Search

Most health organizations recommend that people should wear masks when conducting outdoor physical activities, including exercise, during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to determine the effect of using a medical mask during brisk walking on salivary cortisol levels and its correlation with physical fitness. The study used experimental, analytical, and quantitative methodologies. Twenty-eight male subjects, aged 17-25 with a normal BMI, participated in this study. The measured data were salivary cortisol hormone levels and physical fitness index after performing brisk walking with and without using a medical mask. Salivary cortisol levels were measured after carrying out exercise using the ELISA and Delta Biologicals Salivary Cortisol kit. Physical fitness was evaluated using the Harvard Step-Up Test. Data analysis was conducted using the Wilcoxon test. A correlation analysis was performed to examine the relationship between the physical fitness index and changes in cortisol levels. After using a medical mask, the average cortisol level was 23.53 ng/mL, higher than without using a medical mask, which was 11.35 ng/mL (p=0.000). The correlation test results showed a significance value of 0.029 and a Pearson Correlation value of -0.414. Physical fitness correlated negatively with increased salivary cortisol levels during brisk walking using a medical mask. Medical mask is an important preventive measure in high-risk situations for airborne disease transmission. However, alternative safety measures may be more appropriate to be applied during moderate-intensity physical exercises, such as choosing outdoor locations with safe social distancing.

BackgroundAntibiotics are prescribed for over 50% of respiratory tract infections in primary care, despite good evidence of there being no benefit to the patient, and evidence of over prescribing driving microbial resistance. The high treatment rates are attributed to uncertainty regarding microbiological cause and clinical prognosis. Point-of-care-tests have been proposed as potential antibiotic stewardship tools, with some providing microbiological results in 15 minutes. However, there is little research on their impact on antibiotic use and clinical outcomes in primary care.MethodsThis is a multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial with mixed-methods investigation of microbial, behavioural and antibiotic mechanisms on outcomes in patients aged 12 months and over presenting to primary care in the UK with a suspected respiratory tract infection, where the clinician and/or patient thinks antibiotic treatment may be, or is, necessary. Once consented, all participants are asked to provide a combined nose and throat swab sample and randomised to have a rapid microbiological point-of-care-test or no point-of-care-test. For intervention patients, clinicians review the result of the test, before contacting the patient to finalise treatment. Treatment decisions are made as per usual care in control group patients. The primary outcome is whether an antibiotic is prescribed at this point. All swab samples are sent to the central laboratory for further testing. Patients are asked to complete a diary to record the severity and duration of symptoms until resolution or day 28, and questionnaires at 2 months about their beliefs and intention to consult for similar future illnesses. Primary care medical records are also reviewed at 6-months to collect further infection consultations, antibiotic prescribing and hospital admissions. The trial aims to recruit 514 patients to achieve 90% power with 5% significance to detect a 15% absolute reduction in antibiotic prescribing. Qualitative interviews are being conducted with approximately 20 clinicians and 30 participants to understand any changes in beliefs and behaviour resulting from the point-of-care-test and generate attributes for clinician and patient discrete choice experiments.DiscussionThis trial will provide evidence of efficacy, acceptability and mechanisms of action of a rapid microbiological point-of-care test on antibiotic prescribing and patient symptoms in primary care.Trial registrationISRCTN16039192, prospectively registered on 08/11/2022.

Objectives Conducting randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in primary care is challenging; recruiting patients during time-limited or remote consultations can increase selection bias and physical access to patients’ notes is costly and time-consuming. We investigated barriers and facilitators to running a more efficient design.Design An RCT aiming to reduce antibiotic prescribing among children presenting with acute cough and a respiratory tract infection (RTI) with a clinician-focused intervention, embedded at the practice level. By using aggregate level, routinely collected data for the coprimary outcomes, we removed the need to recruit individual participants.Setting Primary care.Participants Baseline data from general practitioner practices and interviews with individuals from Clinical Research Networks (CRNs) in England who helped recruit practices and Clinical Commission Groups (CCGs) who collected outcome data.Intervention The intervention included: (1) explicit elicitation of parental concerns, (2) a prognostic algorithm to identify children at low risk of hospitalisation and (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety-netting advice.Coprimary outcomes For 0–9 years old—(1) Dispensing data for amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics and (2) hospital admission rate for RTI.Results We recruited 294 of the intended 310 practices (95%) representing 336 496 registered 0–9 years old (5% of all 0–9 years old children). Included practices were slightly larger, had slightly lower baseline prescribing rates and were located in more deprived areas reflecting the national distribution. Engagement with CCGs and their understanding of their role in this research was variable. Engagement with CRNs and installation of the intervention was straight-forward although the impact of updates to practice IT systems and lack of familiarity required extended support in some practices. Data on the coprimary outcomes were almost 100%.Conclusions The infrastructure for trials at the practice level using routinely collected data for primary outcomes is viable in England and should be promoted for primary care research where appropriate.Trial registration number ISRCTN11405239.

Introduction Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children are common and present major resource implications for primary care. Unnecessary use of antibiotics is associated with the development and proliferation of antimicrobial resistance. In 2016, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)-funded ‘TARGET’ programme developed a prognostic algorithm to identify children with acute cough and RTI at very low risk of 30-day hospitalisation and unlikely to need antibiotics. The intervention includes: (1) explicit elicitation of parental concerns, (2) the results of the prognostic algorithm accompanied by prescribing guidance and (3) provision of a printout for carers including safety netting advice. The CHIldren’s COugh feasibility study suggested differential recruitment of healthier patients in control practices. This phase III ‘efficiently designed’ trial uses routinely collected data at the practice level, thus avoiding individual patient consent. The aim is to assess whether embedding a multifaceted intervention into general practitioner (GP) practice Information Technology (IT) systems will result in reductions of antibiotic prescribing without impacting on hospital attendance for RTI.Methods and analysis The coprimary outcomes are (1) practice rate of dispensed amoxicillin and macrolide antibiotics, (2) hospital admission rate for RTI using routinely collected data by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). Data will be collected for children aged 0–9 years registered at 310 practices (155 intervention, 155 usual care) over a 12-month period. Recruitment and randomisation of practices (using the Egton Medical Information Systems web data management system) is conducted via each CCG stratified for children registered and baseline dispensing rates of each practice. Secondary outcomes will explore intervention effect modifiers. Qualitative interviews will explore intervention usage. The economic evaluation will be limited to a between-arm comparison in a cost–consequence analysis.Ethics and dissemination Research ethics approval was given by London-Camden and Kings Cross Research Ethics Committee (ref:18/LO/0345). This manuscript refers to protocol V.4.0. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and international conferences.Trial registration number ISRCTN11405239.

Background: Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the standard operation for benign prostatic obstruction (BPO). Thulium laser transurethral vaporesection of the prostate (ThuVARP) vaporises and resects the prostate using a technique similar to TURP. The small amount of existing literature suggests that there may be potential advantages of ThuVARP over TURP. Objective: To determine whether or not the outcomes from ThuVARP are equivalent to the outcomes from TURP in men with BPO treated in the NHS. Design: A multicentre, pragmatic, randomised controlled parallel-group trial, with an embedded qualitative study and economic evaluation. Setting: Seven UK centres – four university teaching hospitals and three district general hospitals. Participants: Men aged ≥ 18 years who were suitable to undergo TURP, presenting with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) or urinary retention secondary to BPO. Interventions: Patients were randomised 1 : 1 to receive TURP or ThuVARP and remained blinded. Main outcome measures: Two co-primary outcomes – patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and clinical measure of maximum urine flow rate (Qmax) at 12 months post surgery. Results: In total, 410 men were randomised, 205 to each arm. The two procedures were equivalent in terms of IPSS [adjusted mean difference 0.28 points higher for ThuVARP (favouring TURP), 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.92 to 1.49 points]. The two procedures were not equivalent in terms of Qmax (adjusted mean difference 3.12 ml/second in favour of TURP, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.79 ml/second), with TURP deemed superior. Surgical outcomes, such as complications and blood transfusion rates, and hospital stay were similar for both procedures. Patient-reported urinary and sexual symptoms were also similar between the arms. Qualitative interviews indicated similar patient experiences with both procedures. However, 25% of participants in the ThuVARP arm did not undergo their randomised allocation, compared with 2% of participants in the TURP arm. Prostate cancer was also detected less frequently from routine histology after ThuVARP (65% lower odds of detection) in an exploratory analysis. The adjusted mean differences between the arms were similar for secondary care NHS costs (£9 higher for ThuVARP, 95% CI –£359 to £376) and quality-adjusted life-years (0.01 favouring TURP, 95% CI –0.04 to 0.01). Limitations: Complications were recorded in prespecified categories; those not prespecified were excluded owing to variable reporting. Preoperative Qmax and IPSS data could not be collected for participants with indwelling catheters, making adjustment for baseline status difficult. Conclusions: TURP was superior to ThuVARP in terms of Qmax, although both operations resulted in a Qmax considered clinically successful. ThuVARP also potentially resulted in lower detection rates of prostate cancer as a result of the smaller volume of tissue available for histology. Length of hospital stay after ThuVARP, anticipated to be a key benefit, was equal to that after TURP in this trial. Overall, both ThuVARP and TURP were effective procedures for BPO, with minor benefits in favour of TURP. Therefore, the results suggest that it may be appropriate that new treatment alternatives continue to be compared with TURP. Future work: Longer-term follow-up to assess reoperation rates over time, and research into the comparative effectiveness of ThuVARP and TURP in large prostates. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00788389. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50–69 years. Design: A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. Setting: Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. Participants: Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50–69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring (n = 545), radical prostatectomy (n = 553) or radical radiotherapy (n = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. Interventions: The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. Trial primary outcome measure: Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. Secondary outcome measures: Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific (p = 0.48) and 169 all-cause (p = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring (n = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy (n = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy (n = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p

ObjectiveTo estimate the costs and outcomes associated with treating non-asthmatic adults (nor suffering from other lung-disease) presenting to primary care with acute lower respiratory tract infection (ALRTI) with oral corticosteroids compared with placebo.DesignCost-consequence analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial. Perspectives included the healthcare provider, patients and productivity losses associated with time off work.SettingFifty-four National Health Service (NHS) general practices in England.Participants398 adults attending NHS primary practices with ALRTI but no asthma or other chronic lung disease, followed up for 28 days.Interventions2× 20 mg oral prednisolone per day for 5 days versus matching placebo tablets.Outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years using the 5-level EuroQol-5D version measured weekly; duration and severity of symptom. Direct and indirect resources related to the disease and its treatment were also collected. Outcomes were measured for the 28-day follow-up.Results198 (50%) patients received the intervention (prednisolone) and 200 (50%) received placebo. NHS costs were dominated by primary care contacts, higher with placebo than with prednisolone (£13.11 vs £10.38) but without evidence of a difference (95% CI £3.05 to £8.52). The trial medication cost of £1.96 per patient would have been recouped in prescription charges of £4.30 per patient overall (55% participants would have paid £7.85), giving an overall mean ‘profit’ to the NHS of £7.00 (95% CI £0.50 to £17.08) per patient. There was a quality adjusted life years gain of 0.03 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.05) equating to half a day of perfect health favouring the prednisolone patients; there was no difference in duration of cough or severity of symptoms.ConclusionsThe use of prednisolone for non-asthmatic adults with ALRTI, provided small gains in quality of life and cost savings driven by prescription charges. Considering the results of the economic evaluation and possible side effects of corticosteroids, the short-term benefits may not outweigh the long-term harms.Trial registration numbersEudraCT 2012-000851-15 and ISRCTN57309858; Pre-results.