Syndromic case definitions for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) are less sensitive in older age: an analysis of symptoms among hospitalised adults.

BACKGROUND: Lower Respiratory Tract Infections (LRTI) pose a serious threat to older adults but may be underdiagnosed due to atypical presentations. Here we assess LRTI symptom profiles and syndromic (symptom-based) case ascertainment in older (≥ 65y) as compared to younger adults (< 65y). METHODS: We included adults (≥ 18y) with confirmed LRTI admitted to two acute care Trusts in Bristol, UK from 1st August 2020- 31st July 2022. Logistic regression was used to assess whether age ≥ 65y reduced the probability of meeting syndromic LRTI case definitions, using patients' symptoms at admission. We also calculated relative symptom frequencies (log-odds ratios) and evaluated how symptoms were clustered across different age groups. RESULTS: Of 17,620 clinically confirmed LRTI cases, 8,487 (48.1%) had symptoms meeting the case definition. Compared to those not meeting the definition these cases were younger, had less severe illness and were less likely to have received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or to have active SARS-CoV-2 infection. Prevalence of dementia/cognitive impairment and levels of comorbidity were lower in this group. After controlling for sex, dementia and comorbidities, age ≥ 65y significantly reduced the probability of meeting the case definition (aOR = 0.67, 95% CI:0.63-0.71). Cases aged ≥ 65y were less likely to present with fever and LRTI-specific symptoms (e.g., pleurisy, sputum) than younger cases, and those aged ≥ 85y were characterised by lack of cough but frequent confusion and falls. CONCLUSIONS: LRTI symptom profiles changed considerably with age in this hospitalised cohort. Standard screening protocols may fail to detect older and frailer cases of LRTI based on their symptoms.

The RELIEF feasibility trial: topical lidocaine patches in older adults with rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, may reduce pulmonary complications in older patients. Known barriers to recruiting older patients in emergency settings necessitate a feasibility trial. We aimed to establish whether a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fracture(s) was feasible. METHODS: This was a multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, feasibility RCT in seven hospitals in England and Scotland. Patients aged ≥65 years, presenting to ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring hospital admission were randomised to receive up to 3×700 mg lidocaine patches (Ralvo), first applied in ED and then once daily for 72 hours in addition to standard care, or standard care alone. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, retention and adherence. Clinical end points (pulmonary complications, pain and frailty-specific outcomes) and patient questionnaires were collected to determine feasibility of data collection and inform health economic scoping. Interviews and focus groups with trial participants and clinicians/research staff explored the understanding and acceptability of trial processes. RESULTS: Between October 23, 2021 and October 7, 2022, 206 patients were eligible, of whom 100 (median age 83 years; IQR 74-88) were randomised; 48 to lidocaine patches and 52 to standard care. Pulmonary complications at 30 days were determined in 86% of participants and 83% of expected 30-day questionnaires were returned. Pulmonary complications occurred in 48% of the lidocaine group and 59% in standard care. Pain and some frailty-specific outcomes were not feasible to collect. Staff reported challenges in patient compliance, unfamiliarity with research measures and overwhelming the patients with research procedures. CONCLUSION: Recruitment of older patients with rib fracture(s) in an emergency setting for the evaluation of lidocaine patches is feasible. Refinement of data collection, with a focus on the collection of pain, frailty-specific outcomes and intervention delivery are needed before progression to a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14813929.

Relative vaccine effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 boosters in people aged at least 75 years during the spring-summer (monovalent vaccine) and autumn-winter (bivalent vaccine) booster campaigns: a prospective test negative case-control study, United Kingdom, 2022.

BackgroundUnderstanding the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of new COVID-19 vaccine formulations against SARS-CoV-2 infection is a public health priority. A precise analysis of the rVE of monovalent and bivalent boosters given during the 2022 spring-summer and autumn-winter campaigns, respectively, in a defined population remains of interest.AimWe assessed rVE against hospitalisation for the spring-summer (fourth vs third monovalent mRNA vaccine doses) and autumn-winter (fifth BA.1/ancestral bivalent vs fourth monovalent mRNA vaccine dose) boosters.MethodsWe performed a prospective single-centre test-negative design case-control study in ≥ 75-year-old people hospitalised with COVID-19 or other acute respiratory disease. We conducted regression analyses controlling for age, sex, socioeconomic status, patient comorbidities, community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence, vaccine brand and time between baseline dose and hospitalisation.ResultsWe included 682 controls and 182 cases in the spring-summer booster analysis and 572 controls and 152 cases in the autumn-winter booster analysis. A monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as fourth dose showed 46.6% rVE (95% confidence interval (CI): 13.9-67.1) vs those not fully boosted. A bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine as fifth dose had 46.7% rVE (95% CI: 18.0-65.1), compared with a fourth monovalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccine dose.ConclusionsBoth fourth monovalent and fifth BA.1/ancestral mRNA bivalent COVID-19 vaccine doses demonstrated benefit as a booster in older adults. Bivalent mRNA boosters offered similar protection against hospitalisation with Omicron infection to monovalent mRNA boosters given earlier in the year. These findings support immunisation programmes in several European countries that advised the use of BA.1/ancestral bivalent booster doses.

Safety and immunogenicity of concomitant administration of COVID-19 vaccines (ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2) with seasonal influenza vaccines in adults in the UK (ComFluCOV): a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant administration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines could reduce burden on health-care systems. We aimed to assess the safety of concomitant administration of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 4 trial, adults in receipt of a single dose of ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 were enrolled at 12 UK sites and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive concomitant administration of either an age-appropriate influenza vaccine or placebo alongside their second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. 3 weeks later the group who received placebo received the influenza vaccine, and vice versa. Participants were followed up for 6 weeks. The influenza vaccines were three seasonal, inactivated vaccines (trivalent, MF59C adjuvanted or a cellular or recombinant quadrivalent vaccine). Participants and investigators were masked to the allocation. The primary endpoint was one or more participant-reported solicited systemic reactions in the 7 days after first trial vaccination(s), with a difference of less than 25% considered non-inferior. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Local and unsolicited systemic reactions and humoral responses were also assessed. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN14391248. FINDINGS: Between April 1 and June 26, 2021, 679 participants were recruited to one of six cohorts, as follows: 129 ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 139 BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine, 146 ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 79 BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine, 128 ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine, and 58 BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine. 340 participants were assigned to concomitant administration of influenza and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by placebo at day 21, and 339 participants were randomly assigned to concomitant administration of placebo and a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at day 0 followed by influenza vaccine at day 21. Non-inferiority was indicated in four cohorts, as follows: ChAdOx1 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (risk difference for influenza vaccine minus placebos -1·29%, 95% CI -14·7 to 12·1), BNT162b2 plus cellular quadrivalent influenza vaccine (6·17%, -6·27 to 18·6), BNT162b2 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine (-12·9%, -34·2 to 8·37), and ChAdOx1 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine (2·53%, -13·3 to 18·3). In the other two cohorts, the upper limit of the 95% CI exceeded the 0·25 non-inferiority margin (ChAdOx1 plus MF59C adjuvanted, trivalent influenza vaccine 10·3%, -5·44 to 26·0; BNT162b2 plus recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine 6·75%, -11·8 to 25·3). Most systemic reactions to vaccination were mild or moderate. Rates of local and unsolicited systemic reactions were similar between the randomly assigned groups. One serious adverse event, hospitalisation with severe headache, was considered related to the trial intervention. Immune responses were not adversely affected. INTERPRETATION: Concomitant vaccination with ChAdOx1 or BNT162b2 plus an age-appropriate influenza vaccine raises no safety concerns and preserves antibody responses to both vaccines. Concomitant vaccination with both COVID-19 and influenza vaccines over the next immunisation season should reduce the burden on health-care services for vaccine delivery, allowing for timely vaccine administration and protection from COVID-19 and influenza for those in need. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme.

Role of SK channel activation in determining the action potential configuration in freshly isolated human atrial myocytes from the SKArF study.

Inhibition of SK channel function is being pursued in animal models as a possible therapeutic approach to treat atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the pharmacology of SK channels in human atria is unclear. SK channel function is inhibited by both apamin and UCL1684, with the former discriminating between SK channel subtypes. In this proof-of-principle study, the effects of apamin and UCL1684 on right atrial myocytes freshly isolated from patients in sinus rhythm undergoing elective cardiac surgery were investigated. Outward current evoked from voltage clamped human atrial myocytes was reduced by these two inhibitors of SK channel function. In contrast, membrane current underlying the atrial action potential was affected significantly only by UCL1684 and not by apamin. This pharmacology mirrors that observed in mouse atria, suggesting that mammalian atria possess two populations of SK channels, with only one population contributing to the action potential waveform. Immuno-visualization of the subcellular localization of SK2 and SK3 subunits showed a high degree of colocalization, consistent with the formation of heteromeric SK2/SK3 channels. These data reveal that human atrial myocytes express two SK channel subtypes, one exhibiting an unusual pharmacology. These channels contribute to the atrial action potential waveform and might be a target for novel therapeutic approaches to treat supraventricular arrhythmic conditions such as atrial fibrillation.

Effect of a Strategy of a Supraglottic Airway Device vs Tracheal Intubation During Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest on Functional Outcome: The AIRWAYS-2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal approach to airway management during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is unknown. Objective: To determine whether a supraglottic airway device (SGA) is superior to tracheal intubation (TI) as the initial advanced airway management strategy in adults with nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, cluster randomized clinical trial of paramedics from 4 ambulance services in England responding to emergencies for approximately 21 million people. Patients aged 18 years or older who had a nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and were treated by a participating paramedic were enrolled automatically under a waiver of consent between June 2015 and August 2017; follow-up ended in February 2018. Interventions: Paramedics were randomized 1:1 to use TI (764 paramedics) or SGA (759 paramedics) as their initial advanced airway management strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale score at hospital discharge or 30 days after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, whichever occurred sooner. Modified Rankin Scale score was divided into 2 ranges: 0-3 (good outcome) or 4-6 (poor outcome; 6 = death). Secondary outcomes included ventilation success, regurgitation, and aspiration. Results: A total of 9296 patients (4886 in the SGA group and 4410 in the TI group) were enrolled (median age, 73 years; 3373 were women [36.3%]), and the modified Rankin Scale score was known for 9289 patients. In the SGA group, 311 of 4882 patients (6.4%) had a good outcome (modified Rankin Scale score range, 0-3) vs 300 of 4407 patients (6.8%) in the TI group (adjusted risk difference [RD], -0.6% [95% CI, -1.6% to 0.4%]). Initial ventilation was successful in 4255 of 4868 patients (87.4%) in the SGA group compared with 3473 of 4397 patients (79.0%) in the TI group (adjusted RD, 8.3% [95% CI, 6.3% to 10.2%]). However, patients randomized to receive TI were less likely to receive advanced airway management (3419 of 4404 patients [77.6%] vs 4161 of 4883 patients [85.2%] in the SGA group). Two of the secondary outcomes (regurgitation and aspiration) were not significantly different between groups (regurgitation: 1268 of 4865 patients [26.1%] in the SGA group vs 1072 of 4372 patients [24.5%] in the TI group; adjusted RD, 1.4% [95% CI, -0.6% to 3.4%]; aspiration: 729 of 4824 patients [15.1%] vs 647 of 4337 patients [14.9%], respectively; adjusted RD, 0.1% [95% CI, -1.5% to 1.8%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, randomization to a strategy of advanced airway management with a supraglottic airway device compared with tracheal intubation did not result in a favorable functional outcome at 30 days. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: 08256118.

Improving the inclusion of an under-served group in trials: development and implementation of the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework.

BACKGROUND: For the potential benefits of trials to reach all that they should, trials must be designed to ensure that those taking part reflect the population who will receive the intervention. However, adults with impaired capacity to consent are frequently excluded from trials - partly because researchers are unfamiliar with the legal and ethical frameworks and lack the necessary methodological expertise. Researchers identified a need for guidance on designing more inclusive trials. Building on the NIHR INCLUDE initiative, we developed the INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework to help researchers design inclusive trials. METHODS: The framework was developed over five phases: (1) establishing the scope and content of the framework and adapting the INCLUDE Ethnicity Framework for this population; (2) scoping the relevance of the framework to different populations and piloting in a range of trials; (3) consulting people living with impairing conditions and carers to explore their views about the framework and identify missing content areas; (4) refining the framework; and (5) the development of an implementation toolkit of resources to support researchers using the framework. RESULTS: The framework has two parts: a set of four key questions to help researchers identify who should be included in their trial, and a series of worksheets covering intervention design, recruitment and consent processes, data collection and analysis, and public involvement and dissemination. It is supported by a summary of the ethical and legal frameworks and a website of resources on capacity and consent. Implementation resources include infographics and animations, a library of completed frameworks, and facilitated workshops for researchers. The framework and toolkit were launched at a webinar (November 2022), with polling demonstrating an increase in attendees' awareness about research involving adults lacking capacity. A post-webinar survey found that stakeholders viewed the framework and toolkit as valuable tools to facilitate greater inclusion of this under-served population in trials. The framework is available online: https://www.capacityconsentresearch.com/include-impaired-capacity-to-consent-framework.html . CONCLUSIONS: The INCLUDE Impaired Capacity to Consent Framework and implementation toolkit can support researchers to design more inclusive trials and other types of research studies. Further engagement, including with funders who are key to ensuring uptake, and evaluation is needed.

Predicting Prostate Surgery Outcomes from Standard Clinical Assessments of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms To Derive Prognostic Symptom and Flowmetry Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) needs to identify predictors of symptom outcomes when interventional treatment is planned. OBJECTIVE: To develop a novel prediction model for prostate surgery outcomes and validate it using a separate patient cohort and derive thresholds for key clinical parameters. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From the UPSTREAM trial of 820 men seeking treatment for LUTS, analysis of bladder diary (BD), International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), IPSS-quality of life, and uroflowmetry data was performed for 176 participants who underwent prostate surgery and provided complete data. For external validation, data from a retrospective database of surgery outcomes in a Japanese urology department (n = 227) were used. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Symptom improvement was defined as a reduction in total IPSS of ≥3 points. Multiple logistic regression, classification tree analysis, and random forest models were generated, including versions with and without BD data. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Multiple logistic regression without BD data identified age (p = 0.029), total IPSS (p = 0.0016), and maximum flow rate (Qmax; p = 0.066) as predictors of outcomes, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 77.1%. Classification tree analysis without BD data gave thresholds of IPSS <16 and Qmax ≥13 ml/s (AUC 75.0%). The random forest model, which included all clinical parameters except BD data, had an AUC of 94.7%. Internal validation using the bootstrap method showed reasonable AUCs (69.6-85.8%). Analyses using BD data marginally improved the model fits. External validation gave comparable AUCs for logistic regression, classification tree analysis, and random forest models (all without BD; 70.9%, 67.3%, and 68.5%, respectively). Limitations include the significant number of men with incomplete baseline data and limited assessments in the external validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of prostate surgery can be predicted preoperatively using age, total IPSS, and uroflowmetry data, with prognostic thresholds of 16 for IPSS and 13 ml/s for Qmax. PATIENT SUMMARY: This study identified key preoperative factors that can predict outcomes of prostate surgery for bothersome urinary symptoms, including which patients are at risk of a poor outcome.

Delivering COVID-19 vaccine trials at speed: the implementation of a phase IV UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines (ComFluCOV).

BACKGROUND: In February 2021, the UK Department of Health and Social Care sought evidence on the safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 and influenza vaccine co-administration to inform the 2021/2022 influenza vaccine policy. Co-administration could support vaccine uptake and reduce healthcare appointments. ComFluCOV was a randomised controlled trial designed to provide this evidence. This report outlines the methods used to deliver the trial in 6 months to answer an urgent public health question as part of the COVID-19 pandemic response. METHODS: ComFluCOV was commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care and was managed by the Bristol Trials Centre, a UK-registered clinical trials unit. It was classed as an Urgent Public Health trial which facilitated fast-track regulatory approvals. Trial materials and databases were developed using in-house templates and those used in other COVID-19 vaccine trials. Participants were recruited by advertising, and via a trial website. Electronic trial systems enabled daily review of participant data. Weekly virtual meetings were held with stakeholders and trial sites. RESULTS: ComFluCOV was delivered within 6 months from inception to reporting, and trial milestones to inform the Department of Health and Social Care policy were met. Set-up was achieved within 1 month. Regulators provided expedited reviews, with feedback ahead of submission. Recruitment took place at 12 sites. Over 380 site staff were trained. Overall, 679 participants were recruited in two months. The final report to the Department of Health and Social Care was submitted in September 2021, following a preliminary safety report in May 2021. Trial results have been published. CONCLUSION: The rapid delivery of ComFluCOV was resource intensive. It was made possible in part due to a unique set of circumstances created by the pandemic situation including measures put in place to support urgent public health research and public support for COVID-19 vaccine research. Elements of the trial could be adopted to increase efficiency in 'non-pandemic' situations including working with a clinical trials unit to enable immediate mobilisation of a team of experienced researchers, greater sharing of resources between clinical trials units, use of electronic trial systems and virtual meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14391248, submitted on 17/03/2021. Registered on 30/03/2021.

Conservative management versus invasive management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces in the emergency department (the CoMiTED trial): a study protocol for a randomised non-inferiority trial.

INTRODUCTION: Traumatic pneumothoraces are present in one of five victims of severe trauma. Current guidelines advise chest drain insertion for most traumatic pneumothoraces, although very small pneumothoraces can be managed with observation at the treating clinician's discretion. There remains a large proportion of patients in whom there is clinical uncertainty as to whether an immediate chest drain is required, with no robust evidence to inform practice. Chest drains carry a high risk of complications such as bleeding and infection. The default to invasive treatment may be causing potentially avoidable pain, distress and complications. We are evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an initial conservative approach to the management of patients with traumatic pneumothoraces. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The CoMiTED (Conservative Management in Traumatic Pneumothoraces in the Emergency Department) trial is a multicentre, pragmatic parallel group, individually randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to establish whether initial conservative management of significant traumatic pneumothoraces is non-inferior to invasive management in terms of subsequent emergency pleural interventions, complications, pain, breathlessness and quality of life. We aim to recruit 750 patients from at least 40 UK National Health Service hospitals. Patients allocated to the control (invasive management) group will have a chest drain inserted in the emergency department. For those in the intervention (initial conservative management) group, the treating clinician will be advised to manage the participant without chest drain insertion and undertake observation. The primary outcome is a binary measure of the need for one or more subsequent emergency pleural interventions within 30 days of randomisation. Secondary outcomes include complications, cost-effectiveness, patient-reported quality of life and patient and clinician views of the two treatment options; participants are followed up for 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial received approval from the Wales Research Ethics Committee 4 (reference: 22/WA/0118) and the Health Research Authority. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN35574247.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Effectiveness of BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination in prevention of hospitalisations and severe disease in adults with SARS-CoV-2 Delta (B.1.617.2) and Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant between June 2021 and July 2022: A prospective test negative case-control study.

Background: Whilst other studies have reported the effectiveness of mRNA vaccination against hospitalisation, including emergency department or intensive care admission, few have assessed effectiveness against other more clinically robust indices of COVID-19 severity. Methods: A prospective single-centre test-negative design case-control study of adults hospitalised with COVID-19 disease or other acute respiratory disease between 1 June 2021 and 20 July 2022. We assessed VE (vaccine effectiveness) against hospitalisation, length of stay [LOS] >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5 and supplementary oxygen FiO2 (fraction inspired oxygen) >28%, conducting regression analyses controlling for age, gender, index of multiple deprivation, Charlson comorbidity index, time, and community infection prevalence. Findings: 935 controls and 546 cases were hospitalised during the Delta period, with 721 controls and 372 cases hospitalised during the Omicron study period. Two-dose BNT162b2 was associated with VE 82.5% [95% confidence interval 76.2%-87.2%] against hospitalisation following Delta infection, 63.3% [26.9-81.8%], 58.5% [24.8-77.3%], and 51.5% [16.7-72.1%] against LOS >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5, and requirement for FiO2 >28% respectively. Three-dose BNT162b2 protection against hospitalisation with Omicron infection was 30.9% [5.9-49.3%], with sensitivity analyses ranging from 28.8-72.6%. Protection against LOS >3 days, WHO COVID Score >5 and requirement for FiO2 >28% was 56.1% [20.6-76.5%], 58.8% [31.2-75.8%], and 41.5% [-0.4-66.3%], respectively. In the UK, BNT162b2 was prioritised for high-risk individuals and those aged >75 years. In the latter group we found a higher estimate of VE against hospitalisation of 47.2% [16.8-66.6%]. Interpretation: BNT162b2 vaccination results in risk reductions for hospitalisation and multiple patient outcomes following Delta and Omicron COVID-19 infection, particularly in older adults. BNT162b2 remains effective against severe SARS-CoV-2 disease. Funding: AvonCAP is an investigator-led project funded under a collaborative agreement by Pfizer.

The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF): feasibility trial protocol.

Background: Topical lidocaine patches, applied over rib fractures, have been suggested as a non-invasive method of local anaesthetic delivery to improve respiratory function, reduce opioid consumption and consequently reduce pulmonary complications. Older patients may gain most benefit from improved analgesic regimens yet lidocaine patches are untested as an early intervention in the Emergency Department (ED). The aim of this trial is to investigate uncertainties around trial design and conduct, to establish whether a definitive randomised trial of topical lidocaine patches in older patients with rib fractures is feasible. Methods: RELIEF is an open label, multicentre, parallel group, individually randomised, feasibility randomised controlled trial with economic scoping and nested qualitative study. Patients aged ≥ 65 years presenting to the ED with traumatic rib fracture(s) requiring admission will be randomised 1:1 to lidocaine patches (intervention), in addition to standard clinical management, or standard clinical management alone. Lidocaine patches will be applied immediately after diagnosis in ED and continued daily for 72 hours or until discharge. Feasibility outcomes will focus on recruitment, adherence and follow-up data with a total sample size of 100. Clinical outcomes, such as 30-day pulmonary complications, and resource use will be collected to understand feasibility of data collection. Qualitative interviews will explore details of the trial design, trial acceptability and recruitment processes. An evaluation of the feasibility of measuring health economics outcomes data will be completed. Discussion: Interventions to improve outcomes in elderly patients with rib fractures are urgently required. This feasibility trial will test a novel early intervention which has the potential of fulfilling this unmet need. The Randomised Evaluation of early topical Lidocaine patches In Elderly patients admitted to hospital with rib Fractures (RELIEF) feasibility trial will determine whether a definitive trial is feasible. ISRCTN Registration: ISRCTN14813929 (22/04/2021).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patches containing a numbing medication (lidocaine), put on the skin over broken ribs, may help to improve outcomes in older people. We will carry out a clinical trial of these patches, to see whether this research would work in Accident and Emergency (A&E) and whether patients will take part. DESIGN: We will ask 100 older people who need to stay in hospital with broken ribs to take part in this research. We will ask permission from relatives to include people with dementia. We will put those who agree to take part into one of two groups by chance. One group will have the patch put over their broken ribs in A&E for up to 3 days, along with usual pain killers if needed. We will treat people in the other group in the normal way, without a patch. We will track how many people are willing to take part. We will collect information on patient recovery in the 30 days after going to A&E and ask people to complete questionnaires about their health. We will interview patients and clinicians to get feedback. Patient and Public Involvement: Patient volunteers helped us design this research and will provide advice throughout. They agreed that including older people was appropriate, people with dementia and their carers should take part, and side-effects of strong pain killers are important to patients. FINDINGS: We will use the research findings to develop a larger trial to see if lidocaine patches help patients with broken ribs. We will write up results for scientific journals, speak at conferences and to our patient group.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 infective exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease on clinical outcomes in a prospective cohort study of hospitalised adults.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) triggered by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have worse outcomes than AECOPD caused by other infectious agents or non-infective AECOPD (NI-COPD). DESIGN: A two-hospital prospective cohort study of adults hospitalised with acute respiratory disease. We compared outcomes with AECOPD and a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 (n = 816), AECOPD triggered by other infections (n = 3038) and NI-COPD (n = 994). We used multivariable modelling to adjust for potential confounders and assessed variation by seasons associated with different SARS-CoV-2 variants. SETTING: Bristol UK, August 2020-May 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥18 y) hospitalised with AECOPD. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We determined the risk of positive pressure support, longer hospital admission and mortality following hospitalisation with AECOPD due to non-SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD and NI-COPD. RESULTS: Patients with SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD, in comparison to non-SARS-CoV-2 infective AECOPD or NI-COPD, more frequently required positive pressure support (18.5% and 7.5% vs. 11.7%, respectively), longer hospital stays (median [interquartile range, IQR]: 7 [3-15] and 5 [2-10] vs. 4 [2-9] days, respectively) and had higher 30-day mortality (16.9% and 11.1% vs. 5.9%, respectively) (all p < 0.001). In adjusted analyses, SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD was associated with a 55% (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 24-93), 26% (95% CI: 15-37) and 35% (95% CI: 10-65) increase in the risk of positive pressure support, hospitalisation length and 30-day mortality, respectively, relative to non-SARS-CoV-2 infective AECOPD. The difference in risk remained similar during periods of wild-type, Alpha and Delta SARS-CoV-2 strain dominance, but diminished during Omicron dominance. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2-related AECOPD had worse patient outcomes compared with non-SARS-CoV-2 AECOPD or NI-AECOPD, although the difference in risks was less pronounced during Omicron dominance.

Severity of Omicron (B.1.1.529) and Delta (B.1.617.2) SARS-CoV-2 infection among hospitalised adults: A prospective cohort study in Bristol, United Kingdom.

Background: There is an urgent public health need to evaluate disease severity in adults hospitalised with Delta and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant infections. However, limited data exist assessing severity of disease in adults hospitalised with Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infections, and to what extent patient-factors, including vaccination, age, frailty and pre-existing disease, affect variant-dependent disease severity. Methods: A prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years of age) hospitalised with acute lower respiratory tract disease at acute care hospitals in Bristol, UK conducted over 10-months. Delta or Omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection was defined by positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR and variant identification or inferred by dominant circulating variant. We constructed adjusted regression analyses to assess disease severity using three different measures: FiO2 >28% (fraction inspired oxygen), World Health Organization (WHO) outcome score >5 (assessing need for ventilatory support), and hospital length of stay (LOS) >3 days following admission for Omicron or Delta infection. Findings: Independent of other variables, including vaccination, Omicron variant infection in hospitalised adults was associated with lower severity than Delta. Risk reductions were 58%, 67%, and 16% for supplementary oxygen with >28% FiO2 [Relative Risk (RR) = 0.42 (95%CI: 0.34-0.52), P < 0.001], WHO outcome score >5 [RR = 0.33 (95%CI: 0.21-0.50), P < 0.001], and to have had a LOS > 3 days [RR = 0.84 (95%CI: 0.76-0.92), P < 0.001]. Younger age and vaccination with two or three doses were also independently associated with lower COVID-19 severity. Interpretation: We provide reassuring evidence that Omicron infection results in less serious adverse outcomes than Delta in hospitalised patients. Despite lower severity relative to Delta, Omicron infection still resulted in substantial patient and public health burden and an increased admission rate of older patients with Omicron which counteracts some of the benefit arising from less severe disease. Funding: AvonCAP is an investigator-led project funded under a collaborative agreement by Pfizer.

Supraglottic airway device versus tracheal intubation in the initial airway management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the AIRWAYS-2 cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: When a cardiac arrest occurs, cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be started immediately. However, there is limited evidence about the best approach to airway management during cardiac arrest. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine whether or not the i-gel® (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, UK) supraglottic airway is superior to tracheal intubation as the initial advanced airway management strategy in adults with non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, open, parallel, two-group, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial. A cost-effectiveness analysis accompanied the trial. SETTING: The setting was four ambulance services in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years who had a non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and were attended by a participating paramedic were enrolled automatically under a waiver of consent between June 2015 and August 2017. Follow-up ended in February 2018. INTERVENTION: Paramedics were randomised 1 : 1 to use tracheal intubation (764 paramedics) or i-gel (759 paramedics) for their initial advanced airway management and were unblinded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was modified Rankin Scale score at hospital discharge or 30 days after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, whichever occurred earlier, collected by assessors blinded to allocation. The modified Rankin Scale, a measure of neurological disability, was dichotomised: a score of 0-3 (good outcome) or 4-6 (poor outcome/death). The primary outcome for the economic evaluation was quality-adjusted life-years, estimated using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version. RESULTS: A total of 9296 patients (supraglottic airway group, 4886; tracheal intubation group, 4410) were enrolled [median age 73 years; 3373 (36.3%) women]; modified Rankin Scale score was known for 9289 patients. Characteristics were similar between groups. A total of 6.4% (311/4882) of patients in the supraglottic airway group and 6.8% (300/4407) of patients in the tracheal intubation group had a good outcome (adjusted difference in proportions of patients experiencing a good outcome: -0.6%, 95% confidence interval -1.6% to 0.4%). The supraglottic airway group had a higher initial ventilation success rate than the tracheal intubation group [87.4% (4255/4868) vs. 79.0% (3473/4397), respectively; adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 8.3%, 95% confidence interval 6.3% to 10.2%]; however, patients in the tracheal intubation group were less likely to receive advanced airway management than patients in the supraglottic airway group [77.6% (3419/4404) vs. 85.2% (4161/4883), respectively]. Regurgitation rate was similar between the groups [supraglottic airway group, 26.1% (1268/4865); tracheal intubation group, 24.5% (1072/4372); adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 1.4%, 95% confidence interval -0.6% to 3.4%], as was aspiration rate [supraglottic airway group, 15.1% (729/4824); tracheal intubation group, 14.9% (647/4337); adjusted difference in proportions of patients: 0.1%, 95% confidence interval -1.5% to 1.8%]. The longer-term outcomes were also similar between the groups (modified Rankin Scale: at 3 months, odds ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.14; at 6 months, odds ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.71 to 1.16). Sensitivity analyses did not alter the overall findings. There were no unexpected serious adverse events. Mean quality-adjusted life-years to 6 months were 0.03 in both groups (supraglottic airway group minus tracheal intubation group difference -0.0015, 95% confidence interval -0.0059 to 0.0028), and total costs were £157 (95% confidence interval -£270 to £583) lower in the tracheal intubation group. Although the point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio suggested that tracheal intubation may be cost-effective, the huge uncertainty around this result indicates no evidence of a difference between groups. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included imbalance in the number of patients in each group, caused by unequal distribution of high-enrolling paramedics; crossover between groups; and the fact that participating paramedics, who were volunteers, might not be representative of all paramedics in the UK. Findings may not be applicable to other countries. CONCLUSION: Among patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, randomisation to the supraglottic airway group compared with the tracheal intubation group did not result in a difference in outcome at 30 days. There were no notable differences in costs, outcomes and overall cost-effectiveness between the groups. FUTURE WORK: Future work could compare alternative supraglottic airway types with tracheal intubation; include a randomised trial of bag mask ventilation versus supraglottic airways; and involve other patient populations, including children, people with trauma and people in hospital. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN08256118. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and supported by the NIHR Comprehensive Research Networks and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest is a serious medical emergency in which the heartbeat and breathing stop suddenly. Every year in the UK, a large number of patients (around 123 per 100,000) suffer a cardiac arrest outside hospital. Only 7­9% of these patients survive to leave hospital. The best initial treatment in cardiac arrest is cardiopulmonary resuscitation (commonly known as CPR), during which it is vital to give chest compressions and maintain a clear airway. Two main techniques are used to keep the airway clear: tracheal intubation (inserting a breathing tube into the windpipe) and a supraglottic airway device (a newer device that is inserted less deeply and sits just above the voicebox). Both techniques are used routinely by paramedics in the UK when treating a cardiac arrest, but there is no evidence about which technique is best. The AIRWAYS-2 trial aimed to find out whether or not a supraglottic airway device is better than tracheal intubation. WHO PARTICIPATED AND WHAT WAS INVOLVED?: Paramedics from four UK ambulance services were put into one of two groups at random. One group was randomly chosen to use tracheal intubation and the other group was randomly chosen to use a supraglottic airway device at all adult cardiac arrests they attended for approximately 2 years. Paramedics were able to apply their clinical judgement and use a different device if they felt that this would be best for the patient. A total of 1523 paramedics took part and enrolled 9296 patients. Following cardiac arrest, a patient's recovery was assessed as good or poor (including patients who did not survive). WHAT DID THE TRIAL FIND?: A similar percentage of patients in both groups had a good recovery. There was no evidence to suggest that the supraglottic airway device was any better than tracheal intubation for treating a cardiac arrest.

Making large-scale surgical trials possible: collaboration and the role of surgical trainees.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment to surgical randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be challenging. The Sunflower study is a large-scale multi-centre RCT that seeks to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of pre-operative imaging versus expectant management in patients with symptomatic gallstones undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones. Trials such as Sunflower, with a large recruitment target, rely on teamworking. Recruitment can be optimised by embedding a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI). Additionally, engaging surgical trainees can contribute to successful recruitment, and the NIHR Associate Principal Investigator (API) scheme provides a framework to acknowledge their contributions. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study that formed a component part of an embedded QRI for the Sunflower RCT. The aim of this study was to understand factors that supported and hindered the participation of surgical trainees in a large-scale RCT and their participation in the API scheme. It comprised semi-structured telephone interviews with consultant surgeons and surgical trainees involved in screening and recruitment of patients, and descriptive analysis of screening and recruitment data. Interviews were analysed thematically to explore the perspectives of-and roles undertaken by-surgical trainees. RESULTS: Interviews were undertaken with 34 clinicians (17 consultant surgeons, 17 surgical trainees) from 22 UK hospital trusts. Surgical trainees contributed to patient screening, approaches and randomisation, with a major contribution to the randomisation of patients from acute admissions. They were often encouraged to participate in the study by their centre principal investigator, and career development was a typical motivating factor for their participation in the study. The study was registered with the API scheme, and a majority of the trainees interviewed (n = 14) were participating in the scheme. CONCLUSION: Surgical trainees can contribute substantial activity to a large-scale multi-centre RCT. Benefits of trainee engagement were identified for trainees themselves, for local sites and for the study as a whole. The API scheme provided a formal framework to acknowledge engagement. Ensuring that training and support for trainees are provided by the trial team is key to optimise success for all stakeholders.

Cost-effectiveness of the i-gel supraglottic airway device compared to tracheal intubation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Findings from the AIRWAYS-2 randomised controlled trial.

AIM: Optimal airway management during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is uncertain. Complications from tracheal intubation (TI) may be avoided with supraglottic airway (SGA) devices. The AIRWAYS-2 cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN08256118) compared the i-gel SGA with TI as the initial advanced airway management (AAM) strategy by paramedics treating adults with non-traumatic OHCA. This paper reports the trial cost-effectiveness analysis. METHODS: A within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the i-gel compared with TI was conducted, with a six-month time horizon, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), estimated using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Multilevel linear regression modelling was used to account for clustering by paramedic when combining costs and outcomes. RESULTS: 9296 eligible patients were attended by 1382 trial paramedics and enrolled in the AIRWAYS-2 trial (4410 TI, 4886 i-gel). Mean QALYs to six months were 0.03 in both groups (i-gel minus TI difference -0.0015, 95% CI -0.0059 to 0.0028). Total costs per participant up to six months post-OHCA were £3570 and £3413 in the i-gel and TI groups respectively (mean difference £157, 95% CI -£270 to £583). Based on mean difference point estimates, TI was more effective and less costly than i-gel; however differences were small and there was great uncertainty around these results. CONCLUSION: The small differences between groups in QALYs and costs shows no difference in the cost-effectiveness of the i-gel and TI when used as the initial AAM strategy in adults with non-traumatic OHCA.

Randomised controlled trial to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of expectant management versus preoperative imaging with magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy at low or moderate risk of common bile duct stones (The Sunflower Study): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery to remove the gallbladder (laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC)) is the standard treatment for symptomatic gallbladder disease. One potential complication of gallbladder disease is that gallstones can pass into the common bile duct (CBD) where they may remain dormant, pass spontaneously into the bowel or cause problems such as obstructive jaundice or pancreatitis. Patients requiring LC are assessed preoperatively for their risk of CBD stones using liver function tests and imaging. If the risk is high, guidelines recommend further investigation and treatment. Further investigation of patients at low or moderate risk of CBD stones is not standardised, and the practice of imaging the CBD using magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) in these patients varies across the UK. The consequences of these decisions may lead to overtreatment or undertreatment of patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We are conducting a UK multicentre, pragmatic, open, randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of preoperative imaging with MRCP versus expectant management (ie, no preoperative imaging) in adult patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease undergoing urgent or elective LC who are at low or moderate risk of CBD stones. We aim to recruit 13 680 patients over 48 months. The primary outcome is any hospital admission within 18 months of randomisation for a complication of gallstones. This includes complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for the treatment of gallstones and complications of LC. This will be determined using routine data sources, for example, National Health Service Digital Hospital Episode Statistics for participants in England. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness and patient-reported quality of life, with participants followed up for a median of 18 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study received approval from Yorkshire & The Humber - South Yorkshire Research Ethics Committee. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10378861.