Explore the vast range of titles available.

Immunocompromised patients may be at higher risk of mortality if hospitalised with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with immunocompetent patients. However, previous studies have been contradictory. We aimed to determine whether immunocompromised patients were at greater risk of in-hospital death and how this risk changed over the pandemic. We included patients > = 19 years with symptomatic community-acquired COVID-19 recruited to the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK prospective cohort study. We defined immunocompromise as immunosuppressant medication preadmission, cancer treatment, organ transplant, HIV, or congenital immunodeficiency. We used logistic regression to compare the risk of death in both groups, adjusting for age, sex, deprivation, ethnicity, vaccination, and comorbidities. We used Bayesian logistic regression to explore mortality over time. Between 17 January 2020 and 28 February 2022, we recruited 156,552 eligible patients, of whom 21,954 (14%) were immunocompromised. In total, 29% (n = 6,499) of immunocompromised and 21% (n = 28,608) of immunocompetent patients died in hospital. The odds of in-hospital mortality were elevated for immunocompromised patients (adjusted OR 1.44, 95% CI [1.39, 1.50], p < 0.001). Not all immunocompromising conditions had the same risk, for example, patients on active cancer treatment were less likely to have their care escalated to intensive care (adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI [0.7, 0.85], p < 0.001) or ventilation (adjusted OR 0.65, 95% CI [0.56, 0.76], p < 0.001). However, cancer patients were more likely to die (adjusted OR 2.0, 95% CI [1.87, 2.15], p < 0.001). Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidities, and vaccination status. As the pandemic progressed, in-hospital mortality reduced more slowly for immunocompromised patients than for immunocompetent patients. This was particularly evident with increasing age: the probability of the reduction in hospital mortality being less for immunocompromised patients aged 50 to 69 years was 88% for men and 83% for women, and for those >80 years was 99% for men and 98% for women. The study is limited by a lack of detailed drug data prior to admission, including steroid doses, meaning that we may have incorrectly categorised some immunocompromised patients as immunocompetent. Immunocompromised patients remain at elevated risk of death from COVID-19. Targeted measures such as additional vaccine doses, monoclonal antibodies, and nonpharmaceutical preventive interventions should be continually encouraged for this patient group. ISRCTN 66726260.

Personal Health Records (PHRs) have the potential to give patients fine-grained, personalized and secure access to their own medical data and to enable self-management of care. Emergent trends around the use of Blockchain, or Distributed Ledger Technology, seem to offer solutions to some of the problems faced in enabling these technologies, especially to support issues consent, data exchange, and data access. We present an analysis of existing blockchain-based health record solutions and a reference architecture for a \"Ledger of Me\" system that extends PHR to create a new platform combining the collection and access of medical data and digital interventions with smart contracts. Our intention is to enable patient use of the data in order to support their care and to provide a strong consent mechanisms for sharing of data between different organizations and apps. Ledger of Me is based on around the principle that this combination of event-driven smart contracts, medical record data, and patient control is important for the adoption of blockchain-based solutions for the PHR. The reference architecture we present can serve as the basis of a range of future blockchain-based medical application architectures.

In recent years, researchers have begun to explore the use of Distributed Ledger Technologies (DLT), also known as blockchain, in health data sharing contexts. However, there is a significant lack of research that examines public attitudes towards the use of this technology. In this paper, we begin to address this issue and present results from a series of focus groups which explored public views and concerns about engaging with new models of personal health data sharing in the UK. We found that participants were broadly in favour of a shift towards new decentralised models of data sharing. Retaining ‘proof’ of health information stored about patients and the capacity to provide permanent audit trails, enabled by immutable and transparent properties of DLT, were regarded as particularly valuable for our participants and prospective data custodians. Participants also identified other potential benefits such as supporting people to become more health data literate and enabling patients to make informed decisions about how their data was shared and with whom. However, participants also voiced concerns about the potential to further exacerbate existing health and digital inequalities. Participants were also apprehensive about the removal of intermediaries in the design of personal health informatics systems.

Patients with cancer are at greater risk of dying from COVID-19 than many other patient groups. However, how this risk evolved during the pandemic remains unclear. We aimed to determine, on the basis of the UK national pandemic protocol, how factors influencing hospital mortality from COVID-19 could differentially affect patients undergoing cancer treatment. We also examined changes in hospital mortality and escalation of care in patients on cancer treatment during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. We conducted a prospective cohort study of patients aged older than 19 years and admitted to 306 health-care facilities in the UK with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who were enrolled in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol (CCP) across the UK from April 23, 2020, to Feb 28, 2022; this analysis included all patients in the complete dataset when the study closed. The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital mortality, comparing patients on cancer treatment and those without cancer. The study was approved by the South Central–Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in England (Ref: 13/SC/0149) and the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 20/SS/0028), and is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN66726260). 177 871 eligible adult patients either with no history of cancer (n=171 303) or on cancer treatment (n=6568) were enrolled; 93 205 (52·4%) were male, 84 418 (47·5%) were female, and in 248 (13·9%) sex or gender details were not specified or data were missing. Patients were followed up for a median of 13 (IQR 6–21) days. Of the 6568 patients receiving cancer treatment, 2080 (31·7%) died at 30 days, compared with 30 901 (18·0%) of 171 303 patients without cancer. Patients aged younger than 50 years on cancer treatment had the highest age-adjusted relative risk (hazard ratio [HR] 5·2 [95% CI 4·0–6·6], p<0·0001; vs 50–69 years 2·4 [2·2–2·6], p<0·0001; 70–79 years 1·8 [1·6–2·0], p<0·0001; and >80 years 1·5 [1·3–1·6], p<0·0001) but a lower absolute risk (51 [6·7%] of 763 patients <50 years died compared with 459 [30·2%] of 1522 patients aged >80 years). In-hospital mortality decreased for all patients during the pandemic but was higher for patients on cancer treatment than for those without cancer throughout the study period. People with cancer have a higher risk of mortality from COVID-19 than those without cancer. Patients younger than 50 years with cancer treatment have the highest relative risk of death. Continued action is needed to mitigate the poor outcomes in patients with cancer, such as through optimising vaccination, long-acting passive immunisation, and early access to therapeutics. These findings underscore the importance of the ISARIC-WHO pandemic preparedness initiative. National Institute for Health Research and the Medical Research Council.

Structured medication reviews (SMRs), introduced in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2020, aim to enhance shared decision-making in medication optimisation, particularly for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Despite its potential, there is limited empirical evidence on the implementation of SMRs, and the challenges faced in the process. This study is part of a larger DynAIRx (Artificial Intelligence for dynamic prescribing optimisation and care integration in multimorbidity) project which aims to introduce Artificial Intelligence (AI) to SMRs and develop machine learning models and visualisation tools for patients with multimorbidity. Here, we explore how SMRs are currently undertaken and what barriers are experienced by those involved in them. Qualitative focus groups and semi-structured interviews took place between 2022-2023. Six focus groups were conducted with doctors, pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists (n = 21), and three patient focus groups with patients with multimorbidity (n = 13). Five semi-structured interviews were held with 2 pharmacists, 1 trainee doctor, 1 policy-maker and 1 psychiatrist. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Two key themes limiting the effectiveness of SMRs in clinical practice were identified: 'Medication Reviews in Practice' and 'Medication-related Challenges'. Participants noted limitations to the efficient and effectiveness of SMRs in practice including the scarcity of digital tools for identifying and prioritising patients for SMRs; organisational and patient-related challenges in inviting patients for SMRs and ensuring they attend; the time-intensive nature of SMRs, the need for multiple appointments and shared decision-making; the impact of the healthcare context on SMR delivery; poor communication and data sharing issues between primary and secondary care; difficulties in managing mental health medications and specific challenges associated with anticholinergic medication. SMRs are complex, time consuming and medication optimisation may require multiple follow-up appointments to enable a comprehensive review. There is a need for a prescribing support system to identify, prioritise and reduce the time needed to understand the patient journey when dealing with large volumes of disparate clinical information in electronic health records. However, monitoring the effects of medication optimisation changes with a feedback loop can be challenging to establish and maintain using current electronic health record systems.

Structured medication reviews (SMRs) are an essential component of medication optimization, especially for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. However, the process remains challenging due to the complexities of patient data, time constraints, and the need for coordination among health care professionals (HCPs). This study explores HCPs' perspectives on the integration of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted tools to enhance the SMR process, with a focus on the potential benefits of and barriers to adoption. This study aims to identify the key user requirements for AI-assisted tools to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of SMRs, specifically for patients with multimorbidity, complex polypharmacy, and frailty. A qualitative study was conducted involving focus groups and semistructured interviews with HCPs and patients in the United Kingdom. Participants included physicians, pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists, psychiatrists from primary and secondary care, a policy maker, and patients with multimorbidity. Data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive and deductive thematic analysis approach to identify themes related to AI-assisted tool functionality, workflow integration, user-interface visualization, and usability in the SMR process. Four major themes emerged from the analysis: innovative AI potential, optimizing electronic patient record visualization, functionality of the AI tool for SMRs, and facilitators of and barriers to AI tool implementation. HCPs identified the potential of AI to support patient identification and prioritizing those at risk of medication-related harm. AI-assisted tools were viewed as essential in detecting prescribing gaps, drug interactions, and patient risk trajectories over time. Participants emphasized the importance of presenting patient data in an intuitive format, with a patient interface for shared decision-making. Suggestions included color-coding blood results, highlighting critical medication reviews, and providing timelines of patient medical histories. HCPs stressed the need for AI tools to integrate seamlessly with existing electronic patient record systems and provide actionable insights without overwhelming users with excessive notifications or \"pop-up\" alerts. Factors influencing the uptake of AI-assisted tools included the need for user-friendly design, evidence of tool effectiveness (though some were skeptical about the predictive accuracy of AI models), and addressing concerns around digital exclusion. The findings highlight the potential for AI-assisted tools to streamline and optimize the SMR process, particularly for patients with multimorbidity and complex polypharmacy. However, successful implementation depends on addressing concerns related to workflow integration, user acceptance, and evidence of effectiveness. User-centered design is crucial to ensure that AI-assisted tools support HCPs in delivering high-quality, patient-centered care while minimizing cognitive overload and alert fatigue.

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).

Background Our study examines if SARS-CoV-2 infections varied by vaccination status, if an individual had previously tested positive and by neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation across the Delta and Omicron epidemic waves of SARS-CoV-2. Methods Population cohort study using electronic health records for 2.7 M residents in Cheshire and Merseyside, England (3rd June 2021 to 1st March 2022). Our outcome variable was registered positive test for SARS-CoV-2. Explanatory variables were vaccination status, previous registered positive test and neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation. Cox regression models were used to analyse associations. Results Originally higher SARS-CoV-2 rates in the most socioeconomically deprived neighbourhoods changed to being higher in the least deprived neighbourhoods from the 1st September 2021, and were inconsistent during the Omicron wave. Individuals who were fully vaccinated (two doses) were associated with fewer registered positive tests (e.g., individuals engaged in testing between 1st September and 27th November 2021—Hazards Ratio (HR) = 0.48, 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) = 0.47–0.50. Individuals with a previous registered positive test were also less likely to have a registered positive test (e.g., individuals engaged in testing between 1st September and 27th November 2021—HR = 0.16, 95% CIs = 0.15–0.18. However, the Omicron period saw smaller effect sizes for both vaccination status and previous registered positive test. Conclusions Changing patterns of SARS-CoV-2 infections during the Delta and Omicron waves reveals a dynamic pandemic that continues to affect diverse communities in sometimes unexpected ways.

Background Structured Medication Reviews (SMRs) are intended to help deliver the NHS Long Term Plan for medicines optimisation in people living with multiple long-term conditions and polypharmacy. It is challenging to gather the information needed for these reviews due to poor integration of health records across providers and there is little guidance on how to identify those patients most urgently requiring review. Objective To extract information from scattered clinical records on how health and medications change over time, apply interpretable artificial intelligence (AI) approaches to predict risks of poor outcomes and overlay this information on care records to inform SMRs. We will pilot this approach in primary care prescribing audit and feedback systems, and co-design future medicines optimisation decision support systems. Design DynAIRx will target potentially problematic polypharmacy in three key multimorbidity groups, namely, people with (a) mental and physical health problems, (b) four or more long-term conditions taking ten or more drugs and (c) older age and frailty. Structured clinical data will be drawn from integrated care records (general practice, hospital, and social care) covering an ∼11m population supplemented with Natural Language Processing (NLP) of unstructured clinical text. AI systems will be trained to identify patterns of conditions, medications, tests, and clinical contacts preceding adverse events in order to identify individuals who might benefit most from an SMR. Discussion By implementing and evaluating an AI-augmented visualisation of care records in an existing prescribing audit and feedback system we will create a learning system for medicines optimisation, co-designed throughout with end-users and patients.