Clinical and cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy for insomnia in primary care (HABIT): a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563). FINDINGS: Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19-88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference -3·05, 95% CI -3·83 to -2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d -0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention. INTERPRETATION: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites. FINDINGS: 6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4-73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5-80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1-98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2-71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1-98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0-34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5-98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 85·2% (95% CI 79·8-89·3) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1-90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2-99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer. INTERPRETATION: This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms. FUNDING: GRAIL Bio UK.

Additional consensus recommendations for conducting complex innovative trials of oncology agents: a post-pandemic perspective.

In our 2020 consensus paper, we devised ten recommendations for conducting Complex Innovative Design (CID) trials to evaluate cancer drugs. Within weeks of its publication, the UK was hit by the first wave of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Large CID trials were prioritised to compare the efficacy of new and repurposed COVID-19 treatments and inform regulatory decisions. The unusual circumstances of the pandemic meant studies such as RECOVERY were opened almost immediately and recruited record numbers of participants. However, trial teams were required to make concessions and adaptations to these studies to ensure recruitment was rapid and broad. As these are relevant to cancer trials that enrol patients with similar risk factors, we have added three new recommendations to our original ten: employing pragmatism such as using focused information sheets and collection of only the most relevant data; minimising negative environmental impacts with paperless systems; and using direct-to-patient communication methods to improve uptake. These recommendations can be applied to all oncology CID trials to improve their inclusivity, uptake and efficiency. Above all, the success of CID studies during the COVID-19 pandemic underscores their efficacy as tools for rapid treatment evaluation.

Injection fears and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.

BACKGROUND: When vaccination depends on injection, it is plausible that the blood-injection-injury cluster of fears may contribute to hesitancy. Our primary aim was to estimate in the UK adult population the proportion of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy explained by blood-injection-injury fears. METHODS: In total, 15 014 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income and region, took part (19 January-5 February 2021) in a non-probability online survey. The Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale assessed intent to be vaccinated. Two scales (Specific Phobia Scale-blood-injection-injury phobia and Medical Fear Survey-injections and blood subscale) assessed blood-injection-injury fears. Four items from these scales were used to create a factor score specifically for injection fears. RESULTS: In total, 3927 (26.2%) screened positive for blood-injection-injury phobia. Individuals screening positive (22.0%) were more likely to report COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to individuals screening negative (11.5%), odds ratio = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.97-2.40, p < 0.001. The population attributable fraction (PAF) indicated that if blood-injection-injury phobia were absent then this may prevent 11.5% of all instances of vaccine hesitancy, AF = 0.11; 95% CI 0.09-0.14, p < 0.001. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was associated with higher scores on the Specific Phobia Scale, r = 0.22, p < 0.001, Medical Fear Survey, r = 0.23, p = <0.001 and injection fears, r = 0.25, p < 0.001. Injection fears were higher in youth and in Black and Asian ethnic groups, and explained a small degree of why vaccine hesitancy is higher in these groups. CONCLUSIONS: Across the adult population, blood-injection-injury fears may explain approximately 10% of cases of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Addressing such fears will likely improve the effectiveness of vaccination programmes.

Virtual reality (VR) therapy for patients with psychosis: satisfaction and side effects.

BACKGROUND: Automated virtual reality therapies are being developed to increase access to psychological interventions. We assessed the experience with one such therapy of patients diagnosed with psychosis, including satisfaction, side effects, and positive experiences of access to the technology. We tested whether side effects affected therapy. METHODS: In a clinical trial 122 patients diagnosed with psychosis completed baseline measures of psychiatric symptoms, received gameChange VR therapy, and then completed a satisfaction questionnaire, the Oxford-VR Side Effects Checklist, and outcome measures. RESULTS: 79 (65.8%) patients were very satisfied with VR therapy, 37 (30.8%) were mostly satisfied, 3 (2.5%) were indifferent/mildly dissatisfied, and 1 (0.8%) person was quite dissatisfied. The most common side effects were: difficulties concentrating because of thinking about what might be happening in the room (n = 17, 14.2%); lasting headache (n = 10, 8.3%); and the headset causing feelings of panic (n = 9, 7.4%). Side effects formed three factors: difficulties concentrating when wearing a headset, feelings of panic using VR, and worries following VR. The occurrence of side effects was not associated with number of VR sessions, therapy outcomes, or psychiatric symptoms. Difficulties concentrating in VR were associated with slightly lower satisfaction. VR therapy provision and engagement made patients feel: proud (n = 99, 81.8%); valued (n = 97, 80.2%); and optimistic (n = 96, 79.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with psychosis were generally very positive towards the VR therapy, valued having the opportunity to try the technology, and experienced few adverse effects. Side effects did not significantly impact VR therapy. Patient experience of VR is likely to facilitate widespread adoption.

The Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale.

BACKGROUND: Agoraphobic avoidance of everyday situations is a common feature in many mental health disorders. Avoidance can be due to a variety of fears, including concerns about negative social evaluation, panicking, and harm from others. The result is inactivity and isolation. Behavioural avoidance tasks (BATs) provide an objective assessment of avoidance and in situ anxiety but are challenging to administer and lack standardisation. Our aim was to draw on the principles of BATs to develop a self-report measure of agoraphobia symptoms. METHOD: The scale was developed with 194 patients with agoraphobia in the context of psychosis, 427 individuals in the general population with high levels of agoraphobia, and 1094 individuals with low levels of agoraphobia. Factor analysis, item response theory, and receiver operating characteristic analyses were used. Validity was assessed against a BAT, actigraphy data, and an existing agoraphobia measure. Test-retest reliability was assessed with 264 participants. RESULTS: An eight-item questionnaire with avoidance and distress response scales was developed. The avoidance and distress scales each had an excellent model fit and reliably assessed agoraphobic symptoms across the severity spectrum. All items were highly discriminative (avoidance: a = 1.24-5.43; distress: a = 1.60-5.48), indicating that small increases in agoraphobic symptoms led to a high probability of item endorsement. The scale demonstrated good internal reliability, test-retest reliability, and validity. CONCLUSIONS: The Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale has excellent psychometric properties. Clinical cut-offs and score ranges are provided. This precise assessment tool may help focus attention on the clinically important problem of agoraphobic avoidance.

Inhaled Budesonide for COVID-19 in People at Higher Risk of Complications in the Community: The UK National Community Randomi.

Background The effectiveness of repurposed treatments with supportive evidence for higher risk individuals with COVID-19 in the community is unknown. In the UK PRINCIPLE national platform trial we aimed to determine whether 're-purposed medicines' (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, doxycycline, colchicine, inhaled budesonide, and other interventions) reduced time to recovery and COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths among people at higher risk of COVID-19 complications in the community. We mainly report the findings for budesonide arm here. Methods Participants in this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial were aged ≥65, or ≥50 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery, and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Trial registration: ISRCTN86534580. Funded by United Kingdom Research Innovation (MC_PC_19079). Findings The trial opened on April 2, 2020, with the first 4 intervention arms stopped on futility grounds. Randomisation to the budesonide arm occurred from November 27, 2020 until March 31, 2021, when the pre-specified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants, randomised to budesonide (n=787), usual care (n=1069), and other treatments (n=674). Time to first self-reported recovery was shorter in the budesonide group versus usual care (hazard ratio 1·21 [95% credible interval 1·08 to 1·36], probability of superiority >O·999, estimated benefit 2·94 [95% credible interval 1·19 to 5·12] days). An estimated 6·8% COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the budesonide group versus 8·8% in usual care (estimated absolute difference, 2·0% [95% credible interval -0.2% to 4.5%], probability of superiority 0.963). In the main secondary analysis of admissions using only concurrent controls, admissions occurred in 6.6% (3.8 to 10.1%) in the budesonide group versus 8.8% (95% CI 5.2 to 13.1%), with an absolute difference of 2.2% (0.0 to 4.9%) and a hazard ratio of 0.73 (0.53 to 1.00), meeting the pre-specified superiority probability of 0.975. Three serious adverse events occurred in the budesonide group and three in usual care.

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.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision. METHODS: A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships. RESULTS: 71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

Is Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home an Alternative to Hospital Admission for Older Persons? : A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Delivering hospital-level care with comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the home is one approach to deal with the increased demand for bed-based hospital care, but clinical effectiveness is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical effectiveness of admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) with CGA for older persons. DESIGN: Multisite randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN60477865). SETTING: 9 hospital and community sites in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: 1055 older persons who were medically unwell, were physiologically stable, and were referred for a hospital admission. INTERVENTION: Admission avoidance HAH with CGA versus hospital admission with CGA when available using 2:1 randomization. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of living at home was measured at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were new admission to long-term residential care, death, health status, delirium, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 83.3 years (SD, 7.0). At 6-month follow-up, 528 of 672 (78.6%) participants in the CGA HAH group versus 247 of 328 (75.3%) participants in the hospital group were living at home (relative risk [RR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.15]; P = 0.36); 114 of 673 (16.9%) versus 58 of 328 (17.7%) had died (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P = 0.92); and 37 of 646 (5.7%) versus 27 of 311 (8.7%) were in long-term residential care (RR, 0.58 [CI, 0.45 to 0.76]; P < 0.001). LIMITATION: The findings are most applicable to older persons referred from a hospital short-stay acute medical assessment unit; episodes of delirium may have been undetected. CONCLUSION: Admission avoidance HAH with CGA led to similar outcomes as hospital admission in the proportion of older persons living at home as well as a decrease in admissions to long-term residential care at 6 months. This type of service can provide an alternative to hospitalization for selected older persons. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (12/209/66).

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Blood Pressure Control in Pregnant Individuals With Chronic or Gestational Hypertension: The BUMP 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. The role of blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy in improving clinical outcomes for the pregnant individual and infant is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the effect of blood pressure self-monitoring, compared with usual care alone, on blood pressure control and other related maternal and infant outcomes, in individuals with pregnancy hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that recruited between November 2018 and September 2019 in 15 hospital maternity units in England. Individuals with chronic hypertension (enrolled up to 37 weeks' gestation) or with gestational hypertension (enrolled between 20 and 37 weeks' gestation). Final follow-up was in May 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized to either blood pressure self-monitoring using a validated monitor and a secure telemonitoring system in addition to usual care (n = 430) or to usual care alone (n = 420). Usual care comprised blood pressure measured by health care professionals at regular antenatal clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary maternal outcome was the difference in mean systolic blood pressure recorded by health care professionals between randomization and birth. Results: Among 454 participants with chronic hypertension (mean age, 36 years; mean gestation at entry, 20 weeks) and 396 with gestational hypertension (mean age, 34 years; mean gestation at entry, 33 weeks) who were randomized, primary outcome data were available from 444 (97.8%) and 377 (95.2%), respectively. In the chronic hypertension cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure for the self-monitoring groups vs the usual care group (133.8 mm Hg vs 133.6 mm Hg, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -1.73 to 1.79]). In the gestational hypertension cohort, there was also no significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure (137.6 mm Hg compared with 137.2 mm Hg; adjusted mean difference, -0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.29 to 2.24]). There were 8 serious adverse events in the self-monitoring group (4 in each cohort) and 3 in the usual care group (2 in the chronic hypertension cohort and 1 in the gestational hypertension cohort). Conclusions and Relevance: Among pregnant individuals with chronic or gestational hypertension, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly improved clinic-based blood pressure control. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Diagnosis of Hypertension During Higher-Risk Pregnancy: The BUMP 1 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure (BP) is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. Self-monitoring of BP in the general population has been shown to improve the diagnosis and management of hypertension; however, little is known about its use in pregnancy. Objective: To determine whether self-monitoring of BP in higher-risk pregnancies leads to earlier detection of pregnancy hypertension. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that included 2441 pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia and recruited at a mean of 20 weeks' gestation from 15 hospital maternity units in England between November 2018 and October 2019. Final follow-up was completed in April 2020. Interventions: Participating individuals were randomized to either BP self-monitoring with telemonitoring (n = 1223) plus usual care or usual antenatal care alone (n = 1218) without access to telemonitored BP. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to first recorded hypertension measured by a health care professional. Results: Among 2441 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 33 [5.6] years; mean gestation, 20 [1.6] weeks), 2346 (96%) completed the trial. The time from randomization to clinic recording of hypertension was not significantly different between individuals in the self-monitoring group (mean [SD], 104.3 [32.6] days) vs in the usual care group (mean [SD], 106.2 [32.0] days) (mean difference, -1.6 days [95% CI, -8.1 to 4.9]; P = .64). Eighteen serious adverse events were reported during the trial with none judged as related to the intervention (12 [1%] in the self-monitoring group vs 6 [0.5%] in the usual care group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly earlier clinic-based detection of hypertension. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

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.

Development and internal validation of a prognostic model for mortality of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair.

Background: Morbidity and mortality associated with elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) must be balanced against the impending risk of aneurysm rupture and the estimated remaining lifetime. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a prognostic model for mortality of patients with AAA treated with EVAR. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 251 consecutive patients treated with EVAR for asymptomatic AAA between January 2001 and December 2012 at the University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland. Pre-selection of variables was based on a literature review; least absolute shrinkage and selection operator technique was used for the final variable selection. A Firth's bias reduced Cox proportional hazard model was developed and validated using 10,000 bootstrap samples to predict survival after EVAR. Results: The median follow-up time was 5.3 years (range 0.1 to 15.9). At the study closing date 95% of follow-up information was available. The mortality rates were 31.9% at 5 years and 50.5% at the study closing date, respectively. Identified predictors for overall mortality after EVAR were age, hazard ratio (HR) = 2.24 per 10-year increase (95% CI 1.64 to 3.09), the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), HR = 2.22 (95% CI 1.48 to 3.31), and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, HR = 1.24 per 10 ml/min/1.73 m2 decrease (95% CI 1.12 to 1.39). The model showed good discrimination ability, Harrell's C = 0.722 (95% CI 0.667 to 0.778) and was very robust in the bootstrap in-sample validation Harrell's C = 0.726 (95% CI 0.662 to 0.788). Conclusion: Higher age, the presence of COPD and impaired kidney function are independent predictors for impaired survival after EVAR. The expected remaining lifetime should be considered in patients with AAA. This prognostic model can help improving patient care; however, external validation is needed prior to clinical implementation.

Prospective validation of the RAPID clinical risk prediction score in adult patients with pleural infection: the PILOT study.

BACKGROUND: Over 30% of adult patients with pleural infection either die and/or require surgery. There is no robust means of predicting at baseline presentation which patients will suffer a poor clinical outcome. A validated risk prediction score would allow early identification of high-risk patients, potentially directing more aggressive treatment thereafter. OBJECTIVES: To prospectively assess a previously described risk score (the RAPID (Renal (urea), Age, fluid Purulence, Infection source, Dietary (albumin)) score) in adults with pleural infection. METHODS: Prospective observational cohort study that recruited patients undergoing treatment for pleural infection. RAPID score and risk category were calculated at baseline presentation. The primary outcome was mortality at 3 months; secondary outcomes were mortality at 12 months, length of hospital stay, need for thoracic surgery, failure of medical treatment and lung function at 3 months. RESULTS: Mortality data were available in 542 out of 546 patients recruited (99.3%). Overall mortality was 10% at 3 months (54 out of 542) and 19% at 12 months (102 out of 542). The RAPID risk category predicted mortality at 3 months. Low-risk mortality (RAPID score 0-2): five out of 222 (2.3%, 95% CI 0.9 to 5.7%); medium-risk mortality (RAPID score 3-4): 21 out of 228 (9.2%, 95% CI 6.0 to 13.7%); and high-risk mortality (RAPID score 5-7): 27 out of 92 (29.3%, 95% CI 21.0 to 39.2%). C-statistics for the scores at 3 months and 12 months were 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.82), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The RAPID score stratifies adults with pleural infection according to increasing risk of mortality and should inform future research directed at improving outcomes in this patient population.

A Delphi study to establish consensus on a definition of major bleeding in adult trauma.

BACKGROUND: The majority of potentially preventable deaths in trauma are due to uncontrolled hemorrhage and occur early after injury. How major bleeding is defined is integral to early identification and treatment of this group of high-risk patients. However, there is no consensus on a definition of major bleeding in trauma. The aim of this Delphi study was to develop a consensus definition for research, with transfusion used as a surrogate marker of bleeding. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Trauma experts from three international groups were invited to take part in an online Delphi survey. Over the course of four rounds, the group developed a number of definitions of major bleeding and reached consensus on a new definition. RESULTS: Forty-four trauma experts agreed to become members of the Delphi panel, and 30 of 44 (68%) completed all four rounds. The panel agreed to exclude the historical massive transfusion definition (≥10 units of red blood cells within 24 hours). Consensus was reached on a new definition for use in clinical research: 4 or more units of any blood component within 2 hours of injury. CONCLUSION: This Delphi process has yielded a pragmatic transfusion-based definition of major bleeding. The consensus definition differs from historical definitions: a shorter time frame to reflect the acuity of bleeding, and multiple blood components in keeping with a balanced approach to resuscitation. The definition developed may be best suited to mature trauma systems (reflecting the demographics of the expert panel), and could be used to guide registry data recording and to characterize patients at risk of major bleeding.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Self-Guided Internet Intervention for Social Anxiety Symptoms in a General Population Sample: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many people are accessing digital self-help for mental health problems, often with little evidence of effectiveness. Social anxiety is one of the most common sources of mental distress in the population, and many people with symptoms do not seek help for what represents a significant public health problem. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-guided cognitive behavioral internet intervention for people with social anxiety symptoms in the general population. METHODS: We conducted a two-group randomized controlled trial in England between May 11, 2016, and June 27, 2018. Adults with social anxiety symptoms who were not receiving treatment for social anxiety were recruited using online advertisements. All participants had unrestricted access to usual care and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a Web-based unguided self-help intervention based on cognitive behavioral principles or a waiting list control group. All outcomes were collected through self-report online questionnaires. The primary outcome was the change in 17-item Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN-17) score from baseline to 6 weeks using a linear mixed-effect model that used data from all time points (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). RESULTS: A total of 2122 participants were randomized, and 6 were excluded from analyses because they were ineligible. Of the 2116 eligible randomized participants (mean age 37 years; 80.24%, 1698/2116 women), 70.13% (1484/2116) had follow-up data available for analysis, and 56.95% (1205/2116) had data on the primary outcome, although attrition was higher in the intervention arm. At 6 weeks, the mean (95% CI) adjusted difference in change in SPIN-17 score in the intervention group compared with control was -1.94 (-3.13 to -0.75; P=.001), a standardized mean difference effect size of 0.2. The improvement was maintained at 12 months. Given the high dropout rate, sensitivity analyses explored missing data assumptions, with results that were consistent with those of the primary analysis. The economic evaluation demonstrated cost-effectiveness with a small health status benefit and a reduction in health service utilization. CONCLUSIONS: For people with social anxiety symptoms who are not receiving other forms of help, this study suggests that the use of an online self-help tool based on cognitive behavioral principles can provide a small improvement in social anxiety symptoms compared with no intervention, although dropout rates were high. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02451878; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02451878.

Effect of Antihypertensive Medication Reduction vs Usual Care on Short-term Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Hypertension Aged 80 Years and Older: The OPTIMISE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity when the benefits of continued treatment may not outweigh the harms. Objective: This study aimed to establish whether antihypertensive medication reduction is possible without significant changes in systolic blood pressure control or adverse events during 12-week follow-up. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Optimising Treatment for Mild Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly (OPTIMISE) study was a randomized, unblinded, noninferiority trial conducted in 69 primary care sites in England. Participants, whose primary care physician considered them appropriate for medication reduction, were aged 80 years and older, had systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg, and were receiving at least 2 antihypertensive medications were included. Participants enrolled between April 2017 and September 2018 and underwent follow-up until January 2019. Interventions: Participants were randomized (1:1 ratio) to a strategy of antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of 1 drug [intervention], n = 282) or usual care (control, n = 287), in which no medication changes were mandated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12-week follow-up. The prespecified noninferiority margin was a relative risk (RR) of 0.90. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of participants maintaining medication reduction and differences in blood pressure, frailty, quality of life, adverse effects, and serious adverse events. Results: Among 569 patients randomized (mean age, 84.8 years; 276 [48.5%] women; median of 2 antihypertensive medications prescribed at baseline), 534 (93.8%) completed the trial. Overall, 229 (86.4%) patients in the intervention group and 236 (87.7%) patients in the control group had a systolic blood pressure lower than 150 mm Hg at 12 weeks (adjusted RR, 0.98 [97.5% 1-sided CI, 0.92 to ∞]). Of 7 prespecified secondary end points, 5 showed no significant difference. Medication reduction was sustained in 187 (66.3%) participants at 12 weeks. Mean change in systolic blood pressure was 3.4 mm Hg (95% CI, 1.1 to 5.8 mm Hg) higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. Twelve (4.3%) participants in the intervention group and 7 (2.4%) in the control group reported at least 1 serious adverse event (adjusted RR, 1.72 [95% CI, 0.7 to 4.3]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among older patients treated with multiple antihypertensive medications, a strategy of medication reduction, compared with usual care, was noninferior with regard to systolic blood pressure control at 12 weeks. The findings suggest antihypertensive medication reduction in some older patients with hypertension is not associated with substantial change in blood pressure control, although further research is needed to understand long-term clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: EudraCT Identifier: 2016-004236-38; ISRCTN identifier: 97503221.

Efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for titration of antihypertensive medication (TASMINH4): an unmasked randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies evaluating titration of antihypertensive medication using self-monitoring give contradictory findings and the precise place of telemonitoring over self-monitoring alone is unclear. The TASMINH4 trial aimed to assess the efficacy of self-monitored blood pressure, with or without telemonitoring, for antihypertensive titration in primary care, compared with usual care. METHODS: This study was a parallel randomised controlled trial done in 142 general practices in the UK, and included hypertensive patients older than 35 years, with blood pressure higher than 140/90 mm Hg, who were willing to self-monitor their blood pressure. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to self-monitoring blood pressure (self-montoring group), to self-monitoring blood pressure with telemonitoring (telemonitoring group), or to usual care (clinic blood pressure; usual care group). Randomisation was by a secure web-based system. Neither participants nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was clinic measured systolic blood pressure at 12 months from randomisation. Primary analysis was of available cases. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN 83571366. FINDINGS: 1182 participants were randomly assigned to the self-monitoring group (n=395), the telemonitoring group (n=393), or the usual care group (n=394), of whom 1003 (85%) were included in the primary analysis. After 12 months, systolic blood pressure was lower in both intervention groups compared with usual care (self-monitoring, 137·0 [SD 16·7] mm Hg and telemonitoring, 136·0 [16·1] mm Hg vs usual care, 140·4 [16·5]; adjusted mean differences vs usual care: self-monitoring alone, -3·5 mm Hg [95% CI -5·8 to -1·2]; telemonitoring, -4·7 mm Hg [-7·0 to -2·4]). No difference between the self-monitoring and telemonitoring groups was recorded (adjusted mean difference -1·2 mm Hg [95% CI -3·5 to 1·2]). Results were similar in sensitivity analyses including multiple imputation. Adverse events were similar between all three groups. INTERPRETATION: Self-monitoring, with or without telemonitoring, when used by general practitioners to titrate antihypertensive medication in individuals with poorly controlled blood pressure, leads to significantly lower blood pressure than titration guided by clinic readings. With most general practitioners and many patients using self-monitoring, it could become the cornerstone of hypertension management in primary care. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research via Programme Grant for Applied Health Research (RP-PG-1209-10051), Professorship to RJM (NIHR-RP-R2-12-015), Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, and Omron Healthcare UK.

Screening and brief intervention for obesity in primary care: cost-effectiveness analysis in the BWeL trial.

BACKGROUND: The Brief Intervention for Weight Loss Trial enrolled 1882 consecutively attending primary care patients who were obese and participants were randomised to physicians opportunistically endorsing, offering, and facilitating a referral to a weight loss programme (support) or recommending weight loss (advice). After one year, the support group lost 1.4 kg more (95%CI 0.9 to 2.0): 2.4 kg versus 1.0 kg. We use a cohort simulation to predict effects on disease incidence, quality of life, and healthcare costs over 20 years. METHODS: Randomly sampling from the trial population, we created a virtual cohort of 20 million adults and assigned baseline morbidity. We applied the weight loss observed in the trial and assumed weight regain over four years. Using epidemiological data, we assigned the incidence of 12 weight-related diseases depending on baseline disease status, age, gender, body mass index. From a healthcare perspective, we calculated the quality adjusted life years (QALYs) accruing and calculated the incremental difference between trial arms in costs expended in delivering the intervention and healthcare costs accruing. We discounted future costs and benefits at 1.5% over 20 years. RESULTS: Compared with advice, the support intervention reduced the cumulative incidence of weight-related disease by 722/100,000 people, 0.33% of all weight-related disease. The incremental cost of support over advice was £2.01million/100,000. However, the support intervention reduced health service costs by £5.86 million/100,000 leading to a net saving of £3.85 million/100,000. The support intervention produced 992 QALYs/100,000 people relative to advice. CONCLUSIONS: A brief intervention in which physicians opportunistically endorse, offer, and facilitate a referral to a behavioural weight management service to patients with a BMI of at least 30 kg/m2 reduces healthcare costs and improves health more than advising weight loss.