Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 µg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Including older people in health and social care research: best practice recommendations based on the INCLUDE framework.

BACKGROUND: Older people are often explicitly or implicitly excluded from research, in particular clinical trials. This means that study findings may not be applicable to them, or that older people may not be offered treatments due to an absence of evidence. AIMS: The aim of this work was to develop recommendations to guide all research relevant to older people. METHODS: A diverse stakeholder group identified barriers and solutions to including older people in research. In parallel, a rapid literature review of published papers was undertaken to identify existing papers on the inclusion of older people in research. The findings were synthesised and mapped onto a socio-ecological model. From the synthesis we identified themes that were developed into initial recommendations that were iteratively refined with the stakeholder group. RESULTS: A range of individual, interpersonal, organisational, community and policy factors impact on the inclusion of older people in research. A total of 14 recommendations were developed such as removing upper age limits and comorbidity exclusions, involving older people, advocates and health and social care professionals with expertise in ageing in designing the research, and considering flexible or alternative approaches to data collection to maximise opportunities for participation. We also developed four questions that may guide those developing, reviewing and funding research that is inclusive of older people. CONCLUSION: Our recommendations provide up to date, practical advice on ways to improve the inclusion of older people in health and care research.

A Review of 50 Years of International Literature on the External Environment of Building Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs).

BACKGROUND: This article is the second part of a novel scoping review of the international literature that presents those key elements that underpin the foundational activities of Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs). In this article, we examine the external environment and the intersection between the internal and external environment domains. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), OVID, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and SAGE for publications in English between 1/1/1965 and 9/15/2021. We also searched reference lists of selected publications, gray literature and other online sources. Inductive thematic analysis was applied to construct the main themes, subthemes, and key elements from a scoping review covering up to 10 years of reported experiences of each of the 98 PBRNs that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In this study we present 2 main themes: "Stakeholders at the Intersection Between the Internal and External Environment" and the "External Environment." The first is linked to the subthemes "Patient and Community Stakeholders" and "Other Healthcare Stakeholders" and 11 key elements. The second relates to the subthemes "National Health System," "Institutional/Governmental Support, National/State Policy and Regulatory Environment" "Professional Organizations," "Leveraging Previous Research and PBRN Experience and Interacting with Other Networks" and "Health Information Technology (HIT) and HIT Vendors" and 21 key elements. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variations in geography, time, and healthcare context, PBRNs shared many similar developmental experiences over the past 5 decades. Their external environment contributed significantly to their developmental trajectories during the first 10 years of their operation.

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.

Continuity of GP care for patients with dementia: impact on prescribing and the health of patients.

BACKGROUND: Higher continuity of GP care (CGPC), that is, consulting the same doctor consistently, can improve doctor-patient relationships and increase quality of care; however, its effects on patients with dementia are mostly unknown. AIM: To estimate the associations between CGPC and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and with the incidence of adverse health outcomes (AHOs) in patients with dementia. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study with 1 year of follow-up anonymised medical records from 9324 patients with dementia, aged ≥65 years living in England in 2016. METHOD: CGPC measures include the Usual Provider of Care (UPC), Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care (BB), and Sequential Continuity (SECON) indices. Regression models estimated associations with PIPs and survival analysis with incidence of AHOs during the follow-up adjusted for age, sex, deprivation level, 14 comorbidities, and frailty. RESULTS: The highest quartile (HQ) of UPC (highest continuity) had 34.8% less risk of delirium (odds ratio [OR] 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.84), 57.9% less risk of incontinence (OR 0.42, 95% CI = 0.31 to 0.58), and 9.7% less risk of emergency admissions to hospital (OR 0.90, 95% CI = 0.82 to 0.99) compared with the lowest quartile. Polypharmacy and PIP were identified in 81.6% (n = 7612) and 75.4% (n = 7027) of patients, respectively. The HQ had fewer prescribed medications (HQ: mean 8.5, lowest quartile (LQ): mean 9.7, P<0.01) and had fewer PIPs (HQ: mean 2.1, LQ: mean 2.5, P<0.01), including fewer loop diuretics in patients with incontinence, drugs that can cause constipation, and benzodiazepines with high fall risk. The BB and SECON measures produced similar findings. CONCLUSION: Higher CGPC for patients with dementia was associated with safer prescribing and lower rates of major adverse events. Increasing continuity of care for patients with dementia may help improve treatment and outcomes.

Consensus Report: Definition and Interpretation of Remission in Type 2 Diabetes.

Improvement of glucose levels into the normal range can occur in some people living with diabetes, either spontaneously or after medical interventions, and in some cases can persist after withdrawal of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. Such sustained improvement may now be occurring more often due to newer forms of treatment. However, terminology for describing this process and objective measures for defining it are not well established, and the long-term risks versus benefits of its attainment are not well understood. To update prior discussions of this issue, an international expert group was convened by the American Diabetes Association to propose nomenclature and principles for data collection and analysis, with the goal of establishing a base of information to support future clinical guidance. This group proposed "remission" as the most appropriate descriptive term, and HbA1c < 6.5% (48 mmol/mol) measured at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy as the usual diagnostic criterion. The group also made suggestions for active observation of individuals experiencing a remission and discussed further questions and unmet needs regarding predictors and outcomes of remission.

Consensus report: Definition and interpretation of remission in type 2 diabetes.

Improvement of glucose levels into the normal range can occur in some people living with diabetes, either spontaneously or after medical interventions, and in some cases can persist after withdrawal of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. Such sustained improvement may now be occurring more often due to newer forms of treatment. However, terminology for describing this process and objective measures for defining it are not well established, and the long-term risks versus benefits of its attainment are not well understood. To update prior discussions of this issue, an international expert group was convened by the American Diabetes Association to propose nomenclature and principles for data collection and analysis, with the goal of establishing a base of information to support future clinical guidance. This group proposed "remission" as the most appropriate descriptive term, and HbA1c <6.5% (48 mmol/mol) measured at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy as the usual diagnostic criterion. The group also made suggestions for active observation of individuals experiencing a remission and discussed further questions and unmet needs regarding predictors and outcomes of remission.

Family history recording in UK general practice: the lIFeLONG study.

BACKGROUND: In order to integrate genomic medicine into routine patient care and stratify personal risk, it is increasingly important to record family history (FH) information in general/family practice records. This is true for classic genetic disease as well as multifactorial conditions. Research suggests that FH recording is currently inadequate. OBJECTIVES: To provide an up-to-date analysis of the frequency, quality, and accuracy of FH recording in UK general/family practice. METHODS: An exploratory study, based at St Leonard's Practice, Exeter-a suburban UK general/family practice. Selected adult patients registered for over 1 year were contacted by post and asked to complete a written FH questionnaire. The reported information was compared with the patients' electronic medical record (EMR). Each EMR was assessed for its frequency (how often information was recorded), quality (the level of detail included), and accuracy (how closely the information matched the patient report) of FH recording. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-one patients were approached, 65 (27.0%) responded and 62 (25.7%) were eligible to participate. Forty-three (69.4%) EMRs contained FH information. The most commonly recorded conditions were bowel cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. The mean quality score was 3.64 (out of 5). There was little negative recording. 83.2% of patient-reported FH information was inaccurately recorded or missing from the EMRs. CONCLUSION: FH information in general/family practice records should be better prepared for the genomic era. Whilst some conditions are well recorded, there is a need for more frequent, higher quality recording with greater accuracy, especially for multifactorial conditions.

Taking a family history (FH) of disease can be a quick, cost-effective way of gathering genetic information. Genetic medicine is beginning to transform healthcare, so it is important to gather FH information. General practitioners, also known as family physicians, are in the best position to gather FH information as they regularly see multiple family members. Research suggests that FH recording in general/family practice is not yet good enough. This study aimed to find the areas for improvement by measuring the frequency, quality, and accuracy of FH recording. This study looked at 62 patients' records in one UK general practice. Patients were asked to give up-to-date FH information in a questionnaire which was compared with their record. The study found that some conditions were often recorded. The most commonly recorded condition was heart disease. The conditions that are more likely to reflect the family environment, such as depression, were less frequently recorded. Recordings often included the side of the family the condition affected. Recordings rarely included the age that the relative was affected. The information was not very accurate, as most of the information from patient questionnaires was missing from the records. Research should now focus on how to improve recording.

Consensus report: definition and interpretation of remission in type 2 diabetes.

Improvement of glucose levels into the normal range can occur in some people living with diabetes, either spontaneously or after medical interventions, and in some cases can persist after withdrawal of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. Such sustained improvement may now be occurring more often due to newer forms of treatment. However, terminology for describing this process and objective measures for defining it are not well established, and the long-term risks vs benefits of its attainment are not well understood. To update prior discussions of this issue, an international expert group was convened by the American Diabetes Association to propose nomenclature and principles for data collection and analysis, with the goal of establishing a base of information to support future clinical guidance. This group proposed 'remission' as the most appropriate descriptive term, and HbA1c <48 mmol/mol (6.5%) measured at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy as the usual diagnostic criterion. The group also made suggestions for active observation of individuals experiencing a remission and discussed further questions and unmet needs regarding predictors and outcomes of remission.

Consensus Report: Definition and Interpretation of Remission in Type 2 Diabetes.

Improvement of glucose levels into the normal range can occur in some people living with diabetes, either spontaneously or after medical interventions, and in some cases can persist after withdrawal of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy. Such sustained improvement may now be occurring more often due to newer forms of treatment. However, terminology for describing this process and objective measures for defining it are not well established, and the long-term risks versus benefits of its attainment are not well understood. To update prior discussions of this issue, an international expert group was convened by the American Diabetes Association to propose nomenclature and principles for data collection and analysis, with the goal of establishing a base of information to support future clinical guidance. This group proposed "remission" as the most appropriate descriptive term, and HbA1c <6.5% (48 mmol/mol) measured at least 3 months after cessation of glucose-lowering pharmacotherapy as the usual diagnostic criterion. The group also made suggestions for active observation of individuals experiencing a remission and discussed further questions and unmet needs regarding predictors and outcomes of remission.

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.

A Review of 50-Years of International Literature on the Internal Environment of Building Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs).

PURPOSE: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have developed dynamically across the world, paralleling the emergence of the primary care discipline. While this review focuses on the internal environment of PBRNs, the complete framework will be presented incrementally in future publications. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the published and gray literature. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), OVID, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and SAGE Premier, were searched for publications between January 1, 1965 and December 31, 2020 for English-language articles. Rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria were implemented to identify relevant publications, and inductive thematic analysis was applied to elucidate key elements, subthemes, and themes. Social network theory was used to synthesize findings. RESULTS: A total of 229 publications described the establishment of 93 PBRNs in 15 countries that met the inclusion criteria. The overall framework yielded 3 main themes, 12 subthemes, and 57 key elements. Key PBRN activities included relationship building between academia and practitioners and development of a learning environment through multidirectional communication. CONCLUSIONS: PBRNs across many countries contributed significantly to shaping the landscape of primary health care and became an integral part of it. Many common features within the sphere of PBRNs can be identified that seem to promote their establishment across the world.

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.

Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE (PRINCIPLE): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform, trial of community treatment of COVID-19 syndromic illness in people at higher risk.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to idenfy treatments for COVID-19 that reduce illness duration and hospital admission in those at higher risk of a longer illness course and complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE trial is an open-label, multiarm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial to evaluate potential treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new interventions as they become available, as well as the inclusion and cessation of existing intervention arms via frequent interim analyses. The first three interventions are hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and doxycycline. Eligible participants must be symptomatic in the community with possible or confirmed COVID-19 that started in the preceding 14 days and either (1) aged 65 years and over or (2) aged 50-64 years with comorbidities. Recruitment is through general practice, health service helplines, COVID-19 'hot hubs' and directly through the trial website. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a study drug plus usual care, and outcomes are collected via daily online symptom diary for 28 days from randomisation. The research team contacts participants and/or their study partner following days 7, 14 and 28 if the online diary is not completed. The trial has two coprimary endpoints: time to first self-report of feeling recovered from possible COVID-19 and hospital admission or death from possible COVID-19 infection, both within 28 days from randomisation. Prespecified interim analyses assess efficacy or futility of interventions and to modify randomisation probabilities that allocate more participants to interventions with better outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval Ref: 20/SC/0158 South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee; IRAS Project ID: 281958; EudraCT Number: 2020-001209-22. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86534580.

Continuity of care with doctors-a matter of life and death? A systematic review of continuity of care and mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Continuity of care is a long-standing feature of healthcare, especially of general practice. It is associated with increased patient satisfaction, increased take-up of health promotion, greater adherence to medical advice and decreased use of hospital services. This review aims to examine whether there is a relationship between the receipt of continuity of doctor care and mortality. DESIGN: Systematic review without meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and the Web of Science, from 1996 to 2017. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Peer-reviewed primary research articles, published in English which reported measured continuity of care received by patients from any kind of doctor, in any setting, in any country, related to measured mortality of those patients. RESULTS: Of the 726 articles identified in searches, 22 fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The studies were all cohort or cross-sectional and most adjusted for multiple potential confounding factors. These studies came from nine countries with very different cultures and health systems. We found such heterogeneity of continuity and mortality measurement methods and time frames that it was not possible to combine the results of studies. However, 18 (81.8%) high-quality studies reported statistically significant reductions in mortality, with increased continuity of care. 16 of these were with all-cause mortality. Three others showed no association and one demonstrated mixed results. These significant protective effects occurred with both generalist and specialist doctors. CONCLUSIONS: This first systematic review reveals that increased continuity of care by doctors is associated with lower mortality rates. Although all the evidence is observational, patients across cultural boundaries appear to benefit from continuity of care with both generalist and specialist doctors. Many of these articles called for continuity to be given a higher priority in healthcare planning. Despite substantial, successive, technical advances in medicine, interpersonal factors remain important. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016042091.

Pilot parallel randomised controlled trial of protective socks against usual care to reduce skin tears in high risk people: 'STOPCUTS'.

BACKGROUND: Skin tears are common in older adults and those taking steroids and warfarin. They are traumatic, often blunt injuries caused by oblique knocks to the extremities. The epidermis may separate from the dermis or both layers from underlying tissues leaving a skin flap or total loss of tissue, which is painful and prone to infection. 'Dermatuff™' knee-length socks containing Kevlar fibres (used in stab-proof vests and motorcyclists' clothing) aim to prevent skin tears. The acceptability of the socks and the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) had not been explored. METHODS: In this pilot parallel group RCT, 90 people at risk of skin-tear injury from Devon care homes and primary care were randomised to receive the socks or treatment as usual (TAU). The pilot aimed to estimate parameters to inform the design of a substantive trial and record professionals' views and participants' acceptability of the intervention and of study participation. RESULTS: Participants were randomised from July 2013 and followed up until February 2015. Community participants were easier to recruit than care homes residents but were 10 years younger on average and more active. To recruit 90 participants, 395 had to be approached overall as 77% were excluded or declined. Seventy-nine participants (88%) completed the trial and 27/44 (61%) wore the socks for 16 weeks. There were 31 skin tear injuries affecting 18 (20%) of the 90 participants. The TAU group received more injuries, more repeated episodes, and larger tears with greater severity. Common daily diary reasons for not wearing the socks included perceived warmth in hot weather or not being available (holiday, in hospital, bed rest). Resource use data were obtainable and indicated that sock wearing gave a reduction in treatment costs whilst well-completed questionnaires showed improvements in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial has successfully informed the design and conduct of a future definitive cost-effectiveness RCT. It would need to be conducted in primary care with 880 active at-risk, elderly patients (440 per arm). Skin tear incidence and quality of life (from EQ5D5L) over a 4-month period would be the primary and secondary outcomes respectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN96565376.

Fifty years of longitudinal continuity in general practice: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care has been defined as relational continuity between patient and doctor and longitudinal continuity describing the duration of the relationship. Measurement of longitudinal continuity alone is associated with outcomes including patient satisfaction, medical costs, hospital admissions and mortality. METHODS: In one UK general practice, records were searched for patients with continuous registration for 50 or more years. Characteristics of these patients were analysed for age, gender, social deprivation, partner registration and length of registration. Trends in numbers and proportions of this group over the previous 14 years were determined. A comparison group of patients, aged 50 or more, and registered in the same practice within the last 2-4 years, was identified. RESULTS: Patients registered for 50 years or more with a median registration of 56.2 years numbered 190 out of a population of 8420 (2.3%). These patients increased in number by 35.3% (1.7-2.3%) over 14 consecutive years. There were no differences between groups for GP consultation rate, number of repeat medications and hospital use, despite the significantly higher prevalence of multi-morbidity, depression and diabetes in patients with high continuity. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of 50-year continuity in general practice. Numbers of such patients and proportions are increasing. Longitudinal continuity is easily measured in general practice and associated with important clinical outcomes.