMSE) and the mean absolute error (MAE). Algorithms were validated using sample data from the follow-up time periods. Results Mapping algorithms can be used to predict the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5 L in the context of opiate dependence. Although both measures can be predicted, the ICECAP-A was better predicted by the clinical measures. There were no advantages of pooling the data. There were 6 chosen mapping algorithms, which had MAE scores ranging from 0.100 to 0.138 and RMSE scores ranging from 0.134 to 0.178. Conclusion It is possible to predict the scores of the ICECAP-A and the EQ-5D-5 L with the use of mapping. In the context of opiate dependence, these algorithms provide the possibility of generating utility values from clinical measures and thus enabling economic evaluation of alternative therapy options. Trial registration ISRCTN22608399. Date of registration: 27/04/2012. Date of first randomisation: 14/08/2012.

Abstract Background Approximately 3% of people receiving opioid substitution therapy (OST) in the UK manage to achieve abstinence from prescribed and illicit drugs within three years of commencing treatment. Involvement of families and wider social networks in supporting psychological treatment may be an effective strategy in facilitating recovery, and this pilot study aimed to evaluate the impact of a social network-focused intervention for patients receiving OST. Methods A two-site, open feasibility trial randomised patients receiving OST for at least 12 months but still reporting illicit opiate use in the past 28 days to one of three treatments: 1) treatment as usual (TAU), 2) Brief Social Behaviour and Network Therapy (B-SBNT) + TAU, or 3) Personal Goal Setting (PGS) + TAU. The two active interventions consisted of 4 sessions. There were 3 aims: 1) test the feasibility of recruiting OST patients to a trial of B-SBNT, and following them up over 12 months; 2) test the feasibility of training clinicians to deliver B-SBNT; 3) test whether B-SBNT reduces heroin use 3 and 12 months after treatment, and to explore potential mediating factors. The primary outcome for aim 3 was number of days of heroin use in the past month, and a range of secondary outcome measures were specified in advance (level of drug dependence, mental health, social satisfaction, therapist rapport, treatment satisfaction, social network size and support). Results A total of 83 participants were randomised, and 70 (84%) were followed-up at 12 months. Fidelity analysis of showed that B-SBNT sessions were clearly distinguishable from PGS and TAU sessions, suggesting it was possible to train clinical staff to an adequate level of competence. No significant differences were found between the 3 intervention arms in the primary or secondary outcome measures. Attendance at psychosocial treatment intervention sessions was low across all three arms (44% overall). Conclusions Patients receiving OST can be recruited into a trial of a social network-based intervention, but poor attendance at treatment sessions makes it uncertain whether an adequate dose of treatment was delivered. In order to achieve the benefits of psychosocial interventions, further work is needed to overcome poor engagement. Trial registration ISRCTN Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN22608399 . Date of registration: 27/04/2012. Date of first randomisation: 14/08/2012.

Abstract Background The incidence of epilepsy is greatest in the first 2 years of life, an age group where there is generally a poor prognosis for both seizure control and neurodevelopmental outcome. Early control of seizures can be associated with better developmental outcome but many of the epilepsies presenting in infancy are poorly responsive to antiepileptic medication. The ketogenic diet (KD) is a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet designed to mimic the effects of starvation on the body. Dietary fat is converted into ketones in the body and used as an energy source by the brain. The KD has been shown to be successful in controlling seizures in many observational studies, and in two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in older children. However, little evidence is available in the very young. Methods/design An open-label RCT where eligible children (age 3 months to 2 years with epilepsy who have failed two antiepileptic drugs (AEDs)) undergo baseline assessment, including medical and seizure history. Participants then start an observation period (7 or 14 days) with documentation of seizure frequency. Randomisation will occur on day 8 or day 15 to receive the KD or a further AED; the allocated treatment will commence on day 15, with instruction and training. A second assessment (4 weeks after start of treatment) will include a clinical review and tolerability questionnaire (modified Hague Scale of Side Effects – for those allocated to the KD group). Assessments will be repeated at 8 weeks after the start of treatment including biochemical investigations, after which, according to patient response, KD (diet group) or AED (standard AED group) will then be continued or changed. Those in the AED group who have failed to achieve seizure control at the 8-week assessment will then be offered KD outside the context of the trial. Those in the KD arm who fail to achieve seizure control will be changed to standard clinical management. All patients will be followed up for 12 months from randomisation for retention, seizure outcome, quality of life and neurodevelopmental status. Discussion The slow rate of recruitment is an ongoing practical issue. There is a limitation to the number of eligible patients compared to what was predicted, mainly due to the nature of this patient group. After a substantial amendment to widen inclusion criteria and reduce the baseline period to 7 days for patients with a high seizure burden, the rate of recruitment steadily increased. A number of operational concerns regarding dietetic time were also highlighted impacting on the recruitment rate. However, the combination of a low dropout rate and the opening of further centres, the trial should successfully meet the final recruitment target. All nine centres are now recruiting and we hope to open further centres within the UK. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02205931 . Registered on 16 December 2013.

Objective To compare efficacy and safety of subcutaneous sarilumab 200 mg and 150 mg every 2 weeks plus conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (+csDMARDs) versus other targeted DMARDs+csDMARDs and placebo+csDMARDs, in inadequate responders to csDMARDs (csDMARD-IR) or tumour necrosis factor α inhibitors (TNFi-IR).Methods Systematic literature review and network meta-analyses (NMA) conducted on 24 week efficacy and safety outcomes: Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index, modified total sharp score (mTSS, including 52 weeks), American College of Rheumatology (ACR) 20/50/70, European League Against Rheumatism Disease Activity Score 28-joint count erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28)

Background: Timely diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) enables access to antiretroviral treatment, which reduces mortality, morbidity and further transmission in people living with HIV. In the UK, late diagnosis among black African people persists. Novel methods to enhance HIV testing in this population are needed. Objectives: To develop a self-sampling kit (SSK) intervention to increase HIV testing among black Africans, using existing community and health-care settings (stage 1) and to assess the feasibility for a Phase III evaluation (stage 2). Design: A two-stage, mixed-methods design. Stage 1 involved a systematic literature review, focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders and black Africans. Data obtained provided the theoretical base for intervention development and operationalisation. Stage 2 was a prospective, non-randomised study of a provider-initiated, HIV SSK distribution intervention targeted at black Africans. The intervention was assessed for cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation explored feasibility, acceptability and fidelity. Setting: Twelve general practices and three community settings in London. Main outcome measure: HIV SSK return rate. Results: Stage 1 – the systematic review revealed support for HIV SSKs, but with scant evidence on their use and clinical effectiveness among black Africans. Although the qualitative findings supported SSK distribution in settings already used by black Africans, concerns were raised about the complexity of the SSK and the acceptability of targeting. These findings were used to develop a theoretically informed intervention. Stage 2 – of the 349 eligible people approached, 125 (35.8%) agreed to participate. Data from 119 were included in the analysis; 54.5% (65/119) of those who took a kit returned a sample; 83.1% of tests returned were HIV negative; and 16.9% were not processed, because of insufficient samples. Process evaluation showed the time pressures of the research process to be a significant barrier to feasibility. Other major barriers were difficulties with the SSK itself and ethnic targeting in general practice settings. The convenience and privacy associated with the SSK were described as beneficial aspects, and those who used the kit mostly found the intervention to be acceptable. Research governance delays prevented implementation in Glasgow. Limitations: Owing to the study failing to recruit adequate numbers (the intended sample was 1200 participants), we were unable to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of SSKs in increasing HIV testing in black African people. No samples were reactive, so we were unable to assess pathways to confirmatory testing and linkage to care. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that, although aspects of the intervention were acceptable, ethnic targeting and the SSK itself were problematic, and scale-up of the intervention to a Phase III trial was not feasible. The preliminary economic model suggests that, for the acceptance rate and test return seen in the trial, the SSK is potentially a cost-effective way to identify new infections of HIV. Future work: Sexual and public health services are increasingly utilising self-sampling technologies. However, alternative, user-friendly SSKs that meet user and provider preferences and UK regulatory requirements are needed, and additional research is required to understand clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for black African communities. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010698 and Integrated Research Application System project identification 184223. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and the BHA for Equality in Health and Social Care.

OBJECTIVE:The main objective of the study was to elicit beliefs about hypertension among Nigerian Primary Health Care clients and workers. BACKGROUND:In many regions of Nigeria, the primary health care facility is usually the only source of formal health care available. Since hypertension is a chronic condition that requires lifelong life style modification and drug treatment, it is important to understand the context and background to the condition through the beliefs and perceptions among both lay persons and health care providers who manage the condition. SETTING:Rural and urban primary health care facilities in the Federal Capital Territory Nigeria. PARTICIPANTS:A total of Eighty-one (81) primary health care clients and workers participated in the study. METHODS AND OUTCOME MEASURE:A qualitative research using interviews, focus group discussions and reflective work as sources of data collection. The outcome measures were emerging themes from thematic framework analysis. RESULTS:There were four themes that summarize beliefs of both PHC workers and clients namely: (1) Meaning of hypertension (2) causes of hypertension, (3) Consequences of hypertension (4) Perceptions of treatment, one additional distinct theme was elicited among PHC workers "contextual explanation". However, under each of the shared four themes, there were both similarities and differences in beliefs expressed between PHC workers and clients. CONCLUSIONS:This study highlights important similarities and differences in beliefs about hypertension among primary health care clients and primary health care workers that have significant implications for management of hypertension in primary care settings in Nigeria.

BACKGROUND:Recruitment and retention challenges are very common in mental health randomised trials. Investigators utilise different methods to improve recruitment or retention. However, evidence of the effectiveness and efficiency of these strategies in mental health has not been synthesised. This systematic review is to investigate and assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different strategies to improve recruitment and retention in mental health randomised trials. METHODS AND MATERIALS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Methodology Register and PsycINFO were searched from beginning of record up to July 2016. Randomised trials involving participants with mental health problems which compared different strategies for recruitment or retention were selected. Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility. RESULTS:A total of 5,157 citations were identified. Thirteen articles were included, 11 on recruitment and 2 on retention. Three randomised controlled trials compared different recruitment strategies, none of which found statistically significant differences between the interventional recruitment strategies and the routine recruitment methods. Retrospective comparisons of recruitment methods showed that non-web-based advertisement and recruitment by clinical research staff each have advantages in efficiency. Web-based adverts had the lowest cost per person recruited (£13.41 per person recruited). Specialised care referral cost £183.24 per person, non-web-based adverts cost £372.03 per patient and recruitment via primary care cost £407.65 for each patient. Financial incentives, abridged questionnaires and pre-notification had a positive effect on retention rates. CONCLUSION:The recruitment studies included showed differences in strategies, clinical settings, mental health conditions and study design. It is difficult to assess the overall effectiveness of any particular recruitment strategy as some strategies that worked well for a particular population may not work as well for others. Paying attention to the accessibility of information and consent materials may help improve recruitment. More research in this area is needed given its important implications.