Developing a data-enabled nudge intervention for childhood antibiotics in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Preschool children (aged≤5 years old) have the highest antibiotic prescribing rate in general practice, mostly for self-limiting acute respiratory tract infections (RTIs). Research from over 250 000 UK children suggests that a child's antibiotic history for RTI may be a good predictor for re-consulting a health professional for the same illness episode and increase clinical workload. AIM: To develop a data-enabled nudge intervention to optimise antibiotic prescribing for acute RTI based on a child's antibiotic history in general practice DESIGN & SETTING: Two phase qualitative study with parents/carers of preschool children and primary care clinicians METHOD: In phase 1, through an initial focus group with eight parents/carers and 'think aloud' interviews with 11 clinicians, we co-designed the intervention (computer screen prompt and personalised consultation leaflet). In phase 2, 13 clinicians used the intervention, integrated into the GP computer software, and share their feedback through 'think aloud' interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. RESULTS: We co-created a data-driven intervention that automatically integrates a child's antibiotic history for acute RTI and personalised leaflet into the electronic medical records. We found that parents and clinicians found this intervention, in principle, acceptable and feasible to use in primary care consultations. CONCLUSION: Delivering such interventions, integrated into practice workflow, could be efficiently scaled up to promote effective antimicrobial stewardship and reduce unnecessary antibiotic use in primary care. Further research will test this intervention in a future trial.

Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing in primary care-broader implementation needed to combat antimicrobial resistance.

This study presents the perspective of an international group of experts, providing an overview of existing models and policies and guidance to facilitate a proper and sustainable implementation of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) to support antibiotic prescribing decisions for respiratory tract infections (RTIs) with the aim to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AMR threatens to render life-saving antibiotics ineffective and is already costing millions of lives and billions of Euros worldwide. AMR is strongly correlated with the volume of antibiotics used. Most antibiotics are prescribed in primary care, mostly for RTIs, and are often unnecessary. CRP POCT is an available tool and has been proven to safely and cost-effectively reduce antibiotic prescribing for RTIs in primary care. Though established in a few European countries during several years, it has still not been implemented in many European countries. Due to the complexity of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing behavior, a multifaceted approach is necessary to enable sustainable change. The effect is maximized with clear guidance, advanced communication training for primary care physicians, and delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies. CRP POCT should be included in professional guidelines and implemented together with complementary strategies. Adequate reimbursement needs to be provided, and high-quality, and primary care-friendly POCT organization and performance must be enabled. Data gathering, sharing, and discussion as incentivization for proper behaviors should be enabled. Public awareness should be increased, and healthcare professionals' awareness and understanding should be ensured. Impactful use is achieved when all stakeholders join forces to facilitate proper implementation.

'Everyone has heard of it, but no one knows what it is': A qualitative study of patient understandings and experiences of herpes zoster.

BACKGROUND: Shingles (herpes zoster), caused by reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus, is usually diagnosed and managed in primary care. The lifetime risk of shingles in the general population is approximately 30%, and it can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. There has been little qualitative research about patient experience and understanding of shingles. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interviews with people recruited from primary care in England. METHOD: Qualitative semi-structured remote interviews were undertaken with 29 participants in a randomised controlled trial in primary care in England (ATHENA, ISRCTN14490832). Participants were aged >49 and were diagnosed within six days of shingles rash onset. Interviewees were sampled for diversity in terms of pain, intervention adherence, age, gender, and ethnicity. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Participants' understanding of shingles was limited, particularly pre-diagnosis. Television campaigns about the shingles vaccination programme helped some to recognise the rash. Shingles was understood as a disease with a variable prognosis, resulting in a sense of uncertainty about the significance when diagnosed. Participants reported a range of symptoms which impacted on everyday life. Some people thought their diagnosis was caused by poor mental health or challenging life circumstances, a perception sometimes reinforced by healthcare professionals. Many participants sought meaning in their diagnosis, reflecting upon, and sometimes changing, their life and circumstances. CONCLUSION: Primary care practitioners should be aware of the broad spectrum of patient knowledge, and the potential for better understanding to promote early attendance and treatment, to reduce the impact of shingles.

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.

C-reactive protein point-of-care testing and complementary strategies to improve antibiotic stewardship in children with acute respiratory infections in primary care.

This paper provides the perspective of an international group of experts on the role of C-reactive protein (CRP) point-of-care testing (POCT) and complementary strategies such as enhanced communication skills training and delayed prescribing to improve antibiotic stewardship in the primary care of children presenting with an acute illness episode due to an acute respiratory tract infection (ARTI). To improve antibiotics prescribing decisions, CRP POCT should be considered to complement the clinical assessment of children (6 months to 14 years) presenting with an ARTI in a primary care setting. CRP POCT can help decide whether a serious infection can be ruled out, before deciding on further treatments or management, when clinical assessment is unconclusive. Based on the evidence currently available, a CRP value can be a valuable support for clinical reasoning and facilitate communication with patients and parents, but the clinical assessment should prevail when making a therapy or referral decision. Nearly half of children tested in the primary care setting can be expected to have a CRP value below 20 mg/l, in which case it is strongly suggested to avoid prescribing antibiotics when the clinical assessment supports ruling out a severe infection. For children with CRP values greater than or equal to 20 mg/l, additional measures such as additional diagnostic tests, observation time, re-assessment by a senior decision-maker, and specialty referrals, should be considered.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There 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 ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC 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 DISSEMINATION: Ethical 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 NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Guidance on C-reactive protein point-of-care testing and complementary strategies to improve antibiotic prescribing for adults with lower respiratory tract infections in primary care.

The world faces the threat of increasing antimicrobial resistance, and there is growing consensus that swift action must be taken to improve the rational use of antibiotics and increase the stewardship of antibiotics to safeguard this key resource in modern healthcare. This paper provides the perspective of an international group of experts on the role of C-reactive protein point-of-care testing (CRP POCT) and other complementary strategies to improve antibiotic stewardship in primary care, with regards to the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients presenting symptoms of lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs). It provides guidance regarding the clinical assessment of symptoms in combination with C-reactive protein (CRP) results, at the point of care, to support the management decision, and discusses enhanced patient communication and delayed prescribing as complementary strategies to decrease the inappropriate use of antibiotics. Recommendation: CRP POCT should be promoted to improve the identification of adults presenting with symptoms of LRTIs in primary care who might gain additional benefit from antibiotic treatment. Appropriateness of antibiotic use can be maximized when CRP POCT is used together with complementary strategies such as enhanced communication skills training and delayed prescribing in addition to routine safety netting.

Inhaled Budesonide for COVID-19 in People at Higher Risk of Complications in the Community: The UK National Community Randomi.

Background The effectiveness of repurposed treatments with supportive evidence for higher risk individuals with COVID-19 in the community is unknown. In the UK PRINCIPLE national platform trial we aimed to determine whether 're-purposed medicines' (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, colchicine, inhaled budesonide, and other interventions) reduced time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people at higher risk of COVID-19 complications in the community. We mainly report the findings for budesonide arm here. Methods Participants in this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial were aged ≥65, or ≥50 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. Funded by United Kingdom Research Innovation (MC_PC_19079). Findings The trial opened on April 2, 2020, with the first 4 intervention arms stopped on futility grounds. Randomisation to the budesonide arm occurred from November 27, 2020 until March 31, 2021, when the pre-specified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to budesonide (n=787), usual care (n=1069), and other treatments (n=674). Time to first self-reported recovery was shorter in the budesonide group versus usual care (hazard ratio 1·21 [95% credible interval 1·08 to 1·36], probability of superiority >O·999, estimated benefit 2·94 [95% credible interval 1·19 to 5·12] days). An estimated 6·8% COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the budesonide group versus 8·8% in usual care (estimated absolute difference, 2·0% [95% credible interval -0.2% to 4.5%], probability of superiority 0.963). In the main secondary analysis of admissions using only concurrent controls, admissions occurred in 6.6% (3.8 to 10.1%) in the budesonide group versus 8.8% (95% CI 5.2 to 13.1%), with an absolute difference of 2.2% (0.0 to 4.9%) and a hazard ratio of 0.73 (0.53 to 1.00), meeting the pre-specified superiority probability of 0.975. Three serious adverse events occurred in the budesonide group and three in usual care.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Point-of-care diagnostic technology in paediatric ambulatory care: a qualitative interview study of English clinicians and stakeholders.

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 PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: This 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.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. AIM: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). METHOD: Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS: The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Role of locum GPs in antibiotic prescribing and stewardship: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Most antibiotics are prescribed in primary care. Locum or sessional GPs (locums) are perceived as contributing to higher prescribing and may face barriers to engaging with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS). AIM: To identify how locums' antibiotic prescribing compares with other general practice prescribers, and how they perceive their role in antibiotic prescribing and AMS. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods study in primary care. METHOD: Data on antibiotic prescribing, diagnoses, and patient and prescriber characteristics were extracted from The Health Improvement Network database. A mixed-effects logistic model was used to compare locums' and other prescribers' antibiotic prescribing for conditions that do not usually benefit from antibiotics. Nineteen semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with locums in England and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Locums accounted for 11% of consultations analysed. They prescribed antibiotics more often than other GPs and nurse prescribers for acute cough, sore throat, asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations, and acute bronchitis. The number of patients receiving antibiotics for these conditions was 4% higher (on absolute scale) when consulting with locums compared with when they consulted with other GPs. Four themes capture the perceived influences on prescribing antibiotics and AMS: antibiotic prescribing as a complex but individual issue, nature and patterns of locum work, relationships between practices and locums, and professional isolation. CONCLUSION: Locums contribute to higher antibiotic prescribing compared with their peers. They experience challenges but also opportunities for contributing to AMS, which should be better addressed. With an increasing proportion of locums in general practice, they have an important role in antibiotic optimisation and AMS.

Primary care preparedness for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: a survey of NHS GPs.

BACKGROUND: Primary care manages a significant proportion of healthcare in the United Kingdom and should be a key part of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic response. AIM: To assess preparedness for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic by understanding GPs' perception of their ability to manage current and future service demand, set-up of triage processes, and training in Covid-19 infection prevention and control procedures. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey of practicing GPs in the United Kingdom, with 2 rounds of data collection early in the pandemic. METHODS: Online survey, scripted and hosted by medeConnect Healthcare, comprising 6 closed prompts on 7-point Likert scales, and an optional free-text component. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Free-text data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: One thousand two GPs completed each round; 51 GPs completed free-text responses in March, and 64 in April. Quantitative data showed greatest confidence in triage of Covid-19 patients, and GPs were more confident managing current than future Covid-19 demand. GPs' responses were more optimistic and aligned in April than March. Free-text data highlighted that GPs were concerned about lack of appropriate personal protective equipment and personal risk of Covid-19 infection in March, and unmet needs of non-Covid-19 patients in April. In both rounds, GPs expressed feeling overlooked by government and public health bodies. CONCLUSION: Guidance to support general practice clinicians to manage future waves of Covid-19 or other health emergencies must be tailored to general practice from the outset, to support clinicians to manage competing health demands, and mitigate impacts on primary care providers' wellbeing.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has posed significant challenges for the health services in the United Kingdom and abroad. A Doctors Association UK poll published in early March 2020 found that only 1% of 800 GPs believed the NHS was well prepared for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We surveyed 1,002 GPs across the United Kingdom to gauge how well prepared they felt to cope with the challenges posed by Covid-19. We conducted surveys in March and April 2020, an important time early in the pandemic with rapid changes and uncertainty. We found that GPs were more confident about their ability to manage Covid-19 patients, and do so safely, in April. GPs were most confident that they would be able to triage Covid-19 patients but were concerned about future Covid-19 demand. GPs expressed frustration about a lack of personal protective equipment in March. In April, GPs' primary concern was that patients with other health concerns were not being seen. In both samples, GPs expressed feelings of being overlooked by the government. Primary care needs tailored guidance from as early as possible in a health crisis to support clinicians to manage the competing demands of responding to emergency situations, maintain usual care and their own wellbeing.

Exploring Primary Care Clinicians' Views about How Best to Implement a Potential Trial around Point-of-Care Tests for Common Infections in South Africa.

Optimisation of antibiotic prescribing is critical to combat antimicrobial resistance. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) for common infections could be a valuable tool to achieve this in primary care. Currently, their use has primarily been studied in high-income countries. Trials in low-and-middle-income countries face challenges unique to their setting. This study aims to explore the barriers and facilitators for a future trial of POCTs for common infections in South Africa. Twenty-three primary care clinicians in the Western Cape Metropole were interviewed. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. We identified three key themes. These themes focused on clinicians' views about proposed trial design and novel POCTs, clinicians' perspectives about trial set-up, and specific trial procedures. Participants were overall positive about the proposed trial and POCTs. Potential issues centred around the limited space and technology available and participant retention to follow-up. Additionally, impact on clinic workload was an important consideration. These insights will be invaluable in informing the design of a feasibility trial of POCTs in this setting.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. FINDINGS: 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). INTERPRETATION: 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. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Doxycycline for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at high risk of adverse outcomes in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Doxycycline is often used for treating COVID-19 respiratory symptoms in the community despite an absence of evidence from clinical trials to support its use. We aimed to assess the efficacy of doxycycline to treat suspected COVID-19 in the community among people at high risk of adverse outcomes. METHODS: We did a national, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in older people (PRINCIPLE) across primary care centres in the UK. We included people aged 65 years or older, or 50 years or older with comorbidities (weakened immune system, heart disease, hypertension, asthma or lung disease, diabetes, mild hepatic impairment, stroke or neurological problem, and self-reported obesity or body-mass index of 35 kg/m2 or greater), who had been unwell (for ≤14 days) with suspected COVID-19 or a positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 infection in the community. Participants were randomly assigned using response adaptive randomisation to usual care only, usual care plus oral doxycycline (200 mg on day 1, then 100 mg once daily for the following 6 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The interventions reported in this manuscript are usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only; evaluations of other interventions in this platform trial are ongoing. The coprimary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19, both measured over 28 days from randomisation and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing and is registered with ISRCTN, 86534580. FINDINGS: The trial opened on April 2, 2020. Randomisation to doxycycline began on July 24, 2020, and was stopped on Dec 14, 2020, because the prespecified futility criterion was met; 2689 participants were enrolled and randomised between these dates. Of these, 2508 (93·3%) participants contributed follow-up data and were included in the primary analysis: 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group, 948 in the usual care only group (37·8%), and 780 (31·1%) in the usual care plus other interventions group. Among the 1792 participants randomly assigned to the usual care plus doxycycline and usual care only groups, the mean age was 61·1 years (SD 7·9); 999 (55·7%) participants were female and 790 (44·1%) were male. In the primary analysis model, there was little evidence of difference in median time to first self-reported recovery between the usual care plus doxycycline group and the usual care only group (9·6 [95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 8·3 to 11·0] days vs 10·1 [8·7 to 11·7] days, hazard ratio 1·04 [95% BCI 0·93 to 1·17]). The estimated benefit in median time to first self-reported recovery was 0·5 days [95% BCI -0·99 to 2·04] and the probability of a clinically meaningful benefit (defined as ≥1·5 days) was 0·10. Hospitalisation or death related to COVID-19 occurred in 41 (crude percentage 5·3%) participants in the usual care plus doxycycline group and 43 (4·5%) in the usual care only group (estimated absolute percentage difference -0·5% [95% BCI -2·6 to 1·4]); there were five deaths (0·6%) in the usual care plus doxycycline group and two (0·2%) in the usual care only group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community in the UK, who were at high risk of adverse outcomes, treatment with doxycycline was not associated with clinically meaningful reductions in time to recovery or hospital admissions or deaths related to COVID-19, and should not be used as a routine treatment for COVID-19. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Department of Health and Social Care, National Institute for Health Research.