Perceptions of the Impact of Comorbidity on the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: Qualitative Study With Bowel Screening Participants and Staff.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of multiple health conditions on bowel cancer screening is currently unknown. We explored the impact of multiple health conditions on bowel cancer screening perceptions, experience and clinical management decisions following a positive stool test. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted remotely with Bowel Screening Wales staff (n = 16) stratified by regional location and role and with screening participants (n = 19) stratified by age, gender and comorbidity. Interview topics were guided by the Common-Sense Model. RESULTS: Screening participants, regardless of comorbidity status, placed great emphasis on the importance of early detection of cancer and completing the bowel screening process. Screening staff emphasised comorbidities in the clinical decision-making process; however, screening participants had low awareness of the impact that comorbidities can have on bowel screening. Participants describe how the presence of multiple health conditions can mask potential bowel symptoms and influence beliefs about follow-up. CONCLUSION: Bowel screening staff try to individualise the service to meet participant needs. The potential mismatch in screening staff and participant awareness and expectations of the bowel screening and diagnostic process needs to be addressed. Clearer and more regular communication with screening participants could support the screening process, particularly for those with significant coexisting health conditions or facing time delays. The possible masking effects and misattribution of symptoms because of comorbidities highlight an opportunity for education and raising awareness for screening participants and a potential area of focus for discussions in clinical consultations and staff training. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Project funding included costs for patients and public contributors to be compensated for their contributions to the project, in line with current standards. A patient and public contributor was involved in the design of the study, including protocol development, and the interpretation of key findings and implications for patients, which are subsequently reflected within the manuscript.

'It's not making a decision, it's prompting the discussions': a qualitative study exploring stakeholders' views on the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning (CONSULT-ADVANCE).

BACKGROUND: Health and care research involving people who lack capacity to consent requires an alternative decision maker to decide whether they participate or not based on their 'presumed will'. However, this is often unknown. Advance research planning (ARP) is a process for people who anticipate periods of impaired capacity to prospectively express their preferences about research participation and identify who they wish to be involved in future decisions. This may help to extend individuals' autonomy by ensuring that proxy decisions are based on their actual wishes. This qualitative study aimed to explore stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of ARP and identify barriers and facilitators to its implementation in the UK. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 27 researchers, practitioners, and members of the public who had participated in a preceding survey. Interviews were conducted remotely between April and November 2023. Data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants were supportive of the concept of ARP, with differing amounts of support for the range of possible ARP activities depending on the context. Six main themes were identified: (1) Planting a seed - creating opportunities to initiate/engage with ARP; (2) A missing part of the puzzle - how preferences expressed through ARP could help inform decisions; (3) Finding the sweet spot - optimising the timing of ARP; (4) More than a piece of paper - finding the best mode for recording preferences; (5) Keeping the door open to future opportunities - minimising the risk of unintended consequences; and (6) Navigating with a compass - principles underpinning ARP to ensure safeguarding and help address inequalities. Participants also identified a number of implementation challenges, and proposed facilitative strategies that might overcome them which included embedding advance research planning in existing future planning processes and research-focused activities. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a routemap to implementing ARP in the UK to enable people anticipating impaired capacity to express their preferences about research, thus ensuring greater opportunities for inclusion of this under-served group, and addressing the decisional burden experienced by some family members acting as proxies. Development of interventions and guidance to support ARP is needed, with a focus on ensuring accessibility.

Long-term consequences of urinary tract infection in childhood: an electronic population-based cohort study in Welsh primary and secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Childhood urinary tract infection (UTI) can cause renal scarring, and possibly hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Previous studies have focused on selected populations, with severe illness or underlying risk factors. The risk for most children with UTI is unclear. AIM: To examine the association between childhood UTI and outcomes in an unselected population of children. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective population-based cohort study using linked GP, hospital, and microbiology records in Wales, UK. METHOD: Participants were all children born in 2005-2009, with follow-up until 31 December 2017. The exposure was microbiologically confirmed UTI before the age of 5 years. The key outcome measures were renal scarring, hypertension, CKD, and ESRF. RESULTS: In total, 159 201 children were included; 77 524 (48.7%) were female and 7% (n = 11 099) had UTI before the age of 5 years. A total of 0.16% (n = 245) were diagnosed with renal scarring by the age of 7 years. Odds of renal scarring were higher in children by age 7 years with UTI (1.24%; adjusted odds ratio 4.60 [95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.33 to 6.35]). Mean follow-up was 9.53 years. Adjusted hazard ratios were: 1.44 (95% CI = 0.84 to 2.46) for hypertension; 1.67 (95% CI = 0.85 to 3.31) for CKD; and 1.16 (95% CI = 0.56 to 2.37) for ESRF. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of renal scarring in an unselected population of children with UTI is low. Without underlying risk factors, UTI is not associated with CKD, hypertension, or ESRF by the age of 10 years. Further research with systematic scanning of children's kidneys, including those with less severe UTI and without UTI, is needed to increase the certainty of these results, as most children are not scanned. Longer follow-up is needed to establish if UTI, without additional risk factors, is associated with hypertension, CKD, or ESRF later in life.

Azithromycin therapy for prevention of chronic lung disease of prematurity (AZTEC): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have reported conflicting evidence on whether macrolide antibiotics reduce rates of chronic lung disease of prematurity (CLD) in at-risk preterm infants born at less than 30 weeks' gestation, including in those colonised with pulmonary Ureaplasma spp. Since an adequately powered trial has been lacking, we aimed to assess if the macrolide azithromycin improved survival without the development of physiologically defined moderate or severe CLD in preterm infants. METHODS: AZTEC was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 28 tertiary neonatal intensive care units in the UK. Infants were eligible if they were born at less than 30 weeks' gestation and had received at least 2 h of either non-invasive (continuous positive airway pressure or humidified high flow nasal cannula therapy) or invasive respiratory support (via endotracheal tube) within 72 h of birth. Eligible infants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using random permuted blocks of four to receive either intravenous azithromycin at 20 mg/kg per day for 3 days followed by 10 mg/kg for 7 days, or to placebo. Allocation was stratified by centre and gestational age at birth (<28 weeks vs ≥28 weeks). Azithromycin and placebo vials were encased in tamper-evident custom cardboard cartons to ensure masking for clinicians, parents, and the research team. The primary outcome was survival without development of physiologically defined moderate or severe CLD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. Outcomes and safety were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (all randomly allocated infants, regardless of any post-randomisation events). The study was registered with ISRCRN (11650227) and is closed. FINDINGS: Infants were recruited between Oct 9, 2019, and March 22, 2022. 799 (53·1%) of 1505 eligible infants underwent random allocation; three infants were withdrawn, including consent to use their data, leaving 796 infants for analysis. Survival without moderate or severe CLD occurred in 166 (42%) of 394 infants in the intervention group and 179 (45%) of 402 in the placebo group (three-level adjusted OR [aOR] 0·84, 95% CI 0·55-1·29, p=0·43). Pulmonary Ureaplasma spp colonisation did not influence treatment effect. Overall, seven serious adverse events were reported for the azithromycin group (five graded as severe, two as moderate), and six serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group (two severe, two moderate, and two mild), as assessed by the local principal investigators. INTERPRETATION: Since prophylactic use of azithromycin did not improve survival without development of physiologically-defined CLD, regardless of Ureaplasma spp colonisation, it cannot be recommended in clinical practice. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients.

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study: the THESEUS prospective cohort study.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterised by recurrent inflammatory lesions and skin tunnels in flexural sites such as the axilla. Deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment are standard hidradenitis suppurativa interventions in some countries but not yet introduced in the United Kingdom. Objective: To understand current hidradenitis suppurativa management pathways and what influences treatment choices to inform the design of future randomised controlled trials. Design: Prospective 12-month observational cohort study, including five treatment options, with nested qualitative interviews and an end-of-study consensus workshop. Setting: Ten United Kingdom hospitals with recruitment led by dermatology and plastic surgery departments. Participants: Adults with active hidradenitis suppurativa of any severity not adequately controlled by current treatment. Interventions: Oral doxycycline 200 mg once daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin, both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks initially; laser treatment targeting the hair follicle (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet or alexandrite); deroofing; and conventional surgery. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the proportion of participants who are eligible, and hypothetically willing, to use the different treatment options. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants choosing each of the study interventions, with reasons for their choices; proportion of participants who switched treatments; treatment fidelity; loss to follow-up rates over 12 months; and efficacy outcome estimates to inform outcome measure instrument responsiveness. Results: Between February 2020 and July 2021, 151 participants were recruited, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up rates were 89% and 83% after 3 and 6 months, decreasing to 70% and 44% at 9 and 12 months, respectively, because pandemic recruitment delays prevented all participants reaching their final review. Baseline demographics included an average age of 36 years, 81% female, 20% black, Asian or Caribbean, 64% current or ex-smokers and 86% with a raised body mass index. Some 69% had moderate disease, 19% severe disease and 13% mild disease. Regarding the study's primary outcome, laser treatment was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants who were eligible and hypothetically willing to receive treatment, followed by deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), the combination of oral clindamycin and rifampicin (44%) and doxycycline (37%). Considering participant willingness in isolation, laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion (41%) of participants. The cohort study and qualitative study demonstrated that participant willingness to receive treatment was strongly influenced by their clinician. Fidelity to oral doxycycline was only 52% after 3 months due to lack of effectiveness, participant preference and adverse effects. Delays receiving procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants commencing laser therapy and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Treatment switching was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. Daily pain score text messages were initiated in 110 participants. Daily responses reduced over time with greatest concordance during the first 14 days. Limitations: It was not possible to characterise conventional surgery due to a low number of participants. Conclusion: The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study established deroofing and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa in the United Kingdom and developed a network of 10 sites for subsequent hidradenitis suppurativa randomised controlled trials. Future work: The consensus workshop prioritised laser treatment and deroofing as interventions for future randomised controlled trials, in some cases combined with drug treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN69985145. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/64) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study introduced deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa and found that these are preferred interventions for future trials compared with oral antibiotics or conventional surgery.

Patient reported outcomes and recruitment rates following the introduction of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs): Protocol for a meta-analysis.

Background: The way potential benefits and harms of trial interventions are shared within patient information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and may cause unnecessary harms ("nocebo effects"). The aim of this meta-analysis will be to evaluate the influence on recruitment rates and early effects on patient reported adverse events of principled patient information leaflets (PrinciPILs) compared with standard PILs. Methods: Eligible studies will include those that report the effects on recruitment and patient reported adverse events of PrinciPILs compared to standard PILs. We will include in this meta-analysis all the standard PILs in studies within trials (SWATs) of PrinciPILs that were developed as part of the Medical Research Council (MRC) funded PrinciPIL project. By publishing this as a living meta-analysis, we will allow the meta-analysis to be updated with future SWATs of PrinciPILs. We will use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to evaluate the risk of bias for each outcome. We will report the total number of studies and participants analysed and the characteristics of included studies (including details of intervention, comparators, outcomes). For dichotomous data, we will calculate the risk difference and the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous outcomes we will use weighted mean differences with 95% CIs or standardized mean differences with 95% CIs. We will investigate heterogeneity by visually inspecting the forest plot and by considering the I 2 test result. We will assess the certainty warranted for each outcome using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Ethics approval is not applicable since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. Discussion: We will discuss the limitations of the meta-analysis including study risk of bias, inconsistency, heterogeneity, and imprecision. A general interpretation of the results and important implications will be provided.

People who take part in randomised trials need to understand the risks as well as the benefits of taking part. Most 'patient information leaflets' (PILs) that describe trial treatments include information about harms. Yet only some PILs contain information about potential benefits. This variation is confusing. Also, the over-emphasis on harms can cause "nocebo" effects, which are the harms caused by expecting something bad to happen. To solve these problems, we have developed seven principles that ensure that information about potential benefits and harms in PILs is balanced and consistent. We will now compare PILs that have been developed according to our principles (we call these 'PrinciPILs') with PILs that have not been developed with our principles. We will test whether PrinciPILs reduce nocebo effects and improve trial recruitment. Here we have described our plans to test the effect of PrinciPILs in a few trials.