Implementing treat-to-target urate-lowering therapy during hospitalisations for gout flares.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate a strategy designed to optimise care and increase uptake of urate-lowering therapy (ULT) during hospitalisations for gout flares. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study to evaluate a strategy that combined optimal in-hospital gout management with a nurse-led, follow-up appointment, followed by handover to primary care. Outcomes, including ULT initiation, urate target attainment, and re-hospitalisation rates, were compared between patients hospitalised for flares in the 12 months post-implementation and a retrospective cohort of hospitalised patients from 12 months pre-implementation. RESULTS: 119 and 108 patients, respectively, were hospitalised for gout flares in the 12 months pre- and post-implementation. For patients with 6-month follow-up data available (n = 94 and n = 97, respectively), the proportion newly initiated on ULT increased from 49.2% pre-implementation to 92.3% post-implementation (age/sex-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 11.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.36-30.5; p < 0.001). After implementation, more patients achieved a serum urate ≤360 micromol/L within 6 months of discharge (10.6% pre-implementation vs. 26.8% post-implementation; aOR 3.04; 95% CI 1.36-6.78; p = 0.007). The proportion of patients re-hospitalised for flares was 14.9% pre-implementation vs. 9.3% post-implementation (aOR 0.53, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.32; p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Over 90% of patients were initiated on ULT after implementing a strategy to optimise hospital gout care. Despite increased initiation of ULT during flares, recurrent hospitalisations were not more frequent following implementation. Significant relative improvements in urate target attainment were observed post-implementation; however, for the majority of hospitalised gout patients to achieve urate targets, closer primary-secondary care integration is still needed.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the number of presentations of penetrating injuries to a UK major trauma centre.

BACKGROUND: Knife-related violence is of growing concern in the UK. This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the frequency of penetrating injuries at a UK major trauma centre. METHODS: This was a retrospective study comparing the number of patients attending the emergency department of King's College Hospital (KCH) with a penetrating injury (gunshot or stab wound) during the 'pandemic year' (1 March 2020-28 February 2021) compared with the equivalent time period in the previous year. Penetrating injuries as a result of self-harm were excluded. The primary outcome was to assess whether there were any changes to the frequency of presentations during three periods of national lockdowns. RESULTS: Lockdown 1 showed a 48.45% reduction in presentations in the 'pandemic year' compared to the previous year, lockdown 2 showed a 31.25% reduction; however, lockdown 3 showed an 8.89% increase in the number of presentations. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that despite the initial reduction in the number of presentations of penetrating injury during lockdown 1, this returned to normal levels by lockdown 3. Further research is required to understand the effects of government-imposed restrictions on interpersonal violence and identify appropriate methods of outreach prevention during a pandemic.

Impact of junior doctor strikes on patient flow in the emergency department: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE: Healthcare worker strikes are a global phenomenon. Mortality and morbidity seem to be unaffected by doctor strikes, but there is little evidence on the impact on emergency department (ED) flow and patient characteristics. In March and April 2023, two consecutive UK junior doctor strikes occurred. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated the impact of junior doctor strikes on ED patient flow. Additionally, variation in patient presentations was compared between non-strike and strike days. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study was conducted at King's College Hospital ED, a university hospital in London. All ED attendances during the 72- and 96-hour strike actions were compared with the corresponding non-strike days of the previous week. OUTCOME MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: National key performance indicators (KPIs) were analysed and compared between non-strike and strike days. Patients' demographics, acuity and diagnoses were compared. Outcome measures included number of 4-hour breaches, number of patients admitted or discharged and ED mortality. Staff seniority was categorised into levels for analysis. MAIN RESULTS: There was increased ED patient flow during strike days with a significantly shorter total time in department in March [240 min (IQR 155-469) vs. 286 min (IQR 198.5-523.5), P  < 0.001] and in April [222.5 min (IQR 147-351) vs. 251.5 min (IQR 174-443), P  < 0.001]. Time to first clinician, treatment, and decision to admit were all shorter during both strike actions. Number of attendances, acuity, diagnoses, admission, discharge, and mortality rates were similar during strike and non-strike days. Staffing numbers were lower or equivalent on strike days but level of seniority was higher ( P  < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The improved KPIs and increased patient flow during strike days, while multifactorial, seem largely attributed to the higher number of senior staff. Patient presentations and outcomes were unaffected by junior doctor strike action.

High-Flow Humidified Oxygen as an Early Intervention in Children With Acute Severe Asthma: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute severe asthma (ASA) is a leading cause of hospital attendance in children. Standard first-line therapy consists of high-dose inhaled bronchodilators plus oral corticosteroids. Treatment for children who fail to respond to first-line therapy is problematic: the use of intravenous agents is inconsistent, and side effects are frequent. High-flow humidified oxygen (HiFlo) is widely used in respiratory conditions and is increasingly being used in ASA, but with little evidence for its effectiveness. A well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HiFlo therapy in ASA is urgently needed, and feasibility data are required to plan such an RCT. In this study, we describe the protocol for a feasibility study designed to fill this knowledge gap. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish whether a full RCT of early HiFlo therapy in children with ASA can be conducted successfully and safely, to establish whether recruitment using deferred consent is practicable, and to define appropriate outcome measures and sample sizes for a definitive RCT. The underlying hypothesis is that early HiFlo therapy in ASA will reduce the need for more invasive treatments, allow faster recovery and discharge from hospital, and in both these ways reduce distress to children and their families. METHODS: We conducted a feasibility RCT with deferred consent to assess the use of early HiFlo therapy in children aged 2 to 11 years with acute severe wheeze not responding to burst therapy (ie, high-dose inhaled salbutamol with or without ipratropium). Children with a Preschool Respiratory Assessment Measure score ≥5 after burst therapy were randomized to commence HiFlo therapy or follow standard care. The candidate primary outcomes assessed were treatment failure requiring escalation and time to meet hospital discharge criteria. Patient and parent experiences were also assessed using questionnaires and telephone interviews. RESULTS: The trial was opened to recruitment in February 2020 but was paused for 15 months owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial was reopened at the lead site in July 2021 and opened at the other 3 sites from August to December 2022. Recruitment was completed in June 2023. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility RCT of early HiFlo therapy in children with ASA recruited to the target despite major disturbances owing to the COVID-19 pandemic. The data are currently being analyzed and will be published separately. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry ISRCTN78297040; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN78297040. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/54081.

Azithromycin versus standard care in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 (ATOMIC2): an open-label, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antiviral properties of azithromycin suggest therapeutic potential against COVID-19. Randomised data in mild-to-moderate disease are not available. We assessed whether azithromycin is effective in reducing hospital admission in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective, open-label, randomised superiority trial was done at 19 hospitals in the UK. We enrolled adults aged at least 18 years presenting to hospitals with clinically diagnosed, highly probable or confirmed COVID-19 infection, with fewer than 14 days of symptoms, who were considered suitable for initial ambulatory management. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg once daily orally for 14 days) plus standard care or to standard care alone. The primary outcome was death or hospital admission from any cause over the 28 days from randomisation. The primary and safety outcomes were assessed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381962) and recruitment is closed. FINDINGS: 298 participants were enrolled from June 3, 2020, to Jan 29, 2021. Three participants withdrew consent and requested removal of all data, and three further participants withdrew consent after randomisation, thus, the primary outcome was assessed in 292 participants (145 in the azithromycin group and 147 in the standard care group). The mean age of the participants was 45·9 years (SD 14·9). 15 (10%) participants in the azithromycin group and 17 (12%) in the standard care group were admitted to hospital or died during the study (adjusted OR 0·91 [95% CI 0·43-1·92], p=0·80). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: In patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 managed without hospital admission, adding azithromycin to standard care treatment did not reduce the risk of subsequent hospital admission or death. Our findings do not support the use of azithromycin in patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford and Pfizer.

A clinical risk score to identify patients with COVID-19 at high risk of critical care admission or death: An observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to escalate. There is urgent need to stratify patients. Understanding risk of deterioration will assist in admission and discharge decisions, and help selection for clinical studies to indicate where risk of therapy-related complications is justified. METHODS: An observational cohort of patients acutely admitted to two London hospitals with COVID-19 and positive SARS-CoV-2 swab results was assessed. Demographic details, clinical data, comorbidities, blood parameters and chest radiograph severity scores were collected from electronic health records. Endpoints assessed were critical care admission and death. A risk score was developed to predict outcomes. FINDINGS: Analyses included 1,157 patients. Older age, male sex, comorbidities, respiratory rate, oxygenation, radiographic severity, higher neutrophils, higher CRP and lower albumin at presentation predicted critical care admission and mortality. Non-white ethnicity predicted critical care admission but not death. Social deprivation was not predictive of outcome. A risk score was developed incorporating twelve characteristics: age>40, male, non-white ethnicity, oxygen saturations<93%, radiological severity score>3, neutrophil count>8.0 x109/L, CRP>40 mg/L, albumin<34 g/L, creatinine>100 µmol/L, diabetes mellitus, hypertension and chronic lung disease. Risk scores of 4 or higher corresponded to a 28-day cumulative incidence of critical care admission or death of 40.7% (95% CI: 37.1 to 44.4), versus 12.4% (95% CI: 8.2 to 16.7) for scores less than 4. INTERPRETATION: Our study identified predictors of critical care admission and death in people admitted to hospital with COVID-19. These predictors were incorporated into a risk score that will inform clinical care and stratify patients for clinical trials.