Search results
Found 18167 matches for
Cochrane review of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation
Supplementary tables 1-10 for the update to the Cochrane review of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation. Once accepted the DOI for the publication will be: 10.1002/14651858.CD010216.pub9
Approaches and challenges to assessing risk of violence in first episode psychosis: A qualitative interview study of clinicians, patients and carers
Aim: Clinical services for early psychosis seek to improve prognosis for a range of adverse outcomes. For some individuals, perpetration of violence is an important potential outcome to reduce. How these clinical services currently assess this risk however is uncertain. This study aimed to address this gap by using qualitative methods to examine in depth current approaches, attitudes and challenges to assessing violence risk in this clinical setting, from the perspectives of multidisciplinary clinicians, patients and carers. Methods: Participants were recruited from two UK Early Intervention in Psychosis services. Semi-structured individual interviews were undertaken using a topic guide. In addition, clinical vignettes were presented to clinician participants as a probe to prompt discussion. Data were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by the constant comparative method. Results: We conducted 30 qualitative interviews, of 18 clinicians and 12 patients and carers. Themes developed from clinician interviews included key difficulties of low confidence, limited training, accessing collateral information and variation in how risk is appraised and communicated. Potential stigma and sensitivity of the topic of violence were perceived as barriers to its discussion. Patient and carer perspectives provided insight into how to address barriers, and highlighted the importance of an open approach, including with families. Conclusions: We recommend developing contextually appropriate pathways to collaboratively assess violence risk and identify modifiable needs to reduce this risk, and for practical improvements in training and information-sharing.
Association of gestational diabetes with long-term risk of premature mortality, and cardiovascular outcomes and risk factors: A retrospective cohort analysis in the UK Biobank.
AIM: To investigate the association of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) with premature mortality and cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes and risk factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Parous women recruited to the UK Biobank cohort during 2006-2010 were followed up from their first delivery until 31 October 2021. The data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics and mortality registries. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models investigated associations of GDM with all-cause mortality, CVD, diabetes, hypertension and dyslipidaemia. RESULTS: The maximum total analysis time at risk and under observation was 9 694 090 person-years. Among 220 726 women, 1225 self-reported or had a recorded diagnosis of GDM. After adjusting for confounders and behavioural factors, GDM was associated with increased risk for premature mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-1.86], particularly CVD-related death (HR: 2.38, 95% CI: 1.63-3.48), as well as incident total CVD (HR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.30-1.74), non-fatal CVD (HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.20-1.65), diabetes (HR: 14.37, 95% CI: 13.51-15.27), hypertension (HR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.38-1.60), and dyslipidaemia (HR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.22-1.39). The total CVD risk was greater in women with GDM who did not later develop diabetes than in those with GDM and diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Women with GDM are at increased risk of premature death and have increased CV risk, emphasizing the importance of interventions to prevent GDM. If GDM develops, the diagnosis represents an opportunity for future surveillance and intervention to reduce CVD risk factors, prevent CVD and improve long-term health.
Identification of patients undergoing chronic kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data: validation study based on OpenSAFELY and UK Renal Registry.
OBJECTIVE: To validate primary and secondary care codes in electronic health records to identify people receiving chronic kidney replacement therapy based on gold standard registry data. DESIGN: Validation study using data from OpenSAFELY and the UK Renal Registry, with the approval of NHS England. SETTING: Primary and secondary care electronic health records from people registered at 45% of general practices in England on 1 January 2020, linked to data from the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) within the OpenSAFELY-TPP platform, part of the NHS England OpenSAFELY covid-19 service. PARTICIPANTS: 38 745 prevalent patients (recorded as receiving kidney replacement therapy on 1 January 2020 in UKRR data, or primary or secondary care data) and 10 730 incident patients (starting kidney replacement therapy during 2020), from a population of 19 million people alive and registered with a general practice in England on 1 January 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and positive predictive values of primary and secondary care code lists for identifying prevalent and incident kidney replacement therapy cohorts compared with the gold standard UKRR data on chronic kidney replacement therapy. Agreement across the data sources overall, and by treatment modality (transplantation or dialysis) and personal characteristics. RESULTS: Primary and secondary care code lists were sensitive for identifying the UKRR prevalent cohort (91.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 90.8% to 91.6%) and 92.0% (91.6% to 92.4%), respectively), but not the incident cohort (52.3% (50.3% to 54.3%) and 67.9% (66.1% to 69.7%)). Positive predictive values were low (77.7% (77.2% to 78.2%) for primary care data and 64.7% (64.1% to 65.3%) for secondary care data), particularly for chronic dialysis (53.7% (52.9% to 54.5%) for primary care data and 49.1% (48.0% to 50.2%) for secondary care data). Sensitivity decreased with age and index of multiple deprivation in primary care data, but the opposite was true in secondary care data. Agreement was lower in children, with 30% (295/980) featuring in all three datasets. Half (1165/2315) of the incident patients receiving dialysis in UKRR data had a kidney replacement therapy code in the primary care data within three months of the start date of the kidney replacement therapy. No codes existed whose exclusion would substantially improve the positive predictive value without a decrease in sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: Codes used in primary and secondary care data failed to identify a small proportion of prevalent patients receiving kidney replacement therapy. Codes also identified many patients who were not recipients of chronic kidney replacement therapy in UKRR data, particularly dialysis codes. Linkage with UKRR kidney replacement therapy data facilitated more accurate identification of incident and prevalent kidney replacement therapy cohorts for research into this vulnerable population. Poor coding has implications for any patient care (including eligibility for vaccination, resourcing, and health policy responses in future pandemics) that relies on accurate reporting of kidney replacement therapy in primary and secondary care data.
A community-based cluster randomised controlled trial in rural Bangladesh to evaluate the impact of the use of iron-folic acid supplements early in pregnancy on the risk of neonatal mortality: The Shonjibon trial
Background: Iron-deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency globally. Due to the high iron requirements for pregnancy, it is highly prevalent and severe in pregnant women. There is strong evidence that maternal iron deficiency anaemia increases the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. However, most of the evidence is from observational epidemiological studies except for a very few randomised controlled trials. IFA supplements have also been found to reduce the preterm delivery rate and neonatal mortality attributable to prematurity and birth asphyxia. These results combined indicate that IFA supplements in populations of iron-deficient pregnant women could lead to a decrease in the number of neonatal deaths mediated by reduced rates of preterm delivery. In this paper, we describe the protocol of a community-based cluster randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the impact of maternal antenatal IFA supplements on perinatal outcomes. Methods/design: The effect of the early use of iron-folic acid supplements on neonatal mortality will be examined using a community based, cluster randomised controlled trial in five districts with 30,000 live births. In intervention clusters trained BRAC village volunteers will identify pregnant women & provide iron-folic acid supplements. Groundwater iron levels will be measured in all study households using a validated test kit. The analysis will follow the intention to treat principle. We will compare neonatal mortality rates & their 95% confidence intervals adjusted for clustering between treatment groups in each groundwater iron-level group. Cox proportional hazards mixed models will be used for mortality outcomes & will include groundwater iron level as an interaction term in the mortality model. Discussion: This paper aims to describe the study protocol of a community based randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of the use of iron-folic acid supplements early in pregnancy on the risk of neonatal mortality. This study is critical because it will determine if antenatal IFA supplements commenced in the first trimester of pregnancy, rather than later, will significantly reduce neonatal deaths in the first month of life, and if this approach is cost-effective. Trial registration: This trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on 31 May 2012. The registration ID is ACTRN12612000588897.
Impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life: an OpenSAFELY population cohort study using patient-reported outcome measures (OpenPROMPT)
Background: Long COVID is a major problem affecting patient health, the health service, and the workforce. To optimise the design of future interventions against COVID-19, and to better plan and allocate health resources, it is critical to quantify the health and economic burden of this novel condition. We aimed to evaluate and estimate the differences in health impacts of long COVID across sociodemographic categories and quantify this in Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), widely used measures across health systems. Methods: With the approval of NHS England, we utilised OpenPROMPT, a UK cohort study measuring the impact of long COVID on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). OpenPROMPT invited responses to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) using a smartphone application and recruited between November 2022 and October 2023. We used the validated EuroQol EQ-5D questionnaire with the UK Value Set to develop disutility scores (1-utility) for respondents with and without Long COVID using linear mixed models, and we calculated subsequent Quality-Adjusted Life-Months (QALMs) for long COVID. Findings: The total OpenPROMPT cohort consisted of 7575 individuals who consented to data collection, with which we used data from 6070 participants who completed a baseline research questionnaire where 24.6% self-reported long COVID. In multivariable regressions, long COVID had a consistent impact on HRQoL, showing a higher likelihood or odds of reporting loss in quality-of-life (Odds Ratio (OR): 4.7, 95% CI: 3.72–5.93) compared with people who did not report long COVID. Reporting a disability was the largest predictor of losses of HRQoL (OR: 17.7, 95% CI: 10.37–30.33) across survey responses. Self-reported long COVID was associated with an 0.37 QALM loss. Interpretation: We found substantial impacts on quality-of-life due to long COVID, representing a major burden on patients and the health service. We highlight the need for continued support and research for long COVID, as HRQoL scores compared unfavourably to patients with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, heart failure, and renal disease. Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) (OpenPROMPT: COV-LT2-0073).
Clinician and parent views on urine collection in precontinent children in the UK: a qualitative interview study.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and parents of urine collection methods, to identify barriers to successful sampling and what could improve the process. DESIGN: Qualitative research, using individual semistructured interviews with HCPs and parents. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. SETTING: UK-based HCPs from primary and secondary care settings and parents with experience with urine collection in primary and/or secondary care settings. PARTICIPANTS: HCPs who were involved in aiding, supervising or ordering urine samples. Parents who had experience with urine collection in at least one precontinent child. RESULTS: 13 HCPs and 16 parents were interviewed. 2 participating HCPs were general practitioners (GPs), 11 worked in paediatric secondary care settings (8 were nurses and 3 were doctors). Two parents had children with underlying conditions where frequent urine collection was required to rule out infections.HCPs and parents reported that there were no straightforward methods of urine collection for precontinent children. Each method-'clean catch', urine bag and urine pad-had limitations and problems with usage. 'Clean catch', regarded as the gold standard by HCPs with a lower risk of contamination, often proved difficult for parents to achieve. Other methods had elevated risk of contamination but were more acceptable to parents because they were less challenging. Many of the parents expressed the need for more information about urine collection. CONCLUSIONS: Current methods of urine collection are challenging to use and may be prone to contamination. A new device is required to assist with urine collection in precontinent children, to simplify and reduce the stress of the situation for those involved. Parents are key partners in the process of urine collection with young children. Meeting their expressed need for more information could be an important way to achieve better-quality samples while awaiting a new device.
Predicting inhaled steroid responsiveness using blood eosinophil counts: personalising long-term management of COPD in primary care
Background Management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), including initiation of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), has thus far generally been based on a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach. However, benefits of ICS are unclear, and they may harm some patients. Blood eosinophils have been identified as a readily available biomarker to guide decisions about ICS treatment in COPD, but they have not been studied in an ICS-naïve, primary care population. A device for estimating blood eosinophil counts at the point of care is now available. This doctoral project aimed to characterise blood eosinophils and ICS responsiveness in people with COPD in primary care, as well as assess agreement between near-patient vs. laboratory testing for blood eosinophils. Methods This project comprises two major studies, each with several constituent parts. First, a study of 30,378 routinely-collected primary care records were used for descriptive and hypothesis-testing components. Second, a prospective cohort study recruited 96 participants to obtain laboratory and near-patient blood eosinophil data at multiple visits over a six-month period. Results Approximately half of patients fell into a ‘medium’ category of eosinophils in the range 0.15 to 0.34 x10*9/L. Repeatability of eosinophil counts was either ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ in the two cohorts. There was a lower risk of acute exacerbations in patients with higher eosinophil counts who were prescribed an ICS, with a clear ‘dose-response’ by eosinophil count. There was no clinically important difference between near-patient and laboratory eosinophil values. Conclusions Patients with higher blood eosinophils are more likely to benefit from ICS. Blood eosinophil counts are generally repeatable and are applicable for guiding ICS treatment decisions in primary care. Blood eosinophil categories in combination with other clinical features such as acute exacerbation frequency could provide a more personalised approach to pharmacological management of COPD. Near-patient eosinophil count testing could support rapid decisions about ICS treatment in primary care.
Risk of bleeding amongst warfarin and direct oral anticoagulant users prescribed immediate antibiotics for respiratory tract infection: Cohort study.
PURPOSE: Incidence of bleeding amongst warfarin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) users is greater following a respiratory tract infection (RTI). It is unclear whether immediate antibiotics modify this association. We estimated the risk of bleeding amongst warfarin and DOAC users with RTI by antibiotic treatment. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD for adults in England prescribed warfarin or a DOAC, who sought primary care for an RTI between 1st January 2011 and 31st December 2019. Outcomes were major bleeding (hospital admission for intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding), and non-major bleeding (hospital admission or General Practice consult for epistaxis, haemoptysis, or haematuria). Cox models derived hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, adjusting for confounders using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Of 14 817 warfarin and DOAC users consulting for an RTI, 8768 (59%) were prescribed immediate antibiotics and 6049 (41%) were not. Approximately 49% were female, and median age was 76 years. Antibiotics were associated with reduced risk of major bleeding (adjusted HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.58). This was consistent across several sensitivity analyses. Antibiotics were also associated with a reduced risk of non-major bleeding (adjusted HR 0.78, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate antibiotics were associated with reduced risk of bleeding amongst warfarin and DOAC users with an RTI. Further work is needed to understand mechanisms and confirm whether a lower threshold for antibiotic use for RTI in this population may be beneficial.
Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after autumn 2022 COVID-19 booster vaccinations: a pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies involving 7.4 million adults in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
Background: UK COVID-19 vaccination policy has evolved to offering COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at increased risk of severe Illness from COVID-19. Building on our analyses of vaccine effectiveness of first, second and initial booster doses, we aimed to identify individuals at increased risk of severe outcomes (i.e., COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death) post the autumn 2022 booster dose. Methods: We undertook a national population-based cohort analysis across all four UK nations through linked primary care, vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. We included individuals who received autumn 2022 booster doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) during the period September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between demographic and clinical factors and severe COVID-19 outcomes after the autumn booster dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), deprivation, urban/rural areas and comorbidities. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine results across the four UK nations. Findings: Between September 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, 7,451,890 individuals ≥18 years received an autumn booster dose. 3500 had severe COVID-19 outcomes (2.9 events per 1000 person-years). Being male (male vs female, aHR 1.41 (1.32–1.51)), older adults (≥80 years vs 18–49 years; 10.43 (8.06–13.50)), underweight (BMI <18.5 vs BMI 25.0–29.9; 2.94 (2.51–3.44)), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9.45 (8.15–10.96)) had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death after the autumn booster dose. Those with a larger household size (≥11 people within household vs 2 people; 1.56 (1.23–1.98)) and from more deprived areas (most deprived vs least deprived quintile; 1.35 (1.21–1.51)) had modestly higher risks. We also observed at least a two-fold increase in risk for those with various chronic neurological conditions, including Down's syndrome, immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, or cardiovascular disease. Interpretation: Males, older individuals, underweight individuals, those with an increasing number of comorbidities, from a larger household or more deprived areas, and those with specific underlying health conditions remained at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the autumn 2022 vaccine booster dose. There is now a need to focus on these risk groups for investigating immunogenicity and efficacy of further booster doses or therapeutics. Funding: National Core Studies—Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.
The Association between Blood Test Trends and Undiagnosed Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal
Clinical guidelines include monitoring blood test abnormalities to identify patients at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. Noting blood test changes over time may improve cancer risk stratification by considering a patient’s individual baseline and important changes within the normal range. We aimed to review the published literature to understand the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 15 May 2023 for studies assessing the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. We used descriptive summaries and narratively synthesised studies. We included 29 articles. Common blood tests were haemoglobin (24%, n = 7), C-reactive protein (17%, n = 5), and fasting blood glucose (17%, n = 5), and common cancers were pancreatic (29%, n = 8) and colorectal (17%, n = 5). Of the 30 blood tests studied, an increasing trend in eight (27%) was associated with eight cancer types, and a decreasing trend in 17 (57%) with 10 cancer types. No association was reported between trends in 11 (37%) tests and breast, bile duct, glioma, haematological combined, liver, prostate, or thyroid cancers. Our review highlights trends in blood tests that could facilitate the identification of individuals at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. For most possible combinations of tests and cancers, there was limited or no evidence.
Diagnostic yield from symptomatic lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in the UK: A British Society of Gastroenterology analysis using data from the National Endoscopy Database.
BACKGROUND: The value of lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE; colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) relates to its ability to detect clinically relevant findings, predominantly cancers, preneoplastic polyps or inflammatory bowel disease. There are concerns that many LGIEs are performed on low-risk patients with limited benefit. AIMS: To determine the diagnostic outcomes of LGIE for common symptoms. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of diagnostic LGIE between March 2019 and February 2020 using the UK National Endoscopy Database. We used mixed-effects logistic regression models, incorporating random (endoscopist) and fixed (symptoms, patient age, and sex) effects upon two dependent variables (large polyp [≥10 mm] and cancer diagnosis). Adjusted positive predictive values (aPPVs) were calculated. RESULTS: We analysed 384,510 LGIEs; 33.2% were performed on patients aged under 50 and 53.6% on women. Regarding colonoscopies, the unadjusted PPV for cancer was 1.5% (95% CI: 1.4-1.5); higher for men than women (1.9% vs. 1.1%, p
General practitioners' risk literacy and real-world prescribing of potentially hazardous drugs: a cross-sectional study.
BACKGROUND: Overuse of medical care is a pervasive problem. Studies using hypothetical scenarios suggest that physicians' risk literacy influences medical decisions; real-world correlations, however, are lacking. We sought to determine the association between physicians' risk literacy and their real-world prescriptions of potentially hazardous drugs, accounting for conflicts of interest and perceptions of benefit-harm ratios in low-value prescribing scenarios. SETTING AND SAMPLE: Cross-sectional study-conducted online between June and October 2023 via field panels of Sermo (Hamburg, Germany)-with a convenience sample of 304 English general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: GPs' survey responses on their treatment-related risk literacy, conflicts of interest and perceptions of the benefit-harm ratio in low-value prescribing scenarios were matched to their UK National Health Service records of prescribing volumes for antibiotics, opioids, gabapentin and benzodiazepines and analysed for differences. RESULTS: 204 GPs (67.1%) worked in practices with ≥6 practising GPs and 226 (76.0%) reported 10-39 years of experience. Compared with GPs demonstrating low risk literacy, GPs with high literacy prescribed fewer opioids (mean (M): 60.60 vs 43.88 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.016), less gabapentin (M: 23.84 vs 18.34 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.023), and fewer benzodiazepines (M: 17.23 vs 13.58 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.037), but comparable volumes of antibiotics (M: 48.84 vs 40.61 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.076). High-risk literacy was associated with lower conflicts of interest (ϕ = 0.12, p=0.031) and higher perception of harms outweighing benefits in low-value prescribing scenarios (p=0.007). Conflicts of interest and benefit-harm perceptions were not independently associated with prescribing behaviour (all ps >0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The observed association between GPs with higher risk literacy and the prescription of fewer hazardous drugs suggests the importance of risk literacy in enhancing patient safety and quality of care.
Randomised controlled trial of population screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the SAFER trial.
INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of evidence that the benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) outweigh the harms. Following the completion of the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) pilot trial, the aim of the main SAFER trial is to establish whether population screening for AF reduces incidence of stroke risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Approximately 82 000 people aged 70 years and over and not on oral anticoagulation are being recruited from general practices in England. Patients on the palliative care register or residents in a nursing home are excluded. Eligible people are identified using electronic patient records from general practices and sent an invitation and consent form to participate by post. Consenting participants are randomised at a ratio of 2:1 (control:intervention) with clustering by household. Those randomised to the intervention arm are sent an information leaflet inviting them to participate in screening, which involves use of a handheld single-lead ECG four times a day for 3 weeks. ECG traces identified by an algorithm as possible AF are reviewed by cardiologists. Participants with AF are seen by a general practitioner for consideration of anticoagulation. The primary outcome is stroke. Major secondary outcomes are: death, major bleeding and cardiovascular events. Follow-up will be via electronic health records for an average of 4 years. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat using time-to-event modelling. Results from this trial will be combined with follow-up data from the cluster-randomised pilot trial by fixed-effects meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will include public-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.
Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for encephalitis in children aged 6 months to 16 years: the IgNiTE RCT
Background There are data suggesting that intravenous immunoglobulin treatment has some benefit for certain forms of encephalitis but robust evidence from large randomised controlled trials in children with all-cause encephalitis is lacking. Objective To evaluate whether intravenous immunoglobulin treatment improves neurological outcomes in childhood encephalitis when given early in the illness. Design Phase 3b, investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of encephalitis in children. Setting Twenty-one NHS Hospitals in the UK. Participants Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or sub-acute encephalitis. Intervention Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either intravenous immunoglobulin or matching placebo, given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment. Main outcome measure Participants were followed up for 12 months (+/– 4 weeks) after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was a ‘good recovery’ defined as a score of ≤ 2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and intravenous immunoglobulin safety data. Results We planned to recruit 308 children over a 42-month period. After enrolment of 18 participants (8 male; 44%) over 21 months (from December 2015 to September 2017), funding was withdrawn due to slow recruitment and the study was terminated. Ten participants were randomised to the intravenous immunoglobulin group, and eight to the placebo group, and all 18 participants were included in the analysis. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 participants [50%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 4 (50%)] made good recovery and 5 participants [28%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 3 (30%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] made a poor recovery. Three participants in the placebo group (43%) experienced a total of 10 serious adverse events compared with none in the intravenous immunoglobulin group but none of the adverse events were judged to be related to the study treatment. No deaths occurred during the study period. Conclusion ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis (IgNiTE) was halted prematurely due to slow recruitment. Given the small sample size, the study was underpowered to evaluate the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin when compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis. The study findings, albeit from a small sample size, support existing evidence that encephalitis results in poor neurological outcomes for many children. Lessons learned from the ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis trial would be valuable for the success of future trials set up to address the efficacy of early treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin in all-cause encephalitis in children. Study limitations and future work The study was underpowered to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of childhood encephalitis due to the small sample size achieved. Future trials should seek to address this important question. Trial registration This trial is registered as Clinical Trials.gov (NCT02308982) and ISRCTN15791925. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/212/15) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.