Search

Background Influenza and influenza-like illness place significant burden on the NHS. Children with underlying health conditions are vulnerable to developing bacterial complications. Objective To strengthen the evidence base underlying antibiotic use in at-risk children with influenza-like illness. Design This programme comprised five separate work packages. Work package A investigated published and unpublished data from previously published literature and work package B explored attitudes of parents and general practitioners to influenza-like illness and antibiotics in at-risk children. This was followed by a clinical trial to assess the effectiveness of early co-amoxiclav (Augmentin®, GlaxoSmithKline UK) use at reducing reconsultation due to clinical deterioration (work package C), a nested sub-study to examine bacterial carriage indicators of antibiotic resistance (work package D) and a within-trial economic evaluation and clinical risk prediction analysis (work package E). Setting Interviews were conducted by telephone with general practitioners across the UK and parents/guardians in England (work package B). We conducted the clinical trial (work package C and nested work packages D and E) in general practices and ambulatory care services in England and Wales. Participants General practitioners and parents/guardians of at-risk children who previously had influenza-like illness participated in work package B. At-risk children with influenza-like illness aged 6 months to 12 years participated in work packages C and E and optionally in work package D. Interventions The intervention for the clinical trial was a 5-day course of co-amoxiclav 400/57 with dosing regimens based on British National Formulary guidance. Main outcome measures Hospital admission (work package A); findings from semi-structured interviews with patients and health-care professionals (work package B); proportion of patients who reconsulted owing to clinical deterioration (work package C); respiratory bacterial carriage and antibiotic resistance of potentially pathogenic respiratory tract bacteria at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months (work package D); and risk factors for reconsultation owing to clinical deterioration, quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, three-level youth version), symptoms (Canadian Acute Respiratory Infection and Flu Scale), health-care use and costs (work package E). Review methods For work package A, we searched the MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) databases until 3 April 2013 with no language restrictions and requested unpublished data from authors of studies which had collected but not published relevant data. We included studies involving children up to 18 years of age with influenza or influenza-like illness from primary or ambulatory care settings. We used univariable meta-analysis methods to calculate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals for individual risk factors. We reported our systematic review according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2009 statement. Results Work package A analysed data from 28 articles reporting data from 27 studies. Neurological disorders, sickle cell disease, immunosuppression, diabetes and an age of

Background: Cancer places a high burden on society and health-care systems. Cancer research requires high-quality data, which is resource-intensive to obtain. Using administrative datasets such as cancer registries could improve the efficiency of cancer studies if data were valid and timely. We aimed to compare the validity and timeliness of diagnostic cancer data on-site during the SYMPLIFY study to that obtained from the cancer registries of England and Wales., Methods: Cancer data were collected from 5461 participants across 44 hospital sites during a prospective observational study in England and Wales, SYMPLIFY (ISRCTN10226380). Linked cancer data were obtained from Digital Health and Care Wales (DHCW), the Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit (WCISU), and the English National Cancer Registration Dataset (NCRD) and Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset (RCRD), regularly between April, 2022, and September, 2023. The primary objectives of the study were to evaluate the validity (via assessment of the proportion of completed data fields and concordance with SYMPLIFY sites), and timeliness of the data in all datasets, for all cancers diagnosed within 9 months of study enrolment. Data fields investigated were cancer site via International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code; cancer morphology via International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3) morphology histology code and broad morphological grouping; overall stage; and TNM classification., Findings: For data collected between April, 2022, and September, 2023, completeness at the last data cut available for each dataset ranged from 84% to 100% for ICD-O-3 morphology, from 43% to 100% for overall stage, and from 74% to 83% for TNM stage. The concordance between SYMPLIFY data and NCRD was 96% (95% CI 92-98) for ICD-10, 60% (53-66) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 83% (78-88) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, 73% (67-78) for stage, and 51% (44-59) for TNM; and with WCISU was 89% (95% CI 81-94) for ICD-10, 63% (53-73) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 80% (70-87) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, 83% (74-90) for overall stage, and 49% (38-61) for TNM stage. Concordance between SYMPLIFY and RCRD was 95% (95% CI 92-98) for ICD-10, 67% (60-74) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 85% (79-90) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, and 73% (65-80) for overall stage; and between SYMPLIFY and DHCW was 96% (91-99) for ICD-10, 74% (64-83) for ICD-O-3 morphology, 84% (75-91) for ICD-O-3 broad morphology groupings, and 87% (74-95) for stage. The SYMPLIFY dataset reached completion at 12 months post-enrolment in November, 2022, compared with 13 months for NCRD in December, 2023. RCRD and DHCW reached completion at 13 months and 15 months post-enrolment, in December, 2022, and February, 2023, respectively., Interpretation: We report similar completeness of data fields, concordance, and timeliness between on-site and centrally collected cancer outcomes data. Our findings suggest that central registry data can help alleviate the resource burden in clinical trials and improve cancer research. Cancer registries might need additional resources to provide data for registry-based trials at scale., Funding: GRAIL Bio UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BDN and MRM receive institutional research funding from GRAIL. BDN reports grants, honoraria, and consulting fees from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), Cancer Research UK, Royal College of General Practitioners, and Multi-Cancer Early Detection Consortium. DH and DA report payment to their institution from National Health Service Wales Cancer Network for additional cancer registration officer time to expedite population-based cancer registration for this study. DH and DA report grants from Moondance Cancer Initiative. FDRN reports honoraria for occasional sessional payment for congress talks for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Pfizer. RP reports funding from GRAIL and National Health Service England for the completion of this study, as well as grants from Medical Research Council, NIHR, and the Medical Science Division at the University of Oxford and is a statistical editor for BMJ and BMJ Medicine. HK, KNK, SH, KR, YL, and HN were all employees of GRAIL at the time of the study. HK reports a leadership position with GRAIL. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Limited evidence exists for the diagnostic performance of point-of-care tests for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza in community healthcare. We carried out a prospective diagnostic accuracy study of the LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A or B assay in primary care., Methods: Total of 913 adults and children with symptoms of current SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited from 18 UK primary care practices during a period when Omicron was the predominant COVID variant of concern (June 2022 to December 2022). Trained health care staff performed the index test, with diagnostic accuracy parameters estimated for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza against real-time reverse-transcription PCR (rtRT-PCR)., Results: 151/887 participants were SARS-CoV-2 rtRT-PCR positive, 109 positive for Influenza A, 6 for Influenza B. Index test sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 was 80.8% (122 of the 151, 95% CI, 73.6-86.7%) and specificity 98.9% (728 of the 736, 95% CI, 97.9-99.5%). For influenza A, sensitivity was 61.5% (67 of the 109, 95% CI, 51.7-70.6%) and specificity 99.4% (771 of the 776, 95% CI, 98.5-99.8%). Sensitivity to detect SARS-CoV-2 and influenza dropped sharply at rtRT-PCR cycle thresholds (Ct) > 30., Discussions: The LumiraDx™ SARS-CoV-2 and influenza A/B assay had moderate sensitivity for SARS-CoV-2 in symptomatic patients in primary care, with lower performance with high rtRT-PCR Ct. Negative results in this patient group cannot definitively rule out SARS-CoV-2 or influenza., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Resistance 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., Aim: To 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., Methods: A 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 Registration: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023376769., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Boateng et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: This was the first study to investigate the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of heterologous or fractional second dose COVID-19 vaccine regimens in adolescents., Methods: A phase II, single-blind, multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial recruited across seven UK sites from September to November 2021, with follow-up visits to August 2022. Healthy 12-to-16 years olds were randomised (1:1:1) to either 30 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-30), 10 µg BNT162b2 (BNT-10), or NVX-CoV2373 (NVX), 8 weeks after a first 30 µg dose of BNT162b2. The primary outcome was solicited systemic reactions in the week following vaccination. Secondary outcomes included immunogenicity and safety. 'Breakthrough infection' analyses were exploratory., Findings: 148 participants were recruited (median age 14 years old, 62% female, 26% anti-nucleocapsid IgG seropositive pre-second dose); 132 participants received a second dose. Reactions were mostly mild-to-moderate, with lower rates in BNT-10 recipients. No vaccine-related serious adverse events occurred. Compared to BNT-30, at 28 days post-second dose anti-spike antibody responses were similar for NVX (adjusted geometric mean ratio [aGMR]) 1.09 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.84, 1.42] and lower for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.78 [95% CI: 0.61, 0.99]). For Omicron BA.1 and BA.2, the neutralising antibody titres for BNT-30 at day 28 were similar for BNT-10 (aGMR 1.0 [95% CI: 0.65, 1.54] and 1.02 [95% CI: 0.71, 1.48], respectively), but higher for NVX (aGMR 1.7 [95% CI: 1.07, 2.69] and 1.43 [95% CI: 0.96, 2.12], respectively). Compared to BNT-30, cellular immune responses were greatest for NVX (aGMR 1.73 [95% CI: 0.94, 3.18]), and lowest for BNT-10 (aGMR 0.65 [95% CI: 0.37, 1.15]) at 14 days post-second dose. Cellular responses were similar across the study arms by day 236 post-second dose. Amongst SARS-CoV-2 infection naïve participants, NVX participants had an 89% reduction in risk of self-reported 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.11 [95% CI: 0.01, 0.86]) up until day 132 after second dose. BNT-10 recipients were more likely to have a 'breakthrough infection' compared to BNT-30 (aHR 2.14 [95% CI: 1.02, 4.51]) up to day 132 and day 236 post-second dose. Antibody responses at 132 and 236 days after second dose were similar for all vaccine schedules., Interpretation: Heterologous and fractional dose COVID-19 vaccine schedules in adolescents are safe, well-tolerated and immunogenic. The enhanced performance of the heterologous schedule using NVX-CoV2373 against the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant suggests this mRNA prime and protein-subunit boost schedule may provide a greater breadth of protection than the licensed homologous schedule., Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Vaccine Task Force., Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry: 12348322., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MDS acted until September 2022 on behalf of the University of Oxford as an Investigator on research studies funded or supported by the vaccine manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, AstraZeneca, Novavax, MCM vaccines and Pfizer. He received no direct personal benefit for this work. From September 2022 he has been an employee at Moderna Biotech and holds stock options in this company. SNF acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an Investigator and/or providing consultative advice on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 and other vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Novavax, Seqirus, Sanofi, Medimmune, Merck and Valneva vaccines and antimicrobials. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. KC acts on behalf of University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust as an investigator and/or providing consultative advice on studies funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medimmune, Merck, Pfizer, Sanofi and Valneva. She receives no personal financial payment for this work. AMM acts on behalf of the University of Oxford as an investigator on research studies funded + /- sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Valneva SE and Novavax. She receives no personal financial benefit for this work. PTH acts on behalf of St George’s University of London as an Investigator on clinical trials and studies of COVID-19 vaccines funded or sponsored by vaccine manufacturers including Janssen, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, Novavax and Valneva. He receives no personal financial payment for this work. He is a member of the JCVI. JSN-V-T was seconded to the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) from October 2017-March 2022 as Deputy Chief Medical Officer, England, receiving no benefits, other than salary, for this work. Since leaving DHSC he has received a lecture fee from AstraZeneca and will undertake paid consulting for Moderna BioTech from 3rd May 2023. The views expressed in this paper are those of its authors and not necessarily those of DHSC or JCVI., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: Point-of-care lateral flow device antigen testing has been used extensively to identify individuals with active SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of two point-of-care tests (POCTs) for SARS-CoV-2 in routine community care., Methods: Adults and children with symptoms consistent with suspected current COVID-19 infection were prospectively recruited from 19 UK general practices and two COVID-19 testing centres between October 2020 and October 2021. Participants were tested by trained healthcare workers using at least one of two index POCTs (Roche-branded SD Biosensor Standard™ Q SARS-CoV-2 Rapid Antigen Test and/or BD Veritor™ System for Rapid Detection of SARS-CoV-2). The reference standard was laboratory triplex reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-PCR) using a combined nasal/oropharyngeal swab. Diagnostic accuracy parameters were estimated, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), overall, in relation to RT-PCR cycle threshold and in pre-specified subgroups., Results: Of 663 participants included in the primary analysis, 39.2% (260/663, 95% CI 35.5% to 43.0%) had a positive RT-PCR result. The SD Biosensor POCT had sensitivity 84.0% (178/212, 78.3% to 88.6%) and specificity 98.5% (328/333, 96.5% to 99.5%), and the BD Veritor POCT had sensitivity 76.5% (127/166, 69.3% to 82.7%) and specificity 98.8% (249/252, 96.6% to 99.8%) compared with RT-PCR. Sensitivity of both devices dropped substantially at cycle thresholds ≥30 and in participants more than 7 days after onset of symptoms., Conclusions: Both POCTs assessed exceed the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency target product profile's minimum acceptable specificity of 95%. Confidence intervals for both tests include the minimum acceptable sensitivity of 80%. In symptomatic patients, negative results on these two POCTs do not preclude the possibility of infection. Tests should not be expected to reliably detect disease more than a week after symptom onset, when viral load may be reduced., Registration: ISRCTN142269., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: The authorship declares funding support for this study from the University of Oxford Medical Sciences Division Benefactors Urgent COVID-19 Fund, the National Institute for Health and Care (NIHR) School of Primary Care Research, and Urgent Public Health funding for the CONDOR Platform from the NIHR and Asthma+Lung UK. The RAPTOR-C19 study team received analysers and assays free of charge from Becton Dickinson for evaluation in this study. GNH declares funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) paid to the University of Oxford. KD declares grant funding from Alere Inc and Cepheid Inc paid to her institution for unrelated research. TRF declares NIHR support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC for diagnostic evaluation research. AJW declares grant funding received by the University of Oxford through a Wellcome Trust Enriching Engagement grant which has supported unrelated patient participation work carried out by the Royal College of General Practitioners Research Surveillance Centre (based at the University of Oxford) for surveillance work. GE declares funding support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC recieved by the University of Oxford. AM declares the support of a Wellcome Trust Doctoral Research Fellowship and an NIHR In-practice Fellowship unrelated to this research. PJT declares support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC for diagnostic evaluation research. PJT has provided expert support to the Longitude Prize AMR competition administration which is unrelated to this project and for which the University of Oxford received an honorarium. RB declares grant funding for this project from the NIHR and Asthma+Lung UK, with additional funding from the Department of Health and Social Care paid to his host institution. RB declares grants from Siemens Healthineers, Abbott Point-of-Care and Ancon, all paid to his institution for unrelated research. He declares consulting fees received by his institution from Roche, Siemens, Aptamer Group, LumiraDx, Beckman Coulter and Radiometer, with personal fees received from Psyros Diagnostics. RB has received support for attending meetings / travel from Roche and EMCREG International. RB has participated on data safety monitoring boards or advisory boards for the unrelated FORCE Trial, REWIRE Trial, TARGET-CTA, and Magnetocardiography study (MAGNETIC - sponsored by Creavo). RB is the Deputy National Specialty Lead for Trauma & Emergency Care, National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network. RB declares receipt of donated reagents for research not detailed in this paper from Roche, LumiraDx, BD, iXensor, Abbott Point-of-Care, Randox, Avacta, Menarini, loan of analysers from Randox and Menarini, and assays run free of charge for research purposes by Chronomics, My110, and Ancon. JJL declares funding from an NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship which is unrelated to this research. LM declares support from the NIHR Community Healthcare MIC and other NIHR grants to the University of Oxford in support of this work. EL declares unrelated project funding received by the UKHSA Vaccine Evaluation Unit for contract research from GSK, Pfizer and Sanofi. MZ declares her unpaid activities as the Chair of the charitable organisation ISIRV and her membership of the UK SAGE, NERVTAG and JCVI groups. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2023 Nicholson et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care., Methods: We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites., Findings: 6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4-73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5-80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1-98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2-71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1-98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0-34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5-98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 85·2% (95% CI 79·8-89·3) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1-90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2-99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer., Interpretation: This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms., Funding: GRAIL Bio UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests BDN and MRM receive institutional research funding from GRAIL. MRM reports grants from Roche, Astrazeneca, BMS, Infinitopes, Immunocore, and study fees from BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Regeneron, BiolineRx, Replimune and Novartis outside of the submitted work. HK, KNK, SH, KR, YL, and HN are employees of GRAIL. HK, KNK, SH, KR, and YL hold stock in Illumina. HK reports a leadership position with GRAIL. DH reports a leadership role with CanSense, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Anti-IgLON5 disease is a newly defined clinical entity characterized by a progressive course with high disability and mortality rate. While precise pathogenetic mechanisms remain unclear, features characteristic of both autoimmune and neurodegenerative diseases were reported. Data on immunotherapy are limited, and its efficacy remains controversial. In this study, we retrospectively investigated an anti-IgLON5 disease cohort with special focus on clinical, serological and genetic predictors of the immunotherapy response and long-term outcome. Patients were recruited from the GENERATE (German Network for Research on Autoimmune Encephalitis) registry. Along with clinical parameters, anti-IgLON5 immunoglobulin (Ig)G in serum and CSF, anti-IgLON5 IgG1-4, IgA and IgM in serum, neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acidic protein in serum as well as human leukocyte antigen-genotypes were determined. We identified 53 patients (symptom onset 63.8 ± 10.3 years, female:male 1:1.5). The most frequent initial clinical presentations were bulbar syndrome, hyperkinetic syndrome or isolated sleep disorder [at least one symptom present in 38% (20/53)]. At the time of diagnosis, the majority of patients had a generalized multi-systemic phenotype; nevertheless, 21% (11/53) still had an isolated brainstem syndrome and/or a characteristic sleep disorder only. About one third of patients [28% (15/53)] reported subacute disease onset and 51% (27/53) relapse-like exacerbations during the disease course. Inflammatory CSF changes were evident in 37% (19/51) and increased blood-CSF-barrier permeability in 46% (21/46). CSF cell count significantly decreased, while serum anti-IgLON5 IgG titre increased with disease duration. The presence of human leukocyte antigen-DRB1*10:01 [55% (24/44)] was associated with higher serum anti-IgLON5 IgG titres. Neurofilament light chain and glial fibrillary acidic protein in serum were substantially increased (71.1 ± 103.9 pg/ml and 126.7 ± 73.3 pg/ml, respectively). First-line immunotherapy of relapse-like acute-to-subacute exacerbation episodes resulted in improvement in 41% (11/27) of patients and early initiation within the first 6 weeks was a predictor for therapy response. Sixty-eight per cent (36/53) of patients were treated with long-term immunotherapy and 75% (27/36) of these experienced no further disease progression (observation period of 20.2 ± 15.4 months). Long-term immunotherapy initiation during the first year after onset and low pre-treatment neurofilament light chain were significant predictors for a better outcome. In conclusion, subacute disease onset and early inflammatory CSF changes support the primary role of autoimmune mechanisms at least at initial stages of anti-IgLON5 disease. Early immunotherapy, prior to advanced neurodegeneration, is associated with a better long-term clinical outcome. Low serum neurofilament light chain at treatment initiation may serve as a potential biomarker of the immunotherapy response., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KW held a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lectureship during the conduct of the study and currently holds an NIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Urine collection devices (UCDs) are being marketed and used in clinical settings to reduce urine sample contamination, despite inadequate supporting evidence., Aim: To determine whether UCDs, compared with standardised instructions for urine sample collection, reduce the proportion of contaminated samples., Design and Setting: Single-blind randomised controlled trial in general practices in England and Wales., Method: Women aged ≥18 years presenting with symptoms attributable to urinary tract infection (UTI) were randomised (1:1:1) to use either a Peezy UCD or a Whiz Midstream UCD, or were given standardised verbal instructions (SVI) for midstream sample collection. The primary outcome was the proportion of urine samples reported as contaminated by microbiology laboratory analysis., Results: A total of 1264 women (Peezy UCD: n = 424; Whiz Midstream UCD: n = 421; SVI: n = 419) were randomised between October 2016 and August 2018. Ninety women were excluded from the primary analysis as a result of ineligibility or lack of primary outcome data, leaving 1174 (Peezy UCD: n = 381; Whiz Midstream UCD: n = 390; SVI: n = 403) for intention-to-treat analysis. The proportion of contaminated samples was 26.5% with the Peezy UCD, 28.2% with the Whiz Midstream UCD, and 29.0% with SVI (relative risk: Peezy UCD versus SVI = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.76 to 1.09, P = 0.32; Whiz Midstream UCD versus SVI = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.97 to 1.20, P = 0.82). There were 100 (25.3%) device failures with the Peezy UCD and 35 (8.8%) with the Whiz Midstream UCD; the proportion of contaminated samples was similar after device failure samples were excluded., Conclusion: Neither the Peezy UCD nor the Whiz Midstream UCD reduced urine sample contamination when used by women presenting to primary care with suspected UTI. Their use cannot be recommended for this purpose in this setting., (© The Authors.)

Introduction: The UK government stockpiles co-amoxiclav to treat bacterial complications during influenza pandemics. This pragmatic trial examines whether early co-amoxiclav use reduces reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in "at risk" children presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary or ambulatory care., Methods: "At risk" children aged from 6 months to 12 years presenting within 5 days of ILI onset were randomly assigned to oral co-amoxiclav 400/57 or a placebo twice daily for 5 days (dosing based on age±weight). "At risk" groups included children with respiratory, cardiac and neurological conditions. Randomisation was stratified by region and used a non-deterministic minimisation algorithm to balance age and current seasonal influenza vaccination status. Our target sample size was 650 children which would have allowed us to detect a reduction in the proportion of children reconsulting due to clinical deterioration from 40% to 26%, with 90% power and 5% two-tailed alpha error (including allowance for 25% loss to follow-up and an inflation factor of 1.041). Participants, caregivers and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat analysis included all randomised participants with primary outcome data on reconsultation due to clinical deterioration within 28 days. Safety analysis included all randomised participants., Trial Registration: ISRCTN 70714783. EudraCT 2013-002822-21., Results: We recruited 271 children between February 11, 2015 and April 20, 2018. Primary outcome data were available for 265 children. Only 61 out of 265 children (23.0%) reconsulted due to clinical deterioration. No evidence of a treatment effect was observed for reconsultation due to clinical deterioration (33 out of 133 for co-amoxiclav (24.8%) and 28 out of 132 (21.2%) for placebo; adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.80). There was also no evidence of a difference between groups in the proportion of children for whom one or more adverse events (AEs) were reported (32 out of 136 (23.5%) for co-amoxiclav and 22 out of 135 (16.3%) for placebo; adjusted RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90-2.34). In total, 66 AEs were reported (co-amoxiclav, n=37; placebo, n=29). Nine serious AEs were reported per group, although none were considered related to study medication., Conclusion: Our trial did not find evidence that treatment with co-amoxiclav reduces risk of reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in "at risk" children who present early with ILI during influenza season. Our findings therefore do not support early co-amoxiclav use in children with seasonal ILI., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: K. Wang held a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Academic Clinical Lectureship during the conduct of the study and currently holds a NIHR Postdoctoral Fellowship. Conflict of interest: M.G. Semple reports grants from the UK NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections at the University of Liverpool and the Wellcome Trust Enhancing Research Activity in Epidemic Situations (ERAES) Programme during the conduct of the study, and grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as grants from UK NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation, outside the submitted work; and is a minority owner of Integrum Scientific LLC, Greensboro, NC, USA, outside the submitted work. Conflict of interest: M. Moore has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A.D. Hay has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Tonner has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: U. Galal has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Grabey has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: T. Carver has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Perera receives funding from the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), the NIHR Oxford Medtech and In-Vitro Diagnostics Cooperative (MIC), the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) Oxford and Thames Valley, and the Oxford Martin School. Conflict of interest: L-M. Yu has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Mollison has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P. Little has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Farmer receives funding from the NIHR Oxford BRC and is a NIHR Senior Investigator. Conflict of interest: C.C. Butler reports grants from the NIHR as an NIHR Senior Investigator and the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme to support the study, as well as grants from the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit on Health Care Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance and grants from NIHR Health for the MIC for innovative diagnostics and monitoring technology to enhance community healthcare, during the conduct of the study; personal fees for advisory board work from Roche Molecular Systems and Pfizer, and grants from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, outside the submitted work. Afinion CRP devices and associated training to participating general practices were provided at no cost to the study by Alere and was part of a publicly funded research consortia that include industrial partners. Conflict of interest: A. Harnden has nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2021. For reproduction rights and permissions contact permissions@ersnet.org.)

Introduction: There is an urgent need to idenfy treatments for COVID-19 that reduce illness duration and hospital admission in those at higher risk of a longer illness course and complications., Methods and Analysis: The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE trial is an open-label, multiarm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial to evaluate potential treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new interventions as they become available, as well as the inclusion and cessation of existing intervention arms via frequent interim analyses. The first three interventions are hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and doxycycline. Eligible participants must be symptomatic in the community with possible or confirmed COVID-19 that started in the preceding 14 days and either (1) aged 65 years and over or (2) aged 50-64 years with comorbidities. Recruitment is through general practice, health service helplines, COVID-19 'hot hubs' and directly through the trial website. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a study drug plus usual care, and outcomes are collected via daily online symptom diary for 28 days from randomisation. The research team contacts participants and/or their study partner following days 7, 14 and 28 if the online diary is not completed. The trial has two coprimary endpoints: time to first self-report of feeling recovered from possible COVID-19 and hospital admission or death from possible COVID-19 infection, both within 28 days from randomisation. Prespecified interim analyses assess efficacy or futility of interventions and to modify randomisation probabilities that allocate more participants to interventions with better outcomes., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval Ref: 20/SC/0158 South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee; IRAS Project ID: 281958; EudraCT Number: 2020-001209-22. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN86534580., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The prehospital identification of stroke patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO), that should be immediately transported to a thrombectomy capable centre is an unsolved problem. Our aim was to determine whether implementation of a state-wide standard operating procedure (SOP) using the Los Angeles Motor Scale (LAMS) is feasible and enables correct triage of stroke patients to hospitals offering (comprehensive stroke centres, CSCs) or not offering (primary stroke centres, PSCs) thrombectomy., Methods: Prospective study involving all patients with suspected acute stroke treated in a 4-month period in a state-wide network of all stroke-treating hospitals (eight PSCs and two CSCs). Primary endpoint was accuracy of the triage SOP in correctly transferring patients to CSCs or PSCs. Additional endpoints included the number of secondary transfers, the accuracy of the LAMS for detection of LVO, apart from stroke management metrics., Results: In 1123 patients, use of a triage SOP based on the LAMS allowed triage decisions according to LVO status with a sensitivity of 69.2% (95% confidence interval (95%-CI): 59.0-79.5%) and a specificity of 84.9% (95%-CI: 82.6-87.3%). This was more favourable than the conventional approach of transferring every patient to the nearest stroke-treating hospital, as determined by geocoding for each patient (sensitivity, 17.9% (95%-CI: 9.4-26.5%); specificity, 100% (95%-CI: 100-100%)). Secondary transfers were required for 14 of the 78 (17.9%) LVO patients. Regarding the score itself, LAMS detected LVO with a sensitivity of 67.5% (95%-CI: 57.1-78.0%) and a specificity of 83.5% (95%-CI: 81.0-86.0%)., Conclusions: State-wide implementation of a triage SOP requesting use of the LAMS tool is feasible and improves triage decision-making in acute stroke regarding the most appropriate target hospital.

Introduction: Influenza and influenza-like illness (ILI) create considerable burden on healthcare resources each winter. Children with pre-existing conditions such as asthma, diabetes mellitus and cerebral palsy are among those at greatest risk of clinical deterioration from influenza/ILI. The Antibiotics for at Risk CHildren with InfluEnza (ARCHIE) trial aims to determine whether early oral treatment with the antibiotic co-amoxiclav reduces the likelihood of reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in these 'at risk' children., Methods and Analysis: The ARCHIE trial is a double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial. 'At risk' children aged 6 months to 12 years inclusive who present within the first 5 days of an ILI episode will be randomised to receive a 5-day course of oral co-amoxiclav 400/57 twice daily or placebo. Randomisation will use a non-deterministic minimisation algorithm to balance age and seasonal influenza vaccination status.To detect respiratory virus infections, a nasal swab will be obtained from each participant before commencing study medication. To identify carriage of potential bacterial respiratory pathogens, we will also obtain a throat swab where possible.The primary outcome is reconsultation in any healthcare setting due to clinical deterioration within 28 days of randomisation. We will analyse this outcome using log-binomial regression model adjusted for region, age and seasonal influenza vaccination status.Secondary outcomes include duration of fever, duration of symptoms and adverse events. Continuous outcomes will be compared using regression analysis (or equivalent non-parametric method for non-normal data) adjusting for minimisation variables. Binary outcomes will be compared using χ 2 /Fisher's exact test and log-binomial regression., Ethics: The ARCHIE trial has been reviewed and approved by the North West-Liverpool East Research Ethics Committee, Health Research Authority and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated via our study website (www.archiestudy.com) and links with relevant charities., Trial Registration Numbers: ISRCTN 70714783; Pre-results. EudraCT 2013-002822-21; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KW is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Postdoctoral Fellow. AF is a NIHR Senior Investigator and is supported by the Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. AH is Deputy Chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which advises the UK government on vaccine policy. MGS is an NIHR Investigator, is supported by the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emerging and Zoonotic Infections and is a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Viral Threats Advisory Group, whose remit includes advice to the UK government on antibiotic and antiviral stockpile policy., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)