RESUMEN
Background Black and minority ethnic (BME) men who have sex with men (MSM) face a major burden in relation to HIV infection. Using a cross-sectional correlational survey design, the present study explored the relationships between HIV knowledge and reported sexual health and sexual behaviour in this population. METHODS: A convenience sample of 538 BME MSM was recruited in London, Leicester and Leeds: 346 (64%) self-identified as South Asian, 88 (16%) self-identified as Latin American, 76 (14%) self-identified as Black, 13 (2%) self-identified as mixed, and 15 (3%) self-identified as other. RESULTS: HIV knowledge was low across the board, and South Asian MSM manifested the lowest scores. Respondents who perceived their HIV risk to be low possessed the least HIV knowledge. There were interethnic differences in the frequency of gay sauna visits, sex-seeking on mobile applications, drug use and attendance at sex parties. Respondents reported a high frequency of racism and discrimination, with Black MSM reporting highest frequency. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to raise awareness of HIV in BME MSM, and a culturally competent approach to HIV awareness-raising in BME MSM is required. These findings shed light on the contexts in which HIV prevention efforts should be targeted to reach specific ethnic groups, as well as some of the potential syndemics that can increase HIV risk or undermine HIV outcomes in BME MSM patients.
Asunto(s)
VIH , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud/etnología , Homosexualidad Masculina/etnología , Conducta Sexual/etnología , Salud Sexual/etnología , Estudios Transversales , Etnicidad , Conductas de Riesgo para la Salud , Humanos , Masculino , Grupos Minoritarios , Reino Unido/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296525.].
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Atrial Fibrillation After Cardiac Surgery (AFACS) occurs in about one in three patients following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG). It is associated with increased short- and long-term morbidity, mortality and costs. To reduce AFACS incidence, efforts are often made to maintain serum potassium in the high-normal range (≥ 4.5mEq/L). However, there is no evidence that this strategy is efficacious. Furthermore, the approach is costly, often unpleasant for patients, and risks causing harm. We describe the protocol of a planned randomized non-inferiority trial to investigate the impact of intervening to maintain serum potassium ≥ 3.6 mEq/L vs ≥ 4.5 mEq/L on incidence of new-onset AFACS after isolated elective CABG. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated CABG at sites in the UK and Germany will be recruited, randomized 1:1 and stratified by site to protocols maintaining serum potassium at either ≥ 3.6 mEq/L or ≥ 4.5 mEq/L. Participants will not be blind to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint is AFACS, defined as an episode of atrial fibrillation, flutter or tachycardia lasting ≥ 30 seconds until hour 120 after surgery, which is both clinically detected and electrocardiographically confirmed. Assuming a 35% incidence of AFACS in the 'tight control group', and allowing for a 10% loss to follow-up, 1684 participants are required to provide 90% certainty that the upper limit of a one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI) will exclude a > 10% difference in favour of tight potassium control. Secondary endpoints include mortality, use of hospital resources and incidence of dysrhythmias not meeting the primary endpoint (detected using continuous heart rhythm monitoring). DISCUSSION: The Tight K Trial will assess whether a protocol to maintain serum potassium ≥ 3.6 mEq/L is non inferior to maintaining serum potassium ≥ 4.5 mEq/L in preventing new-onset AFACS after isolated CABG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04053816. Registered on 13 August 2019. Last update 7 January 2021.
Asunto(s)
Fibrilación Atrial , Potasio , Humanos , Fibrilación Atrial/epidemiología , Fibrilación Atrial/etiología , Fibrilación Atrial/prevención & control , Puente de Arteria Coronaria/efectos adversos , Puente de Arteria Coronaria/métodos , Alemania , Incidencia , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Estudios de Equivalencia como AsuntoRESUMEN
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an established treatment for aortic stenosis. Cerebral embolic protection (CEP) devices may impact periprocedural stroke by capturing debris destined for the brain. However, there is a lack of high-quality randomised trial evidence supporting the use of CEP during TAVI. The British Heart Foundation (BHF) PROTECT-TAVI trial will address whether the routine use of CEP reduces the incidence of stroke in patients undergoing TAVI. BHF PROTECT-TAVI is a prospective, open-label, outcome-adjudicated, multicentre randomised controlled trial. The trial is open to all adult patients scheduled for TAVI at participating specialist cardiac centres across the United Kingdom who are able to receive the CEP device. The trial will recruit 7,730 participants. Participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to undergo TAVI with CEP or TAVI without CEP (standard of care). The primary outcome is the incidence of stroke at 72 hours post-TAVI. Key secondary outcomes include the incidence of stroke and all-cause mortality up to 12 months post-TAVI, disability and cognitive outcomes, stroke severity, access site complications and a health economics analysis. The sample size of 7,730 participants has 80% power to detect a 33% relative risk reduction from a 3% incidence of the primary outcome in the controls. Trial recruitment commenced in October 2020. As of October 2022, 3,068 patients have been enrolled. BHF PROTECT-TAVI is designed to provide definitive evidence on the clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness of using routine CEP with the SENTINEL device to reduce stroke in TAVI.
Asunto(s)
Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica , Dispositivos de Protección Embólica , Accidente Cerebrovascular , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter , Humanos , Reemplazo de la Válvula Aórtica Transcatéter/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Corazón , Estenosis de la Válvula Aórtica/terapia , Accidente Cerebrovascular/etiología , Accidente Cerebrovascular/prevención & control , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Válvula Aórtica/cirugía , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effects of a series of text messages (safetxt) delivered in the community on incidence of chlamydia and gonorrhoea reinfection at one year in people aged 16-24 years. DESIGN: Parallel group randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 92 sexual health clinics in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: People aged 16-24 years with a diagnosis of, or treatment for, chlamydia, gonorrhoea, or non-specific urethritis in the past two weeks who owned a mobile phone. INTERVENTIONS: 3123 participants assigned to the safetxt intervention received a series of text messages to improve sex behaviours: four texts daily for days 1-3, one or two daily for days 4-28, two or three weekly for month 2, and 2-5 monthly for months 3-12. 3125 control participants received a monthly text message for one year asking for any change to postal or email address. It was hypothesised that safetxt would reduce the risk of chlamydia and gonorrhoea reinfection at one year by improving three key safer sex behaviours: partner notification at one month, condom use, and sexually transmitted infection testing before unprotected sex with a new partner. Care providers and outcome assessors were blind to allocation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of chlamydia or gonorrhoea reinfection at one year, assessed by nucleic acid amplification tests. Safety outcomes were self-reported road traffic incidents and partner violence. All analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: 6248 of 20 476 people assessed for eligibility between 1 April 2016 and 23 November 2018 were randomised. Primary outcome data were available for 4675/6248 (74.8%). At one year, the cumulative incidence of chlamydia or gonorrhoea reinfection was 22.2% (693/3123) in the safetxt arm versus 20.3% (633/3125) in the control arm (odds ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.31). The number needed to harm was 64 (95% confidence interval number needed to benefit 334 to ∞ to number needed to harm 24) The risk of road traffic incidents and partner violence was similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The safetxt intervention did not reduce chlamydia and gonorrhoea reinfections at one year in people aged 16-24 years. More reinfections occurred in the safetxt group. The results highlight the need for rigorous evaluation of health communication interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN64390461.
Asunto(s)
Gonorrea , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual , Envío de Mensajes de Texto , Gonorrea/epidemiología , Gonorrea/prevención & control , Humanos , Reinfección , Conducta Sexual , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual/epidemiología , Enfermedades de Transmisión Sexual/prevención & controlRESUMEN
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) describes the active involvement of patients and the public in the research process. Through PPI, patients and members of the public are increasingly involved in the design and conduct of clinical trials. PPI has been shown to improve the quality and relevance of research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, clinical trials have been playing a vital role in helping us find ways to prevent and treat the infection and improve our understanding of the virus. It is important that patients and the public are actively involved in deciding how COVID-19 research is carried out. Unfortunately, Research Ethics Committees in the UK have seen far less PPI for COVID-19 research studies compared with research before the pandemic. A key reason for this is that research is being designed much faster than normal and researchers may feel they do not have time to properly involve patients and the public. In this paper, we share our experiences of PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. We show that it is possible to rapidly involve patients and the public in COVID-19 clinical trials. We also explain how the design of the clinical trial was changed in response to feedback from public contributors. Lastly, we discuss the wider learning from this process which might be useful for researchers planning PPI activities for COVID-19 clinical trials in the future. BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are playing a critical role in the global public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increasing recognition of the value of PPI in clinical trials, just 22% of the COVID-19 research proposals reviewed by Research Ethics Committees in the UK at the start of the pandemic reported PPI. There is a perception that PPI might result in delays in delivering research and therefore delays in obtaining important results. In this paper, we report our experience of rapid PPI for a COVID-19 clinical trial. METHODS: RAPID-19 is a COVID-19 clinical trial which was planned to be submitted for fast-track ethics review in the United Kingdom. During the development of the trial protocol, the PPI Panel at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Clinical Trials Unit was involved in the design of the study. The meeting with the PPI Panel lasted just over 1 h and was conducted by teleconference. RESULTS: Although we only had a short period of time to explore the study with the PPI Panel, we were able to gain valuable insight into how the trial would be perceived by potential trial participants. Substantive changes were made to the trial to improve the acceptability of the research without compromising the study timelines. Having access to public contributors with relevant lived experience is an important resource for a Clinical Trials Unit and is critical for rapid PPI. The move to remote working due to lockdown required virtual discussions which helped to overcome some of the barriers to organising face-to-face meetings at short notice. CONCLUSIONS: PPI for clinical trials can be conducted in a time-efficient manner within the pressured environment of a pandemic. Involving PPI contributors at an early stage in protocol development maximised the opportunity to shape and influence the trial as well as limited potential delays which could occur if changes to the protocol had to be made at a later stage.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Tranexamic acid safely reduces mortality in traumatic extracranial bleeding. Intracranial bleeding is common after traumatic brain injury and can cause brain herniation and death. We assessed the effects of tranexamic acid in traumatic brain injury patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of tranexamic acid on death, disability and vascular occlusive events in traumatic brain injury patients. We also assessed cost-effectiveness. DESIGN: Randomised trial and economic evaluation. Patients were assigned by selecting a numbered treatment pack from a box containing eight packs that were identical apart from the pack number. Patients, caregivers and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. All analyses were by intention to treat. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of tranexamic acid versus no treatment from a UK NHS perspective using the trial results and a Markov model. SETTING: 175 hospitals in 29 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with traumatic brain injury within 3 hours of injury with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≤ 12 or any intracranial bleeding on computerised tomography scan, and no major extracranial bleeding, were eligible. INTERVENTION: Tranexamic acid (loading dose 1 g over 10 minutes then infusion of 1 g over 8 hours) or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Head injury death in hospital within 28 days of injury in patients treated within 3 hours of injury. Secondary outcomes were early head injury deaths, all-cause and cause-specific mortality, disability, vascular occlusive events, seizures, complications and adverse events. RESULTS: Among patients treated within 3 hours of injury (n = 9127), the risk of head injury death was 18.5% in the tranexamic acid group versus 19.8% in the placebo group (855/4613 vs. 892/4514; risk ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.02). In a prespecified analysis excluding patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 or bilateral unreactive pupils at baseline, the results were 12.5% in the tranexamic acid group versus 14.0% in the placebo group (485/3880 vs. 525/3757; risk ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.00). There was a reduction in the risk of head injury death with tranexamic acid in those with mild to moderate head injury (166/2846 vs. 207/2769; risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.95), but in those with severe head injury (689/1739 vs. 685/1710; risk ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.07) there was no apparent reduction (p-value for heterogeneity = 0.030). Early treatment was more effective in mild and moderate head injury (p = 0.005), but there was no obvious impact of time to treatment in cases of severe head injury (p = 0.73). The risk of disability, vascular occlusive events and seizures was similar in both groups. Tranexamic acid is highly cost-effective for mild and moderate traumatic brain injury (base case of £4288 per quality-adjusted life-year gained). CONCLUSION: Early tranexamic acid treatment reduces head injury deaths. Treatment is cost-effective for patients with mild or moderate traumatic brain injury, or those with both pupils reactive. FUTURE WORK: Further trials should examine early tranexamic acid treatment in mild head injury. Research on alternative routes of administration is needed. LIMITATIONS: Time to treatment may have been underestimated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15088122, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402882, EudraCT 2011-003669-14, Pan African Clinical Trial Registry PACTR20121000441277. FUNDING: The project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. In addition, funding was provided by JP Moulton Charitable Trust, Joint Global Health Trials (Medical Research Council, Department for International Development and the Wellcome Trust). This project was funded by the NIHR Global Health Trials programme.
Traumatic brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with over 60 million new cases each year. When the head is injured there is often bleeding inside the brain, which can continue for some time and worsen after hospital admission. This bleeding increases pressure inside the skull, causing further damage to the brain, which can be fatal or result in serious disability. Tranexamic acid is a cheap drug that reduces bleeding in other conditions. A large trial of accident victims (other than those with head injury) found that it reduced the chances of bleeding to death. We wanted to find out if tranexamic acid would also reduce deaths among patients with head injuries. We studied just under 13,000 patients with traumatic brain injury who did not have other major injuries to their bodies from 175 hospitals across 29 countries. Patients were assigned at random to receive either tranexamic acid or a dummy medicine called a placebo. Neither the clinical team nor the patient knew which medicine the patient received. All patients received the usual treatments given to head-injured patients. Outcomes from 9127 participants were analysed. Among patients treated early, within 3 hours, the rate of head injury death was 18.5% (855/4613) in the tranexamic acid group and 19.8% (892/4514) in the placebo group. We found no evidence of an effect of tranexamic acid overall. However, in patients with mild or moderate traumatic brain injury, there was a 20% reduction in deaths. There were no side effects and no increase in disability in survivors when the drug was used. The economic analysis shows that tranexamic acid represents value for money for patients with mild or moderate traumatic brain injury.
Asunto(s)
Antifibrinolíticos , Lesiones Traumáticas del Encéfalo , Traumatismos Craneocerebrales , Ácido Tranexámico , Adulto , Antifibrinolíticos/uso terapéutico , Lesiones Traumáticas del Encéfalo/complicaciones , Lesiones Traumáticas del Encéfalo/tratamiento farmacológico , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Escala de Coma de Glasgow , Humanos , Ácido Tranexámico/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Uncertainty persists about whether or not statins cause symptomatic muscle adverse effects (e.g. pain, stiffness and weakness) in the absence of severe myositis. OBJECTIVES: To establish the effect of statins on all muscle symptoms, and the effect of statins on muscle symptoms that are perceived to be statin related. DESIGN: A series of 200 double-blinded N-of-1 trials. SETTING: Participants were recruited from 50 general practices in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who were considering discontinuing statin use and those who had discontinued statin use in the last 3 years because of perceived muscle symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to a sequence of six 2-month treatment periods during which they received 20 mg of atorvastatin daily or a matched placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was self-reported muscle symptoms rated using a visual analogue scale on the last week of each treatment period. Secondary outcomes included the participant's belief about the cause of their muscle symptoms, the site of muscle symptoms, how the muscle symptoms affected the participant, any other symptoms they experienced, adherence to medication, the participant's decision about statin treatment following the trial, and whether or not they found their own trial result helpful. RESULTS: A total of 151 out of 200 (75.5%) randomised participants provided one or more visual analogue scale measurements in a placebo period and one or more measurements in a statin period, and were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a difference in muscle symptom scores between statin and placebo periods (mean difference statin minus placebo -0.11, 95% confidence interval -0.36 to 0.14; p = 0.398). Withdrawals, adherence and missing data were similar during the statin periods and the placebo periods. CONCLUSIONS: Among people who previously reported severe muscle symptoms while taking statins, this series of randomised N-of-1 trials found no overall effect of statins on muscle symptoms compared with the placebo. The slight difference in withdrawals due to muscle symptoms suggests that statins may contribute to symptoms in a small number of patients. The results are generalisable to patients who are considering discontinuing or have already discontinued statins because of muscle symptoms, and who are willing to re-challenge or participate in their own N-of-1 trial. FUTURE WORK: We recommend that additional statins and doses are explored using N-of-1 trials. More broadly, N-of-1 trials present a useful tool for exploring transient symptoms with other medications. LIMITATIONS: This study used 20-mg doses of atorvastatin only. Furthermore, a dropout rate of 43% was observed, but this was accounted for in the power calculations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30952488 and EudraCT 2016-000141-31. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Statins are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the UK. There is strong evidence that they are effective in safely reducing heart disease; however, there is some doubt about whether or not statins cause muscle pain, stiffness or weakness. This research has been carried out to understand the effect of statins on muscle symptoms. To answer our question, we asked 200 volunteers from across England and Wales to participate in the study. Patients who joined the study either had recently stopped taking statins because of muscle symptoms or were considering stopping because of muscle symptoms. Patients who participated were randomly assigned to a sequence of six 2-month treatment periods during which they received either statins or a placebo. Neither patients nor their general practitioner knew which tablet they were receiving. This helped to reduce bias in the data. At the end of each treatment period, patients were asked to report any muscle symptoms, or any other symptoms, that they experienced. The key result of this work is that patients reported no difference, on average, in their muscle symptoms between periods of taking a statin and periods of taking a placebo. We also assessed the impact on the patient's quality of life by looking at how statins affected the following areas: general activity, mood, walking ability, normal work, relations with other people, sleep and enjoyment of life. As with muscle symptoms, there was no evidence of a difference between statin and placebo periods. The majority of patients who finished the trial decided to continue using statins after the trial. Future research should be carried out to assess different statin doses, as higher doses are often used following a heart attack. In addition, further work is needed to see how the approach we used could be adopted into everyday clinical care.