Prospective observational study of SARS-CoV-2 infection, transmission and immunity in a cohort of households in Liverpool City Region, UK (COVID-LIV): a study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The emergence and rapid spread of COVID-19 have caused widespread and catastrophic public health and economic impact, requiring governments to restrict societal activity to reduce the spread of the disease. The role of household transmission in the population spread of SARS-CoV-2, and of host immunity in limiting transmission, is poorly understood. This paper describes a protocol for a prospective observational study of a cohort of households in Liverpool City Region, UK, which addresses the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 between household members and how immunological response to the infection changes over time. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Households in the Liverpool City Region, in which members have not previously tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a nucleic acid amplification test, are followed up for an initial period of 12 weeks. Participants are asked to provide weekly self-throat and nasal swabs and record their activity and presence of symptoms. Incidence of infection and household secondary attack rates of COVID-19 are measured. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 will be investigated against a range of demographic and behavioural variables. Blood and faecal samples are collected at several time points to evaluate immune responses to SARS-CoV-2 infection and prevalence and risk factors for faecal shedding of SARS-CoV-2, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received approval from the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee; REC Reference: 20/HRA/2297, IRAS Number: 283 464. Results will be disseminated through scientific conferences and peer-reviewed open access publications. A report of the findings will also be shared with participants. The study will quantify the scale and determinants of household transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, immunological responses before and during the different stages of infection will be analysed, adding to the understanding of the range of immunological response by infection severity.

Safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR open-label, equivalence RCT.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Using variable diabetic retinopathy screening intervals, informed by personal risk levels, offers improved engagement of people with diabetes and reallocation of resources to high-risk groups, while addressing the increasing prevalence of diabetes. However, safety data on extending screening intervals are minimal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and cost-effectiveness of individualised, variable-interval, risk-based population screening compared with usual care, with wide-ranging input from individuals with diabetes. METHODS: This was a two-arm, parallel-assignment, equivalence RCT (minimum 2 year follow-up) in individuals with diabetes aged 12 years or older registered with a single English screening programme. Participants were randomly allocated 1:1 at baseline to individualised screening at 6, 12 or 24 months for those at high, medium and low risk, respectively, as determined at each screening episode by a risk-calculation engine using local demographic, screening and clinical data, or to annual screening (control group). Screening staff and investigators were observer-masked to allocation and interval. Data were collected within the screening programme. The primary outcome was attendance (safety). A secondary safety outcome was the development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated within a 2 year time horizon from National Health Service and societal perspectives. RESULTS: A total of 4534 participants were randomised. After withdrawals, there were 2097 participants in the individualised screening arm and 2224 in the control arm. Attendance rates at first follow-up were equivalent between the two arms (individualised screening 83.6%; control arm 84.7%; difference -1.0 [95% CI -3.2, 1.2]), while sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy detection rates were non-inferior in the individualised screening arm (individualised screening 1.4%, control arm 1.7%; difference -0.3 [95% CI -1.1, 0.5]). Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings. No important adverse events were observed. Mean differences in complete case quality-adjusted life-years (EuroQol Five-Dimension Questionnaire, Health Utilities Index Mark 3) did not significantly differ from zero; multiple imputation supported the dominance of individualised screening. Incremental cost savings per person with individualised screening were £17.34 (95% CI 17.02, 17.67) from the National Health Service perspective and £23.11 (95% CI 22.73, 23.53) from the societal perspective, representing a 21% reduction in overall programme costs. Overall, 43.2% fewer screening appointments were required in the individualised arm. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Stakeholders involved in diabetes care can be reassured by this study, which is the largest ophthalmic RCT in diabetic retinopathy screening to date, that extended and individualised, variable-interval, risk-based screening is feasible and can be safely and cost-effectively introduced in established systematic programmes. Because of the 2 year time horizon of the trial and the long time frame of the disease, robust monitoring of attendance and retinopathy rates should be included in any future implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 87561257 FUNDING: The study was funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Graphical abstract.

Antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters for preventing neonatal bloodstream infection: the PREVAIL RCT.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials show that antimicrobial-impregnated central venous catheters reduce catheter-related bloodstream infection in adults and children receiving intensive care, but there is insufficient evidence for use in newborn babies. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were (1) to determine clinical effectiveness by conducting a randomised controlled trial comparing antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters for reducing bloodstream or cerebrospinal fluid infections (referred to as bloodstream infections); (2) to conduct an economic evaluation of the costs, cost-effectiveness and value of conducting additional research; and (3) to conduct a generalisability analysis of trial findings to neonatal care in the NHS. DESIGN: Three separate studies were undertaken, each addressing one of the three objectives. (1) This was a multicentre, open-label, pragmatic randomised controlled trial; (2) an analysis was undertaken of hospital care costs, lifetime cost-effectiveness and value of information from an NHS perspective; and (3) this was a retrospective cohort study of bloodstream infection rates in neonatal units in England. SETTING: The randomised controlled trial was conducted in 18 neonatal intensive care units in England. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were babies who required a peripherally inserted central venous catheter (of 1 French gauge in size). INTERVENTIONS: The interventions were an antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter (coated with rifampicin-miconazole) or a standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, allocated randomly (1 : 1) using web randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Study 1 - time to first bloodstream infection, sampled between 24 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal. Study 2 - cost-effectiveness of the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter compared with the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. Study 3 - risk-adjusted bloodstream rates in the trial compared with those in neonatal units in England. For study 3, the data used were as follows: (1) case report forms and linked death registrations; (2) case report forms and linked death registrations linked to administrative health records with 6-month follow-up; and (3) neonatal health records linked to infection surveillance data. RESULTS: Study 1, clinical effectiveness - 861 babies were randomised (antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n = 430; standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter, n = 431). Bloodstream infections occurred in 46 babies (10.7%) randomised to antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters and in 44 (10.2%) babies randomised to standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters. No difference in time to bloodstream infection was detected (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.67; p = 0.63). Secondary outcomes of rifampicin resistance in positive blood/cerebrospinal fluid cultures, mortality, clinical outcomes at neonatal unit discharge and time to peripherally inserted central venous catheter removal were similar in both groups. Rifampicin resistance in positive peripherally inserted central venous catheter tip cultures was higher in the antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheter group (relative risk 3.51, 95% confidence interval 1.16 to 10.57; p = 0.02) than in the standard peripherally inserted central venous catheter group. Adverse events were similar in both groups. Study 2, economic evaluation - the mean cost of babies' hospital care was £83,473. Antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters were not cost-effective. Given the increased price, compared with standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters, the minimum reduction in risk of bloodstream infection for antimicrobial-impregnated peripherally inserted central venous catheters to be cost-effective was 3% and 15% for babies born at 23-27 and 28-32 weeks' gestation, respectively. Study 3, generalisability analysis - risk-adjusted bloodstream infection rates per 1000 peripherally inserted central venous catheter days were similar among babies in the trial and in all neonatal units. Of all bloodstream infections in babies receiving intensive or high-dependency care in neonatal units, 46% occurred during peripherally inserted central venous catheter days. LIMITATIONS: The trial was open label as antimicrobial-impregnated and standard peripherally inserted central venous catheters are different colours. There was insufficient power to determine differences in rifampicin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence of benefit or harm was found of peripherally inserted central venous catheters impregnated with rifampicin-miconazole during neonatal care. Interventions with small effects on bloodstream infections could be cost-effective over a child's life course. Findings were generalisable to neonatal units in England. Future research should focus on other types of antimicrobial impregnation of peripherally inserted central venous catheters and alternative approaches for preventing bloodstream infections in neonatal care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN81931394. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 57. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Babies who are born too early or who are very sick require intensive care after birth and during early life. Most will have a long, narrow, plastic tube, called a catheter, inserted into a vein. The catheter is used to give babies fluids containing medicines and nutrition to keep them well and help them grow. The catheter can remain in place for several days or weeks. But the presence of plastic tubing in the vein increases the risk of infection. This study aimed to find out whether or not catheters coated with antimicrobial medicines, called rifampicin and miconazole, could reduce the risk of infection. These medicines act by stopping germs from growing on the catheter, but do not harm the baby or interfere with other treatments. A randomised controlled trial was carried out in 18 neonatal units in England. Whenever a baby needed a catheter, their parents were asked for consent to participate in the trial. The baby was then randomised, similar to tossing a coin, to receive either the antimicrobial catheter or a standard one. A total of 861 babies participated. We followed up all babies in the same way until after the catheter was removed to compare how often babies in each group had an infection. It was found that antimicrobial catheters were no better or worse at preventing infection than standard catheters. Antimicrobial catheters cost more and we found no evidence of benefit; these results suggest that their use in neonatal intensive care is not justified. It was calculated that further research on ways to reduce infection may be good value for money, depending on the costs of this research. The babies who took part in this study were typical of babies in England receiving catheters, meaning that the results can be applied across the NHS. Future research should focus on catheters that contain other types of antimicrobials and alternative ways of preventing infection.

Different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis: the SIRJIA mixed-methods feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, juvenile idiopathic arthritis is the most common inflammatory disorder in childhood, affecting 10 : 100,000 children and young people aged < 16 years each year, with a population prevalence of around 1 : 1000. Corticosteroids are commonly used to treat juvenile idiopathic arthritis; however, there is currently a lack of consensus as to which corticosteroid induction regimen should be used with various disease subtypes and severities of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. OBJECTIVE: The main study objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial to compare the different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study. Work packages included a literature review; qualitative interviews with children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and their families; a questionnaire survey and screening log to establish current UK practice; a consensus meeting with health-care professionals, children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and their families to establish the primary outcome; a feasibility study to pilot data capture and to collect data for future sample size calculations; and a final consensus meeting to establish the final protocol. SETTING: The setting was rheumatology clinics across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Children, young people and their families who attended clinics and health-care professionals took part in this mixed-methods study. INTERVENTIONS: This study observed methods of prescribing corticosteroids across the UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main study outcomes were the acceptability of a future trial for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals, and the feasibility of delivering such a trial. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews identified differences in the views of children, young people and their families on a randomised controlled trial and potential barriers to recruitment. A total of 297 participants were screened from 13 centres in just less than 6 months. In practice, all routes of corticosteroid administration were used, and in all subtypes of juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Intra-articular corticosteroid injection was the most common treatment. The questionnaire surveys showed the varying clinical practice across the UK, but established intra-articular corticosteroids as the treatment control for a future trial. The primary outcome of choice for children, young people, their families and health-care professionals was the Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count. However, results from the feasibility study showed that, owing to missing blood test data, the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score should be used. The Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score, 71-joint count, and the clinical Juvenile Arthritis Disease Activity Score are composite disease activity scoring systems for juvenile arthritis. Two final trial protocols were established for a future randomised controlled trial. LIMITATIONS: Fewer clinics were included in this feasibility study than originally planned, limiting the ability to draw strong conclusions about these units to take part in future research. CONCLUSIONS: A definitive randomised controlled trial is likely to be feasible based on the findings from this study; however, important recommendations should be taken into account when planning such a trial. FUTURE WORK: This mixed-methods study has laid down the foundations to develop the evidence base in this area and conducting a randomised control trial to compare different corticosteroid induction regimens in children and young people with juvenile idiopathic arthritis is likely to be feasible. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16649996. 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. 24, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ABOUT JUVENILE IDIOPATHIC ARTHRITIS: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis refers to a group of conditions that cause inflammation and damage of the joints, starting in children and young people aged < 16 years. Treatments include anti-inflammatory medicines, disease-modifying/biologic medicines and corticosteroids. Young people often require corticosteroids at the start of their treatment, or in a flare with worsening inflammation, to get their juvenile idiopathic arthritis under control. A short course of corticosteroids can help and can be given by injection into the joint, through a drip into a vein, by injection into the muscle or in the form of tablets or liquid to be taken orally. Although they have been used for decades, there is no research to show the best way(s) of giving corticosteroids. STUDY AIMS: The study aimed to (1) agree on what corticosteroid treatments to compare in a treatment trial and the best way to measure changes in juvenile idiopathic arthritis to evaluate a quick-acting treatment and (2) find out if there are enough young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis in the UK to be included in such a study. METHODS: Published research on corticosteroids in juvenile idiopathic arthritis was reviewed. Health-care professionals were asked how they choose which corticosteroids to use and which method of administration to use. Interviews were carried out with children and young people and their families to (1) consider the design of a study comparing corticosteroid routes, (2) identify outcomes important to them and (3) determine whether or not they would be willing to take part in a future study. A 3-month feasibility study was carried out to collect details of children and young people with active juvenile idiopathic arthritis before and after corticosteroid treatment to measure improvements in juvenile idiopathic arthritis activity, and to see whether or not a larger study would be possible. FINDINGS: This study showed that corticosteroids are used in different ways across the UK. The views of children, young people and their families must be taken into account when designing a future study. This study calculated the number of young people who would be needed to take part in the future, showing that it would be possible to do a larger study that compared different corticosteroid treatments, which would help everyone to understand the best way to use corticosteroids.

Silver-impregnated, antibiotic-impregnated or non-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts to prevent shunt infection: the BASICS three-arm RCT.

BACKGROUND: Insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt to treat hydrocephalus is one of the most common neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Shunt infection affects up to 15% of patients, resulting in long hospital stays, multiple surgeries and reduced cognition and quality of life. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this trial was to determine whether or not antibiotic-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as antibiotic shunts) (e.g. impregnated with rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as silver shunts) reduce infection compared with standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts (hereafter referred to as standard shunts). DESIGN: This was a three-arm, superiority, multicentre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Patients and a central primary outcome review panel, but not surgeons or operating staff, were blinded to the type of ventriculoperitoneal shunt inserted. SETTING: The trial was set in 21 neurosurgical wards across the UK and the Republic of Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology who were undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated 1 : 1 : 1 by pressure-sealed envelope to receive a standard non-impregnated, silver-impregnated or antibiotic-impregnated ventriculoperitoneal shunt at the time of insertion. Ventriculoperitoneal shunts are medical devices, and were used in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for their intended purpose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure due to infection. Secondary outcomes were time to failure for any cause, reason for failure (infection, mechanical), types of ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection, rate of infection after first clean (non-infected) revision and health economics. Outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. RESULTS: Between 26 June 2013 and 9 October 2017, 1605 patients from neonate to 91 years of age were randomised to the trial: n = 36 to the standard shunt, n = 538 to the antibiotic shunt and n = 531 to the silver shunt. Patients who did not receive a ventriculoperitoneal shunt (n = 4) or who had an infection at the time of insertion (n = 7) were not assessed for the primary outcome. Infection occurred in 6.0% (n = 32/533) of those who received the standard shunt, in 2.2% (n = 12/535) of those who received the antibiotic shunt and in 5.9% (n = 31/526) of those who received the silver shunt. Compared with the standard shunt, antibiotic shunts were associated with a lower rate of infection (cause-specific hazard ratio 0.38, 97.5% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.80) and a decreased probability of infection (subdistribution hazard ratio 0.38, 97.5% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.80). Silver shunts were not associated with a lower rate of infection than standard shunts (cause-specific hazard ratio 0.99, 97.5% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.74). The ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure rate attributable to any cause was 25.0% overall and did not differ between arms. Antibiotic shunts save £135,753 per infection avoided. There were no serious adverse events. LIMITATIONS: It was not possible to blind treating neurosurgeons to the ventriculoperitoneal shunt type. The return rate for patient-reported outcomes was low. Limitations to the economic evaluation included failure to obtain Hospital Episode Statistics data from NHS Digital, as per protocol. Reliance on patient-level information and costing systems data mitigated these limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic shunts have a reduced infection rate compared with standard shunts, whereas silver shunts do not. Antibiotic shunts are cost-saving. FUTURE WORK: A sample collection has been established that will enable the study of surrogate markers of ventriculoperitoneal shunt infection in cerebrospinal fluid or blood using molecular techniques. A post hoc analysis to study factors related to shunt failure will be performed as part of a future study. An impact analysis to assess change in practice is planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49474281. 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. 24, No. 17. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hydrocephalus (commonly known as 'water on the brain') is a condition that can affect all age groups, from babies to the elderly. In hydrocephalus, there is an accumulation of the normal brain fluid in the fluid cavities (ventricles) of the brain. Untreated, hydrocephalus can be life-threatening. The most common treatment involves an operation to insert a tube into the swollen ventricles to drain off the excess fluid. This is called a ventriculoperitoneal shunt. In the UK, 3000­3500 shunt operations are performed each year. The main risks of a shunt operation are infection (surgical meningitis) and blockage without infection. Infection results in the need for at least two further surgeries, antibiotic treatment and a prolonged hospital stay (minimum of 2 weeks). Shunt infections can affect mental abilities and can be life-threatening. People who have blockages without infection, on the other hand, usually need only a single operation to replace the blocked part and only a few days in hospital. Two new types of shunt catheter have been introduced to try to reduce shunt infection: antibiotic-impregnated shunts and silver-impregnated shunts. This study was designed to assess whether or not either of these new shunts reduce infection compared with standard shunts. This study also included an analysis of the cost and health benefits of the different shunts used. A total of 1605 children and adults, who were treated in neurosurgical units across the UK and the Republic of Ireland, participated in this study. Consent was provided by all participants in the trial. Each participant had an equal chance of receiving one of the three shunt types. Shunt infection occurred in 6% of participants receiving standard shunts, 5.9% of participants receiving silver-impregnated shunts and 2.2% of participants receiving antibiotic-impregnated shunts. This study has demonstrated a major reduction in shunt infections in new shunts when using antibiotic-impregnated shunts compared with standard or silver-impregnated shunts. A health economic analysis has indicated that antibiotic-impregnated shunts are cost-saving.

Antibiotic or silver versus standard ventriculoperitoneal shunts (BASICS): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Insertion of a ventriculoperitoneal shunt for hydrocephalus is one of the commonest neurosurgical procedures worldwide. Infection of the implanted shunt affects up to 15% of these patients, resulting in prolonged hospital treatment, multiple surgeries, and reduced cognition and quality of life. Our aim was to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antibiotic (rifampicin and clindamycin) or silver shunts compared with standard shunts at reducing infection. METHODS: In this parallel, multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included patients with hydrocephalus of any aetiology undergoing insertion of their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt irrespective of age at 21 regional adult and paediatric neurosurgery centres in the UK and Ireland. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1 in random permuted blocks of three or six) to receive standard shunts (standard shunt group), antibiotic-impregnated (0·15% clindamycin and 0·054% rifampicin; antibiotic shunt group), or silver-impregnated shunts (silver shunt group) through a randomisation sequence generated by an independent statistician. All patients and investigators who recorded and analysed the data were masked for group assignment, which was only disclosed to the neurosurgical staff at the time of operation. Participants receiving a shunt without evidence of infection at the time of insertion were followed up for at least 6 months and a maximum of 2 years. The primary outcome was time to shunt failure due the infection and was analysed with Fine and Gray survival regression models for competing risk by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ISRCTN 49474281. FINDINGS: Between June 26, 2013, and Oct 9, 2017, we assessed 3505 patients, of whom 1605 aged up to 91 years were randomly assigned to receive either a standard shunt (n=536), an antibiotic-impregnated shunt (n=538), or a silver shunt (n=531). 1594 had a shunt inserted without evidence of infection at the time of insertion (533 in the standard shunt group, 535 in the antibiotic shunt group, and 526 in the silver shunt group) and were followed up for a median of 22 months (IQR 10-24; 53 withdrew from follow-up). 32 (6%) of 533 evaluable patients in the standard shunt group had a shunt revision for infection, compared with 12 (2%) of 535 evaluable patients in the antibiotic shunt group (cause-specific hazard ratio [csHR] 0·38, 97·5% CI 0·18-0·80, p=0·0038) and 31 (6%) of 526 patients in the silver shunt group (0·99, 0·56-1·74, p=0·96). 135 (25%) patients in the standard shunt group, 127 (23%) in the antibiotic shunt group, and 134 (36%) in the silver shunt group had adverse events, which were not life-threatening and were mostly related to valve or catheter function. INTERPRETATION: The BASICS trial provides evidence to support the adoption of antibiotic shunts in UK patients who are having their first ventriculoperitoneal shunt insertion. This practice will benefit patients of all ages by reducing the risk and harm of shunt infection. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR study-rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial comparing annual and individualised risk-based variable-interval screening.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West - Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87561257; Pre-results.

CATheter Infections in CHildren (CATCH): a randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing impregnated and standard central venous catheters in children.

BACKGROUND: Impregnated central venous catheters (CVCs) are recommended for adults to reduce bloodstream infection (BSI) but not for children. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of impregnated compared with standard CVCs for reducing BSI in children admitted for intensive care. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled trial, cost-effectiveness analysis from a NHS perspective and a generalisability analysis and cost impact analysis. SETTING: 14 English paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) in England. PARTICIPANTS: Children aged < 16 years admitted to a PICU and expected to require a CVC for ≥ 3 days. INTERVENTIONS: Heparin-bonded, antibiotic-impregnated (rifampicin and minocycline) or standard polyurethane CVCs, allocated randomly (1 : 1 : 1). The intervention was blinded to all but inserting clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Time to first BSI sampled between 48 hours after randomisation and 48 hours after CVC removal. The following data were used in the trial: trial case report forms; hospital administrative data for 6 months pre and post randomisation; and national-linked PICU audit and laboratory data. RESULTS: In total, 1859 children were randomised, of whom 501 were randomised prospectively and 1358 were randomised as an emergency; of these, 984 subsequently provided deferred consent for follow-up. Clinical effectiveness - BSIs occurred in 3.59% (18/502) of children randomised to standard CVCs, 1.44% (7/486) of children randomised to antibiotic CVCs and 3.42% (17/497) of children randomised to heparin CVCs. Primary analyses comparing impregnated (antibiotic and heparin CVCs) with standard CVCs showed no effect of impregnated CVCs [hazard ratio (HR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 1.34]. Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic CVCs were superior to standard CVCs (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.96) but heparin CVCs were not (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.03). Time to thrombosis, mortality by 30 days and minocycline/rifampicin resistance did not differ by CVC. Cost-effectiveness - heparin CVCs were not clinically effective and therefore were not cost-effective. The incremental cost of antibiotic CVCs compared with standard CVCs over a 6-month time horizon was £1160 (95% CI -£4743 to £6962), with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £54,057 per BSI avoided. There was considerable uncertainty in costs: antibiotic CVCs had a probability of 0.35 of being dominant. Based on index hospital stay costs only, antibiotic CVCs were associated with a saving of £97,543 per BSI averted. The estimated value of health-care resources associated with each BSI was £10,975 (95% CI -£2801 to £24,751). Generalisability and cost-impact - the baseline risk of BSI in 2012 for PICUs in England was 4.58 (95% CI 4.42 to 4.74) per 1000 bed-days. An estimated 232 BSIs could have been averted in 2012 using antibiotic CVCs. The additional cost of purchasing antibiotic CVCs for all children who require them (£36 per CVC) would be less than the value of resources associated with managing BSIs in PICUs with standard BSI rates of > 1.2 per 1000 CVC-days. CONCLUSIONS: The primary outcome did not differ between impregnated and standard CVCs. However, antibiotic-impregnated CVCs significantly reduced the risk of BSI compared with standard and heparin CVCs. Adoption of antibiotic-impregnated CVCs could be beneficial even for PICUs with low BSI rates, although uncertainty remains whether or not they represent value for money to the NHS. Limitations - inserting clinicians were not blinded to allocation and a lower than expected event rate meant that there was limited power for head-to-head comparisons of each type of impregnation. Future work - adoption of impregnated CVCs in PICUs should be considered and could be monitored through linkage of electronic health-care data and clinical data on CVC use with laboratory surveillance data on BSI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01029717. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Impregnated central venous catheters for prevention of bloodstream infection in children (the CATCH trial): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Impregnated central venous catheters are recommended for adults to reduce bloodstream infections but not for children because there is not enough evidence to prove they are effective. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of any type of impregnation (antibiotic or heparin) compared with standard central venous catheters to prevent bloodstream infections in children needing intensive care. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled trial of children admitted to 14 English paediatric intensive care units. Children younger than 16 years were eligible if they were admitted or being prepared for admission to a participating paediatric intensive care unit and were expected to need a central venous catheter for 3 or more days. Children were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a central venous catheter impregnated with antibiotics, a central venous catheter impregnated with heparin, or a standard central venous catheter with computer generated randomisation in blocks of three and six, stratified by method of consent, site, and envelope storage location within the site. The clinician responsible for inserting the central venous catheter was not masked to allocation, but allocation was concealed from patients, their parents, and the paediatric intensive care unit personnel responsible for their care. The primary outcome was time to first bloodstream infection between 48 h after randomisation and 48 h after central venous catheter removal with impregnated (antibiotic or heparin) versus standard central venous catheters, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses compared central venous catheter-related adverse events in the subset of children for whom central venous catheter insertion was attempted (per-protocol population). This trial is registered with ISRCTN number, ISRCTN34884569. FINDINGS: Between Nov 25, 2010, and Nov 30, 2012, 1485 children were recruited to this study. We randomly assigned 502 children to receive standard central venous catheters, 486 to receive antibiotic-impregnated catheters, and 497 to receive heparin-impregnated catheters. Bloodstream infection occurred in 18 (4%) of those in the standard catheters group, 7 (1%) in the antibiotic-impregnated group, and 17 (3%) assigned to heparin-impregnated catheters. Primary analyses showed no effect of impregnated (antibiotic or heparin) catheters compared with standard central venous catheters (hazard ratio [HR] for time to first bloodstream infection 0.71, 95% CI 0.37-1.34). Secondary analyses showed that antibiotic central venous catheters were better than standard central venous catheters (HR 0.43, 0.20-0.96) and heparin central venous catheters (HR 0.42, 0.19-0.93), but heparin did not differ from standard central venous catheters (HR 1.04, 0.53-2.03). Clinically important and statistically significant absolute risk differences were identified only for antibiotic-impregnated catheters versus standard catheters (-2.15%, 95% CI -4.09 to -0.20; number needed to treat [NNT] 47, 95% CI 25-500) and antibiotic-impregnated catheters versus heparin-impregnated catheters (-1.98%, -3.90 to -0.06, NNT 51, 26-1667). Nine children (2%) in the standard central venous catheter group, 14 (3%) in the antibiotic-impregnated group, and 8 (2%) in the heparin-impregnated group had catheter-related adverse events. 45 (8%) in the standard group, 35 (8%) antibiotic-impregnated group, and 29 (6%) in the heparin-impregnated group died during the study. INTERPRETATION: Antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters significantly reduced the risk of bloodstream infections compared with standard and heparin central venous catheters. Widespread use of antibiotic-impregnated central venous catheters could help prevent bloodstream infections in paediatric intensive care units. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK.