Search

Abstract Background Two million people in the UK are living with or beyond cancer and a third of them report poor quality of life (QoL) due to problems such as fatigue, fear of cancer recurrence, and concerns about returning to work. We aimed to develop and evaluate an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), suited to address the concerns of cancer survivors and in improving their QoL. We also recognise the importance of exercise and vocational activity on QoL and therefore will integrate options for physical activity and return to work/vocational support, thus ACT Plus (+). Methods We will conduct a multi-centre, pragmatic, theory driven, randomised controlled trial. We will assess whether ACT+ including usual aftercare (intervention) is more effective and cost-effective than usual aftercare alone (control). The primary outcome is QoL of participants living with or beyond cancer measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General scale (FACT-G) at 52 weeks. We will recruit 344 participants identified from secondary care sites who have completed hospital-based treatment for cancer with curative intent, with low QoL (determined by the FACT-G) and randomise with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to the intervention or control. The intervention (ACT+) will be delivered by NHS Talking Therapies, specialist services, and cancer charities. The intervention consists of up to eight sessions at weekly or fortnightly intervals using different modalities of delivery to suit individual needs, i.e. face-to-face sessions, over the phone or skype. Discussion To date, there have been no robust trials reporting both clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT based intervention for people with low QoL after curative cancer treatment in the UK. We will provide high quality evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding ACT+ to usual aftercare provided by the NHS. If shown to be effective and cost-effective then commissioners, providers and cancer charities will know how to improve QoL in cancer survivors and their families. Trial registration ISRCTN: ISRCTN67900293 . Registered on 09 December 2019. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set for this protocol can be found in Additional file 2 Table S1.

Background Acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking. Objective To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women. Design Pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial. Setting Primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising). Participants Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment. Interventions Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator’s Global Assessment; Participant’s Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. Results Of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator’s Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator’s Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics. Conclusions Spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33). Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/13/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 56. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information. Plain language summary What was the question? Acne (or spots) is common and often persists into adulthood. Many people take long courses of antibiotic tablets, but concerns about antibiotic resistance mean alternatives are needed. Spironolactone is a medicine that is sometimes used for acne in women. However, we do not know whether it works. This trial aimed to answer this question. What did we do? We invited women aged over 18 who had acne on their face for at least 6 months to take part via their general practitioner surgery, hospital or advertising. Women were randomly assigned to two groups: one group was given spironolactone and the other group was given identical-looking placebo (‘dummy pill’) daily for 24 weeks. Women in both groups could continue using acne treatments applied to the skin (gels/creams/lotions). We asked participants to rate their acne using a questionnaire called Acne-Specific Quality of Life, asked whether they felt their skin had improved and asked skin specialists to assess their skin. What did we find? Four hundred and ten women took part, many of whom had had acne for a long time. Acne-Specific Quality of Life scores improved in both groups by 12 weeks but improved more in the spironolactone group at 12 and 24 weeks. When asked directly whether their skin had improved, 71% of participants in the spironolactone group said it had, compared with 43% on placebo. Skin specialists were also more likely to report that the acne had improved in the spironolactone group. Side effects were mild and similar in both groups but there were slightly more headaches on spironolactone (20% compared with 12%). Spironolactone is likely to represent value for money for the National Health Service, though this depends on a number of factors including what it is compared to. What does this mean? This trial suggests that spironolactone is a useful additional treatment for women with persistent acne. Scientific summary Background Acne vulgaris (hereon ‘acne’) is common, can cause significant psychosocial impact and risks permanent scarring. Topical treatments are first line, but people commonly receive long courses of oral antibiotics, raising concerns regarding antimicrobial resistance. Spironolactone, a potassium-sparing diuretic, is widely used for other conditions, such as hypertension. Spironolactone has anti-androgenic properties and is prescribed by dermatologists to treat acne in women, but robust evidence of effectiveness is lacking. Objective To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating persistent facial acne in women. Methods Design This was a pragmatic, multicentre, participant-blinded and clinician-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised trial. Participants were recruited through primary care (search and mail-out or opportunistic recruitment), secondary care (opportunistic recruitment) and advertising, including community and social media advertising. Trial participants were randomised to receive either 50 mg spironolactone or matched placebo one tablet daily for the first 6 weeks and then two tablets daily (total 100 mg spironolactone or matched placebo) at (or after) week 6, providing the participant was tolerating any side effects. Treatment continued for 24 weeks in both groups. Participants in both groups could continue to use usual topical treatments throughout the trial but adherence to topicals was not promoted beyond usual care. Between baseline and week 12, participants were asked not to change their topical treatments and not to take oral treatments for acne such as oral antibiotics, hormonal treatments or isotretinoin. After week 12, participants could change usual acne care, including oral treatments, if needed. In both groups, spironolactone or placebo was stopped at week 24, participants were informed of their treatment allocation and entered an unblinded follow-up period up to week 52. After week 24, participants could seek any treatment from their usual clinical team, including spironolactone. Baseline assessment was carried out in secondary care to ensure standardisation of clinical assessments, as the Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) for acne is not commonly used in primary care and was an important secondary outcome. The baseline appointment included pregnancy test, blood test (to exclude renal impairment or raised serum potassium), participant photo to aid recall about changes in acne, and contraceptive counselling. Baseline visits were conducted by research nurses and/or dermatologists. Participants were followed up face-to-face (or by video call or telephone due to the COVID-19 pandemic) in secondary care at week 6 and week 12, with primary outcome assessment at week 12, and longer-term follow-up by questionnaires at week 24 and up to week 52. Participants Participants eligible for inclusion were women aged 18 years or over: with facial acne vulgaris for at least 6 months acne of sufficient severity to warrant oral antibiotics, as judged by trial clinician; and with IGA ≥ 2 (mild or worse) women of childbearing potential at risk of pregnancy had to be willing to use their usual hormonal or barrier method of contraception for the first 6 months of the trial and for at least 4 weeks afterwards willing to be randomised sufficient English to self-complete acne-specific quality of life (Acne-QoL). Potential participants were excluded if: IGA acne grade was 0–1 (clear or almost clear) ever taken spironolactone taken oral isotretinoin within past 6 months taken oral antibiotics (lasting longer than 1 week) for acne within previous month started, stopped or changed hormonal contraception, co-cyprindiol or other hormonal treatment within past 3 months or planning to start, stop or change within the next 3 months intending to become pregnant in next 6 months spironolactone contraindicated: currently taking potassium-sparing diuretic, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blocker or digoxin hereditary problems of galactose intolerance, lactase deficiency or glucose–galactose malabsorption (as the spironolactone and placebo tablets contain lactose) androgen-secreting adrenal or ovarian tumour Cushing syndrome congenital adrenal hyperplasia estimated glomerular filtration rate below 60 ml/minute/1.73 m2 serum potassium level above upper limit of reference range for laboratory. Outcomes Primary outcome was comparison of mean Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores between groups at week 12. Acne-QoL contains 19 questions with seven response categories, each referring to the past week, reported in four domains (acne symptoms, self-perception, role-social, role-emotional). Secondary outcomes included: Acne-QoL symptom subscale score at week 24 and up to week 52 Acne-QoL other subscales (self-perception, role-emotional and role-social) at week 12, week 24 and up to week 52 participant self-assessed overall improvement at week 12 recorded on six-point Likert scale (with baseline photo to aid recall) IGA change from baseline to week 12 Participant’s Global Assessment (PGA) change at week 12 and week 24 generic health-related quality of life at week 6, week 12, week 24 and up to week 52 [EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version (EQ-5D-5L)] adverse reactions use of oral acne treatment during follow-up (e.g. antibiotics, isotretinoin) resource use. Sample size Sample size calculation was based on Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores as recommended by the questionnaire developer. Based on comparison Acne-QoL symptom subscale scores between groups at week 12, power 90%, alpha 0.05 and seeking a difference of 2 points between groups (effect size 0.35), a target sample size of 346 participants was initially estimated, or 434 participants allowing for 20% loss to follow-up. During the trial, the target sample size was revised to allow for correlation between baseline and follow-up measures, following discussion with trial monitoring committees and funder. Allowing for a correlation with baseline of 0.293 and a deflation factor of 1-ρ2, gave a revised target sample size of 398 participants (including allowing for 20% loss to follow-up). Randomisation and blinding Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio to either spironolactone or matched placebo using an independent web-based system (block sizes 2 and 4). Participants were stratified by recruitment centre and baseline acne severity (IGA

Introduction Evaluating the safety and acceptability of reusing catheters for intermittent catheterisation (IC) is one of the top 10 continence research priorities identified by the UK James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in 2008. There are an estimated 50 000 IC users in England and this number is rising. Globally, both single-use catheters (thrown away after use) and multi-use/reusable ones (cleaned between uses) are used. Using multi-use catheters as well as single-use ones (mixed-use) could bring benefits (eg, reducing plastic waste and patients never running out of catheters) and offer more choice to users. Evidence is needed that mixed-use is at least as safe and acceptable as using only single-use catheters.Methods The MultICath Trial is a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial involving 578 participants. The aim is to compare mixed-use catheter management with single-use catheter management over 12 months. Participants are randomised on a 1:1 basis to either mixed-use catheter management, which includes an evidence-based cleaning method for the multi-use catheters (intervention) or single-use catheter management (control). Following randomisation, participants are followed up for 12 months. The primary outcome is at least one episode of microbiologically confirmed symptomatic urinary tract infection with help-seeking or self-help behaviour over the 12-month follow-up period. Laboratory analysis of patient-initiated urine samples is blind. Secondary outcomes include antibiotic use, microhaematuria, visible blood on catheter/in urine, quality of life and health economics. A qualitative sub-study to examine participant experiences using mixed-use is included.Ethics and dissemination Ethical review was undertaken by South Central-Hampshire A Research Ethics Committee and favourable opinion was granted on 12 July 2019 (reference: 19/SC/0334). Written, informed consent to participate was obtained from all participants. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications, in the National Institute for Health and Care Research journal library and to participants and the public via a lay summary published on the trial website.Trial registration number ISRCTN42028483.

Abstract Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031

Abstract Background Germ Defence ( www.germdefence.org ) is an evidence-based interactive website that promotes behaviour change for infection control within households. To maximise the potential of Germ Defence to effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19, the intervention needed to be implemented at scale rapidly. Methods With NHS England approval, we conducted an efficient two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effectiveness of randomising implementation of Germ Defence via general practitioner (GP) practices across England, UK, compared with usual care to disseminate Germ Defence to patients. GP practices randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3292) were emailed and asked to disseminate Germ Defence to all adult patients via mobile phone text, email or social media. Usual care arm GP practices (n = 3287) maintained standard management for the 4-month trial period and then asked to share Germ Defence with their adult patients. The primary outcome was the rate of GP presentations for respiratory tract infections (RTI) per patient. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of acute RTIs, confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and suspected COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 symptoms, gastrointestinal infection diagnoses, antibiotic usage and hospital admissions. The impact of the intervention on outcome rates was assessed using negative binomial regression modelling within the OpenSAFELY platform. The uptake of the intervention by GP practice and by patients was measured via website analytics. Results Germ Defence was used 310,731 times. The average website satisfaction score was 7.52 (0–10 not at all to very satisfied, N = 9933). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of RTIs between intervention and control practices (rate ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.96, 1.06, p = 0.70). This was similar to all other eight health outcomes. Patient engagement within intervention arm practices ranged from 0 to 48% of a practice list. Conclusions While the RCT did not demonstrate a difference in health outcomes, we demonstrated that rapid large-scale implementation of a digital behavioural intervention is possible and can be evaluated with a novel efficient prospective RCT methodology analysing routinely collected patient data entirely within a trusted research environment. Trial registration This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (14602359) on 12 August 2020.

Abstract Background Community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) are common in primary care and patients at particular risk of adverse outcomes, e.g., hospitalisation and mortality, are challenging to identify. LRTIs are also linked to an increased incidence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) following the initial infection, whereas concurrent CVD might negatively impact overall prognosis in LRTI patients. Accurate risk prediction of adverse outcomes in LRTI patients, while considering the interplay with CVD, can aid general practitioners (GP) in the clinical decision-making process, and may allow for early detection of deterioration. This paper therefore presents the design of the development and external validation of two models for predicting individual risk of all-cause hospitalisation or mortality (model 1) and short-term incidence of CVD (model 2) in adults presenting to primary care with LRTI. Methods Both models will be developed using linked routine electronic health records (EHR) data from Dutch primary and secondary care, and the mortality registry. Adults aged ≥ 40 years with a GP-diagnosis of LRTI between 2016 and 2019 are eligible for inclusion. Relevant patient demographics, medical history, medication use, presenting signs and symptoms, and vital and laboratory measurements will be considered as candidate predictors. Outcomes of interest include 30-day all-cause hospitalisation or mortality (model 1) and 90-day CVD (model 2). Multivariable elastic net regression techniques will be used for model development. During the modelling process, the incremental predictive value of CVD for hospitalisation or all-cause mortality (model 1) will also be assessed. The models will be validated through internal-external cross-validation and external validation in an equivalent cohort of primary care LRTI patients. Discussion Implementation of currently available prediction models for primary care LRTI patients is hampered by limited assessment of model performance. While considering the role of CVD in LRTI prognosis, we aim to develop and externally validate two models that predict clinically relevant outcomes to aid GPs in clinical decision-making. Challenges that we anticipate include the possibility of low event rates and common problems related to the use of EHR data, such as candidate predictor measurement and missingness, how best to retrieve information from free text fields, and potential misclassification of outcome events.

Abstract Background Antibiotic prescription for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) in children attending primary care centres is almost double that predicted according to bacterial prevalence. Delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP) is designed to deploy a more rational use of antibiotics. While studies have evaluated DAP efficacy and safety for children with RTIs, little research has been conducted on the economic implications. Methods Our trial compared cost-effectiveness for DAP, immediate antibiotic prescription (IAP), and no antibiotic prescription (NAP) for children aged 2–14 years with acute uncomplicated RTIs attended to in 39 primary care centres in Spain. The main outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), measured in euros per gained quality-adjusted life days (QALDs). Net monetary benefit (NMB) was also calculated as a tool for decision making. The analysis was performed from a societal perspective for a time horizon of 30 days, and included healthcare direct costs, non-healthcare direct and indirect costs, and the antimicrobial resistance (AMR) cost. Results DAP was the most cost-effective strategy, even when the cost of AMR was included. QALD values for the three strategies were very similar. IAP compared to DAP was more costly (109.68 vs 100.90 euros) and similarly effective (27.88 vs 27.94 QALDs). DAP compared to NAP was more costly (100.90 vs 97.48 euros) and more effective (27.94 vs. 27.82 QALDs). The ICER for DAP compared to NAP was 28.84 euros per QALD. The deterministic sensitivity analysis indicated that non-healthcare indirect costs had the greatest impact on the ICER. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that DAP was the preferred option in approximately 81.75% of Monte Carlo iterations, assuming a willingness-to-pay value of 82.2 euros per gained QALD. Conclusions When clinicians are in doubt about whether an antibiotic is needed for children with RTIs attending PC centres, those treated with the DAP strategy will have slightly better efficiency outcomes than those treated with IAP because its costs are lower than those of IAP. DAP is also the most cost-effective strategy over a time horizon of 30 days if AMR is considered, despite higher short-term costs than NAP. However, if in the long term the costs of AMR are larger than estimated, NAP could also be an alternative strategy. Trial registration This trial has been registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT01800747; Date: 28/02/2013 (retrospectively registered).

Objective To identify and synthesise relevant existing prognostic factors (PF) and prediction models (PM) for hospitalisation and all-cause mortality within 90 days in primary care patients with acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI).Design Systematic review.Methods Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were performed. All PF and PM studies on the risk of hospitalisation or all-cause mortality within 90 days in adult primary care LRTI patients were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool and Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool tools for PF and PM studies, respectively. The results of included PF and PM studies were descriptively summarised.Results Of 2799 unique records identified, 16 were included: 9 PF studies, 6 PM studies and 1 combination of both. The risk of bias was judged high for all studies, mainly due to limitations in the analysis domain. Based on reported multivariable associations in PF studies, increasing age, sex, current smoking, diabetes, a history of stroke, cancer or heart failure, previous hospitalisation, influenza vaccination (negative association), current use of systemic corticosteroids, recent antibiotic use, respiratory rate ≥25/min and diagnosis of pneumonia were identified as most promising candidate predictors. One newly developed PM was externally validated (c statistic 0.74, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.78) whereas the previously hospital-derived CRB-65 was externally validated in primary care in five studies (c statistic ranging from 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) to 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92)). None of the PM studies reported measures of model calibration.Conclusions Implementation of existing models for individualised risk prediction of 90-day hospitalisation or mortality in primary care LRTI patients in everyday practice is hampered by incomplete assessment of model performance. The identified candidate predictors provide useful information for clinicians and warrant consideration when developing or updating PMs using state-of-the-art development and validation techniques.PROSPERO registration number CRD42022341233.

Introduction Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain.Methods and analysis A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews.Ethics approval and dissemination Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country.Trial registration number ISRCTN18010240.

Objectives Infections in primary care are often treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This study evaluates whether NSAID prescribing is associated with adverse outcomes for respiratory (RTIs) or urinary track (UTI) infections.Objectives To determine whether there is an association between NSAID prescribing and the rate of adverse outcomes for infections for individual consulting in primary care.Design Cohort study of electronic health records.Setting 87 general practices in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD.Participants 142 925 patients consulting with RTI or UTI.Primary and secondary outcome measures Repeat consultations, hospitalisation or death within 30 days of the initial consultation for RTI or UTI. Poisson models estimated the associations between NSAID exposure and outcome. Rate ratios were adjusted for gender, age, ethnicity, deprivation, antibiotic use, seasonal influenza vaccination status, comorbidities and general practice. Since prescribing variations by practice are not explained by case mix—hence, less impacted by confounding by indication—both individual-level and practice-level analyses are included.Results There was an increase in hospital admission/death for acute NSAID prescriptions (RR 2.73, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.56) and repeated NSAID prescriptions (6.47, 4.46–9.39) in RTI patients, and for acute NSAID prescriptions for UTI (RR 3.03; 1.92 to 4.76). Practice-level analysis, controlling for practice population characteristics, found that for each percentage point increase in NSAID prescription, the percentages of hospital admission/death within 30 days increased by 0.32 percentage points (95% CI 0.16 to 0.47).Conclusions In this non-randomised study, prescription of NSAIDs at consultations for RTI or UTIs in primary care is infrequent but may be associated with increased risk of hospital admission. This supports other observational and limited trial data that NSAID prescribing might be associated with worse outcomes following acute infection and should be prescribed with caution.

Abstract Background A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) of antibiotics for adults with clinically diagnosed acute rhinosinusitis (ARS) showed a marginal overall effect of antibiotics, but was unable to identify patients that are most likely to benefit from antibiotics when applying conventional (i.e. univariable or one-variable-at-a-time) subgroup analysis. We updated the systematic review and investigated whether multivariable prediction of patient-level prognosis and antibiotic treatment effect may lead to more tailored treatment assignment in adults presenting to primary care with ARS. Methods An IPD-MA of nine double-blind placebo-controlled trials of antibiotic treatment (n=2539) was conducted, with the probability of being cured at 8–15 days as the primary outcome. A logistic mixed effects model was developed to predict the probability of being cured based on demographic characteristics, signs and symptoms, and antibiotic treatment assignment. Predictive performance was quantified based on internal-external cross-validation in terms of calibration and discrimination performance, overall model fit, and the accuracy of individual predictions. Results Results indicate that the prognosis with respect to risk of cure could not be reliably predicted (c-statistic 0.58 and Brier score 0.24). Similarly, patient-level treatment effect predictions did not reliably distinguish between those that did and did not benefit from antibiotics (c-for-benefit 0.50). Conclusions In conclusion, multivariable prediction based on patient demographics and common signs and symptoms did not reliably predict the patient-level probability of cure and antibiotic effect in this IPD-MA. Therefore, these characteristics cannot be expected to reliably distinguish those that do and do not benefit from antibiotics in adults presenting to primary care with ARS.

Abstract Background Primary care is a critical partner for antimicrobial stewardship efforts given its high human antibiotic usage. Peer comparison audit and feedback (A&F) is often used to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. The design and implementation of A&F may impact its effectiveness. There are no best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F in antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Objective To develop best practice guidelines for peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care in high income countries by leveraging international expertise via the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance—Primary Care Antibiotic Audit and Feedback Network. Methods We used a modified Delphi process to achieve convergence of expert opinions on best practice statements for peer comparison A&F based on existing evidence and theory. Three rounds were performed, each with online surveys and virtual meetings to enable discussion and rating of each best practice statement. A five-point Likert scale was used to rate consensus with a median threshold score of 4 to indicate a consensus statement. Results The final set of guidelines include 13 best practice statements in four categories: general considerations (n = 3), selecting feedback recipients (n = 1), data and indicator selection (n = 4), and feedback delivery (n = 5). Conclusion We report an expert-derived best practice recommendations for designing and evaluating peer comparison A&F for antibiotic prescribing in primary care. These 13 statements can be used by A&F designers to optimize the impact of their quality improvement interventions, and improve antibiotic prescribing in primary care.

Abstract Mapping cell type-specific gene expression quantitative trait loci (ct-eQTLs) is a powerful way to investigate the genetic basis of complex traits. A popular method for ct-eQTL mapping is to assess the interaction between the genotype of a genetic locus and the abundance of a specific cell type using a linear model. However, this approach requires transforming RNA-seq count data, which distorts the relation between gene expression and cell type proportions and results in reduced power and/or inflated type I error. To address this issue, we have developed a statistical method called CSeQTL that allows for ct-eQTL mapping using bulk RNA-seq count data while taking advantage of allele-specific expression. We validated the results of CSeQTL through simulations and real data analysis, comparing CSeQTL results to those obtained from purified bulk RNA-seq data or single cell RNA-seq data. Using our ct-eQTL findings, we were able to identify cell types relevant to 21 categories of human traits.

Objective This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks.Design Economic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial.Setting Primary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising.Participants Women ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment.Interventions Participants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment.Main outcome measures Cost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator’s global assessment, IGA

BackgroundSore throat is a common problem and a common reason for the overuse of antibiotics. A web-based tool that helps people assess their sore throat, through the use of clinical prediction rules, taking throat swabs or saliva samples, and taking throat photographs, has the potential to improve self-management and help identify those who are the most and least likely to benefit from antibiotics. ObjectiveWe aimed to develop a web-based tool to help patients and parents or carers self-assess sore throat symptoms and take throat photographs, swabs, and saliva samples for diagnostic testing. We then explored the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool in adults and children with sore throats. MethodsWe used the Person-Based Approach to develop a web-based tool and then recruited adults and children with sore throats who participated in this study by attending general practices or through social media advertising. Participants self-assessed the presence of FeverPAIN and Centor score criteria and attempted to photograph their throat and take throat swabs and saliva tests. Study processes were observed via video call, and participants were interviewed about their views on using the web-based tool. Self-assessed throat inflammation and pus were compared to clinician evaluation of patients’ throat photographs. ResultsA total of 45 participants (33 adults and 12 children) were recruited. Of these, 35 (78%) and 32 (71%) participants completed all scoring elements for FeverPAIN and Centor scores, respectively, and most (30/45, 67%) of them reported finding self-assessment relatively easy. No valid response was provided for swollen lymph nodes, throat inflammation, and pus on the throat by 11 (24%), 9 (20%), and 13 (29%) participants respectively. A total of 18 (40%) participants provided a throat photograph of adequate quality for clinical assessment. Patient assessment of inflammation had a sensitivity of 100% (3/3) and specificity of 47% (7/15) compared with the clinician-assessed photographs. For pus on the throat, the sensitivity was 100% (3/3) and the specificity was 71% (10/14). A total of 89% (40/45), 93% (42/45), 89% (40/45), and 80% (30/45) of participants provided analyzable bacterial swabs, viral swabs, saliva sponges, and saliva drool samples, respectively. Participants were generally happy and confident in providing samples, with saliva samples rated as slightly more acceptable than swab samples. ConclusionsMost adult and parent participants were able to use a web-based intervention to assess the clinical features of throat infections and generate scores using clinical prediction rules. However, some had difficulties assessing clinical signs, such as lymph nodes, throat pus, and inflammation, and scores were assessed as sensitive but not specific. Many participants had problems taking photographs of adequate quality, but most were able to take throat swabs and saliva samples.

Abstract Introduction Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as handwashing, social distancing and face mask wearing, have been widely promoted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This study aimed to explore the relationship between self-reported use of NPIs and COVID-19 infection. Methods We conducted an online questionnaire study recruiting members of the UK public from November 2020 to May 2021. The association between self-reported COVID-19 illness and reported use of NPIs was explored using logistic regression and controlling for participant characteristics, month of questionnaire completion, and vaccine status. Participants who had been exposed to COVID-19 in their household in the previous 2 weeks were excluded. Results Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred fifty-eight participants were included and 2,814 (10.1%) reported having a COVID-19 infection. The odds of COVID-19 infection were reduced with use of a face covering in unadjusted (OR 0.17 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.20) and adjusted (aOR 0.19, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.23) analyses. Social distancing (OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.31; aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43) and handwashing when arriving home (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73; aOR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83) also reduced the odds of COVID-19. Being in crowded places of 10–100 people (OR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.70 to 2.11; aOR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.42 to 1.85) and > 100 people (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.11 to 2.58; aOR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.53 to 1.97) were both associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection. Handwashing before eating, avoiding touching the face, and cleaning things with virus on were all associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infections. Conclusions This large observational study found evidence for strong protective effects for individuals from use of face coverings, social distancing (including avoiding crowded places) and handwashing on arriving home on developing COVID-19 infection. We also found evidence for an increased risk associated with other behaviours, possibly from recall bias.

Background: Although many acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are triggered by non-bacterial causes, they are often treated with antibiotics. Preliminary research suggests that the Chinese herbal medicine “Shufeng Jiedu” (SFJD), may improve recovery and therefore reduce antibiotic use in patients with AECOPD.Aims: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial of SFJD for AECOPD in UK primary care.Methods: GPs opportunistically recruited patients experiencing an AECOPD. Participants were randomised 1:1 to usual care plus SFJD or placebo for 14 days. Participants, GPs and research nurses were blinded to treatment allocation. GPs could prescribe immediate, delayed or no antibiotics, with delayed prescribing encouraged where appropriate. Participants were asked to complete a participant diary, including EXACT-PRO and CAT™ questionnaires for up to 4 weeks. Outcomes included recruitment rate and other measures of study feasibility described using only descriptive statistics and with no formal comparisons between groups. We also conducted qualitative interviews with recruited and non-recruited COPD patients and clinicians, analysed using framework analysis.Results: Over 6 months, 19 participants (6 SFJD, 13 placebo) were recruited. Sixteen (84%) participants returned diaries or provided a diary by recall. Overall, 1.3 participants were recruited per 1,000 patients on the COPD register per month open. Median duration of treatment was 9.8 days in the intervention group vs 13.3 days in the placebo group. The main reason for discontinuation in both groups was perceived side-effects. in both groups. Point estimates for both the EXACT-PRO and CAT™ outcomes suggested possible small benefits of SFJD. Most patients and clinicians were happy to try SFJD as an alternative to antibiotics for AECOPD. Recruitment was lower than expected because of the short recruitment period, the lower incidence of AECOPD during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients starting antibiotics from “rescue packs” before seeing their GP, and workforce challenges in primary care.Conclusion: Recruitment was impaired by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, we were able to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting and randomising participants and identified approaches to address recruitment challenges such as including the trial medication in COPD patients’ “rescue packs” and delegating recruitment to a central trials team.Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier, ISRCTN26614726

Background: Diagnosis of suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in care and nursing home residents is commonly based on vague non-localising symptoms (for example, confusion), potentially leading to inappropriate antibiotic prescription. The safety of withholding antibiotics in such cases could be addressed by a randomised controlled trial (RCT); however, this would require close monitoring of residents, and support from care home staff, clinicians, residents, and families. Aim: To explore the views of residential care and nursing home staff (herein referred to as care home staff) and primary care clinicians on the feasibility and design of a potential RCT of antibiotics for suspected UTI in care home residents, with no localising urinary symptoms. Design & setting: A qualitative interview study with primary care clinicians and care home staff in the UK. Method: Semi-structured interviews with 16 care home staff and 11 primary care clinicians were thematically analysed. Results: Participants were broadly supportive of the proposed RCT. The safety of residents was a priority and there was strong support for using the RESTORE2 (Recognise Early Soft Signs, Take Observations, Respond, Escalate) assessment tool to monitor residents; however, there were concerns about associated training requirements, especially for night and temporary staff. Effective communication (with residents, families, and staff) was deemed essential, and carers were confident that residents and families would be supportive of the RCT if the rationale was clearly explained and safety systems were robust. There were mixed views on a placebo-controlled design. The perceived additional burden was seen as a potential barrier, and the use of temporary staff and the out-of-hours period were highlighted as potential risk areas. Conclusion: The support for this potential trial was encouraging. Future development will need to prioritise resident safety (especially in the out-of-hours period), effective communication, and minimising additional burden on staff to optimise recruitment.

Introduction Over half of post-COVID-hospitalisation adults have persistent symptoms 2 years after discharge, providing a challenge for individuals and healthcare systems. We therefore aimed to describe a typology of UK healthcare pathways post-hospital discharge as a first step towards understanding clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different healthcare pathways. Methods In 2021, we surveyed hospital sites taking part in the UK Post-hospital COVID-19 (PHOSP-COVID) study. The online survey explored the availability of proactive follow-up, patient selection, involvement of multidisciplinary teams, investigations, assessment and access to mental health and rehabilitation interventions. The typology was defined by a three-stage process: 1) using the survey results to develop a bespoke algorithm to inform a draft classification, 2) a stakeholder event for refinement and 3) finalisation between the Project Advisory Group and research team. The bespoke algorithm was used to map each site onto the classification with further mapping by level of mental health and rehabilitation provision. Results 70% of hospital sites (45 out of 64) responded to the survey. 82% (37 out of 45) reported delivering a follow-up service after hospital discharge during the first few months of the pandemic. Only 13 out of 37 services (35%) were delivered by permanent staff. The final typology of five categories included no proactive follow-up, and a matrix of four groups based on patient selection (prespecified subgroup/all patients) and complexity of assessment (low/high). The complexity of assessment, rehabilitation and mental health interventions was variable within sites. Discussion We describe the first typology of post-hospitalisation COVID-19 healthcare pathways to enable modelling of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to inform future policy. Our results highlight the heterogeneity and vulnerability of healthcare services after COVID-19 hospitalisation.

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.

Abstract Background Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) are a major reason for consultations in primary care, hospital admissions, deterioration in function, and mortality. Despite the majority of exacerbations not being caused by bacteria, as many as 70% of patients who present in UK primary care with AECOPD are prescribed antibiotics as part of standard care. However, finding effective non-antibiotic treatments for COPD exacerbations is a priority to reduce antibiotic use. The Chinese herbal medicine Shufeng Jiedu® (SFJD) has the potential to reduce treatment failure and duration of hospital stay. This study aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a fully powered randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on SFJD for AECOPD in UK primary care. Methods This study is a phase III, two-arm individually double blind, randomised, placebo-controlled feasibility trial with nested qualitative study, coordinated by the Southampton Clinical Trial Unit (SCTU). Patients aged ≥ 40 years, with a current AECOPD, presenting with increased sputum purulence/volume, or breathlessness, and for whom the GP is considering use of antibiotics, will be eligible to participate. We aim to recruit seven eligible participants per month and randomise them to receive either the patent Chinese herbal medicine SFJD capsules or placebo for 14 consecutive days and to follow-up for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes include the feasibility of recruitment, study retention, and the percentage of diary completion. Discussion If this trial demonstrates the feasibility of recruitment, delivery, and follow-up, we will seek funding for a fully powered placebo-controlled trial of SFJD for the treatment of AECOPD in primary care. Trial registration This trial is registered via ISRCTN on 1 July 2021, identifier: ISRCTN26614726.

Abstract Background Various washout policies are widely used in adults living with long-term catheters (LTC). There is currently insufficient evidence on the benefits and potential harms of prophylactic LTC washout policies in the prevention of blockages and other LTC-related adverse events, such as urinary tract infections. CATHETER II tests the hypothesis that weekly prophylactic LTC washouts (normal saline or citric acid) in addition to standard LTC care reduce the incidence of catheter blockage requiring intervention compared to standard LTC care only in adults living with LTC. Methods CATHETER II is a pragmatic three-arm open multi-centre superiority randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot, economic analysis, and embedded qualitative study. Eligible participants are adults aged ≥ 18 years, who have had a LTC in use for ≥ 28 days, have no plans to discontinue the use of the catheter, are able to undertake the catheter washouts, and complete trial documentation or have a carer able to help them. Participants are identified from general practitioner practices, secondary/tertiary care, community healthcare, care homes, and via public advertising strategies. Participants are randomised 1:1:1 to receive a weekly saline (0.9%) washout in addition to standard LTC care, a weekly citric acid (3.23%) washout in addition to standard LTC care or standard LTC care only. Participants and/or carers will receive training to administer the washouts. Patient-reported outcomes are collected at baseline and for 24 months post-randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is catheter blockage requiring intervention up to 24 months post-randomisation expressed per 1000 catheter days. Secondary outcomes include symptomatic catheter-associated urinary tract infection requiring antibiotics, catheter change, adverse events, NHS/ healthcare use, and impact on quality of life. Discussion This study will guide treatment decision-making and clinical practice guidelines regarding the effectiveness of various prophylactic catheter washout policies in men and women living with LTC. This research has received ethical approval from Wales Research Ethics Committee 6 (19/WA/0015). Trial registration ISRCTN ISRCTN17116445 . Registered prospectively on 06 November 2019

Introduction Ear pain is the most prominent symptom of childhood acute otitis media (AOM). To control the pain and reduce reliance on antibiotics, evidence of effectiveness for alternative interventions is urgently needed. This trial aims to investigate whether analgesic ear drops added to usual care provide superior ear pain relief over usual care alone in children presenting to primary care with AOM.Methods and analysis This is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, open, superiority trial with cost-effectiveness analysis and nested mixed-methods process evaluation in general practices in the Netherlands. We aim to recruit 300 children aged 1–6 years with a general practitioner (GP) diagnosis of AOM and ear pain. Children will be randomly allocated (ratio 1:1) to either (1) lidocaine hydrochloride 5 mg/g ear drops (Otalgan) one to two drops up to six times daily for a maximum of 7 days in addition to usual care (oral analgesics, with/without antibiotics); or (2) usual care. Parents will complete a symptom diary for 4 weeks as well as generic and disease-specific quality of life questionnaires at baseline and 4 weeks. The primary outcome is the parent-reported ear pain score (0–10) over the first 3 days. Secondary outcomes include proportion of children consuming antibiotics, oral analgesic use and overall symptom burden in the first 7 days; number of days with ear pain, number of GP reconsultations and subsequent antibiotic prescribing, adverse events, complications of AOM and cost-effectiveness during 4-week follow-up; generic and disease-specific quality of life at 4 weeks; parents’ and GPs’ views and experiences with treatment acceptability, usability and satisfaction.Ethics and dissemination The Medical Research Ethics Committee Utrecht, the Netherlands, has approved the protocol (21-447/G-D). All parents/guardians of participants will provide written informed consent. Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at relevant (inter)national scientific meetings.Trial registration The Netherlands Trial Register: NL9500; date of registration: 28 May 2021. At the time of publication of the study protocol paper, we were unable to make any amendments to the trial registration record in the Netherlands Trial Register. The addition of a data sharing plan was required to adhere to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines. The trial was therefore reregistered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05651633; date of registration: 15 December 2022). This second registration is for modification purposes only and the Netherlands Trial Register record (NL9500) should be regarded as the primary trial registration.

BackgroundResistance to antibiotics is rising and threatens future antibiotic effectiveness. 'Antibiotic targeting' ensures patients who may benefit from antibiotics receive them, while being safely withheld from those who may not. Point-of-care tests may assist with antibiotic targeting by allowing primary care clinicians to establish if symptomatic patients have a viral, bacterial, combined, or no infection. However, because organisms can be harmlessly carried, it is important to know if the presence of the virus/bacteria is related to the illness for which the patient is being assessed. One way to do this is to look for associations with more severe/prolonged symptoms and test results. Previous research to answer this question for acute respiratory tract infections has given conflicting results with studies has not having enough participants to provide statistical confidence.AimTo undertake a synthesis of IPD from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies of respiratory tract infections (RTI) in order to investigate the prognostic value of microbiological data in addition to, or instead of, clinical symptoms and signs.MethodsA systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase will be carried out for studies of acute respiratory infection in primary care settings. The outcomes of interest are duration of disease, severity of disease, repeated consultation with new/worsening illness and complications requiring hospitalisation. Authors of eligible studies will be contacted to provide anonymised individual participant data. The data will be harmonised and aggregated. Multilevel regression analysis will be conducted to determine key outcome measures for different potential pathogens and whether these offer any additional information on prognosis beyond clinical symptoms and signs.Trial registrationPROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023376769.

IntroductionAntibiotic resistance (ABR) has substantial global public health concerns. This systematic review aimed to synthesise recent evidence estimating the economic burden of ABR, characterised by study perspectives, healthcare settings, study design, and income of the countries.MethodsThis systematic review included peer-reviewed articles from PubMed, Medline, and Scopus databases, and grey literature on the topic of the economic burden of ABR, published between January 2016 and December 2021. The study was reported in line with 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis' (PRISMA). Two reviewers independently screened papers for inclusion first by title, then abstract, and then the full text. Study quality was assessed using appropriate quality assessment tools. Narrative synthesis and meta-analyses of the included studies were conducted.ResultsA total of 29 studies were included in this review. Out of these studies, 69% (20/29) were conducted in high-income economies and the remainder were conducted in upper-and-middle income economies. Most of the studies were conducted from a healthcare or hospital perspective (89.6%, 26/29) and 44.8% (13/29) studies were conducted in tertiary care settings. The available evidence indicates that the attributable cost of resistant infection ranges from -US$2,371.4 to +US$29,289.1 (adjusted for 2020 price) per patient episode; the mean excess length of stay (LoS) is 7.4 days (95% CI: 3.4-11.4), the odds ratios of mortality for resistant infection is 1.844 (95% CI: 1.187-2.865) and readmission is 1.492 (95% CI: 1.231-1.807).ConclusionRecent publications show that the burden of ABR is substantial. There is still a lack of studies on the economic burden of ABR from low-income economies, and lower-middle-income economies, from a societal perspective, and in relation to primary care. The findings of this review may be of value to researchers, policymakers, clinicians, and those who are working in the field of ABR and health promotion.Systematic review registrationCRD42020193886.

Abstract Background As the prevalence of older adults with multimorbidity increases, greater integration of services is necessary to manage the physical and psycho-social needs of this cohort. This study describes and summarises current evidence, clinical provision and progress towards integrated primary care and social services for older adults with multimorbidity in England. Methods A scoping review was conducted involving systematic searches of a range of electronic academic and policy databases. Articles were screened and extracted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted onto a charting sheet and thematic synthesis was used to summarise findings. Articles were included if published in English and related to primary care, social care and multimorbidity in older adults in England. Conceptually, the review was framed using the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care. Results The search yielded 7656 articles of which 84 were included. Three themes were identified: (1) a focus on individual level services rather than multi-level or multi-sector integration, with an increasing emphasis on the need to consider broader determinants of population health as critical to integrated care for older adults with multimorbidity; (2) the need for policymakers to allow time for integration to embed, to enable new structures and relationships to develop and mature; and (3) the inherent tension between top-down and bottom-up driven approaches to integrated care requires a whole-systems structure, while allowing for local flexibilities. Conclusions There is limited evidence of multi-level and multi-sector integration of services for older adults with multimorbidity in England. The literature increasingly acknowledges wider determinants of population health that are likely to require integration beyond primary care and social services. Improving clinical care in one or two sectors may not be as effective as simultaneously improving the organisation or design across services as one single system of provision. This may take time to establish and will require local input.

Abstract Background In the UK, about 14% of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and over are estimated to be at risk of malnutrition. Screening older adults in primary care and treating those at risk may help to reduce malnutrition risk, reduce the resulting need for healthcare use and improve quality of life. Interventions are needed to raise older adults’ risk awareness, offer relevant and meaningful strategies to address risk and support general practices to deliver treatment and support. Methods Using the Person-based Approach and input from Patient and Public Involvement representatives, we developed the ‘Eat well, feel well, stay well’ intervention. The intervention was optimised using qualitative data from think aloud and semi-structured process evaluation interviews with 23 and 18 older adults respectively. Positive and negative comments were extracted to inform rapid iterative modifications to support engagement with the intervention. Data were then analysed thematically and final adjustments made, to optimise the meaningfulness of the intervention for the target population. Results Participants’ comments were generally positive. This paper focuses predominantly on participants’ negative reactions, to illustrate the changes needed to ensure that intervention materials were optimally relevant and meaningful to older adults. Key factors that undermined engagement included: resistance to the recommended nutritional intake among those with reduced appetite or eating difficulties, particularly frequent eating and high energy options; reluctance to gain weight; and a perception that advice did not align with participants’ specific personal preferences and eating difficulties. We addressed these issues by adjusting the communication of eating goals to be more closely aligned with older adults’ beliefs about good nutrition, and acceptable and feasible eating patterns. We also adjusted the suggested tips and strategies to fit better with older adults’ everyday activities, values and beliefs. Conclusions Using iterative qualitative methods facilitated the identification of key behavioural and contextual elements that supported engagement, and issues that undermined older adults’ engagement with intervention content. This informed crucial revisions to the intervention content that enabled us to maximise the meaningfulness, relevance and feasibility of the key messages and suggested strategies to address malnutrition risk, and therefore optimise engagement with the intervention and the behavioural advice it provided.

Background: Digital interventions offer a potentially cost-effective means to support patient self-management in primary care, but evidence for the feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions remains mixed. This programme focused on the potential for self-management digital interventions to improve outcomes in two common, contrasting conditions (i.e. hypertension and asthma) for which care is currently suboptimal, leading to excess deaths, illness, disability and costs for the NHS. Objectives: The overall purpose was to address the question of how digital interventions can best provide cost-effective support for patient self-management in primary care. Our aims were to develop and trial digital interventions to support patient self-management of hypertension and asthma. Through the process of planning, developing and evaluating these interventions, we also aimed to generate a better understanding of what features and methods for implementing digital interventions could make digital interventions acceptable, feasible, effective and cost-effective to integrate into primary care. Design: For the hypertension strand, we carried out systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence, intervention planning, development and optimisation, and an unmasked randomised controlled trial comparing digital intervention with usual care, with a health economic analysis and nested process evaluation. For the asthma strand, we carried out a systematic review of quantitative evidence, intervention planning, development and optimisation, and a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing digital intervention with usual care, with nested process evaluation. Setting: General practices (hypertension, n = 76; asthma, n = 7) across Wessex and Thames Valley regions in Southern England. Participants: For the hypertension strand, people with uncontrolled hypertension taking one, two or three antihypertensive medications. For the asthma strand, adults with asthma and impaired asthma-related quality of life. Interventions: Our hypertension intervention (i.e. HOME BP) was a digital intervention that included motivational training for patients to self-monitor blood pressure, as well as health-care professionals to support self-management; a digital interface to send monthly readings to the health-care professional and to prompt planned medication changes when patients’ readings exceeded recommended targets for 2 consecutive months; and support for optional patient healthy behaviour change (e.g. healthy diet/weight loss, increased physical activity and reduced alcohol and salt consumption). The control group were provided with a Blood Pressure UK (London, UK) leaflet for hypertension and received routine hypertension care. Our asthma intervention (i.e. My Breathing Matters) was a digital intervention to improve the functional quality of life of primary care patients with asthma by supporting illness self-management. Motivational content intended to facilitate use of pharmacological self-management strategies (e.g. medication adherence and appropriate health-care service use) and non-pharmacological self-management strategies (e.g. breathing retraining, stress reduction and healthy behaviour change). The control group were given an Asthma UK (London, UK) information booklet on asthma self-management and received routine asthma care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome for the hypertension randomised controlled trial was difference between intervention and usual-care groups in mean systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at 12 months, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target (i.e. standard, diabetic or aged > 80 years), age and general practice. The primary outcome for the asthma feasibility study was the feasibility of the trial design, including recruitment, adherence, intervention engagement and retention at follow-up. Health-care utilisation data were collected via notes review. Review methods: The quantitative reviews included a meta-analysis. The qualitative review comprised a meta-ethnography. Results: A total of 622 hypertensive patients were recruited to the randomised controlled trial, and 552 (89%) were followed up at 12 months. Systolic blood pressure was significantly lower in the intervention group at 12 months, with a difference of –3.4 mmHg (95% confidence interval –6.1 to –0.8 mmHg), and this gave an incremental cost per unit of systolic blood pressure reduction of £11 (95% confidence interval £5 to £29). Owing to a cost difference of £402 and a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference of 0.044, long-term modelling puts the incremental cost per QALY at just over £9000. The probability of being cost-effective was 66% at willingness to pay £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, and this was higher at higher thresholds. A total of 88 patients were recruited to the asthma feasibility trial (target n = 80; n = 44 in each arm). At 3-month follow-up, two patients withdrew and six patients did not complete outcome measures. At 12 months, two patients withdrew and four patients did not complete outcome measures. A total of 36 out of 44 patients in the intervention group engaged with My Breathing Matters [with a median of four (range 0–25) logins]. Limitations: Although the interventions were designed to be as accessible as was feasible, most trial participants were white and participants of lower socioeconomic status were less likely to take part and complete follow-up measures. Challenges remain in terms of integrating digital interventions with clinical records. Conclusions: A digital intervention using self-monitored blood pressure to inform medication titration led to significantly lower blood pressure in participants than usual care. The observed reduction in blood pressure would be expected to lead to a reduction of 10–15% in patients suffering a stroke. The feasibility trial of My Breathing Matters suggests that a fully powered randomised controlled trial of the intervention is warranted. The theory-, evidence- and person-based approaches to intervention development refined through this programme enabled us to identify and address important contextual barriers to and facilitators of engagement with the interventions. Future work: This research justifies consideration of further implementation of the hypertension intervention, a fully powered randomised controlled trial of the asthma intervention and wide dissemination of our methods for intervention development. Our interventions can also be adapted for a range of other health conditions. Trial and study registration: The trials are registered as ISRCTN13790648 (hypertension) and ISRCTN15698435 (asthma). The studies are registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004773 (hypertension review) and PROSPERO CRD42014013455 (asthma review). Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further information.

IntroductionSore throat is a common reason for overuse of antibiotics. The value of inflammatory or biomarkers in throat swab or saliva samples in predicting benefit from antibiotics is unknown.MethodsWe used the ‘person-based approach’ to develop an online tool to support self-swabbing and recruited adults and children with sore throats through participating general practices and social media. Participants took bacterial and viral swabs and a saliva sponge swab and passive drool sample. Bacterial swabs were cultured for streptococcus (Group A, B, C, F and G). The viral swab and saliva samples were tested using a routine respiratory panel PCR and Covid-19 PCR testing. We used remaining viral swab and saliva sample volume for biomarker analysis using a panel of 13 biomarkers.ResultsWe recruited 11 asymptomatic participants and 45 symptomatic participants. From 45 symptomatic participants, bacterial throat swab, viral throat swab, saliva sponge and saliva drool samples were returned by 41/45 (91.1%), 43/45 (95.6%), 43/45 (95.6%) and 43/45 (95.6%) participants respectively. Three saliva sponge and 6 saliva drool samples were of insufficient quantity. Two adult participants had positive bacterial swabs. Six participants had a virus detected from at least one sample (swab or saliva). All of the biomarkers assessed were detectable from all samples where there was sufficient volume for testing. For most biomarkers we found higher concentrations in the saliva samples. Due to low numbers, we were not able to compare biomarker concentrations in those who did and did not have a bacterial pathogen detected. We found no evidence of a difference between biomarker concentrations between the symptomatic and asymptomatic participants but the distributions were wide.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated that it is feasible for patients with sore throat to self-swab and provide saliva samples for pathogen and biomarker analysis. Typical bacterial and viral pathogens were detected but at low prevalence rates. Further work is needed to determine if measuring biomarkers using oropharyngeal samples can help to differentiate between viral and bacterial pathogens in patients classified as medium or high risk using clinical scores, in order to better guide antibiotic prescribing and reduce inappropriate prescriptions.

Abstract Objectives Patients with laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (LSCC) often fail radiation therapy (RT), when received as monotherapy or in combination with other treatment modalities. Mechanisms for RT failure are poorly understood. We hypothesized that tumors failing RT would have increased rates of somatic mutations in genes associated with radiation resistance, particularly in genes associated with the NFE2L2 oxidative stress pathway. Using targeted exome sequencing on pretreated LSCC tumors, we retrospectively compared somatic mutation profile with clinical data and response to treatment. Methods Tumors were classified as either radiation‐resistant (RR) or radiation‐sensitive (RS). RR was defined as persistent or recurrent disease within 2 years of receiving full‐dose RT. Early stage (ES) LSCC was defined as Stage I or II tumors without lymph node involvement. Eight genes associated with radiation resistance were prioritized for analysis. RT‐qPCR was performed on five NFE2L2 pathway genes. Results Twenty LSCC tumors were included and classified as either RR (n = 8) or RS (n = 12). No differences in individual rates of somatic mutations by genes associated with radiation resistance were identified. Higher rates of total mutational burden (TMB) and increased alterations associated with the NFE2L2 pathway was observed in RR vs RS tumors (P

Abstract Background By 2050, worldwide dementia prevalence is expected to triple. Affordable, scalable interventions are required to support protective behaviours such as physical activity, cognitive training and healthy eating. This paper outlines the theory-, evidence- and person-based development of ‘Active Brains’: a multi-domain digital behaviour change intervention to reduce cognitive decline amongst older adults. Methods During the initial planning phase, scoping reviews, consultation with PPI contributors and expert co-investigators and behavioural analysis collated and recorded evidence that was triangulated to inform provisional ‘guiding principles’ and an intervention logic model. The following optimisation phase involved qualitative think aloud and semi-structured interviews with 52 older adults with higher and lower cognitive performance scores. Data were analysed thematically and informed changes and additions to guiding principles, the behavioural analysis and the logic model which, in turn, informed changes to intervention content. Results Scoping reviews and qualitative interviews suggested that the same intervention content may be suitable for individuals with higher and lower cognitive performance. Qualitative findings revealed that maintaining independence and enjoyment motivated engagement in intervention-targeted behaviours, whereas managing ill health was a potential barrier. Social support for engaging in such activities could provide motivation, but was not desirable for all. These findings informed development of intervention content and functionality that appeared highly acceptable amongst a sample of target users. Conclusions A digitally delivered intervention with minimal support appears acceptable and potentially engaging to older adults with higher and lower levels of cognitive performance. As well as informing our own intervention development, insights obtained through this process may be useful for others working with, and developing interventions for, older adults and/or those with cognitive impairment.

Abstract Background Telephone therapist delivered CBT (TCBT) and web-based CBT (WCBT) have been shown to be significantly more clinically effective than treatment as usual (TAU) at reducing IBS symptom severity and impact at 12 months in adults with refractory IBS. In this paper we assess the cost-effectiveness of the interventions. Methods Participants were recruited from 74 general practices and three gastroenterology centres in England. Interventions costs were calculated, and other service use and lost employment measured and costed for one-year post randomisation. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were combined with costs to determine cost-effectiveness of TCBT and WCBT compared to TAU. Results TCBT cost £956 more than TAU (95% CI, £601–£1435) and generated 0.0429 more QALYs. WCBT cost £224 more than TAU (95% CI, − £11 to £448) and produced 0.029 more QALYs. Compared to TAU, TCBT had an incremental cost per QALY of £22,284 while the figure for WCBT was £7724. After multiple imputation these ratios increased to £27,436 and £17,388 respectively. Including lost employment and informal care, TCBT had costs that were on average £866 lower than TAU (95% CI, − £1133 to £2957), and WCBT had costs that were £1028 lower than TAU (95% CI, − £448 to £2580). Conclusions TCBT and WCBT resulted in more QALYs and higher costs than TAU. Complete case analysis suggests both therapies are cost-effective from a healthcare perspective. Imputation for missing data reduces cost-effectiveness but WCTB remained cost-effective. If the reduced societal costs are included both interventions are likely to be more cost-effective. Trial registration ISRCTN44427879 (registered 18.11.13).

Abstract Background Within-consultation recruitment to primary care trials is challenging. Ensuring procedures are efficient and self-explanatory is the key to optimising recruitment. Trial recruitment software that integrates with the electronic health record to support and partially automate procedures is becoming more common. If it works well, such software can support greater participation and more efficient trial designs. An innovative electronic trial recruitment and outcomes software was designed to support recruitment to the Runny Ear randomised controlled trial, comparing topical, oral and delayed antibiotic treatment for acute otitis media with discharge in children. A qualitative evaluation investigated the views and experiences of primary care staff using this trial software. Methods Staff were purposively sampled in relation to site, role and whether the practice successfully recruited patients. In-depth interviews were conducted using a flexible topic guide, audio recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed thematically. Results Sixteen staff were interviewed, including GPs, practice managers, information technology (IT) leads and research staff. GPs wanted trial software that automatically captures patient data. However, the experience of getting the software to work within the limited and complex IT infrastructure of primary care was frustrating and time consuming. Installation was reliant on practice level IT expertise, which varied between practices. Although most had external IT support, this rarely included supported for research IT. Arrangements for approving new software varied across practices and often, but not always, required authorisation from Clinical Commissioning Groups. Conclusions Primary care IT systems are not solely under the control of individual practices or CCGs or the National Health Service. Rather they are part of a complex system that spans all three and is influenced by semi-autonomous stakeholders operating at different levels. This led to time consuming and sometimes insurmountable barriers to installation at the practice level. These need to be addressed if software supporting efficient research in primary care is to become a reality.

IntroductionMultidomain interventions to address modifiable risk factors for dementia are promising, but require more cost-effective, scalable delivery. This study investigated the feasibility of the “Active Brains” digital behavior change intervention and its trial procedures.Materials and methodsActive Brains aims to reduce cognitive decline by promoting physical activity, healthy eating, and online cognitive training. We conducted 12-month parallel-design randomized controlled feasibility trials of “Active Brains” amongst “lower cognitive scoring” (n = 180) and “higher cognitive scoring” (n = 180) adults aged 60–85.ResultsWe collected 67.2 and 76.1% of our 12-month primary outcome (Baddeley verbal reasoning task) data for the “lower cognitive score” and “higher cognitive score” groups, respectively. Usage of “Active Brains” indicated overall feasibility and satisfactory engagement with the physical activity intervention content (which did not require sustained online engagement), but engagement with online cognitive training was limited. Uptake of the additional brief telephone support appeared to be higher in the “lower cognitive score” trial. Preliminary descriptive trends in the primary outcome data might indicate a protective effect of Active Brains against cognitive decline, but further investigation in fully-powered trials is required to answer this definitively.DiscussionWhilst initial uptake and engagement with the online intervention was modest, it was in line with typical usage of other digital behavior change interventions, and early indications from the descriptive analysis of the primary outcome and behavioral data suggest that further exploration of the potential protective benefits of Active Brains are warranted. The study also identified minor modifications to procedures, particularly to improve online primary-outcome completion. Further investigation of Active Brains will now seek to determine its efficacy in protecting cognitive performance amongst adults aged 60–85 with varied levels of existing cognitive performance.

Background: Practitioner expressions of optimism and empathy may improve treatment engagement, adherence, and patient satisfaction but are not delivered consistently amid the challenges of everyday clinical practice. Aim: To explore primary care practitioner (PCP) views about optimistic and empathic communication in consultations; and to identify behavioural, attitudinal, and/or contextual issues likely to encourage or deter PCPs from practising such communication. Design & setting: Qualitative interview study with 20 PCPs (GPs, practice nurses, and primary care physiotherapists). Method: Semi-structured telephone interviews with 20 PCPs. Data were analysed thematically. Results: A conceptual mismatch between optimism and patient expectations became apparent; when asked how PCPs communicate about the likely effects of a treatment, answers were focussed around managing patient expectations. When prompted, it became clear PCPs were open to communicating optimistically with patients, but emphasised the need for realism. Concerns arose that patients may not be receptive to optimistic messages, especially when holding negative expectations. PCPs felt that expressing empathy is fundamental to all clinical consultations, noting that it can be challenging. Some PCPs worried that increasing expressions of empathy might increase their risk of clinician burnout and felt guilty about (appropriately) communicating empathy while maintaining some emotional distance. Conclusion: PCPs agreed expressing realistic optimism during consultations could aid communication and would constitute a novel change to practice. PCPs strive for clinical empathy but can struggle to manage emotional self-protection. Specific training to help PCPs express realistic optimism and empathy, and better utilise efficient non-verbal skills could help these issues.

BackgroundGeneral Practitioners (GPs) report high levels of burnout, job dissatisfaction, and turnover intention. The complexity of presenting problems to general practice makes diagnostic uncertainty a common occurrence that has been linked to burnout. The interrelationship between diagnostic uncertainty with other factors such as burnout, job satisfaction and turnover intention have not been previously examined.ObjectivesTo examine associations between diagnostic uncertainty, emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), job satisfaction, and turnover intention in GPs.MethodsSeventy general practices in England were randomly selected through the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RCGP-RSC). A total of 348 GPs within 67 these practices completed a 10-item online questionnaire which included questions on GP characteristics, work-life balance, job satisfaction, sickness presenteeism, diagnostic uncertainty, turnover intention as well as EE and DP. Associations between diagnostic uncertainty and each of EE, DP, job satisfaction, and turnover intention were evaluated in multivariate mixed-effect ordinal logistic regressions whilst adjusting for covariates, to account for the correlation in the three outcomes of interest.ResultsAlmost one-third of GPs (n = 101; 29%) reported experiencing >10% of diagnostic uncertainty in their day-to-day practice over the past year. GPs reporting greater diagnostic uncertainty had higher levels of EE [OR = 3.90; 95% CI = (2.54, 5.99)], job dissatisfaction [OR = 2.01; 95% CI = (1.30, 3.13)] and turnover intention [OR = 4.51; 95% CI = (2.86, 7.11)]. GPs with no sickness presenteeism had lower levels of EE [OR = 0.53; 95% CI = (0.35, 0.82)], job dissatisfaction [OR = 0.56; 95% CI = (0.35, 0.88)], and turnover intention [OR = 0.61; 95% CI = (0.41, 0.91)].ConclusionDiagnostic uncertainty may not only negatively impact on the wellbeing of GPs, but could also have adverse implications on workforce retention in primary care.

Abstract Background Although rarely indicated, antibiotics are commonly used for acute diarrhoea in China. We conducted a randomised, double blind exploratory clinical trial of loperamide, berberine and turmeric for treatment of acute diarrhoea. Methods Adults with acute uncomplicated diarrhoea aged 18 to 70 were randomised to 4 groups: (A) loperamide; (B) loperamide and berberine; (C) loperamide and turmeric; (D) loperamide, berberine and turmeric. All participants were given rescue ciprofloxacin for use after 48 h if symptoms worsened or were unimproved. Primary endpoints were feasibility and ciprofloxacin use during the 2-week follow-up period. Semi-structured interviews were conducted following recruitment and were analysed thematically. Recruiting doctors, delivery pharmacists and research assistants were blinded to treatment allocation. Results Only 21.5% (278/1295) of patients screened were deemed eligible, and 49% (136/278) of these consented and were entered into the final analysis. Most participants had mild symptoms, because most patients with moderate or severe symptoms wanted to be given antibiotics. Follow-up was good (94% at 2 weeks). Only three participants used rescue antibiotics compared to 67% of acute diarrhoea patients in the hospital during the recruitment period. The median symptom duration was 14 h in group B (interquartile range (IQR) 10-22), 16 h in group D (IQR 10-22), 18 h in group A (IQR 10-33) and 20 h in group C (IQR 16-54). Re-consultation rates were low. There were no serious treatment-related adverse events. Most interviewed participants said that although they had believed antibiotics to be effective for diarrhoea, they were surprised by their quick recovery without antibiotics in this trial. Conclusion Although recruitment was challenging because of widespread expectations for antibiotics, patients with mild diarrhoea accepted trying an alternative. The three nutraceuticals therapy require further evaluation in a fully powered, randomised controlled trial among a broader sample. Trial registration ChiCTR-IPR-17014107

Abstract Background Digital interventions have potential to efficiently support improved hygiene practices to reduce transmission of COVID-19. Objective To evaluate the evidence for digital interventions to improve hygiene practices within the community. Methods We reviewed articles published between 01 January 2000 and 26 May 2019 that presented a controlled trial of a digital intervention to improve hygiene behaviours in the community. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure and grey literature. Trials in hospitals were excluded, as were trials aiming at prevention of sexually transmitted infections; only target diseases with transmission mechanisms similar to COVID-19 (e.g. respiratory and gastrointestinal infections) were included. Trials had to evaluate a uniquely digital component of an intervention. Study designs were limited to randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after trials, and interrupted time series analyses. Outcomes could be either incidence of infections or change in hygiene behaviours. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess study quality. Results We found seven studies that met the inclusion criteria. Six studies reported successfully improving self-reported hygiene behaviour or health outcomes, but only one of these six trials, Germ Defence, confirmed improvements using objective measures (reduced consultations and antibiotic prescriptions). Settings included kindergartens, workplaces, and service station restrooms. Modes of delivery were diverse: WeChat, website, text messages, audio messages to mobiles, electronic billboards, and electronic personal care records. Four interventions targeted parents of young children with educational materials. Two targeted the general population; these also used behaviour change techniques or theory to inform the intervention. Only one trial had low risk of bias, Germ Defence; the most common concerns were lack of information about the randomisation, possible bias in reporting of behavioural outcomes, and lack of an analysis plan and possible selective reporting of results. Conclusion There was only one trial that was judged to be at low risk of bias, Germ Defence, which reduced incidence and severity of illness, as confirmed by objective measures. Further evaluation is required to determine the effectiveness of the other interventions reviewed. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42020189919 .

Abstract Background A high proportion of hypertensive patients remain above the target threshold for blood pressure, increasing the risk of adverse health outcomes. A digital intervention to facilitate healthcare practitioners (hereafter practitioners) to initiate planned medication escalations when patients’ home readings were raised was found to be effective in lowering blood pressure over 12 months. This mixed-methods process evaluation aimed to develop a detailed understanding of how the intervention was implemented in Primary Care, possible mechanisms of action and contextual factors influencing implementation. Methods One hundred twenty-five practitioners took part in a randomised controlled trial, including GPs, practice nurses, nurse-prescribers, and healthcare assistants. Usage data were collected automatically by the digital intervention and antihypertensive medication changes were recorded from the patients’ medical notes. A sub-sample of 27 practitioners took part in semi-structured qualitative process interviews. The qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and the quantitative data using descriptive statistics and correlations to explore factors related to adherence. The two sets of findings were integrated using a triangulation protocol. Results Mean practitioner adherence to escalating medication was moderate (53%), and the qualitative analysis suggested that low trust in home readings and the decision to wait for more evidence influenced implementation for some practitioners. The logic model was partially supported in that self-efficacy was related to adherence to medication escalation, but qualitative findings provided further insight into additional potential mechanisms, including perceived necessity and concerns. Contextual factors influencing implementation included proximity of average readings to the target threshold. Meanwhile, adherence to delivering remote support was mixed, and practitioners described some uncertainty when they received no response from patients. Conclusions This mixed-methods process evaluation provided novel insights into practitioners’ decision-making around escalating medication using a digital algorithm. Implementation strategies were proposed which could benefit digital interventions in addressing clinical inertia, including facilitating tracking of patients’ readings over time to provide stronger evidence for medication escalation, and allowing more flexibility in decision-making whilst discouraging clinical inertia due to borderline readings. Implementation of one-way notification systems could be facilitated by enabling patients to send a brief acknowledgement response. Trial registration ( ISRCTN13790648 ). Registered 14 May 2015.

BackgroundPrimary care plays an important role in supporting survivors of cancer; however, support is limited because of practitioners’ perceived lack of expertise and time. A digital intervention for survivors of cancer could provide an efficient way for primary care staff to support survivors of cancer without the need to accumulate expertise and skills to help patients make behavior changes; providing very brief support alongside this could maximize adherence to digital interventions. Renewed is a digital intervention that combines web-based behavior change advice with brief health care practitioner support from a nurse or health care assistant. Knowledge about the views and experiences of primary care staff providing support alongside a digital intervention for survivors of cancer is sparse, limiting the understanding of the acceptability and feasibility of this type of intervention. ObjectiveThis study aims to explore supporters’ experiences of providing support to survivors of cancer using Renewed, understand potential barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of Renewed in practice, and investigate the strengths and weaknesses of the intervention from the perspective of health care professionals. MethodsThis was a qualitative process evaluation nested within a large trial evaluating Renewed. A total of 28 semistructured telephone interviews were conducted with nurses and health care assistants. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. ResultsFour themes were developed during the analysis, which reflected the factors that supporters identified as hindering or enabling them to provide support alongside Renewed Online: Renewed Online as an acceptable digital tool with some improvements, confidence in enacting the supporter role, practicalities of delivering support alongside a digital intervention, and managing a patient-led approach. The analysis suggests that supporters perceived that a digital intervention such as Renewed would be beneficial in supporting survivors of cancer in primary care and fit within current practices. However, barriers to providing support alongside the intervention were also identified, including concerns about how to facilitate rapport building and, in a minority, concerns about using a nondirective approach, in which most advice and support is provided through digital interventions, with brief additional support provided by primary care staff. ConclusionsThese findings add to the literature on how best to provide support alongside digital interventions, suggesting that although most practitioners cope well with a nondirective approach, a minority requires more training to feel confident in implementing this. This study suggests that the barriers to providing formal support to survivors of cancer in primary care could be successfully overcome with an approach such as Renewed, where a digital intervention provides most of the support and expertise, and health care practitioners provide additional brief human support to maximize engagement. Strategies to maximize the chances of successful implementation for this type of intervention are also discussed.

Objectives To characterise the quality of life, healthcare use and costs associated with early antibiotic treatment of influenza-like illness (ILI) in ‘at-risk’ children.Design Economic analysis of a two-arm double-blind parallel group pragmatic randomised controlled trial.Setting Children were recruited from community-based healthcare settings, including general practices, walk-in centres and hospital ambulatory care.Participants Children with risk factors for influenza-related complications, including respiratory, cardiac and neurological conditions, who presented within the first 5 days of an ILI.Interventions Co-amoxiclav 400/57 suspension or placebo.Outcome measures This economic analysis focused on quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-Y, symptoms assessed by the Canadian Acute Respiratory Infection and Flu Scale (CARIFS), healthcare use and costs including medication, hospital visits and admissions, general practitioner and nurse contacts. Outcomes were assessed for up to 28 days post randomisation.Results Information on resource use, EQ-5D-Y (day 28) and CARIFS (day 7) was available for 265 (98%), 72 (27%) and 123 (45%) out of 271 participants, respectively. Average costs in the co-amoxiclav group were £25 lower (95% CI −£113 to £65), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.566). The difference in EQ-5D-Y scores between groups was also not statistically significant (−0.014 (95% CI −0.124 to 0.096), p=0.798). However, day 7 CARIFS scores were 3.5 points lower in the co-amoxiclav arm (95% CI −6.9 to −0.1, p=0.044).Conclusions Our findings did not show evidence that early co-amoxiclav treatment improves quality of life or reduces healthcare use and costs in ‘at-risk’ children with ILI, but may reduce symptom severity though confirmation from further research would be important. Reliable data collection from children’s parents/carers was challenging, and resulted in high levels of missing data, which is common in pragmatic trials involving children with acute respiratory tract infections.Trial registration number ISRCTN70714783; EudraCT 2013-002822-21.

Objectives Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) are extremely common, usually self-limiting, but responsible for considerable work sickness absence, reduced quality of life, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and healthcare costs. Patients who experience recurrent RTIs and those with certain comorbid conditions have higher personal impact and healthcare costs and may be more likely to suffer disease exacerbations, hospitalisation and death. We explored how these patients experience and perceive their RTIs to understand how best to engage them in prevention behaviours.Design A qualitative interview study.Setting Primary care, UK.Methods 23 participants who reported recurrent RTIs and/or had relevant comorbid health conditions were interviewed about their experiences of RTIs. Interviews took place as the COVID-19 pandemic began. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.Results Three themes were developed: Understanding causes and vulnerability, Attempting to prevent RTIs, Uncertainty and ambivalence about prevention, along with an overarching theme; Changing experiences because of COVID-19. Participants’ understandings of their susceptibility to RTIs were multifactorial and included both transmission via others and personal vulnerabilities. They engaged in various approaches to try to prevent infections or alter their progression yet perceived they had limited personal control. The COVID-19 pandemic had improved their understanding of transmission, heightened their concern and motivation to avoid RTIs and extended their repertoire of protective behaviours.Conclusions Patients who experience frequent or severe RTIs are likely to welcome and benefit from advice and support regarding RTI prevention. To engage people effectively, those developing interventions or delivering health services must consider their beliefs and concerns about susceptibility and prevention.

Abstract Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the ‘gold standard’ of medical evidence; however, recruitment can be challenging. The MACRO trial is a NIHR-funded RCT for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) addressing the challenge of comparing surgery, antibiotics and placebo. The embedded MACRO conversation study (MCS) used qualitative research techniques pioneered by the University of Bristol QuinteT team to explore recruitment issues during the pilot phase, to maximise recruitment in the main trial. Methods Setting: Five outpatient Ear Nose and Throat (ENT) departments recruiting for the pilot phase of the MACRO trial (ISRCTN Number: 36962030, prospectively registered 17 October 2018). We conducted a thematic analysis of telephone interviews with 18 recruiters and 19 patients and 61 audio-recordings of recruitment conversations. We reviewed screening and recruitment data and mapped patient pathways at participating sites. We presented preliminary findings to individual site teams. Group discussions enabled further exploration of issues, evolving strategies and potential solutions. Findings were reported back to the funder and used together with recruitment data to justify progression to the main trial. Results Recruitment in the MACRO pilot trial began slowly but accelerated in time to progress successfully to the main trial. Research nurse involvement was pivotal to successful recruitment. Engaging the wider network of clinical colleagues emerged as an important factor, ensuring the patient pathway through primary and secondary care did not inadvertently affect trial eligibility. The most common reason for patients declining participation was treatment preference. Good patient-clinician relationships engendered trust and supported patient decision-making. Overall, trial involvement appeared clearly presented by recruiters, possibly influenced by pre-trial training. The weakest area of understanding for patients appeared to be trial medications. A clear presentation of medical and surgical treatment options, together with checking patient understanding, had the potential to allay patient concerns. Conclusion The MACRO conversation study contributed to the learning process of optimising recruitment by helping to identify and address recruitment issues. Although some issues were trial-specific, others have applicability to many clinical trial situations. Using qualitative research techniques to identify/explore barriers and facilitators to recruitment may be valuable during the pilot phase of many RCTs including those with complex designs.

Abstract Background Pelargonium sidoides DC (Geraniaceae) root extract, EPs®7630 or “Kaloba®”, is a widely used herbal remedy for respiratory infections, with some evidence of effectiveness for acute bronchitis. However, it is not yet widely recommended by medical professionals in the UK. There is a need to undertake appropriately designed randomised trials to test its use as an alternative to antibiotics. The aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a double-blind randomised controlled trial of Pelargonium sidoides root extract for treatment of acute bronchitis in UK primary care, investigating intervention compliance, patient preference for dosage form and acceptability of patient diaries. Study design Feasibility double-blind randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial. Methods We aimed to recruit 160 patients with cough (≤ 21 days) caused by acute bronchitis from UK general practices. Practices were cluster-randomised to liquid or tablet preparations and patients were individually randomised to Kaloba® or placebo. We followed participants up for 28 days through self-reported patient diaries with telephone support and reviewed medical records at one month. Outcomes included recruitment, withdrawal, safety, reconsultation and symptom diary completion rates. We also assessed treatment adherence, antibiotic prescribing and consumption, mean symptom severity (at days 2–4 after randomisation) and time to symptom resolution. We interviewed 29 patients and 11 health professionals to identify barriers and facilitators to running such a randomised trial. Results Of 543 patients screened, 261 were eligible, of whom 134 (51%) were recruited and 103 (77%) returned a completed diary. Overall, 41% (41/100) of patients took antibiotics (Kaloba® liquid group: 48% [15/31]; placebo liquid group: 23% [6/26]; Kaloba® tablet group: 48% [9/21]; placebo tablet group: 50% [11/22]). Most patients adhered to the study medication (median 19 out of 21 doses taken in week 1, IQR 18–21 - all arms combined). There were no serious adverse events relating to treatment. Most patients interviewed found study recruitment to be straightforward, but some found the diary too complex. Conclusions It was feasible and acceptable to recruit patients from UK primary care to a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of herbal medicine (Kaloba®) for the treatment of acute bronchitis, with good retention and low data attrition. Trial registration HATRIC was registered on the ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN17672884 ) on 16 August 2018, retrospectively registered. The record can be found at http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17672884 .

Abstract Background Poor diet and lack of physical activity are strongly linked to non-communicable disease risk, but modifying them is challenging. There is increasing recognition that adolescence is an important time to intervene; habits formed during this period tend to last, and physical and psychological changes during adolescence make it an important time to help individuals form healthier habits. Improving adolescents’ health behaviours is important not only for their own health now and in adulthood, but also for the health of any future children. Building on LifeLab—an existing, purpose-built educational facility at the University of Southampton—we have developed a multi-component intervention for secondary school students called Engaging Adolescents in Changing Behaviour (EACH-B) that aims to motivate and support adolescents to eat better and be more physically active. Methods A cluster randomised controlled trial is being conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the EACH-B intervention. The primary outcomes of the intervention are self-reported dietary quality and objectively measured physical activity (PA) levels, both assessed at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. The EACH-B intervention consists of three linked elements: professional development for teachers including training in communication skills to support health behaviour change; the LifeLab educational module comprising in-school teaching of nine science lessons linked to the English National Curriculum and a practical day visit to the LifeLab facility; and a personalised digital intervention that involves social support and game features that promote eating better and being more active. Both the taught module and the LifeLab day are designed with a focus on the science behind the messages about positive health behaviours, such as diet and PA, for the adolescents now, in adulthood and their future offspring, with the aim of promoting personal plans for change. The EACH-B research trial aims to recruit approximately 2300 secondary school students aged 12–13 years from 50 schools (the clusters) from Hampshire and neighbouring counties. Participating schools will be randomised to either the control or intervention arm. The intervention will be run during two academic years, with continual recruitment of schools throughout the school year until the sample size is reached. The schools allocated to the control arm will receive normal schooling but will be offered the intervention after data collection for the trial is complete. An economic model will be developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the EACH-B intervention compared with usual schooling. Discussion Adolescents’ health needs are often ignored and they can be difficult to engage in behaviour change. Building a cheap, sustainable way of engaging them in making healthier choices will benefit their long-term health and that of their future children. Trial registration ISRCTN 74109264 . Registered on 30 August 2019. EACH-B is a cluster randomised controlled trial, funded by the National Institute for Health Research (RP-PG-0216-20004).

Using information from allele-specific gene expression (ASE) can improve the power to map gene expression quantitative trait loci (eQTLs). However, such practice has been limited, partly due to computational challenges and lack of clarification on the size of power gain or new findings besides improved power. We have developed geoP, a computationally efficient method to estimate permutation p-values, which makes it computationally feasible to perform eQTL mapping with ASE counts for large cohorts. We have applied geoP to map eQTLs in 28 human tissues using the data from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. We demonstrate that using ASE data not only substantially improve the power to detect eQTLs, but also allow us to quantify individual-specific genetic effects, which can be used to study the variation of eQTL effect sizes with respect to other covariates. We also compared two popular methods for eQTL mapping with ASE: TReCASE and RASQUAL. TReCASE is ten times or more faster than RASQUAL and it provides more robust type I error control.

BackgroundApproximately 57 million physician appointments annually in the United Kingdom are for minor ailments. These illnesses could be self-cared for, which would potentially lower patients’ anxiety, increase their confidence, and be more convenient. In a randomized controlled trial of the Internet Dr digital intervention, patients with access to the intervention had fewer consultations for respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Having established intervention efficacy, further examination of trial data is required to understand how the intervention works. ObjectiveThis paper reports a process evaluation of Internet Dr usage by the intervention group. The evaluation aims to demonstrate how meaningful usage metrics (ie, interactions that are specific and relevant to the intervention) can be derived from the theoretical principles underlying the intervention, then applied to examine whether these interactions are effective in supporting self-care for RTIs, for whom, and at what time. MethodsThe Internet Dr trial recorded patients’ characteristics and usage data over 24 weeks. At follow-up, users reported whether their levels of enablement to cope with their illness changed over the trial period. The Medical Research Council process evaluation guidance and checklists from the framework for Analyzing and Measuring Usage and Engagement Data were applied to structure research questions examining associations between usage and enablement. ResultsViewing pages containing advice on caring for RTIs were identified as a meaningful metric for measuring intervention usage. Almost half of the users (616/1491, 42.31%) viewed at least one advice page, with most people (478/616, 77.6%) accessing them when they initially enrolled in the study. Users who viewed an advice page reported increased enablement to cope with their illness as a result of having participated in the study compared with users who did not (mean 2.12, SD 2.92 vs mean 1.65, SD 3.10; mean difference 0.469, 95% CI 0.082-0.856). The target population was users who had visited their general practitioners for an RTI in the year before the trial, and analyses revealed that this group was more likely to access advice pages (odds ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.159-1.571; P