Explore the vast range of titles available.

Depression and chronic pain are the two most important causes of disability (Global Burden of Disease Study 2013). They occur together more frequently than expected and both conditions have been shown to be co-morbid with cardiovascular disease. Although shared socio-demographic risk factors (e.g. gender, deprivation) might explain the co-morbidity of these three conditions, we hypothesised that these three long-term, highly prevalent conditions co-occur and may be due to shared familial risk, and/or genetic factors. We employed three different study designs in two independent cohorts, namely Generation Scotland and TwinsUK, having standardised, validated questionnaire data on the three traits of interest. First, we estimated the prevalence and co-occurrence of chronic pain, depression and angina among 24,024 participants of a population-based cohort of extended families (Generation Scotland: Scottish Family Health Study), adjusting for age, gender, education, smoking status, and deprivation. Secondly, we compared the odds of co-morbidity in sibling-pairs with the odds in unrelated individuals for the three conditions in the same cohort. Lastly, examination of similar traits in a sample of female twins (TwinsUK, n = 2,902), adjusting for age and BMI, allowed independent replication of the findings and exploration of the influence of additive genetic (A) factors and shared (C) and non-shared (E) environmental factors predisposing to co-occurring chronic widespread pain (CWP) and cardiovascular disease (hypertension, angina, stroke, heart attack, elevated cholesterol, angioplasty or bypass surgery). In the Generation Scotland cohort, individuals with depression were more than twice as likely to have chronic pain as those without depression (adjusted OR 2·64 [95% CI 2·34-2·97]); those with angina were four times more likely to have chronic pain (OR 4·19 [3·64-4·82]); those with depression were twice as likely to have angina (OR 2·20 [1·90-2·54]). Similar odds were obtained when the outcomes and predictors were reversed and similar effects seen among sibling pairs; depression in one sibling predicted chronic pain in the other (OR 1·34 [1·05-1·71]), angina predicted chronic pain in the other (OR 2·19 [1·63-2·95]), and depression, angina (OR 1·98 [1·49-2·65]). Individuals with chronic pain and angina showed almost four-fold greater odds of depression compared with those manifesting neither trait (OR 3·78 [2·99-4·78]); angina showed seven-fold increased odds in the presence of chronic pain and depression (OR 7·76 [6·05-9·95]) and chronic pain nine-fold in the presence of depression and angina (OR 9·43 [6·85-12·98]). In TwinsUK, the relationship between CWP and depression has been published (R = 0.34, p<0.01). Considering the CWP-cardiovascular relationship, the most suitable model to describe the observed data was a combination of A, C and E, with a small but significant genetic predisposition, shared between the two traits (2·2% [95% CI 0·06-0·23]). We found an increased co-occurrence of chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease in two independent cohorts (general population-based cohort, twins cohort) suggesting a shared genetic contribution. Adjustment for known environmental influences, particularly those relating to socio-economic status (Generation Scotland: age, gender, deprivation, smoking, education; Twins UK: age,BMI) did not explain the relationship observed between chronic pain, depression and cardiovascular disease. Our findings from two independent cohorts challenge the concept of traditional disease boundaries and warrant further investigation of shared biological mechanisms.

A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 μg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI –0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. UK National Institute for Health and Care Research

Background. Antibiotic use is the main driver for carriage of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. The perception exists that failure of antibiotic treatment due to antibiotic resistance has little clinical impact in the community. Methods. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science from inception to 15 April 2016 without language restriction. We included studies conducted in community settings that reported patient-level data on laboratory-confirmed infections (respiratory tract, urinary tract, skin or soft tissue), antibiotic resistance, and clinical outcomes. Our primary outcome was clinical response failure. Secondary outcomes were reconsultation, further antibiotic prescriptions, symptom duration, and symptom severity. Where possible, we calculated odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals by performing meta-analysis using random effects models. Results. We included 26 studies (5659 participants). Clinical response failure was significantly more likely in participants with antibiotic-resistant Escherichia coli urinary tract infections (odds ratio [OR] = 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.27–5.37; n = 2432 participants), Streptococcus pneumoniae otitis media (OR = 2.51; 95% CI = 1.29–4.88; n = 921 participants), and S. pneumoniae community-acquired pneumonia (OR = 2.15; 95% CI = 1.32–3.51; n = 916 participants). Clinical heterogeneity precluded primary outcome meta-analysis for Staphylococcus aureus skin or soft-tissue infections. Conclusions. Antibiotic resistance significantly impacts on patients' illness burden in the community. Patients with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant urinary and respiratory-tract infections are more likely to experience delays in clinical recovery after treatment with antibiotics. A better grasp of the risk of antibiotic resistance on outcomes that matter to patients should inform more meaningful discussions between healthcare professionals and patients about antibiotic treatment for common infections.

Paediatric consultations form a significant proportion of all consultations in ambulatory care. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) may offer a potential solution to improve clinical outcomes for children by reducing diagnostic uncertainty in acute illness, and streamlining management of chronic diseases. However, their clinical impact in paediatric ambulatory care is unknown. We aimed to describe the clinical impact of all in-vitro diagnostic POCTs on patient outcomes and healthcare processes in paediatric ambulatory care. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science from inception to 29 January 2020 without language restrictions. We included studies of children presenting to ambulatory care settings (general practice, hospital outpatient clinics, or emergency departments, walk-in centres, registered drug shops delivering healthcare) where in-vitro diagnostic POCTs were compared to usual care. We included all quantitative clinical outcome data across all conditions or infection syndromes reporting on the impact of POCTs on clinical care and healthcare processes. Where feasible, we calculated risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by performing meta-analysis using random effects models. We included 35 studies. Data relating to at least one outcome were available for 89,439 children of whom 45,283 had a POCT across six conditions or infection syndromes: malaria (n = 14); non-specific acute fever 'illness' (n = 7); sore throat (n = 5); acute respiratory tract infections (n = 5); HIV (n = 3); and diabetes (n = 1). Outcomes centred around decision-making such as prescription of medications or hospital referral. Pooled estimates showed that malarial-POCTs (Plasmodium falciparum) better targeted antimalarial treatment by reducing over-treatment by a third compared to usual care (RR 0.67; 95% CI [0.58 to 0.77], n = 36,949). HIV-POCTs improved initiating earlier antiretroviral therapy compared to usual care (RR, 3.11; 95% CI [1.55 to 6.25], n = 912). Across the other four conditions, there was limited evidence for the benefit of POCTs in paediatric ambulatory care except for acute respiratory tract infections (RTI) in low-and-middle-income countries (LMICs), where POCT C-Reactive Protein (CRP) may reduce immediate antibiotic prescribing by a third (risk difference, -0.29 [-0.47, -0.11], n = 2,747). This difference was shown in randomised controlled trials in LMICs which included guidance on interpretation of POCT-CRP, specific training or employed a diagnostic algorithm prior to POC testing. Overall, there is a paucity of evidence for the use of POCTs in paediatric ambulatory care. POCTs help to target prescribing for children with malaria and HIV. There is emerging evidence that POCT-CRP may better target antibiotic prescribing for children with acute RTIs in LMIC, but not in high-income countries. Research is urgently needed to understand where POCTs are likely to improve clinical outcomes in paediatric settings worldwide.

Broad-spectrum antibiotics are routinely prescribed empirically in the resource-poor settings for suspected acute common infections, which drive antimicrobial resistance. Point-of-care testing (POCT) might increase the appropriateness of decisions about whether and which antibiotic to prescribe, but implementation will be most effective if clinician’s perspectives are taken into account.ObjectivesTo explore the perceptions of South African primary care clinicians working in publicly funded clinics about: making antibiotic prescribing decisions for two common infection syndromes (acute cough, urinary tract infection); their experiences of existing POCTs; their perceptions of the barriers and opportunities for introducing (hypothetical) new POCTs.Design, method, participants, settingQualitative semistructured interviews with 23 primary care clinicians (nurses and doctors) at publicly funded clinics in the Western Cape Metro district, South Africa. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsClinicians reported that their antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by their clinical assessment, patient comorbidities, social factors (eg, access to care) and perceived patient expectations. Their experiences with currently available POCTs were largely positive, and they were optimistic about the potential for new POCTs to: support evidence-based prescribing decisions that might reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions; reduce the need for further investigations; support effective communication with patients, especially when antibiotics were unlikely to be of benefit. Resources and workflow disruption were seen as the main barriers to uptake into routine care.ConclusionsClinicians working in publicly funded clinics in the Western Cape Metro of South Africa saw POCTs as potentially useful for positively addressing both clinical and social drivers of the overprescribing of broad-spectrum antibiotics, but were concerned about the resource implications and disruption of existing patient workflows.

No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation. This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0–10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation. Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference –1·6% [–2·6% to –0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: –1·9% [–2·9% to –0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference –2·1% [–2·9% to –1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: –2·5% [–3·3% to –1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference –1·6% [–2·6% to –0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: –1·9% [–2·9% to –0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference –1·4% [–2·3% to –0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: –0·5% [–1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up. In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat. UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Point-of-care (POC) tests have the potential to improve paediatric healthcare. However, both the development and evaluation of POC technology have almost solely been focused on adults. We aimed to explore frontline clinicians’ and stakeholders’ current experience of POC diagnostic technology in children in England; and to identify areas of unmet need.Design, setting and participantsQualitative semistructured telephone interviews were carried out with purposively sampled participants from clinical paediatric ambulatory care and charity, industry and policymaking stakeholders. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically.ResultsWe interviewed 19 clinicians and 8 stakeholders. The main perceived benefits of POC tests and technologies were that they aided early decision-making and could be convenient and empowering when used independently by patients and families. Clinicians and stakeholders wanted more POC tests to be available for use in clinical practice. Most recognised that play and reward are important components of successful POC tests for children. Clinicians wanted tests to give them answers, which would result in a change in their clinical management. Detecting acute serious illness, notably distinguishing viral and bacterial infection, was perceived to be an area where tests could add value. POC tests were thought to be particularly useful for children presenting atypically, where diagnosis was more challenging, such as those less able to communicate, and for rare serious diseases. Many participants felt they could be useful in managing chronic disease.ConclusionsThis exploratory study found that clinicians and stakeholders supported the use of diagnostic POC technology in paediatric ambulatory care settings in England. Some existing tests are not fit for purpose and could be refined. Industry should be encouraged to develop new child-friendly tests tackling areas of unmet need, guided by the preferred characteristics of those working on the ground.

[...]the emergence of resistant bacterial carriage is likely to be specific to each drug and to each organism combination, with varying implications for risk of future symptomatic infections. [...]aggregated resistance data can be unhelpful, and overinflated prevalence estimates can give a confused impression of clinical importance. To make a valid comparison, we would have preferred the authors to put their prevalence estimates into context by comparing them with estimates from non-migrant, community-based populations in their host countries. [...]their method might have led to an ecological fallacy wherein we compare resistance data among migrants with aggregate group data from non-migrant hospitalised patients who may or may not have been exposed to antibiotics. [...]the authors have focused on skin and soft-tissue infections or diarrhoea.

IntroductionThere is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.Methods and analysisPANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18–49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval granted by South Central–Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.