Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Impregnated central venous catheters are recommended for adults to reduce bloodstream infections but not for children because there is not enough evidence to prove they are effective. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of any type of impregnation (antibiotic or heparin) compared with standard central venous catheters to prevent bloodstream infections in children needing intensive care. We did a randomised controlled trial of children admitted to 14 English paediatric intensive care units. Children younger than 16 years were eligible if they were admitted or being prepared for admission to a participating paediatric intensive care unit and were expected to need a central venous catheter for 3 or more days. Children were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a central venous catheter impregnated with antibiotics, a central venous catheter impregnated with heparin, or a standard central venous catheter with computer generated randomisation in blocks of three and six, stratified by method of consent, site, and envelope storage location within the site. The clinician responsible for inserting the central venous catheter was not masked to allocation, but allocation was concealed from patients, their parents, and the paediatric intensive care unit personnel responsible for their care. The primary outcome was time to first bloodstream infection between 48 h after randomisation and 48 h after central venous catheter removal with impregnated (antibiotic or heparin) versus standard central venous catheters, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses compared central venous catheter-related adverse events in the subset of children for whom central venous catheter insertion was attempted (per-protocol population). This trial is registered with ISRCTN number, ISRCTN34884569. Between Nov 25, 2010, and Nov 30, 2012, 1485 children were recruited to this study. We randomly assigned 502 children to receive standard central venous catheters, 486 to receive antibiotic-impregnated catheters, and 497 to receive heparin-impregnated catheters. Bloodstream infection occurred in 18 (4%) of those in the standard catheters group, 7 (1%) in the antibiotic-impregnated group, and 17 (3%) assigned to heparin-impregnated catheters. Primary analyses showed no effect of impregnated (antibiotic or heparin) catheters compared with standard central venous catheters (hazard ratio [HR] for time to first bloodstream infection 0·71, 95% CI 0·37–1·34). Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic central venous catheters were better than standard central venous catheters (HR 0·43, 0·20–0·96) and heparin central venous catheters (HR 0·42, 0·19–0·93), but heparin did not differ from standard central venous catheters (HR 1·04, 0·53–2·03). Clinically important and statistically significant absolute risk differences were identified only for antibiotic-impregnated catheters versus standard catheters (–2·15%, 95% CI –4·09 to –0·20; number needed to treat [NNT] 47, 95% CI 25–500) and antibiotic-impregnated catheters versus heparin-impregnated catheters (–1·98%, –3·90 to –0·06, NNT 51, 26–1667). Nine children (2%) in the standard central venous catheter group, 14 (3%) in the antibiotic-impregnated group, and 8 (2%) in the heparin-impregnated group had catheter-related adverse events. 45 (8%) in the standard group, 35 (8%) antibiotic-impregnated group, and 29 (6%) in the heparin-impregnated group died during the study. Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters significantly reduced the risk of bloodstream infections compared with standard and heparin central venous catheters. Widespread use of antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters could help prevent bloodstream infections in paediatric intensive care units. National Institute for Health Research, UK.

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 SARS-CoV-2 is frequently shed in the stool of patients hospitalised with COVID-19. The extent of faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 among individuals in the community, and its potential to contribute to spread of disease, is unknown. Methods In this prospective, observational cohort study among households in Liverpool, UK, participants underwent weekly nasal/throat swabbing to detect SARS-CoV-2 virus, over a 12-week period from enrolment starting July 2020. Participants that tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were asked to provide a stool sample three and 14 days later. In addition, in October and November 2020, during a period of high community transmission, stool sampling was undertaken to determine the prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 faecal shedding among all study participants. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected using Real-Time PCR. Results A total of 434 participants from 176 households were enrolled. Eighteen participants (4.2%: 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.5–6.5%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 virus on nasal/throat swabs and of these, 3/17 (18%: 95% CI 4–43%) had SARS-CoV-2 detected in stool. Two of three participants demonstrated ongoing faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, without gastrointestinal symptoms, after testing negative for SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory samples. Among 165/434 participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection and who took part in the prevalence study, none had SARS-CoV-2 in stool. There was no demonstrable household transmission of SARS-CoV-2 among households containing a participant with faecal shedding. Conclusions Faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 occurred among community participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, during a period of high community transmission, faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2 was not detected among participants without SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is unlikely that the faecal-oral route plays a significant role in household and community transmission of SARS-CoV-2.

Background: Printed participant information about trials is often technical, long and difficult to navigate. Optimisation and user testing can improve information materials, and may improve participant understanding and rates of recruitment. Methods: A study within a trial (SWAT) was undertaken within the ISDR trial. Potential participants in the ISDR trial were randomised to receive either the standard trial information or revised information that had been optimised through information design and user testing. Results: A total of 3,169 patients were randomised in the SWAT. Recruitment rates to the ISDR trial were 25.3% in the optimised information group and 26.1% in the standard information group (odds ratio 0.951; 95% CI 0.752 to 1.201; p=0.672). Clinic attendance rates were 71.6% in the optimised information group and 69.3% in the standard information group (OR 1.145; 95% CI 0.885 to 1.480; p=0.304). Conclusions: Optimisation of participant information through information design and user testing did not affect rate of recruitment to the host ISDR trial. Registration: ISRCTN ID ISRCTN87561257; registered on 08 May 2014.

Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) reduce the risk of bloodstream infections (BSIs) in patients treated in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). However, it is unclear if they are cost-effective from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. Economic evaluation alongside the CATCH trial (ISRCTN34884569) to estimate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline), heparin-bonded and standard polyurethane CVCs. The 6-month costs of CVCs and hospital admissions and visits were determined from administrative hospital data and case report forms. BSIs were detected in 3.59% (18/502) of patients randomized to standard, 1.44% (7/486) to antibiotic and 3.42% (17/497) to heparin CVCs. Lengths of hospital stay did not differ between intervention groups. Total mean costs (95% confidence interval) were: £45,663 (£41,647-£50,009) for antibiotic, £42,065 (£38,322-£46,110) for heparin, and £44,503 (£40,619-£48,666) for standard CVCs. As heparin CVCs were not clinically effective at reducing BSI rate compared to standard CVCs, they were considered not to be cost-effective. The ICER for antibiotic vs. standard CVCs, of £54,057 per BSI avoided, was sensitive to the analytical time horizon. Substituting standard CVCs for antibiotic CVCs in PICUs will result in reduced occurrence of BSI but there is uncertainty as to whether this would be a cost-effective strategy for the NHS.