Explore the vast range of titles available.

Gastroparesis is a syndrome of delayed gastric emptying without obstruction. There are high rates of Emergency Department (ED) visits due to gastroparesis, and this chronic disease is difficult to treat which often leads to hospital admissions. This study aimed to evaluate the impact droperidol administration has on opioid therapy, symptom relief, co-administration of antiemetic and prokinetic medications, disposition, cost, and length of stay (LOS) of patients presenting to the ED. A total of 431 patients were identified and 233 met the inclusion criteria. Droperidol administration reduced the number of patients requiring opioid therapy (108/233 [46%] vs 139/233 [60%], P-value 0.0040), reduced patient-reported pain scales by 4 points, and reduced antiemetic therapy requirement (140/233 [60%] vs 169/233 [73%], P-value 0.0045). No differences were found in terms of ED LOS (Median 6 h [IQR 4–8] vs 5 h [IQR 4–9], P-value 0.3638), hospital LOS (Median 6 h [IQR 4–30 vs 7 h [IQR 4–40], P-value 0.8888), hospital admission rates (67/233 [29%] vs 71/233 [31%], P-value 0.6101), ED cost to the facility (Median $1462 [IQR $1114 - $1986] vs $1481 [IQR $1034 - $2235], P-value 0.0943), or hospital cost (Median $4412 [IQR $2359 - $9826] vs $4672 [IQR $2075 - $9911], P-value 0.3136). In patients with gastroparesis presenting to the ED, droperidol reduced opioid use, improved pain control, and decreased antiemetic use without any differences in MME per dose, length of stay, hospital admission rate, or cost.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions were used widely in care homes for older people during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there have been few randomised trials to support policy decisions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of biweekly asymptomatic staff testing with support funding for sick pay and agency staffing on the clinical outcomes of residents. We conducted a cluster randomised unblinded superiority trial, aiming to recruit up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. Homes were randomised 1:1 to the control arm, which followed national testing policy (comprising symptomatic plus outbreak testing at trial initiation) or intervention (additional twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2, staff sick pay and agency backfill). Outcomes were evaluated using health data from routine national datasets in combination with aggregate data from participating homes. The primary outcome was the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. The trial was conducted from January to August 2023, with 41 care homes randomised to intervention and 40 randomised to control included in the analysis. The trial was stopped early as it was not adequately powered for the primary outcome due to site recruitment and primary outcome events being substantially lower than expected. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of resident COVID-linked hospital admission incidence between intervention and control arms (22.7/1000 person-years vs 15.0/1000 person-years, incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95%CI 0.55-2.58, P = 0.66; incidence rate difference 4.0, 95%CI -14.3 to 22.2). Trial set up took less than three months. Most trial outcomes were derived from routinely collected data. Recorded uptake of staff testing in the intervention arm was low (mean per home each week 14.4%). This trial was not well-powered to evaluate the impact of the intervention on the primary outcome, and recorded uptake of staff testing was low. However, our pre-existing care home network underpinned by linked routinely collected data provides a model for more agile interventional studies in the care home setting. NCT05639205.

IntroductionOlder adults in care homes experienced some of the highest rates of mortality from SARS-CoV-2 globally and were subjected to strict and lengthy non-pharmaceutical interventions, which severely impacted their daily lives. The VIVALDI ASCOT and Ethnography Study aims to assess the impact of respiratory outbreaks on care home residents’ quality of life, psychological well-being, loneliness, functional ability and use of space. This study is linked to the VIVALDI-CT, a randomised controlled trial of staff’s asymptomatic testing and sickness payment support in care homes (ISRCTN13296529).Methods and analysisThis is a mixed-methods, longitudinal study of care home residents (65+) in Southeast England. Group 1—exposed includes residents from care homes with a recent COVID-19 or other respiratory infection outbreak. Group 2—non-exposed includes residents from care homes without a recent outbreak. The study has two components: (a) a mixed-methods longitudinal face-to-face interviews with 100 residents (n=50 from group 1 and n=50 from group 2) to assess the impact of outbreaks on residents’ quality of life, psychological well-being, loneliness, functional ability and use of space at time 1 (study baseline) and time 2 (at 3–4 weeks after the first visit); (b) ethnographic observations in communal spaces of up to 10 care homes to understand how outbreaks and related restrictions to the use of space and social activities impact residents’ well-being. The study will interview only care home residents who have the mental capacity to consent. Data will be compared and integrated to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of outbreaks on residents’ quality of life and well-being.Ethics and disseminationThe VIVALDI ASCOT and Ethnography Study obtained ethical approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA) Social Care REC (24/IEC08/0001). Only residents with the capacity to consent will be included in the study. Findings will be published in scientific journals.

IntroductionCare home residents have experienced significant morbidity, mortality and disruption following outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2. Regular SARS-CoV-2 testing of care home staff was introduced to reduce transmission of infection, but it is unclear whether this remains beneficial. This trial aims to investigate whether use of regular asymptomatic staff testing, alongside funding to reimburse sick pay for those who test positive and meet costs of employing agency staff, is a feasible and effective strategy to reduce COVID-19 impact in care homes.Methods and analysisThe VIVALDI-Clinical Trial is a multicentre, open-label, cluster randomised controlled, phase III/IV superiority trial in up to 280 residential and/or nursing homes in England providing care to adults aged >65 years. All regular and agency staff will be enrolled, excepting those who opt out. Homes will be randomised to the intervention arm (twice weekly asymptomatic staff testing for SARS-CoV-2) or the control arm (current national testing guidance). Staff who test positive for SARS-CoV-2 will self-isolate and receive sick pay. Care providers will be reimbursed for costs associated with employing temporary staff to backfill for absence arising directly from the trial.The trial will be delivered by a multidisciplinary research team through a series of five work packages.The primary outcome is the incidence of COVID-19-related hospital admissions in residents. Secondary outcomes include the number and duration of outbreaks and home closures. Health economic and modelling analyses will investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost consequences of the testing intervention. A process evaluation using qualitative interviews will be conducted to understand intervention roll out and identify areas for optimisation to inform future intervention scale-up, should the testing approach prove effective and cost-effective. Stakeholder engagement will be undertaken to enable the sector to plan for results and their implications and to coproduce recommendations on the use of testing for policy-makers.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the London—Bromley Research Ethics Committee (reference number 22/LO/0846) and the Health Research Authority (22/CAG/0165). The results of the trial will be disseminated regardless of the direction of effect. The publication of the results will comply with a trial-specific publication policy and will include submission to open access journals. A lay summary of the results will also be produced to disseminate the results to participants.Trial registration numberISRCTN13296529.

Abstract Background Successive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have caused severe disease in long-term care facility (LTCF) residents. Primary vaccination provides strong short-term protection, but data are limited on duration of protection following booster vaccines, particularly against the Omicron variant. We investigated the effectiveness of booster vaccination against infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among LTCF residents and staff in England. Methods We included residents and staff of LTCFs within the VIVALDI study (ISRCTN 14447421) who underwent routine, asymptomatic testing (December 12, 2021–March 31, 2022). Cox regression was used to estimate relative hazards of SARS-CoV-2 infection, and associated hospitalization and death at 0–13, 14–48, 49–83, 84–111, 112–139, and 140+ days after dose 3 of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination compared with 2 doses (after 84+ days), stratified by previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and adjusting for age, sex, LTCF capacity, and local SARS-CoV-2 incidence. Results A total of 14 175 residents and 19 793 staff were included. In residents without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, infection risk was reduced 0–111 days after the first booster, but no protection was apparent after 112 days. Additional protection following booster vaccination waned but was still present at 140+ days for COVID-associated hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06–0.63) and death (aHR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.20–1.27). Most residents (64.4%) had received primary course vaccine of AstraZeneca, but this did not impact pre- or postbooster risk. Staff showed a similar pattern of waning booster effectiveness against infection, with few hospitalizations and no deaths. Conclusions Our findings suggest that booster vaccination provided sustained protection against severe outcomes following infection with the Omicron variant, but no protection against infection from 4 months onwards. Ongoing surveillance for SARS-CoV-2 in LTCFs is crucial.