Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis: the EASI-SWITCH RCT.

Background: Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy. Objectives: To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications. Design: A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care. Setting: Nineteen UK oncology centres. Participants: Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for < 24 hours were eligible. Patients with acute leukaemia or stem cell transplant were excluded. Intervention: Early switch to oral ciprofloxacin (750 mg twice daily) and co-amoxiclav (625 mg three times daily) within 12-24 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics to complete 5 days treatment in total. Control was standard care, that is, continuation of intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 hours with ongoing treatment at physician discretion. Main outcome measures: Treatment failure, a composite measure assessed at day 14 based on the following criteria: fever persistence or recurrence within 72 hours of starting intravenous antibiotics; escalation from protocolised antibiotics; critical care support or death. Results: The study was closed early due to under-recruitment with 129 patients recruited; hence, a definitive conclusion regarding non-inferiority cannot be made. Sixty-five patients were randomised to the early switch arm and 64 to the standard care arm with subsequent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses including 125 (intervention n = 61 and control n = 64) and 113 (intervention n = 53 and control n = 60) patients, respectively. In the intention-to-treat population the treatment failure rates were 14.1% in the control group and 24.6% in the intervention group, difference = 10.5% (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.22). In the per-protocol population the treatment failure rates were 13.3% and 17.7% in control and intervention groups, respectively; difference = 3.7% (95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.148). Treatment failure predominantly consisted of persistence or recurrence of fever and/or physician-directed escalation from protocolised antibiotics with no critical care admissions or deaths. The median length of stay was shorter in the intervention group and adverse events reported were similar in both groups. Patients, particularly those with care-giving responsibilities, expressed a preference for early switch. However, differences in health-related quality of life and health resource use were small and not statistically significant. Conclusions: Non-inferiority for early oral switch could not be proven due to trial under-recruitment. The findings suggest this may be an acceptable treatment strategy for some patients who can adhere to such a treatment regimen and would prefer a potentially reduced duration of hospitalisation while accepting increased risk of treatment failure resulting in re-admission. Further research should explore tools for patient stratification for low-risk de-escalation or ambulatory pathways including use of biomarkers and/or point-of-care rapid microbiological testing as an adjunct to clinical decision-making tools. This could include application to shorter-duration antimicrobial therapy in line with other antimicrobial stewardship studies. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN84288963. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 13/140/05) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 14. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Neutropenic sepsis, or infection with a low white blood cell count, can occur following cancer treatment. Usually patients receive treatment with intravenous antibiotics (antibiotics delivered into a vein) for two or more days. Patients at low risk of complications from their infection may be able to have a shorter period of intravenous antibiotics benefitting both patients and the NHS. The trial compared whether changing from intravenous to oral antibiotics (antibiotics taken by mouth as tablets or liquid) 12­24 hours after starting antibiotic treatment ('early switch') is as effective as usual care. Patients could take part if they had started intravenous antibiotics for low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients were randomly allocated to 'early switch' or to usual care. The main outcome measured was treatment failure. Treatment failure happened if fever persisted or recurred despite antibiotics, if patients needed to change antibiotics, if they needed to be re-admitted to hospital or needed to be admitted to intensive care within 14 days or died. We had originally intended that 628 patients would take part, but after review of the design of the study the number needed to take part was revised to 230. We were not able to complete the trial as planned as unfortunately only 129 patients took part. As the trial was smaller than expected we were not able to draw conclusions as to whether 'early switch' is no less effective than usual care. Our findings suggest that 'early switch' might result in a shorter time in hospital initially; however, treatment failure was more likely to occur, meaning some patients had to return to hospital for further antibiotics. There were no differences in side effects and no serious complications from treatment or treatment failure (such as intensive care admission or death) among the 65 patients in the 'early switch' group. Patients were satisfied with 'early switch'. Early switch may be a treatment option for some patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis who would prefer a shorter duration of hospital admission but accept a risk of needing hospital re-admission.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime).

BACKGROUND: For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy (use of multiple medications) is a standard practice. PolyPrime is a theory-based intervention developed to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aimed to recruit 12 general practitioner (GP) practices (six in NI; six in the ROI counties that border NI) and ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) per GP practice (n = 120). Practices allocated to the intervention arm watched an online video and scheduled medication reviews with patients on two occasions. We assessed the feasibility of collecting GP record (medication appropriateness, health service use) and patient self-reported data [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health service use)] at baseline, 6 and 9 months. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and medication-related burden quality-of-life (MRB-QoL) tool. An embedded process evaluation and health economics analysis were also undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a definitive cRCT. RESULTS: Twelve GP practices were recruited and randomised. Three GP practices withdrew from the study due to COVID-related factors. Sixty-eight patients were recruited, with 47 (69.1%) being retained until the end of the study. GP record data were available for 47 patients for medication appropriateness analysis at 9 months. EQ-5D-5L and MRB-QoL data were available for 46 and 41 patients, respectively, at 9 months. GP record and patient self-reported health service use data were available for 47 patients at 9 months. Health service use was comparable in terms of overall cost estimated from GP record versus patient self-reported data. The intervention was successfully delivered as intended; it was acceptable to GPs, practice staff, and patients; and potential mechanisms of action have been identified. All five progression criteria were met (two 'Go', three 'Amend'). CONCLUSION: Despite challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has demonstrated that it may be feasible to conduct an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care across two healthcare jurisdictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

The impact of an enhanced recovery programme on length of stay and post-discharge resource usage following hip and knee arthroplasty : a service evaluation and cost analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a pilot enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme on length of stay (LOS) and post-discharge resource usage via service evaluation and cost analysis. METHODS: Between May and December 2019, 100 patients requiring hip or knee arthroplasty were enrolled with the intention that each would have a preadmission discharge plan, a preoperative education class with nominated helper, a day of surgery admission and mobilization, a day one discharge, and access to a 24/7 dedicated helpline. Each was matched with a patient under the pre-existing pathway from the previous year. RESULTS: Mean LOS for ERAS patients was 1.59 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 2.04), significantly less than that of the matched cohort (3.01 days; 95% CI 2.56 to 3.46). There were no significant differences in readmission rates for ERAS patients at both 30 and 90 days (six vs four readmissions at 30 days, and nine vs four at 90 days). Despite matching, there were significantly more American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 3 patients in the ERAS cohort. There was a mean cost saving of £757.26 (95% CI £-1,200.96 to £-313.56) per patient. This is despite small increases in postoperative resource usage in the ERAS patients. CONCLUSION: ERAS represents a safe and effective means of reducing LOS in primary joint arthroplasty patients. Implementation of ERAS principles has potential financial savings and could increase patient throughput without compromising care. In elective care, a preadmission discharge plan is key. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):966-973.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Early switch from intravenous to oral antibiotic therapy in patients with cancer who have low-risk neutropenic sepsis (the EASI-SWITCH trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neutropenic sepsis remains a common treatment complication for patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have not recommended switching from empirical intravenous antibiotics to oral antibiotics within 48 h for patients assessed as low risk for septic complications because of uncertainty about whether this would achieve comparable outcomes to using intravenous antibiotics for longer. The UK National Institute for Health Research funded the EASI-SWITCH trial to tackle this uncertainty. METHODS: The trial is a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial that aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients ≥ 16 years, receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment (acute leukaemics/stem cell transplants excluded), with a temperature of > 38 °C, neutrophil count ≤ 1.0 × 109/L, MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) score ≥ 21 and receiving IV piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for less than 24 h are eligible to participate. Patients are randomised 1:1 either (i) to switch to oral ciprofloxacin and co-amoxiclav within 12-24 h of commencing intravenous antibiotics, completing at least 5 days total antibiotics (intervention), or (ii) to continue intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 h, with ongoing antibiotics being continued at the physician's discretion (control). Patients are discharged home when their physician deems it appropriate. The primary outcome measure is a composite of treatment failures as assessed at day 14. The criteria for treatment failure include fever persistence or recurrence 72 h after starting intravenous antibiotics, escalation from protocolised antibiotics, hospital readmission related to infection/antibiotics, critical care support or death. Based on a 15% treatment failure rate in the control group and a 15% non-inferiority margin, the recruitment target is 230 patients. DISCUSSION: If the trial demonstrates non-inferiority of early switching to oral antibiotics, with potential benefits for patient quality of life and resource savings, this finding will have significant implications for the routine clinical management of those with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 84288963. Registered on the 1 July 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN84288963. EudraCT: 2015-002830-35.

A 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, open-label trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care over 52 weeks in adults with bronchiectasis: a protocol for the CLEAR clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for the management of bronchiectasis (BE) highlight the lack of evidence to recommend mucoactive agents, such as hypertonic saline (HTS) and carbocisteine, to aid sputum removal as part of standard care. We hypothesise that mucoactive agents (HTS or carbocisteine, or a combination) are effective in reducing exacerbations over a 52-week period, compared to usual care. METHODS: This is a 52-week, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, open-label trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of HTS 6% and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care - the Clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care (CLEAR) trial. Patients will be randomised to (1) standard care and twice-daily nebulised HTS (6%), (2) standard care and carbocisteine (750 mg three times per day until visit 3, reducing to 750 mg twice per day), (3) standard care and combination of twice-daily nebulised HTS and carbocisteine, or (4) standard care. The primary outcome is the mean number of exacerbations over 52 weeks. Key inclusion criteria are as follows: adults with a diagnosis of BE on computed tomography, BE as the primary respiratory diagnosis, and two or more pulmonary exacerbations in the last year requiring antibiotics and production of daily sputum. DISCUSSION: This trial's pragmatic research design avoids the significant costs associated with double-blind trials whilst optimising rigour in other areas of trial delivery. The CLEAR trial will provide evidence as to whether HTS, carbocisteine or both are effective and cost effective for patients with BE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2017-000664-14 (first entered in the database on 20 October 2017). ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN89040295. Registered on 6 July/2018. Funder: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (15/100/01). SPONSOR: Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Ethics Reference Number: 17/NE/0339. Protocol version: v3.0 Final_14052018.

Prevention of post-operative complications by using a HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor in patients undergoing one-lung ventilation for non-cardiac surgery: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) and peri-operative myocardial infarction (MI) have a significant impact on the long-term mortality of surgical patients. Patients undergoing one-lung ventilation (OLV) for surgery are at a high risk of developing these complications. These complications could be associated with intensive care unit (ICU) admissions and longer hospital stay with associated resource and economic burden. Simvastatin, a HMG-CoA reductase enzyme inhibitor has been shown to have pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effects as well as being endothelial protective. The benefits of statins have been shown in various observational studies and in small proof-of-concept studies. There is an urgent need for a well-designed, large clinical trial powered to detect clinical outcomes. The Prevention HARP 2 trial will test the hypothesis 'simvastatin 80 mg when compared to placebo will reduce cardiac and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy, lobectomy or pneumonectomy'. METHODS/DESIGN: The Prevention HARP 2 trial is a UK multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Adult patients undergoing elective oesophagectomy, lobectomy or pneumonectomy will be eligible. Patients who are already on statins will be excluded from this trial. Patients will be randomised to receive simvastatin 80 mg or matched placebo for 4 days pre surgery and for up to 7 days post surgery. The primary outcome is a composite outcome of PPC and MI within 7 days post surgery. Various secondary outcome measures including clinical outcomes, safety outcomes and health economic outcomes will be collected. The study aims to recruit 452 patients in total across 12 UK sites. DISCUSSION: The results of the Prevention HARP 2 trial should add to our understanding of the benefits of peri-operative statins and influence clinical decision-making. Analysis of blood and urine samples from the patients will provide insight into the mechanism of simvastatin action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials registry, ID: ISRCTN48095567 . Registered on 11 November 2016.

Assessment of the effect of addition of 24 hours of oral tranexamic acid post-operatively to a single intraoperative intravenous dose of tranexamic acid on calculated blood loss following primary hip and knee arthroplasty (TRAC-24): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While it is has been proven that tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces blood loss in primary total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA), there is little published evidence on the use of TXA beyond 3 h post-operatively. Most blood loss occurs after wound closure and the primary aim of this study is to determine if the use of oral TXA post-operatively for up to 24 h will reduce calculated blood loss at 48 h beyond an intra-operative intravenous bolus alone following primary THA and TKA. To date, most TXA studies have excluded patients with a history of thromboembolic disease. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a phase IV, single-centred, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Participants are randomised to one of three groups: group 1, an intravenous (IV) bolus of TXA peri-operatively plus oral TXA post-operatively for 24 h; group 2, an IV bolus of TXA peri-operatively or group 3, standard care (no TXA). Eligible participants, including those with a history of thromboembolic disease, are allocated to these groups with a 2:2:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome is the indirectly calculated blood loss 48 h after surgery. Researchers and patients are not blinded to the treatment; however, staff processing blood samples are. Originally 1166 participants were required to complete this study, 583 THA and 583 TKA. However, following an interim analysis after 100 THA and 100 TKA participants had been recruited to the study, the data monitoring ethics committee recommended stopping group 3 (standard care). DISCUSSION: TRAC-24 will help to determine whether an extended TXA dosing regimen can further reduce blood loss following primary THA and TKA. By including patients with a history of thromboembolic disease, this study will add to our understanding of the safety profile of TXA in this clinical situation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN58790500 . Registered on 3 June 2016, EudraCT: 2015-002661-36.

Healthcare use, costs and quality of life in patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving conservative management: results from a multi-centre observational study (PACKS).

BACKGROUND: Previous research has explored the cost of providing renal replacement therapies in patients with end-stage kidney disease and their quality of life. This is the first study to examine the healthcare costs of patients receiving conservative care without dialysis for end-stage kidney disease. This alternative to dialysis is an option for patients who prefer a supportive and palliative care approach. AIM: Descriptive cost and quality of life analyses alongside a UK-based multi-centre observational study in patients receiving conservative management for end-stage kidney disease. DESIGN: Health service use was recorded up to 12 months after making the decision to receive conservative management. Mean costs were calculated for each 3-month time period. The annual cost was calculated in two ways: by using only patients with complete cost data and by using all available data weighted by the number of patients at each time point. SETTING: In total, 42 patients who opted for conservative management over dialysis were recruited. RESULTS: Mean costs were £1622 (0-3 months), £1008 (3-6 months), £554 (6-9 months) and £2626 (9-12 months). Mean annual cost based on complete data ( n = 8) was £5511, and the weighted mean annual cost was £5620. CONCLUSION: The importance of this study is twofold. First, it provides substantive new information for health and social care planning of conservative management by demonstrating where demand exists for services, in both the United Kingdom and other countries with a comparable health service structure. Second, methodologically, it indicates that it is feasible to collect service use data directly from this patient population.

Effectiveness of biomarker-based exclusion of ventilator-acquired pneumonia to reduce antibiotic use (VAPrapid-2): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-acquired pneumonia (VAP) is a common reason for antimicrobial therapy in the intensive care unit (ICU). Biomarker-based diagnostics could improve antimicrobial stewardship through rapid exclusion of VAP. Bronchoalveloar lavage (BAL) fluid biomarkers have previously been shown to allow the exclusion of VAP with high confidence. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trial to determine whether a rapid biomarker-based exclusion of VAP results in fewer antibiotics and improved antimicrobial management. Patients with clinically suspected VAP undergo BAL, and VAP is confirmed by growth of a potential pathogen at [≥] 10(4) colony-forming units per millilitre (CFU/ml). Patients are randomised 1:1, to either a 'biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics' in which BAL fluid is tested for IL-1ß and IL-8 in addition to routine microbiology testing, or to 'routine use of antibiotics' in which BAL undergoes routine microbiology testing only. Clinical teams are blinded to intervention until 6 hours after randomisation, when biomarker results are reported to the clinician. The primary outcome is a change in the frequency distribution of antibiotic-free days (AFD) in the 7 days following BAL. Secondary outcome measures include antibiotic use at 14 and 28 days; ventilator-free days; 28-day mortality and ICU mortality; sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) at days 3, 7 and 14; duration of stay in critical care and the hospital; antibiotic-associated infections; and antibiotic-resistant pathogen cultures up to hospital discharge, death or 56 days. A healthcare-resource-utilisation analysis will be calculated from the duration of critical care and hospital stay. In addition, safety data will be collected with respect to performing BAL. A sample size of 210 will be required to detect a clinically significant shift in the distribution of AFD towards more patients having fewer antibiotics and therefore more AFD. DISCUSSION: This trial will test whether a rapid biomarker-based exclusion of VAP results in rapid discontinuation of antibiotics and therefore improves antibiotic management in patients with suspected VAP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN65937227 . Registered on 22 August 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425 . Registered on 24 October 2013.

PAlliative Care in chronic Kidney diSease: the PACKS study--quality of life, decision making, costs and impact on carers in people managed without dialysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease opting for conservative management rather than dialysis is unknown but likely to be growing as increasingly frail patients with advanced renal disease present to renal services. Conservative kidney management includes ongoing medical input and support from a multidisciplinary team. There is limited evidence concerning patient and carer experience of this choice. This study will explore quality of life, symptoms, cognition, frailty, performance decision making, costs and impact on carers in people with advanced chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis and is funded by the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, longitudinal study, patients will be recruited in the UK, by renal research nurses, once they have made the decision not to embark on dialysis. Carers will be asked to 'opt-in' with consent from patients. The approach includes longitudinal quantitative surveys of quality of life, symptoms, decision making and costs for patients and quality of life and costs for carers, with questionnaires administered quarterly over 12 months. Additionally, the decision making process will be explored via qualitative interviews with renal physicians/clinical nurse specialists. DISCUSSION: The study is designed to capture patient and carer profiles when conservative kidney management is implemented, and understand trajectories of care-receiving and care-giving with the aim of optimising palliative care for this population. It will explore the interactions that lead to clinical care decisions and the impact of these decisions on informal carers with the intention of improving clinical outcomes for patients and the experiences of care givers.

Public perceptions of coronary events risk factors: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To assess public perceptions of coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factors. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment questionnaire. SETTING: Six provincial centres in Northern Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 1000 adults of the general public in Northern Ireland. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The general public's perception of CHD risk factors. The effect of having risk factor(s) on that perception. RESULTS: Two multinomial logit models were created. One was a basic model (no heterogeneity permitted), while the other permitted heterogeneity based on respondents' characteristics. In both models individuals with very high cholesterol were perceived to be at the highest risk of having a coronary event. Respondents who reported having high cholesterol perceived the risk contribution of very high cholesterol to be greater than those who reported having normal cholesterol. Similar findings were observed with blood pressure and smoking. Respondents who were male and older perceived the contribution of age and gender to be lower than respondents who were female and younger. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents with different risk factors perceived such factors differently. These divergent perceptions of CHD risk factors could be a barrier to behavioural change. This brings into focus the need for more tailored health promotion campaigns to tackle CHD.