{ "items": [ "\n\n
Background Most healthcare contacts for children in the UK occur in general practice. Diagnostic tests can be beneficial in narrowing differential diagnoses, however, there is substantial variation in the use of tests for children in general practice. Unwarranted variation in testing can lead to variation in quality of care and exacerbate health inequities. No prior study has tried to understand why variation in testing exists for children in general practice. Aim To explore GP perspectives on using diagnostic tests for children in primary care and the underlying drivers of variation. Design and setting Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs and trainee GPs in England. Methods We conducted interviews with 18 GPs and 2 trainees between April and June 2023. The interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Results GPs reflected that their approach to testing in children differed from adults; their threshold to test was higher, but the threshold to refer to specialists was lower. GPs' perceptions of test utility varied, including objective testing for asthma. Perceived drivers of variation in testing included: 1) intrinsic (clinician) factors relating to their risk tolerance and experience, and 2) extrinsic factors, including disease prevalence, parental concern and expectations of healthcare, workforce changes leading to fragmentation in care, time constraints and differences in guidelines. Conclusions The findings of this study identify actionable issues for clinicians, researchers, and policymakers to address gaps in education, evidence, and guidance, reduce unwarranted differences in test use and improve the quality of health care delivered to children in general practice.
\n \n\n \n \nAbstractBackgroundWe analyzed the STREAM (Simplifying HIV TREAtment and Monitoring) study to determine risk factors associated with HIV viraemia and poor retention 18\u2009months after initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART).MethodsThe STREAM study was an open\u2010label randomized controlled trial in Durban, South Africa, that enrolled 390 people living with HIV presenting for their first HIV viral load measurement ~6 months after ART initiation. We used modified Poisson regression with robust standard errors to describe associations between baseline characteristics and three HIV outcomes 18 months after ART initiation: HIV viraemia (>50 copies/mL), poor retention in HIV care, and a composite outcome of poor retention in care and/or HIV viraemia.ResultsApproximately 18 months after ART initiation, 45 (11.5%) participants were no longer retained in care and 43 (11.8%) had viraemia. People with CD4 counts <200 and those with viraemia 6 months after ART initiation were significantly more likely to have viraemia 18 months after ART initiation (adjusted relative risk [aRR] 4.0; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1\u20137.5 and aRR 5.5; 95% CI 3.3\u20139.0, respectively). People who did not disclose their HIV status and had viraemia after ART initiation were more likely to not be retained in care 12\u2009months later (aRR 2.6; 95% CI 1.1\u20136.1 and aRR 2.2; 95% CI 1.0\u20134.8). People with a CD4 count <200 and those with viraemia were more likely to not achieve the composite outcome 18 months after ART initiation.ConclusionsViraemia after ART initiation was the strongest predictor of subsequent viraemia and poor care retention. Understanding early indicators can help target our interventions to better engage people who may be more likely to experience persistent viraemia or disengage from HIV care.
\n \n\n \n \nInfection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with an increased risk of arterial and venous thrombotic events, but the implications of vaccination for this increased risk are uncertain. With the approval of NHS England, we quantified associations between COVID-19 diagnosis and cardiovascular diseases in different vaccination and variant eras using linked electronic health records for ~40% of the English population. We defined a \u2018pre-vaccination\u2019 cohort (18,210,937 people) in the wild-type/Alpha variant eras (January 2020-June 2021), and \u2018vaccinated\u2019 and \u2018unvaccinated\u2019 cohorts (13,572,399 and 3,161,485 people respectively) in the Delta variant era (June-December 2021). We showed that the incidence of each arterial thrombotic, venous thrombotic and other cardiovascular outcomes was substantially elevated during weeks 1-4 after COVID-19, compared with before or without COVID-19, but less markedly elevated in time periods beyond week 4. Hazard ratios were higher after hospitalised than non-hospitalised COVID-19 and higher in the pre-vaccination and unvaccinated cohorts than the vaccinated cohort. COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of cardiovascular events after COVID-19 infection. People who had COVID-19 before or without being vaccinated are at higher risk of cardiovascular events for at least two years.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged \u226518 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting \u226414 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 \u03bcg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n=2157), usual care (n=3256), and other treatments (n=3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1\u00b715 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1\u00b707 to 1\u00b723], median decrease 2.06 days [1\u00b700 to 3\u00b706]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio \u22651.2) 0\u00b7192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1\u00b702 [0\u00b763 to 1\u00b762]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0\u00b76%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74\u00b73% and 71\u00b72% respectively (RR = 1\u00b705, [1\u00b702 to 1\u00b708]) and also at 3 and 12 months.,. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI / National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: Several bedside assessments are used to evaluate respiratory muscle function and to predict weaning from mechanical ventilation in patients on the intensive care unit. It remains unclear which assessments perform best in predicting weaning success. The primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize and compare the accuracy of the following assessments to predict weaning success: maximal inspiratory (PImax) and expiratory pressures, diaphragm thickening fraction and excursion (DTF and DE), end-expiratory (Tdiee) and end-inspiratory (Tdiei) diaphragm thickness, airway occlusion pressure (P0.1), electrical activity of respiratory muscles, and volitional and non-volitional assessments of transdiaphragmatic and airway opening pressures. METHODS: Medline (via Pubmed), EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and CINAHL were comprehensively searched from inception to 04/05/2023. Studies including adult mechanically ventilated patients reporting data on predictive accuracy were included. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) models were used to estimate the SROC curves of each assessment method. Meta-regression was used to compare SROC curves. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding studies with high risk of bias, as assessed with QUADAS-2. Direct comparisons were performed using studies comparing each pair of assessments within the same sample of patients. RESULTS: Ninety-four studies were identified of which 88 studies (n\u2009=\u20096296) reporting on either PImax, DTF, DE, Tdiee, Tdiei and P0.1 were included in the meta-analyses. The sensitivity to predict weaning success was 63% (95% CI 47-77%) for PImax, 75% (95% CI 67-82%) for DE, 77% (95% CI 61-87%) for DTF, 74% (95% CI 40-93%) for P0.1, 69% (95% CI 13-97%) for Tdiei, 37% (95% CI 13-70%) for Tdiee, at fixed 80% specificity. Accuracy of DE and DTF to predict weaning success was significantly higher when compared to PImax (p\u2009=\u20090.04 and p\u2009
\n \n\n \n \nObjectives: The aim of this systematic review was to summarize national and international guidelines that made recommendations for monitoring patients diagnosed with low-risk cancer. It appraised the quality of guidelines and determined whether the guidelines adequately identified patients for monitoring, specified which tests to use, defined monitoring intervals, and stated triggers for further intervention. It then assessed the evidence to support each recommendation. Study Design and Setting: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, we searched PubMed and Turning Research into Practice databases for national and international guidelines' that were written in English and developed or updated between 2012 and 2023. Quality of individual guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II tool. Results: Across the 41 published guidelines, 48 different recommendations were identified: 15 (31%) for prostate cancer, 11 (23%) for renal cancer, 6 (12.5%) for thyroid cancer, and 10 (21%) for blood cancer. The remaining 6 (12.5%) were for brain, gastrointestinal, oral cavity, bone and pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma cancer. When combining all guidelines, 48 (100%) stated which patients qualify for monitoring, 31 (65%) specified which tests to use, 25 (52%) provided recommendations for surveillance intervals, and 23 (48%) outlined triggers to initiate intervention. Across all cancer sites, there was a strong positive trend with higher levels of evidence being associated with an increased likelihood of a recommendation being specific (P = 0.001) and the evidence for intervals was based on expert opinion or other guidance. Conclusion: With the exception of prostate cancer, the evidence base for monitoring low-risk cancer is weak and consequently recommendations in clinical guidelines are inconsistent. There is a lack of direct evidence to support monitoring recommendations in the literature making guideline developers reliant on expert opinion, alternative guidelines, or indirect or nonspecific evidence.
\n \n\n \n \nResearch Summary: Little is known about how governments secure discrete resources from global corporations over which they have limited direct control. Utilizing declassified archival sources, we examine how the UK government influenced Moody's and Standard & Poor's to provide the highest possible credit ratings in 1978, despite the UK receiving an International Monetary Fund bailout 2 years earlier. We develop a process model to explain how democratic government officials employ distinctive processes to enable and facilitate a nonmarket approach of corporate coaxing to influence corporations' decision making. We thereby enrich the concept of governments as a strategic actors by illuminating how officials act to secure resources when in a position of dependence. Managerial Summary: We sought to understand how governments attempt to influence corporations' decision making when they have limited direct control over these corporations. We examined the historical case of the UK government seeking to influence Moody's and Standard and Poor's. In this case, we identified the distinctive strategy of corporate coaxing to explain how government officials navigate the distinctive constraints, and leverage the unique strengths, of their democratic state, to exert influence on private and global corporations. Our findings show how governments can be more active stakeholders in corporate activity than commonly assumed, as their subtle influence can extend beyond state policies or regulations.
\n \n\n \n \nBACKGROUND: In the summer of 2021, after 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, there were still no clear evidence-based interventions for COVID-19 infection in the community. Recruiting large numbers at pace was a challenge to urgently generate the evidence needed to inform care within the pandemic. AIM: To develop efficient, user-friendly recruitment methods to offer large numbers of acutely unwell, infectious people with COVID-19 UK the opportunity to participate in a priority trial and test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir. METHOD: PANORAMIC was an adaptive platform clinical trial with participants randomised to either a novel antiviral or usual care. Participants needed to start antiviral medication within 5 days of symptom onset. Innovative methods of identifying positive individuals within general practice were developed, as well as online research procedures for delivery and follow-up, including through www.panoramictrial.org. RESULTS: Novel methods of recruitment were developed in collaboration between the study team and the NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN), and continually adapted during the study. These included virtual recruitment through the study website combined with GP recruitment via hub and spoke models: this was supported by data, stakeholder, and workforce infrastructure across devolved administration. PANORAMIC was the fastest recruiting study ever delivered by primary care in the NIHR CRN. There were 26 411 participants recruited. Final molnupiravir results will also be presented. CONCLUSION: Large-scale, at-pace recruitment supported by the English CRN and equivalent networks across the UK, is achievable in a pandemic situation, producing potentially game-changing results of national and international importance.
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: Antithrombotic treatment may improve the disease course in non-critically ill, symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients. Methods: We performed an individual patient-level analysis of the OVID and ETHIC randomized controlled trials, which compared enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for either 14 (OVID) or 21 days (ETHIC) vs. no thromboprophylaxis for outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 and at least one additional risk factor. The primary efficacy outcome included all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death within 30 days from randomization. Both studies were prematurely stopped for futility. Secondary efficacy outcomes were major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, arterial cardiovascular events, or their composite occurring within 30 days from randomization. The same outcomes were assessed over a 90-day follow-up. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding (ISTH criteria). Results: A total of 691 patients were randomized: 339 to receive enoxaparin and 352 to the control group. Over 30-day follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 6.0 % of patients in the enoxaparin group vs. 5.8 % of controls for a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95%CI 0.57\u20131.92). The incidence of major symptomatic venous thromboembolic events and arterial cardiovascular events was 0.9 % vs. 1.8 %, respectively (RR 0.52; 95%CI 0.13\u20132.06). Most cardiovascular thromboembolic events were represented by symptomatic venous thromboembolic events, occurring in 0.6 % vs. 1.5 % of patients, respectively. A similar distribution of outcomes between the treatment groups was observed over 90 days. No major bleeding occurred in the enoxaparin group vs. one (0.3 %) in the control group. Conclusions: We found no evidence for the clinical benefit of early administration of enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. These results should be interpreted taking into consideration the relatively low occurrence of events.
\n \n\n \n \nSARS-CoV-2 infection in children and young people (CYP) can lead to life-threatening COVID-19, transmission within households and schools, and the development of long COVID. Using linked health and administrative data, we investigated vaccine uptake among 3,433,483 CYP aged 5-17\u2009years across all UK nations between 4th August 2021 and 31st May 2022. We constructed national cohorts and undertook multi-state modelling and meta-analysis to identify associations between demographic variables and vaccine uptake. We found that uptake of the first COVID-19 vaccine among CYP was low across all four nations compared to other age groups and diminished with subsequent doses. Age and vaccination status of adults living in the same household were identified as important risk factors associated with vaccine uptake in CYP. For example, 5-11\u2009year-olds were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to 16-17\u2009year-olds (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR]: 0.10 (95%CI: 0.06-0.19)), and CYP in unvaccinated households were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to CYP in partially vaccinated households (aHR: 0.19, 95%CI 0.13-0.29).
\n \n\n \n \nBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted mental health disorders, affecting both individuals with pre-existing conditions and those with no prior history. However, there is limited evidence regarding the pandemic's impact on mental health visits to primary care physicians. The International Consortium of Primary Care Big Data Researchers (INTRePID) explored primary care visit trends related to mental health conditions in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Norway, Peru, Singapore, Sweden, and the USA. Methods: We conducted an interrupted time series analysis in nine countries to examine changes in rates of monthly mental health visits to primary care settings from January 1st, 2018, to December 31st, 2021. Sub-group analysis considered service type (in-person/virtual) and six categories of mental health conditions (anxiety/depression, bipolar/schizophrenia/other psychotic disorders, sleep disorders, dementia, ADHD/eating disorders, and substance use disorder). Findings: Mental health visit rates increased after the onset of the pandemic in most countries. In Argentina, Canada, China, Norway, Peru, and Singapore, this increase was immediate ranged from an incidence rate ratio of 1\u00b7118 [95% CI 1.053\u20131.187] to 2.240 [95% CI 2.057\u20132.439] when comparing the first month of pandemic with the pre-pandemic trend. Increases in the following months varied across countries. Anxiety/depression was the leading reason for mental health visits in most countries. Virtual visits were reported in Australia, Canada, Norway, Peru, Sweden, and the USA, accounting for up to 40% of the total mental health visits. Interpretation: Findings suggest an overall increase in mental health visits, driven largely by anxiety/depression. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many of the studied countries adopted virtual care in particular for mental health visits. Primary care plays a crucial role in addressing mental ill-health in times of crisis. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant #173094 and the Rathlyn Foundation Primary Care EMR Research and Discovery Fund.
\n \n\n \n \nThe Pioneer Health Centre in Peckham, also known as the Peckham Centre, running what became known at the Peckham Experiment, was founded in 1926 by two doctors, Innes Pearse (1889-1978) and her colleague George Scott Williamson (1884-1953). It closed down in 1929 and reopened in 1935 in new purpose-built premises. Families paid a shilling a week for membership, which gave them free medical consultations of various sorts and access to a wide variety of recreations, but no medical treatment. The purpose was to observe how their health progressed and to discover what factors were involved in good health and wellbeing. After closing down again during World War II the centre reopened, but was forced to close again in 1950, this time for good, because of lack of funds, due to a complex range of factors. In a 1938 publication, the founders stressed that health and wellbeing were not synonymous; health, they wrote, operates with a cumulative deposit account and wellbeing on a diminishing current account.\u2028Two blue plaques commemorate the Pioneer Health Centre: an English Heritage blue plaque at 142 Queen's Road, Peckham, London SE15, the site of the centre's original building, and a plaque put up by the London Borough of Southwark at the site of the second building, now converted to a block of flats, and situated round the corner from the Queen's Road premises, in Frobisher Place, St Mary's Road, Peckham.
\n \n\n \n \n