Search

Abstract Background High participant retention enhances the validity of clinical trials. A monetary incentive can increase retention, but it is not known if when it is provided and if it is conditional matters. We aimed to determine whether there was a difference in the number of follow-up trial questionnaires returned when a monetary (gift voucher) incentive was given to participants at recruitment (non-conditional), compared to informing participants at recruitment that the incentive would be given only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned (conditional). Method A cluster randomised study within a trial embedded within the Antivirals for influenza-Like Illness, An rCt of Clinical and Cost effectiveness in primary CarE (ALIC4E) Trial. Matched site pairs (GP practices) were randomised using computer-generated random numbers, to either a non-conditional or conditional monetary voucher incentive (only once their 14-day daily diary (questionnaire) had been returned. Sites were matched on previous recruitment levels and practice list size. Analyses were conducted according to randomised groups irrespective of compliance with a two-sided 5% level statistical significance level. The main analysis of the primary outcome (site proportion of diaries returned) was linear regression accounting for site pair (using cluster-robust variance). Additional weighted, paired and non-parametric sensitivity analyses were conducted. Secondary outcomes were the site average number of completed pages, time to return diary, and cost related to the incentive (administration and postage). Results Of the 42 randomised sites (21 for each intervention), only 28 recruited at least one participant with only 10 practice pairs recruiting participants at both constituent sites. Raw diaries return proportions were 0.58 (127/220) and 0.73 (91/125) for non-conditional and conditional incentive groups. Regression analysis adjusted for site pair showed no significant difference in returns, − 0.09, (95% CI, − 0.29, 0.10, p = 0.34); when weighted, there was still no clear difference: 0.15 (95% CI, − 0.02, 0.31, p = 0.07). There was no clear statistical evidence of a difference in time taken to return questionnaires, nor the proportion of pages completed, by the intervention group in the main analyses (all p > 0.05). The conditional incentive was approximately £23 cheaper per diary returned based upon observed data. Conclusion There was no clear evidence of a statistically significant difference in the proportion of participant-completed diaries returned between conditional or non-conditional incentive groups. The time to questionnaire return and completeness of the returned questionnaires were similar in both groups. There was substantial statistical uncertainty in the findings. Some of the sensitivity analyses suggested that a meaningful benefit of a conditional incentive of a magnitude that would be meaningful was plausible. The conditional approach costs less in cash terms.

AbstractBackground Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs had to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other aetiologies in patients presenting with respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms on clinical grounds and adapt management accordingly.Objectives To test the diagnostic accuracy of GPs’ clinical diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a period when COVID-19 was a new disease. To describe GPs’ management of patients presenting with RTI for whom no confirmed diagnosis was available. To investigate associations between patient and clinical features with a SARS-CoV-2 infection.Methods In April 2020–March 2021, 876 patients (9 countries) were recruited when they contacted their GP with symptoms of an RTI of unknown aetiology. A swab was taken at baseline for later analysis. Aetiology (PCR), diagnostic accuracy of GPs’ clinical SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, and patient management were explored. Factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were determined by logistic regression modelling.Results GPs suspected SARS-CoV-2 in 53% of patients whereas 27% of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. True-positive patients (23%) were more intensively managed for follow-up, antiviral prescribing and advice than true-negatives (42%). False negatives (5%) were under-advised, particularly for social distancing and isolation. Older age (OR: 1.02 (1.01–1.03)), male sex (OR: 1.68 (1.16–2.41)), loss of taste/smell (OR: 5.8 (3.7–9)), fever (OR: 1.9 (1.3–2.8)), muscle aches (OR: 2.1 (1.5–3)), and a known risk factor for COVID-19 (travel, health care worker, contact with proven case; OR: 2.7 (1.8–4)) were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Absence of loss of taste/smell, fever, muscle aches and a known risk factor for COVID-19 correctly excluded SARS-CoV-2 in 92.3% of patients, whereas presence of 3, or 4 of these variables correctly classified SARS-CoV-2 in 57.7% and 87.1%.Conclusion Correct clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, without POC-testing available, appeared to be complicated.

Introduction Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing.Methods and analysis The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation.Ethics and dissemination This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration ISRCTN20579216.

Objectives About 6% of the UK general practice population has a record of a penicillin allergy but fewer than 10% of these are likely to be truly allergic. In the ALABAMA (Allergy Antibiotics and Microbial resistance) feasibility trial, primary care patients with penicillin allergy were randomised to penicillin allergy assessment pathway or usual care to assess the effect on health outcomes. A behavioural intervention package was developed to aid delabelling. This study aimed to investigate patients’ and clinicians’ views of penicillin allergy testing (PAT).Design We conducted a mixed-methods process evaluation embedded within the ALABAMA trial, which included a clinician survey, a patient survey (at baseline and follow-up) and semistructured interviews with patients and clinicians.Settings The study was conducted in primary care, as part of the feasibility stage of the ALABAMA trial.Participants Patients and primary care clinicians.Results Clinicians (N=53; 52.2%) were positive about PAT and its potential value but did not have previous experience of referring patients for a PAT and were unsure whether patients would take penicillin after a negative allergy test. Patients (N=36; 46%) were unsure whether they were severely allergic to penicillin and did not fear a severe allergic reaction to penicillin. Clinician interviews showed that they were already aware of the benefit of PAT. Interviews with patients suggested the importance of safety as patients valued having numerous opportunities to address their concerns about safety of the test.Conclusions This study highlights the positive effects of the ALABAMA behavioural intervention for both patients and clinicians.Trial registration number NCT04108637; ISRCTN20579216; Pre-results.

Background: Between-country differences have been described in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infection (RTI) in primary care, but not yet for diagnostic testing procedures and prescribing confidence. Aim: To describe between-country differences in RTI management, particularly diagnostic testing and antibiotic prescribing, and investigate which factors relate to antibiotic prescribing and GPs’ prescribing confidence. Design & setting: Prospective audit in 18 European countries. Method: An audit of GP-registered patient, clinical, and management characteristics for patients presenting with sore throat and/or lower RTI (n = 4982), and GPs' confidence in their antibiotic prescribing decision. Factors related to antibiotic prescribing and confidence were analysed using multi-level logistic regression. Results: Antibiotic prescribing proportions varied considerably: 40% in six countries. There was also considerable variation in point-of-care (POC) testing (0% in Croatia, Moldova, and Romania, and >65% in Denmark and Norway, mainly for C-reactive protein [CRP] and group A streptococcal [strep A] infection), and in laboratory or hospital-based testing (30% in Croatia, Georgia, Greece, and Moldova, mainly chest X-ray and white blood cell counting). Antibiotic prescribing was related to illness severity, comorbidity, age, fever, and country, but not to having performed a POC test. In nearly 90% of consultations, GPs were confident in their antibiotic prescribing decision. Conclusion: Despite high confidence in decisions about antibiotic prescribing, there is considerable variation in the primary care of RTI in European countries, with GPs prescribing antibiotics overall more often than is considered appropriate. POC testing may enhance the quality of antibiotic prescribing decisions if it can safely reverse decisions confidently made on clinical grounds alone to prescribe antibiotics.

Up to 80% of antibiotics are prescribed in the community. An assessment of prescribing by indication will help to identify areas where improvement can be made. A point prevalence audit study (PPAS) of consecutive respiratory tract infection (RTI) consultations in general practices in 13 European countries was conducted in January–February 2020 (PPAS-1) and again in 2022 (PPAS-4). The European Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption quality indicators (ESAC-QI) were calculated to identify where improvements can be made. A total of 3618 consultations were recorded for PPAS-1 and 2655 in PPAS-4. Bacterial aetiology was suspected in 26% (PPAS-1) and 12% (PPAS-4), and an antibiotic was prescribed in 30% (PPAS-1) and 16% (PPAS-4) of consultations. The percentage of adult patients with bronchitis who receive an antibiotic should, according to the ESAC-QI, not exceed 30%, which was not met by participating practices in any country except Denmark and Spain. For patients (≥1) with acute upper RTI, less than 20% should be prescribed an antibiotic, which was achieved by general practices in most countries, except Ireland (both PPAS), Croatia (PPAS-1), and Greece (PPAS-4) where prescribing for acute or chronic sinusitis (0–20%) was also exceeded. For pneumonia in adults, prescribing is acceptable for 90–100%, and this is lower in most countries. Prescribing for tonsillitis (≥1) exceeded the ESAC-QI (0–20%) in all countries and was 69% (PPAS-1) and 75% (PPAS-4). In conclusion, ESAC-QI applied to PPAS outcomes allows us to evaluate appropriate antibiotic prescribing by indication and benchmark general practices and countries.

An estimated 2.7 million people in the UK are potentially prevented from accessing highly effective and inexpensive penicillins as a result of incorrect penicillin allergy records. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy records may lead to improved patient outcomes and contribute to the tackling of antibiotic resistance. We aim to develop and evaluate whether the ‘Penicillin Allergy Assessment Pathway’ (PAAP) is effective in improving patient outcomes. At the first stage of this work, we have focused on understanding patients’ and primary care clinicians’ views of attending and referring to penicillin allergy testing, and then prescribing and consuming penicillin following a negative test result.

Objective To describe primary health care (consultation characteristics and management) for patients contacting their general practitioner (GP) with a respiratory tract infection (RTI) early on in the COVID-19 pandemic in contrasting European countries, with comparison to prepandemic findings.Setting Primary care in 16 countries (79 practices), when no routine SARS-CoV-2 testing was generally available.Design and participants Before (n=4376) and early in the pandemic (n=3301), patients with RTI symptoms were registered in this prospective audit study.Outcome measures Consultation characteristics (type of contact and use of PPE) and management characteristics (clinical assessments, diagnostic testing, prescribing, advice and referral) were registered. Differences in these characteristics between countries and between pandemic and prepandemic care are described.Results Care for patients with RTIs rapidly switched to telephone/video consultations (10% in Armenia, 91% in Denmark), and when consultations were face-to-face, GPs used PPE during 97% (95% CI 96% to 98%) of contacts. Laboratory testing for SARS-CoV-2 in primary care patients with RTIs was rapidly implemented in Denmark (59%) and Germany (31%), while overall testing for C reactive protein decreased. The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics varied considerably between countries (3% in Belgium, 48% in UK) and was lower during the pandemic compared with the months before, except for Greece, Poland and UK. GPs provided frequent and varied COVID-related advice and more frequently scheduled a follow-up contact (50%, 95% CI 48% to 52%). GPs reported a slightly higher degree of confidence in the likely effectiveness of their management in face-to-face (73% (very) confident, 95% CI 71% to 76%) than in virtual consultations (69%, 95% CI 67% to 71%).Conclusions Despite between-country variation in consultation characteristics, access to SARS-CoV-2 laboratory testing and medication prescribing, GPs reported a high degree of confidence in managing their patients with RTIs in the emerging pandemic. Insight in the highly variable pandemic responses, as measured in this multicountry audit, can aid in fine-tuning national action and in coordinating a pan-European response during future pandemic threats.

Introduction There is an urgent need to idenfy treatments for COVID-19 that reduce illness duration and hospital admission in those at higher risk of a longer illness course and complications.Methods and analysis The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE trial is an open-label, multiarm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial to evaluate potential treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new interventions as they become available, as well as the inclusion and cessation of existing intervention arms via frequent interim analyses. The first three interventions are hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and doxycycline. Eligible participants must be symptomatic in the community with possible or confirmed COVID-19 that started in the preceding 14 days and either (1) aged 65 years and over or (2) aged 50–64 years with comorbidities. Recruitment is through general practice, health service helplines, COVID-19 ‘hot hubs’ and directly through the trial website. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a study drug plus usual care, and outcomes are collected via daily online symptom diary for 28 days from randomisation. The research team contacts participants and/or their study partner following days 7, 14 and 28 if the online diary is not completed. The trial has two coprimary endpoints: time to first self-report of feeling recovered from possible COVID-19 and hospital admission or death from possible COVID-19 infection, both within 28 days from randomisation. Prespecified interim analyses assess efficacy or futility of interventions and to modify randomisation probabilities that allocate more participants to interventions with better outcomes.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval Ref: 20/SC/0158 South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee; IRAS Project ID: 281958; EudraCT Number: 2020-001209-22. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN86534580.

Objectives To develop a behavioural intervention package to support clinicians and patients to amend incorrect penicillin allergy records in general practice. The intervention aimed to: (1) support clinicians to refer patients for penicillin allergy testing (PAT), (2) support patients to attend for PAT and (3) support clinicians and patients to prescribe or consume penicillin, when indicated, following a negative PAT result.Methods Theory-based, evidence-based and person-based approaches were used in the intervention development. We used evidence from a rapid review, two qualitative studies, and expert consultations with the clinical research team to identify the intervention ‘guiding principles’ and develop an intervention plan. Barriers and facilitators to the target behaviours were mapped to behaviour change theory in order to describe the proposed mechanisms of change. In the final stage, think-aloud interviews were conducted to optimise intervention materials.Results The collated evidence showed that the key barriers to referral of patients by clinicians were limited experience of referral and limited knowledge of referral criteria and PAT. Barriers for patients attending PAT were lack of knowledge of the benefits of testing and lack of motivation to get tested. The key barriers to the prescription and consumption of first-line penicillin following a negative test result were patient and clinician beliefs about the accuracy of PAT and whether taking penicillin was safe. Intervention materials were designed and developed to address these barriers.Conclusions We present a novel behavioural intervention package designed to address the multiple barriers to uptake of PAT in general practice by clinicians and patients. The intervention development details how behaviour change techniques have been incorporated to hypothesise how the intervention is likely to work to help amend incorrect penicillin allergy records. The intervention will go on to be tested in a feasibility trial and randomised controlled trial in England.

Abstract Background The ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients’ experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach. Results The findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes. Conclusions The integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstrated that although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005. Registered on 27 April 2011.

Abstract Background The use of early morning sputum samples (EMS) to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) can result in treatment delay given the need for the patient to return to the clinic with the EMS, increasing the chance of patients being lost during their diagnostic workup. However, there is little evidence to support the superiority of EMS over spot sputum samples. In this new analysis of the REMoxTB study, we compare the diagnostic accuracy of EMS with spot samples for identifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis pre- and post-treatment. Methods Patients who were smear positive at screening were enrolled into the study. Paired sputum samples (one EMS and one spot) were collected at each trial visit pre- and post-treatment. Microscopy and culture on solid LJ and liquid MGIT media were performed on all samples; those missing corresponding paired results were excluded from the analyses. Results Data from 1115 pre- and 2995 post-treatment paired samples from 1931 patients enrolled in the REMoxTB study were analysed. Patients were recruited from South Africa (47%), East Africa (21%), India (20%), Asia (11%), and North America (1%); 70% were male, median age 31 years (IQR 24–41), 139 (7%) co-infected with HIV with a median CD4 cell count of 399 cells/μL (IQR 318–535). Pre-treatment spot samples had a higher yield of positive Ziehl–Neelsen smears (98% vs. 97%, P = 0.02) and LJ cultures (87% vs. 82%, P = 0.006) than EMS, but there was no difference for positivity by MGIT (93% vs. 95%, P = 0.18). Contaminated and false-positive MGIT were found more often with EMS rather than spot samples. Surprisingly, pre-treatment EMS had a higher smear grading and shorter time-to-positivity, by 1 day, than spot samples in MGIT culture (4.5 vs. 5.5 days, P

ALIC4E is the first publicly funded, multicountry, pragmatic study determining whether antivirals should be routinely prescribed for influenza-like illness in primary care. The trial aims to go beyond determining the average treatment effect in a population to determining effects in patients with combinations of participant characteristics (age, symptom duration, illness severity, and comorbidities). It is one of the first platform, response-adaptive, open trial designs implemented in primary care, and this article aims to provide an accessible description of key aspects of the study design. 1) The platform design allows the study to remain relevant to evolving circumstances, with the ability to add treatment arms. 2) Response adaptation allows the proportion of participants with key characteristics allocated to study arms to be altered during the course of the trial according to emerging outcome data, so that participants' information will be most useful, and increasing their chances of receiving the trial intervention that will be most effective for them. 3) Because the possibility of taking placebos influences participant expectations about their treatment, and determining effects of the interventions on patient help seeking and adherence behaviour in real-world care is critical to estimates of cost-effectiveness, ALIC4E is an open-label trial.

The aim of this study was to identify new compounds active againstPlasmodium falciparum based on our previous research carried out on 3-phenylquinoxaline-2-carbonitrile 1,4-di-N-oxide derivatives. Twelve compounds weresynthesized and evaluated for antimalarial activity. Eight of them showed an IC50 less than 1 μMagainst the 3D7 strain. Derivative 1 demonstrated high potency (IC50= 0.63 μM) and goodselectivity (SI=10.35), thereby becoming a new lead-compound.