d-Mannose for Prevention of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection Among Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common debilitating condition in women, with limited prophylactic options. d-Mannose has shown promise in trials based in secondary care, but effectiveness in placebo-controlled studies and community settings has not been established. Objective: To determine whether d-mannose taken for 6 months reduces the proportion of women with recurrent UTI experiencing a medically attended UTI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-group, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial took place across 99 primary care centers in the UK. Participants were recruited between March 28, 2019, and January 31, 2020, with 6 months of follow-up. Participants were female, 18 years or older, living in the community, and had evidence in their primary care record of consultations for at least 2 UTIs in the preceding 6 months or 3 UTIs in 12 months. Invitation to participate was made by their primary care center. A total of 7591 participants were approached, 830 responded, and 232 were ineligible or did not proceed to randomization. Statistical analysis was reported in December 2022. Intervention: Two grams daily of d-mannose powder or matched volume of placebo powder. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of women experiencing at least 1 further episode of clinically suspected UTI for which they contacted ambulatory care within 6 months of study entry. Secondary outcomes included symptom duration, antibiotic use, time to next medically attended UTI, number of suspected UTIs, and UTI-related hospital admissions. Results: Of 598 women eligible (mean [range] age, 58 [18-93] years), 303 were randomized to d-mannose (50.7%) and 295 to placebo (49.3%). Primary outcome data were available for 583 participants (97.5%). The proportion contacting ambulatory care with a clinically suspected UTI was 150 of 294 (51.0%) in the d-mannose group and 161 of 289 (55.7%) in the placebo group (risk difference, -5%; 95% CI, -13% to 3%; P = .26). Estimates were similar in per protocol analyses, imputation analyses, and preplanned subgroups. There were no statistically significant differences in any secondary outcome measures. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, daily d-mannose did not reduce the proportion of women with recurrent UTI in primary care who experienced a subsequent clinically suspected UTI. d-Mannose should not be recommended for prophylaxis in this patient group. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13283516.

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).

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Agoraphobic avoidance in patients with psychosis: Severity and response to automated VR therapy in a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The social withdrawal of many patients with psychosis can be conceptualised as agoraphobic avoidance due to a range of long-standing fears. We hypothesised that greater severity of agoraphobic avoidance is associated with higher levels of psychiatric symptoms and lower levels of quality of life. We also hypothesised that patients with severe agoraphobic avoidance would experience a range of benefits from an automated virtual reality (VR) therapy that allows them to practise everyday anxiety-provoking situations in simulated environments. METHODS: 345 patients with psychosis in a randomised controlled trial were categorised into average, moderate, high, and severe avoidance groups using the Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale. Associations of agoraphobia severity with symptom and functioning variables, and response over six months to brief automated VR therapy (gameChange), were tested. RESULTS: Greater severity of agoraphobic avoidance was associated with higher levels of persecutory ideation, auditory hallucinations, depression, hopelessness, and threat cognitions, and lower levels of meaningful activity, quality of life, and perceptions of recovery. Patients with severe agoraphobia showed the greatest benefits with gameChange VR therapy, with significant improvements at end of treatment in agoraphobic avoidance, agoraphobic distress, ideas of reference, persecutory ideation, paranoia worries, recovering quality of life, and perceived recovery, but no significant improvements in depression, suicidal ideation, or health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with psychosis with severe agoraphobic avoidance, such as being unable to leave the home, have high clinical need. Automated VR therapy can deliver clinical improvement in agoraphobia for these patients, leading to a number of wider benefits.

Estimating the Economic Value of Automated Virtual Reality Cognitive Therapy for Treating Agoraphobic Avoidance in Patients With Psychosis: Findings From the gameChange Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: An automated virtual reality cognitive therapy (gameChange) has demonstrated its effectiveness to treat agoraphobia in patients with psychosis, especially for high or severe anxious avoidance. Its economic value to the health care system is not yet established. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to estimate the potential economic value of gameChange for the UK National Health Service (NHS) and establish the maximum cost-effective price per patient. METHODS: Using data from a randomized controlled trial with 346 patients with psychosis (ISRCTN17308399), we estimated differences in health-related quality of life, health and social care costs, and wider societal costs for patients receiving virtual reality therapy in addition to treatment as usual compared with treatment as usual alone. The maximum cost-effective prices of gameChange were calculated based on UK cost-effectiveness thresholds. The sensitivity of the results to analytical assumptions was tested. RESULTS: Patients allocated to gameChange reported higher quality-adjusted life years (0.008 QALYs, 95% CI -0.010 to 0.026) and lower NHS and social care costs (-£105, 95% CI -£1135 to £924) compared with treatment as usual (£1=US $1.28); however, these differences were not statistically significant. gameChange was estimated to be worth up to £341 per patient from an NHS and social care (NHS and personal social services) perspective or £1967 per patient from a wider societal perspective. In patients with high or severe anxious avoidance, maximum cost-effective prices rose to £877 and £3073 per patient from an NHS and personal social services perspective and societal perspective, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: gameChange is a promising, cost-effective intervention for the UK NHS and is particularly valuable for patients with high or severe anxious avoidance. This presents an opportunity to expand cost-effective psychological treatment coverage for a population with significant health needs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN17308399; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17308399. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031606.

Quality of life, healthcare use and costs in 'at-risk' children after early antibiotic treatment versus placebo for influenza-like illness: within-trial descriptive economic analyses of the ARCHIE randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise the quality of life, healthcare use and costs associated with early antibiotic treatment of influenza-like illness (ILI) in 'at-risk' children. DESIGN: Economic analysis of a two-arm double-blind parallel group pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Children were recruited from community-based healthcare settings, including general practices, walk-in centres and hospital ambulatory care. PARTICIPANTS: Children with risk factors for influenza-related complications, including respiratory, cardiac and neurological conditions, who presented within the first 5 days of an ILI. INTERVENTIONS: Co-amoxiclav 400/57 suspension or placebo. OUTCOME MEASURES: This economic analysis focused on quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-Y, symptoms assessed by the Canadian Acute Respiratory Infection and Flu Scale (CARIFS), healthcare use and costs including medication, hospital visits and admissions, general practitioner and nurse contacts. Outcomes were assessed for up to 28 days post randomisation. RESULTS: Information on resource use, EQ-5D-Y (day 28) and CARIFS (day 7) was available for 265 (98%), 72 (27%) and 123 (45%) out of 271 participants, respectively. Average costs in the co-amoxiclav group were £25 lower (95% CI -£113 to £65), but this difference was not statistically significant (p=0.566). The difference in EQ-5D-Y scores between groups was also not statistically significant (-0.014 (95% CI -0.124 to 0.096), p=0.798). However, day 7 CARIFS scores were 3.5 points lower in the co-amoxiclav arm (95% CI -6.9 to -0.1, p=0.044). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings did not show evidence that early co-amoxiclav treatment improves quality of life or reduces healthcare use and costs in 'at-risk' children with ILI, but may reduce symptom severity though confirmation from further research would be important. Reliable data collection from children's parents/carers was challenging, and resulted in high levels of missing data, which is common in pragmatic trials involving children with acute respiratory tract infections. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN70714783; EudraCT 2013-002822-21.

Automated virtual reality therapy to treat agoraphobic avoidance and distress in patients with psychosis (gameChange): a multicentre, parallel-group, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial in England with mediation and moderation analyses.

BACKGROUND: Automated delivery of psychological therapy using immersive technologies such as virtual reality (VR) might greatly increase the availability of effective help for patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an automated VR cognitive therapy (gameChange) to treat avoidance and distress in patients with psychosis, and to analyse how and in whom it might work. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial across nine National Health Service trusts in England. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older, with a clinical diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder or an affective diagnosis with psychotic symptoms, and had self-reported difficulties going outside due to anxiety. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either gameChange VR therapy plus usual care or usual care alone, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by study site and service type. gameChange VR therapy was provided in approximately six sessions over 6 weeks. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. Outcomes were assessed at 0, 6 (primary endpoint), and 26 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome was avoidance of, and distress in, everyday situations, assessed using the self-reported Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale (O-AS). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants who were assigned to a study group for whom data were available). We performed planned mediation and moderation analyses to test the effects of gameChange VR therapy when added to usual care. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 17308399. FINDINGS: Between July 25, 2019, and May 7, 2021 (with a pause in recruitment from March 16, 2020, to Sept 14, 2020, due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions), 551 patients were assessed for eligibility and 346 were enrolled. 231 (67%) patients were men and 111 (32%) were women, 294 (85%) were White, and the mean age was 37·2 years (SD 12·5). 174 patients were randomly assigned to the gameChange VR therapy group and 172 to the usual care alone group. Compared with the usual care alone group, the gameChange VR therapy group had significant reductions in agoraphobic avoidance (O-AS adjusted mean difference -0·47, 95% CI -0·88 to -0·06; n=320; Cohen's d -0·18; p=0·026) and distress (-4·33, -7·78 to -0·87; n=322; -0·26; p=0·014) at 6 weeks. Reductions in threat cognitions and within-situation defence behaviours mediated treatment outcomes. The greater the severity of anxious fears and avoidance, the greater the treatment benefits. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between the gameChange VR therapy group (12 events in nine patients) and the usual care alone group (eight events in seven patients; p=0·37). INTERPRETATION: Automated VR therapy led to significant reductions in anxious avoidance of, and distress in, everyday situations compared with usual care alone. The mediation analysis indicated that the VR therapy worked in accordance with the cognitive model by reducing anxious thoughts and associated protective behaviours. The moderation analysis indicated that the VR therapy particularly benefited patients with severe agoraphobic avoidance, such as not being able to leave the home unaccompanied. gameChange VR therapy has the potential to increase the provision of effective psychological therapy for psychosis, particularly for patients who find it difficult to leave their home, visit local amenities, or use public transport. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research Invention for Innovation programme, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

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.

The early use of Antibiotics for at Risk CHildren with InfluEnza-like illness (ARCHIE): a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The UK government stockpiles co-amoxiclav to treat bacterial complications during influenza pandemics. This pragmatic trial examines whether early co-amoxiclav use reduces reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in "at risk" children presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary or ambulatory care. METHODS: "At risk" children aged from 6 months to 12 years presenting within 5 days of ILI onset were randomly assigned to oral co-amoxiclav 400/57 or a placebo twice daily for 5 days (dosing based on age±weight). "At risk" groups included children with respiratory, cardiac and neurological conditions. Randomisation was stratified by region and used a non-deterministic minimisation algorithm to balance age and current seasonal influenza vaccination status. Our target sample size was 650 children which would have allowed us to detect a reduction in the proportion of children reconsulting due to clinical deterioration from 40% to 26%, with 90% power and 5% two-tailed alpha error (including allowance for 25% loss to follow-up and an inflation factor of 1.041). Participants, caregivers and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat analysis included all randomised participants with primary outcome data on reconsultation due to clinical deterioration within 28 days. Safety analysis included all randomised participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 70714783. EudraCT 2013-002822-21. RESULTS: We recruited 271 children between February 11, 2015 and April 20, 2018. Primary outcome data were available for 265 children. Only 61 out of 265 children (23.0%) reconsulted due to clinical deterioration. No evidence of a treatment effect was observed for reconsultation due to clinical deterioration (33 out of 133 for co-amoxiclav (24.8%) and 28 out of 132 (21.2%) for placebo; adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.80). There was also no evidence of a difference between groups in the proportion of children for whom one or more adverse events (AEs) were reported (32 out of 136 (23.5%) for co-amoxiclav and 22 out of 135 (16.3%) for placebo; adjusted RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90-2.34). In total, 66 AEs were reported (co-amoxiclav, n=37; placebo, n=29). Nine serious AEs were reported per group, although none were considered related to study medication. CONCLUSION: Our trial did not find evidence that treatment with co-amoxiclav reduces risk of reconsultation due to clinical deterioration in "at risk" children who present early with ILI during influenza season. Our findings therefore do not support early co-amoxiclav use in children with seasonal ILI.

Examining the effectiveness of general practitioner and nurse promotion of electronic cigarettes versus standard care for smoking reduction and abstinence in hardcore smokers with smoking-related chronic disease: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the clear harm associated with smoking tobacco, many people with smoking-related chronic diseases or serious mental illnesses (SMI) are unwilling or unable to stop smoking. In many cases, these smokers have tried and exhausted all methods to stop smoking and yet clinicians are repeatedly mandated to offer them during routine consultations. Providing nicotine through electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) may reduce the adverse health consequences associated with tobacco smoking, but these are not currently offered. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of general practitioners (GPs) and nurses delivering a brief advice intervention on e-cigarettes and offering an e-cigarette starter pack and patient support resources compared with standard care in smokers with smoking-related chronic diseases or SMI who are unwilling to stop smoking. METHODS/DESIGN: This is an individually randomised, blinded, two-arm trial. Smokers with a smoking-related chronic condition or SMI with no intention of stopping smoking will be recruited through primary care registers. Eligible participants will be randomised to one of two groups if they decline standard care for stopping smoking: a control group who will receive no additional support beyond standard care; or an intervention group who will receive GP or nurse-led brief advice about e-cigarettes, an e-cigarette starter pack with accompanying practical support booklet, and telephone support from experienced vapers and online video tutorials. The primary outcome measures will be smoking reduction, measured through changes in cigarettes per day and 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 2 months. Secondary outcomes include smoking reduction, 7-day point-prevalence abstinence and prolonged abstinence at 8 months. Other outcomes include patient recruitment and follow-up, patient uptake and use of e-cigarettes, nicotine intake, contamination of randomisation and practitioner adherence to the delivery of the intervention. Qualitative interviews will be conducted in a subsample of practitioners, patients and the vape team to garner their reactions to the programme. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised controlled trial to investigate whether e-cigarette provision alongside a brief intervention delivered by practitioners leads to reduced smoking and abstinence among smokers with smoking-related chronic diseases or SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN59404712. Registered 28/11/17.