Search results
Found 18155 matches for
We lead multidisciplinary applied research and training to rethink the way health care is delivered in general practice and across the community.
Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 in the community (PANORAMIC): Protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease
Introduction There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. Methods and analysis PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.
Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study
Objectives: To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines. Design: We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. Setting: England, UK. Participants: Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Main outcome measures: AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance. Results: A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3–7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91–0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94–0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95–0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00–1.44)). Conclusions: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety.
Participant and caregiver perspectives on health feedback from a healthy lifestyle check
Introduction: The usual output following health consultations from paediatric services is a clinical letter to the referring professional or primary care provider, with a copy sent to the patient's caregiver. There is little research on how patients and caregivers perceive the letter content. We aimed to: first understand child, young people and caregiver experiences of and preferences for receiving a health feedback letter about the child/young person's health measures within a healthy lifestyle programme; and second to provide a set of recommendations for designing letters to children, young people and their families within a healthy lifestyle programme. Methods: This qualitative study, informed by Kaupapa Māori principles, included focus groups of children aged 5–11 years and young people aged 12–18 years who were participants in a healthy lifestyle programme in Taranaki, Aotearoa New Zealand and of their respective caregivers (total n = 47). Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Findings: Key themes were identified: letters sometimes acted as ‘discourses of disempowerment’—some participants experienced a lack of safety, depersonalisation with medical jargon and ‘feeling like a number’. Participants described the need for acknowledgement and affirmation in written communication—health feedback should include validation, choice regarding content, respectful tone and a strengths-based approach to health messages. Interpretation: Letters to referrers, copied to families, can be perceived as disempowering, and participant and caregiver perspectives of content should be considered. This study challenges conventional practice in communicating health feedback with broader implications for written communication in healthcare. We propose separate letters aimed at the child/young person and their caregiver that offer choice in the information they receive. The administrative burden of multiple letters can be mitigated by advances in digital health. Patient Contribution: This study originated in response to feedback from service users that current health feedback was not meeting their needs or expectations. Patient perspectives, especially from children, are rarely considered in the generation of clinic letters from health professionals. Participants were child participants in the community-based clinical service and their caregivers, and care was taken to represent the demographic backgrounds of service users. Collection and interpretation of Māori data were led by researchers who were local community members to ensure prioritisation and preservation of participant voice. Where possible, results are illustrated in the text by direct quotes from participants, whose identities are protected with a pseudonym.
Perceptions and experiences of living with and providing care for multimorbidity: A qualitative interview study.
BACKGROUND: Experiences of living with and seeking care for multimorbidity is a relatively under-researched field. By analysing experiences of people with multimorbidity, caregivers and care professionals, we can better understand the complex care needs of those with multimorbidity and identify improvements to care management. This paper reports findings from research that elicited the views of key stakeholders to inform future care practice and policy. AIM: To elicit care recipient and care provider views to understand the care needs of those living with and seeking care for multimorbidity. METHOD: A qualitative interview study using purposive sampling of those living with and providing care in multimorbidity. RESULTS: Increased support to those with multimorbidity and caregivers to navigate care systems was advocated. Establishing trusting care relationships featured prominently in participants accounts. Fragmented care, inadequate coordination and poor communication between care providers, were identified as system-wide challenges. There was agreement that integrated care models were needed, which delivered personalised care, such as shared decision-making, choice in care options and accessing services, and individualised care plans. CONCLUSION: We found significant agreement among stakeholders on care need and management in multimorbidity. Understanding the experiences of those with multimorbidity, caregivers and care professionals, can inform future improvements in care management.
European Society of Cardiology Quality indicators for the care and outcomes of adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To develop a suite of quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the care and outcomes for adults undergoing transcatheter aortic valve intervention (TAVI). METHODS: We followed the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) methodology for the development of QIs. Key domains were identified by constructing a conceptual framework for the delivery of TAVI care. A list of candidate QIs were developed by conducting a systematic review of the literature. A modified Delphi method was then used to select the final set of QIs. Finally, we mapped the QIs to the EuroHeart Data Standards for TAVI to ascertain the extent to which the EuroHeart TAVI registry captures information to calculate the QIs. RESULTS: We formed an international group of experts in quality improvement and TAVI, including representatives from the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing & Allied Professions. In total, 27 QIs were selected across eight domains of TAVI care, comprising 22 main (81%) and five secondary (19%) QIs. Of these, 19/27 (70%) are now being utilised in the EuroHeart TAVI registry. CONCLUSION: We present the 2023 ESC QIs for TAVI, developed using a standard methodology and in collaboration with ESC Associations. The EuroHeart TAVI registry allows calculation of the majority of the QIs, which may be used for benchmarking care and quality improvement initiatives.
The diagnostic accuracy of cardiac ultrasound for acute myocardial ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Background: Chest pain is responsible for millions of visits to the emergency department (ED) annually. Cardiac ultrasound can detect ischemic changes, but varying accuracy estimates have been reported in previous studies. We synthetized the available evidence to yield more precise estimates of the accuracy of cardiac ultrasound for acute myocardial ischemia in patients with chest pain in the ED and to assess the effect of different clinical characteristics on test accuracy. Methods: A systematic search for studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac ultrasound for myocardial ischemia in the ED was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science, two trial registries and supplementary methods, from inception to December 6th, 2022. Prospective cohort, cross-sectional, case–control studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included data on diagnostic accuracy were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool and a bivariate hierarchical model was used for meta-analysis with paired Forest and SROC plots used to present the results. Subgroup analyses was conducted on clinically relevant factors. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included, with 5043 patients. The overall summary sensitivity was 79.3% (95%CI 69.0–86.8%) and specificity was 87.3% (95%CI 79.9–92.2%), with substantial heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses showed increased sensitivity in studies where ultrasound was conducted at ED admission and increased specificity in studies that excluded patients with previous heart disease, when the target condition was acute coronary syndrome, or when final chart review was used as the reference standard. There was very low certainty in the results based on serious risk of bias and indirectness in most studies. Conclusions: Cardiac ultrasound may have a potential role in the diagnostic pathway of myocardial ischemia in the ED; however, a pooled accuracy must be interpreted cautiously given substantial heterogeneity and that important patient and test characteristics affect its diagnostic performance. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023392058).
Causal associations of central and peripheral risk factors with knee osteoarthritis: a longitudinal and Mendelian Randomisation study using UK Biobank data.
Our aim was to investigate relative contributions of central and peripheral mechanisms to knee osteoarthritis (OA) diagnosis and their independent causal association with knee OA. We performed longitudinal analysis using data from UK-Biobank participants. Knee OA was defined using International Classification of Diseases manual 10 codes from participants' hospital records. Central mechanisms were proxied using multisite chronic pain (MCP) and peripheral mechanisms using body mass index (BMI). Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated, and proportional risk contribution (PRC) was estimated from receiver-operator-characteristic (ROC) analysis. To estimate the causal effects, we performed 2-sample multivariable Mendelian Randomisation (MR) analysis. We selected genetic instruments from the largest Genome Wide Association Study of BMI (N = 806,834) and MCP (N = 387,649) and estimated the instruments genetic associations with knee OA in the largest available dataset (62,497 cases and 333,557 control subjects). The multivariable MR was performed using modified inverse-variance weighting methods. Of the 203,410 participants, 6% developed knee OA. Both MCP (OR 1.23, 95% CI; 1.21-1.24) and BMI (1.10, 95% CI; 1.10-1.11) were associated with knee OA diagnosis. The PRC was 6.9% (95% CI; 6.7%-7.1%) for MCP and 21.9% (95% CI; 21.4%-22.5%) for BMI; the combined PRC was 38.8% (95% CI; 37.9%-39.8%). Body mass index and MCP had independent causal effects on knee OA (OR 1.76 [95% CI, 1.64-1.88] and 1.83 [95% CI, 1.54-2.16] per unit change, respectively). In conclusion, peripheral risk factors (eg, BMI) contribute more to the development of knee OA than central risk factors (eg, MCP). Peripheral and central factors are independently causal on knee OA.
AZD1222 effectiveness against severe COVID-19 in individuals with comorbidity or frailty: The RAVEN cohort study
Objectives: Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations. Methods: Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity. Results: Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the ‘fit’ (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1). Conclusions: Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed.
Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes
Background: 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 ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300–400 μg/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 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [−1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) 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).
OpenSAFELY: Representativeness of electronic health record platform OpenSAFELY-TPP data compared to the population of England.
Background: Since its inception in March 2020, data from the OpenSAFELY-TPP electronic health record platform has been used for more than 20 studies relating to the global COVID-19 emergency. OpenSAFELY-TPP data is derived from practices in England using SystmOne software, and has been used for the majority of these studies. We set out to investigate the representativeness of OpenSAFELY-TPP data by comparing it to national population estimates. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we describe the age, sex, Index of Multiple Deprivation and ethnicity of the OpenSAFELY-TPP population compared to national estimates from the Office for National Statistics. The five leading causes of death occurring between the 1st January 2020 and the 31st December 2020 were also compared to deaths registered in England during the same period. Results: Despite regional variations, TPP is largely representative of the general population of England in terms of IMD (all within 1.1 percentage points), age, sex (within 0.1 percentage points), ethnicity and causes of death. The proportion of the five leading causes of death is broadly similar to those reported by ONS (all within 1 percentage point). Conclusions: Data made available via OpenSAFELY-TPP is broadly representative of the English population. Users of OpenSAFELY must consider the issues of representativeness, generalisability and external validity associated with using TPP data for health research. Although the coverage of TPP practices varies regionally across England, TPP registered patients are generally representative of the English population as a whole in terms of key demographic characteristics.
First dose COVID-19 vaccine coverage amongst adolescents and children in England: an analysis of 3.21 million patients' primary care records in situ using OpenSAFELY
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination programme in England was extended to include all adolescents and children by April 2022. The aim of this paper is to describe trends and variation in vaccine coverage in different clinical and demographic groups amongst adolescents and children in England. Methods: : With the approval of NHS England, a cohort study was conducted of 3.21 million children and adolescents’ records in general practice in England, in situ and within the infrastructure of the electronic health record software vendor TPP using OpenSAFELY. Vaccine coverage across various demographic (sex, deprivation index and ethnicity) and clinical (risk status) populations is described. Results: : Coverage is higher amongst adolescents than it is amongst children, with 53.5% adolescents and 10.8% children having received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. Within those groups, coverage varies by ethnicity, deprivation index and risk status; there is no evidence of variation by sex. Conclusion: First dose COVID-19 vaccine coverage is shown to vary amongst various demographic and clinical groups of children and adolescents.
Impact of First UK COVID-19 Lockdown on Hospital Admissions: Interrupted Time Series Study of 32 Million People
Background: Uncontrolled infection and lockdown measures introduced in response have resulted in an unprecedented challenge for health systems internationally. Whether such disruption was due to lockdown itself and recedes when such measures are lifted is unclear. We assessed the short- and medium-term impacts of the first lockdown measures on hospital care for exemplar non-COVID-19 conditions in England, Scotland and Wales across diseases, sexes, and socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Methods: We used OpenSAFELY (for England), EAVEII (Scotland), and SAIL Databank (Wales) to extract weekly hospital admission rates for cancer, cardiovascular and respiratory conditions (excluding COVID-19) from the pre-pandemic period until 25/10/2020 and conducted a controlled interrupted time series analysis. We undertook stratified analyses and assessed admission rates over seven months during which lockdown restrictions were gradually lifted.Findings: Our combined dataset included 32 million people who contributed over 74 million person-years. Admission rates for all three conditions fell by 34.2% in England, 20.9% in Scotland, and 24.7% in Wales, with falls across every stratum considered. In all three nations, cancer-related admissions fell the most while respiratory-related admissions fell the least (e.g., rates fell by 40.5%, 21.9%, and 19.0% in England for cancer, cardiovascular-related, and respiratory-related admissions respectively). Unscheduled admissions rates fell more in the most than the least deprived quintile across all three nations. Some ethnic minority groups experienced greater falls in admissions (e.g., in England, unscheduled admissions fell by 9.5% for Whites, but 44.3%, 34.6%, and 25.6% for Mixed, Other and Black ethnic groups respectively). Despite easing of restrictions, the overall admission rates remained lower in England, Scotland, and Wales by 20.8%, 21.6%, and 22.0% respectively when compared to the same period (August-September) during the pre-pandemic years.Interpretation: Hospital care for non-COVID diseases fell substantially across England, Scotland, and Wales during the first lockdown, with disruptions persisting for at least six months. The most deprived and minority ethnic groups were impacted more severely. Funding Information: Medical Research Council; Health Data Research UK; Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund; Scottish Government; National Institute for Health Research; Asthma UK-BLF; Wellcome TrustDeclaration of Interests: SVK is co-chair of the Scottish Government’s Expert Reference Group on ethnicity and COVID-19 and is a member of the Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies subgroup on ethnicity. AS is a member of the Scottish Government Chief Medical Officer’s COVID-19 Advisory Group and its Standing Committee on Pandemics, and NERVTAG’s Risk Stratification Subgroup. All other authors declare no conflict of interest related to this work.Ethics Approval Statement: There were database-specific ethics approvals that allowed the use of the anonymised datasets for the current research study. These approvals were by the Health Research Authority (20/LO/0651) and LSHTM Ethics Board (21863) for OpenSAFELY, South East Scotland Research Ethics Committee 02 (12/SS/0201) and Public Benefit and Privacy Panel Committee of Public Health Scotland (1920-0279) for EAVE-II, and SAIL’s independent Information Governance Review Panel (IGRP) for the SAIL Databank.