Explore the vast range of titles available.

Visual problems are an under-reported sequela following stroke. The aim of this study is to report annual incidence and point prevalence of visual problems in an acute adult stroke population and to explore feasibility of early timing of visual assessment. Multi-centre acute stroke unit, prospective, epidemiology study (1st July 2014 to 30th June 2015). Orthoptists reviewed all patients with assessment of visual acuity, visual fields, ocular alignment, ocular motility, visual inattention and visual perception. 1033 patients underwent visual screening at a median of 3 days (IQR 2) and full visual assessment at a median of 4 days (IQR 7) after the incident stroke: 52% men, 48% women, mean age 73 years and 87% ischaemic strokes. Excluding pre-existent eye problems, the incidence of new onset visual sequelae was 48% for all stroke admissions and 60% in stroke survivors. Three quarters 752/1033 (73%) had visual problems (point prevalence): 56% with impaired central vision, 40% eye movement abnormalities, 28% visual field loss, 27% visual inattention, 5% visual perceptual disorders. 281/1033 (27%) had normal eye exams. Incidence and point prevalence of visual problems in acute stroke is alarmingly high, affecting over half the survivors. For most, visual screening and full visual assessment was achieved within about 5 days of stroke onset. Crucial information can thus be provided on visual status and its functional significance to the stroke team, patients and carers, enabling early intervention.

Background Covid-19 healthcare worker testing, isolation and quarantine policies had to balance risks to patients from the virus and from staff absence. The emergence of the Omicron variant led to dangerous levels of key-worker absence globally. We evaluated whether using two manufacturers’ lateral flow tests (LFTs) concurrently improved SARS-CoV-2 Omicron detection significantly and was acceptable to hospital staff. In a nested study, to understand risks of return to work after a 5-day isolation/quarantine period, we examined virus culture 5–7 days after positive test or significant exposure. Methods Fully-vaccinated Liverpool (UK) University Hospitals staff participated (February-May 2022) in a random-order, open-label trial testing whether dual LFTs improved SARS-CoV-2 detection, and whether dual swabbing was acceptable to users. Participants used nose-throat swab Innova and nose-only swab Orient Gene LFTs in daily randomised order for 10 days. A user-experience questionnaire was administered on exit. Selected participants gave swabs for viral culture on days 5–7 after symptom onset or first positive test. Cultures were considered positive if cytopathic effect was apparent or SARS-CoV-2 N gene sub-genomic RNA was detected. Results Two hundred and twenty-six individuals reported 1466 pairs of LFT results. Tests disagreed in 127 cases (8.7%). Orient Gene was more likely (78 cf. 49; OR: 2.1, 1.1–4.1; P  = 0.03) to be positive. If Innova was swabbed second, it was less likely to agree with a positive Orient Gene result (OR: 2.7, 1.3–5.2; P  = 0.005); swabbing first with Innova made no significant difference (OR: 1.1, 0.5–2.3; P  = 0.85). Orient Gene positive Innova negative result-pairs became more frequent over time (OR: 1.2, 1.1–1.3; P  < 0.001). Of individuals completing the exit questionnaire, 90.7% reported dual swabbing was easy, 57.1% said it was no barrier to their daily routine and 65.6% preferred dual testing. Respondents had more confidence in dual versus single test results. Viral cultures from days 5–7 were positive for 6/31 (19.4%, 7.5%-37.5%) and indeterminate for 11/31 (35.5%, 19.2%-54.6%) LFT-positive participants, indicating they were likely still infectious. Conclusions Dual brand testing increased LFT detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen by a small but meaningful margin and was acceptable to hospital workers. Viral cultures demonstrated that policies recommending safe return to work ~ 5 days after Omicron infection/exposure were flawed. Key-workers should be prepared for dynamic self-testing protocols in future pandemics. Trial registration https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN47058442 (26 January 2022).

From January to May 2021 the alpha variant (B.1.1.7) of SARS-CoV-2 was the most commonly detected variant in the UK. Following this, the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) then became the predominant variant. The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme started on 8th December 2020. Prior to the Delta variant, most vaccine effectiveness studies focused on the alpha variant. We therefore aimed to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection with respect to the Delta variant in a UK setting. We used anonymised public health record data linked to infection data (PCR) using the Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action resource. We then constructed an SIR epidemic model to explain SARS-CoV-2 infection data across the Cheshire and Merseyside region of the UK. Vaccines were assumed to be effective after 21 days for 1 dose and 14 days for 2 doses. We determined that the effectiveness of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in reducing susceptibility to infection is 39% (95% credible interval [34, 43]) and 64% (95% credible interval [61, 67]) for a single dose and a double dose respectively. For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the effectiveness is 20% (95% credible interval [10, 28]) and 84% (95% credible interval [82, 86]) for a single-dose and a double dose respectively. Vaccine effectiveness for reducing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection shows noticeable improvement after receiving two doses of either vaccine. Findings also suggest that a full course of the Pfizer-BioNTech provides the optimal protection against infection with the Delta variant. This reinforces the need to complete the full course programme to maximise individual protection and reduce transmission.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) versus polymerase chain reaction testing in the asymptomatic general population attending testing centres.DesignObservational cohort study.SettingCommunity LFT pilot at covid-19 testing sites in Liverpool, UK.Participants5869 asymptomatic adults (≥18 years) voluntarily attending one of 48 testing sites during 6-29 November 2020.InterventionsParticipants were tested using both an Innova LFT and a quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test based on supervised self-administered swabbing at testing sites.Main outcome measuresSensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LFT compared with RT-qPCR in an epidemic steady state of covid-19 among adults with no classic symptoms of the disease.ResultsOf 5869 test results, 22 (0.4%) LFT results and 343 (5.8%) RT-qPCR results were void (that is, when the control line fails to appear within 30 minutes). Excluding the void results, the LFT versus RT-qPCR showed a sensitivity of 40.0% (95% confidence interval 28.5% to 52.4%; 28/70), specificity of 99.9% (99.8% to 99.99%; 5431/5434), positive predictive value of 90.3% (74.2% to 98.0%; 28/31), and negative predictive value of 99.2% (99.0% to 99.4%; 5431/5473). When the void samples were assumed to be negative, a sensitivity was observed for LFT of 37.8% (26.8% to 49.9%; 28/74), specificity of 99.6% (99.4% to 99.8%; 5431/5452), positive predictive value of 84.8% (68.1% to 94.9%; 28/33), and negative predictive value of 93.4% (92.7% to 94.0%; 5431/5814). The sensitivity in participants with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) of <18.3 (approximate viral loads >106 RNA copies/mL) was 90.9% (58.7% to 99.8%; 10/11), a Ct of <24.4 (>104 RNA copies/mL) was 69.4% (51.9% to 83.7%; 25/36), and a Ct of >24.4 (<104 RNA copies/mL) was 9.7% (1.9% to 23.7%; 3/34). LFT is likely to detect at least three fifths and at most 998 in every 1000 people with a positive RT-qPCR test result with high viral load.ConclusionsThe Innova LFT can be useful for identifying infections among adults who report no symptoms of covid-19, particularly those with high viral load who are more likely to infect others. The number of asymptomatic adults with lower Ct (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered when using single LFT in high consequence settings. Clear and accurate communication with the public about how to interpret test results is important, given the chance of missing some cases, even at high viral loads. Further research is needed to understand how infectiousness is reflected in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.

In the UK, adults 65 years and over and those in clinical risk groups are among those eligible for seasonal influenza vaccination. While vaccine effectiveness for reducing cases of influenza is well documented, less is known about impact on wider hospital and post-discharge outcomes in the UK. We investigated whether vaccinated adults hospitalised with confirmed influenza infection had different outcomes to non-vaccinated adults during contact with health services. A retrospective cohort study using the Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action platform, linking primary care, secondary care and laboratory data for Cheshire and Merseyside (2.7 M population), UK. We accessed 2081 laboratory-confirmed influenza hospital admissions for adults ≥16 years (October 2018–April 2024). We studied the association of influenza vaccination with several hospital and post-discharge outcomes, considering competing risks and potential confounding factors. We included age-based subgroup analyses. Vaccination uptake was recorded as 38.8 %, 52.7 % and 20.9 % among ≥16, ≥65 and 16–64 years respectively. Among the full cohort and ≥ 65 years cohort, vaccination was associated with a reduction in length of hospital stay in competing risk models (17 %, 95 %CI 7–26 %; 19 %, 95 % CI 7–31 %), risk of death up to six months after discharge (aHR 0.66, 95 %CI 0.48–0.90; aHR 0.67, 95 %CI 0.48–0.92) and change in vaccination status in the next season (aOR 0.19, 95 %CI 0.13–0.27; aOR 0.07 95 %CI 0.04–0.13). No statistically significant difference was detected for admission to critical care or other post-discharge outcomes (readmission, attendance to general practice or emergency department). Influenza vaccination was associated with benefits beyond acute illness, reducing length of hospital stay and mortality among adults hospitalised with laboratory-confirmed influenza. Findings support policy decisions, including greater outreach to high-risk, low-uptake groups and advocate for the national integration of laboratory data with comprehensive healthcare data to enable more robust vaccine evaluations. •First UK study on association between vaccination and post-acute influenza infection outcomes.•Vaccination reduces hospital length of stay among and risk of death among adults with confirmed influenza.•Vaccinated adults are more likely to re-vaccinate in the season following confirmed influenza hospitalisation.•No association between influenza vaccination and hospital readmission or primary care attendance post-hospital discharge.•Advocates national integration of laboratory data with healthcare system data to enable more robust vaccine evaluations.

Aims/hypothesisUsing variable diabetic retinopathy screening intervals, informed by personal risk levels, offers improved engagement of people with diabetes and reallocation of resources to high-risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. However, safety data on extending screening intervals are minimal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised, variable-interval, risk-based population screening compared with usual care, with wide-ranging input from individuals with diabetes.MethodsThis was a two-arm, parallel-assignment, equivalence RCT (minimum 2 year follow-up) in individuals with diabetes aged 12 years or older registered with a single English screening programme. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 at baseline to individualised screening at 6, 12 or 24 months for those at high, medium and low risk, respectively, as determined at each screening episode by a risk-calculation engine using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control group). Screening staff and investigators were observer-masked to allocation and interval. Data were collected within the screening programme. The primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from National Health Service and societal perspectives.ResultsA total of 4534 participants were randomised. After withdrawals, there were 2097 participants in the individualised screening arm and 2224 in the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between the two arms (individualised screening 83.6%; control arm 84.7%; difference −1.0 [95% CI −3.2, 1.2]), while sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non-inferior in the individualised screening arm (individualised screening 1.4%, control arm 1.7%; difference −0.3 [95% CI −1.1, 0.5]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. No important adverse events were observed. Mean differences in complete case quality-adjusted life-years (EuroQol Five-Dimension Questionnaire, Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero; multiple imputation supported the dominance of individualised screening. Incremental cost savings per person with individualised screening were £17.34 (95% CI 17.02, 17.67) from the National Health Service perspective and £23.11 (95% CI 22.73, 23.53) from the societal perspective, representing a 21% reduction in overall programme costs. Overall, 43.2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm.Conclusions/interpretationStakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this study, which is the largest ophthalmic RCT in diabetic retinopathy screening to date, that extended and individualised, variable-interval, risk-based screening is feasible and can be safely and cost-effectively introduced in established systematic programmes. Because of the 2 year time horizon of the trial and the long time frame of the disease, robust monitoring of attendance and retinopathy rates should be included in any future implementation.Trial registrationISRCTN 87561257FundingThe study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research.

Aims/hypothesis Individualised variable-interval risk-based screening offers better targeting and improved cost-effectiveness in screening for diabetic retinopathy. We developed a generalisable risk calculation engine (RCE) to assign personalised intervals linked to local population characteristics, and explored differences in assignment compared with current practice. Methods Data from 5 years of photographic screening and primary care for people with diabetes, screen negative at the first of > 1 episode, were combined in a purpose-built near-real-time warehouse. Covariates were selected from a dataset created using mixed qualitative/quantitative methods. Markov modelling predicted progression to screen-positive (referable diabetic retinopathy) against the local cohort history. Retinopathy grade informed baseline risk and multiple imputation dealt with missing data. Acceptable intervals (6, 12, 24 months) and risk threshold (2.5%) were established with patients and professional end users. Results Data were from 11,806 people with diabetes (46,525 episodes, 388 screen-positive). Covariates with sufficient predictive value were: duration of known disease, HbA 1c , age, systolic BP and total cholesterol. Corrected AUC (95% CIs) were: 6 months 0.88 (0.83, 0.93), 12 months 0.90 (0.87, 0.93) and 24 months 0.91 (0.87, 0.94). Sensitivities/specificities for a 2.5% risk were: 6 months 0.61, 0.93, 12 months 0.67, 0.90 and 24 months 0.82, 0.81. Implementing individualised RCE-based intervals would reduce the proportion of people becoming screen-positive before the allocated screening date by > 50% and the number of episodes by 30%. Conclusions/interpretation The Liverpool RCE shows sufficient performance for a local introduction into practice before wider implementation, subject to external validation. This approach offers potential enhancements of screening in improved local applicability, targeting and cost-effectiveness.

From January to May 2021 the alpha variant (B.1.1.7) of SARS-CoV-2 was the most commonly detected variant in the UK. Following this, the Delta variant (B.1.617.2) then became the predominant variant. The UK COVID-19 vaccination programme started on 8th December 2020. Prior to the Delta variant, most vaccine effectiveness studies focused on the alpha variant. We therefore aimed to estimate the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in preventing symptomatic and asymptomatic infection with respect to the Delta variant in a UK setting. We used anonymised public health record data linked to infection data (PCR) using the Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action resource. We then constructed an SIR epidemic model to explain SARS-CoV-2 infection data across the Cheshire and Merseyside region of the UK. Vaccines were assumed to be effective after 21 days for 1 dose and 14 days for 2 doses. We determined that the effectiveness of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine in reducing susceptibility to infection is 39% (95% credible interval [34, 43]) and 64% (95% credible interval [61, 67]) for a single dose and a double dose respectively. For the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, the effectiveness is 20% (95% credible interval [10, 28]) and 84% (95% credible interval [82, 86]) for a single-dose and a double dose respectively. Vaccine effectiveness for reducing susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection shows noticeable improvement after receiving two doses of either vaccine. Findings also suggest that a full course of the Pfizer-BioNTech provides the optimal protection against infection with the Delta variant. This reinforces the need to complete the full course programme to maximise individual protection and reduce transmission.

IntroductionCurrently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK.Methods and analysisPWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West – Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere.Trial registration number ISRCTN87561257; Pre-results.

Background Internationally, systematic screening for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) usually includes annual recall. Researchers and policy-makers support extending screening intervals, citing evidence from observational studies with low incidence rates. However, there is little research around the acceptability to people with diabetes (PWD) and health care professionals (HCP) about changing eye screening intervals. Methods We conducted a qualitative study to explore issues surrounding acceptability and the barriers and enablers for changing from annual screening, using in-depth, semistructured interviews analysed using the constant comparative method. PWD were recruited from general practices and HCP from eye screening networks and related specialties in North West England using purposive sampling. Interviews were conducted prior to the commencement of and during a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing fixed annual with variable (6, 12 or 24 month) interval risk-based screening. Results Thirty PWD and 21 HCP participants were interviewed prior to and 30 PWD during the parallel RCT. The data suggests that a move to variable screening intervals was generally acceptable in principle, though highlighted significant concerns and challenges to successful implementation. The current annual interval was recognised as unsustainable against a backdrop of increasing diabetes prevalence. There were important caveats attached to acceptability and a need for clear safeguards around: the safety and reliability of calculating screening intervals, capturing all PWD, referral into screening of PWD with diabetic changes regardless of planned interval. For PWD the 6-month interval was perceived positively as medical reassurance, and the 12-month seen as usual treatment. Concerns were expressed by many HCP and PWD that a 2-year interval was too lengthy and was risky for detecting STDR. There were also concerns about a negative effect upon PWD care and increasing non-attendance rates. Amongst PWD, there was considerable conflation and misunderstanding about different eye-related appointments within the health care system. Conclusions Implementing variable-interval screening into clinical practice is generally acceptable to PWD and HCP with important caveats, and misconceptions must be addressed. Clear safeguards against increasing non-attendance, loss of diabetes control and alternative referral pathways are required. For risk calculation systems to be safe, reliable monitoring and clear communication is required.