STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: A structured protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Long COVID (LC), the persistent symptoms ≥12 weeks following acute COVID-19, presents major threats to individual and public health across countries, affecting over 1.5 million people in the UK alone. Evidence-based interventions are urgently required and an integrated care pathway approach in pragmatic trials, which include investigations, treatments and rehabilitation for LC, could provide scalable and generalisable solutions at pace. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster-randomised clinical trial of two components of an integrated care pathway (Coverscan™, a multi-organ MRI, and Living with COVID Recovery™, a digitally enabled rehabilitation platform) with a nested, Phase III, open label, platform randomised drug trial in individuals with LC. Cluster randomisation is at level of primary care networks so that integrated care pathway interventions are delivered as "standard of care" in that area. The drug trial randomisation is at individual level and initial arms are rivaroxaban, colchicine, famotidine/loratadine, compared with no drugs, with potential to add in further drug arms. The trial is being carried out in 6-10 LC clinics in the UK and is evaluating the effectiveness of a pathway of care for adults with LC in reducing fatigue and other physical, psychological and functional outcomes at 3 months. The trial also includes an economic evaluation which will be described separately. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was reviewed by South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/SC/0416). All participating sites obtained local approvals prior to recruitment. Coverscan™ has UK certification (UKCA 752965). All participants will provide written consent to take part in the trial. The first participant was recruited in July 2022 and interim/final results will be disseminated in 2023, in a plan co-developed with public and patient representatives. The results will be presented at national and international conferences, published in peer reviewed medical journals, and shared via media (mainstream and social) and patient support organisations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN10665760.

STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID. REGISTRATION: Researchregistry: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/6246bfeeeaaed6001f08dadc/.

Integrated care for optimizing the management of stroke and associated heart disease: a position paper of the European Society of Cardiology Council on Stroke.

The management of patients with stroke is often multidisciplinary, involving various specialties and healthcare professionals. Given the common shared risk factors for stroke and cardiovascular disease, input may also be required from the cardiovascular teams, as well as patient caregivers and next-of-kin. Ultimately, the patient is central to all this, requiring a coordinated and uniform approach to the priorities of post-stroke management, which can be consistently implemented by different multidisciplinary healthcare professionals, as part of the patient 'journey' or 'patient pathway,' supported by appropriate education and tele-medicine approaches. All these aspects would ultimately aid delivery of care and improve patient (and caregiver) engagement and empowerment. Given the need to address the multidisciplinary approach to holistic or integrated care of patients with heart disease and stroke, the European Society of Cardiology Council on Stroke convened a Task Force, with the remit to propose a consensus on Integrated care management for optimizing the management of stroke and associated heart disease. The present position paper summarizes the available evidence and proposes consensus statements that may help to define evidence gaps and simple practical approaches to assist in everyday clinical practice. A post-stroke ABC pathway is proposed, as a more holistic approach to integrated stroke care, would include three pillars of management: A: Appropriate Antithrombotic therapy.B: Better functional and psychological status.C: Cardiovascular risk factors and Comorbidity optimization (including lifestyle changes).

Clinical academic research internships for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals: a qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Nurses, midwives and allied health professionals are integral to research, yet rarely engage simultaneously in research and clinical practice. Clinical academic internships offer a route for accessing academic research training. AIM: To determine facilitators and barriers to nurses' participation and engagement in research internships, and to suggest improvements for future programmes. DISCUSSION: The experiences of ten health professional research interns were explored, using a method based on a synthesis between grounded theory and content analysis. Four categories emerged: integrating clinical and research aspirations; support - or lack of it; the hidden curriculum; and the legacy effect. Respondents identified facilitators and barriers to engagement in these categories, including unforeseen challenges. CONCLUSION: Formal support is necessary but is insufficient for fostering engagement and maximising benefits. Participation must be supported by colleagues and enabled by institutional structures. The potential effects of internships on engagement with research is considerable but requires collaboration between all stakeholders. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Deeper institutional engagement is needed so that internship opportunities are fully supported by all colleagues and practically enabled by institutional structures. Future schemes should attempt to promote opportunities to collaborate through group projects to reduce researchers' isolation.

PULSE-I - Is rePetitive Upper Limb SEnsory stimulation early after stroke feasible and acceptable? A stratified single-blinded randomised controlled feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Reduction in sensorimotor function of the upper limb is a common and persistent impairment after stroke, and less than half of stroke survivors recover even basic function of the upper limb after a year. Previous work in stroke has shown that repetitive sensory stimulation (RSS) of the upper limb may benefit motor function. As yet, there have been no investigations of RSS in the early-acute period despite this being the time window during which the neuroplastic processes underpinning sensorimotor recovery are likely to occur. METHODS: A single-blinded, stratified, randomised controlled feasibility study was undertaken at two NHS acute trusts to determine the recruitment rate, intervention adherence, and safety and acceptability of an RSS intervention in the early period after stroke. Participants were recruited within 2 weeks of index stroke. Stratified on arm function, they were randomised to receive either 45 min of daily RSS and usual care or usual care alone (UC) for 2 weeks. Changes from baseline on the primary outcome of the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) to measurements taken by a blinded assessor were examined after completion of the intervention (2 weeks) and at 3 months from randomisation. RESULTS: Forty patients were recruited and randomised (RSS n = 23; UC n = 17) with a recruitment rate of 9.5% (40/417) of patients admitted with a stroke of which 52 (12.5%) were potentially eligible, with 10 declining to participate for various reasons. Participants found the RSS intervention acceptable and adherence was good. The intervention was safe and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that recruitment to a trial of RSS in the acute period after stroke is feasible. The intervention was well tolerated and appeared to provide additional benefit to usual care. In addition to a definitive trial of efficacy, further work is warranted to examine the effects of varying doses of RSS upon arm function and the mechanism by which RSS induces sensorimotor recovery in the acute period after stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, registry no: ISRCTN17422343 ; IRAS Project ID: 215137. Registered on October 2016.

Interventions for treating urinary incontinence after stroke in adults.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence can affect 40% to 60% of people admitted to hospital after a stroke, with 25% still having problems when discharged from hospital and 15% remaining incontinent after one year.This is an update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions for treating urinary incontinence after stroke in adults at least one-month post-stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Incontinence and Cochrane Stroke Specialised Registers (searched 30 October 2017 and 1 November 2017 respectively), which contain trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearched journals and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment and implemented GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (reporting 21 comparisons) with 1338 participants. Data for prespecified outcomes were not available except where reported below.Intervention versus no intervention/usual careBehavioural interventions: Low-quality evidence suggests behavioural interventions may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours (mean difference (MD) -1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.74 to 0.74; 1 trial; 18 participants; P = 0.26). Further, low-quality evidence from two trials suggests that behavioural interventions may make little or no difference to quality of life (SMD -0.99, 95% CI -2.83 to 0.86; 55 participants).Specialised professional input interventions: One trial of moderate-quality suggested structured assessment and management by continence nurse practitioners probably made little or no difference to the number of people continent three months after treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.02; 121 participants; equivalent to an increase from 354 to 453 per 1000, 95% CI 287 to 715).Complementary therapy: Five trials assessed complementary therapy using traditional acupuncture, electroacupuncture and ginger-salt-partitioned moxibustion plus routine acupuncture. Low-quality evidence from five trials suggested that complementary therapy may increase the number of participants continent after treatment; participants in the treatment group were three times more likely to be continent (RR 2.82, 95% CI 1.57 to 5.07; 524 participants; equivalent to an increase from 193 to 544 per 1000, 95% CI 303 to 978). Adverse events were reported narratively in one study of electroacupuncture, reporting on bruising and postacupuncture abdominal pain in the intervention group.Physical therapy: Two trials reporting three comparisons suggest that physical therapy using transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) may reduce the mean number of incontinent episodes in 24 hours (MD -4.76, 95% CI -8.10 to -1.41; 142 participants; low-quality evidence). One trial of TENS reporting two comparisons found that the intervention probably improves overall functional ability (MD 8.97, 95% CI 1.27 to 16.68; 81 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Intervention versus placeboPhysical therapy: One trial of physical therapy suggests TPTNS may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.04; 54 participants) or number of incontinent episodes (MD -1.10, 95% CI -3.99 to 1.79; 39 participants). One trial suggested improvement in the TPTNS group at 26-weeks (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.004 to 0.41) but there was no evidence of a difference in perceived bladder condition at six weeks (OR 2.33, 95% CI 0.63 to 8.65) or 12 weeks (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.29 to 5.17). Data from one trial provided no evidence that TPTNS made a difference to quality of life measured with the ICIQLUTSqol (MD 3.90, 95% CI -4.25 to 12.05; 30 participants). Minor adverse events, such as minor skin irritation and ankle cramping, were reported in one study.Pharmacotherapy interventions: There was no evidence from one study that oestrogen therapy made a difference to the mean number of incontinent episodes per week in mild incontinence (paired samples, MD -1.71, 95% CI -3.51 to 0.09) or severe incontinence (paired samples, MD -6.40, 95% CI -9.47 to -3.33). One study reported no adverse events.Specific intervention versus another interventionBehavioural interventions: One trial comparing a behavioural intervention (timed voiding) with a pharmacotherapy intervention (oxybutynin) contained no useable data.Complementary therapy: One trial comparing different acupuncture needles and depth of needle insertion to assess the effect on incontinence reported that, after four courses of treatment, 78.1% participants in the elongated needle group had no incontinent episodes versus 40% in the filiform needle group (57 participants). This trial was assessed as unclear or high for all types of bias apart from incomplete outcome data.Combined intervention versus single interventionOne trial compared a combined intervention (sensory motor biofeedback plus timed prompted voiding) against a single intervention (timed voiding). The combined intervention may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 5.21; 23 participants; equivalent to a decrease from 167 to 92 per 1000, 95% CI 10 to 868) or to the number of incontinent episodes (MD 2.20, 95% CI 0.12 to 4.28; 23 participants).Specific intervention versus attention controlPhysical therapy interventions: One study found TPTNS may make little or no difference to the number of participants continent after treatment compared to an attention control group undertaking stretching exercises (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.72; 24 participants; equivalent to an increase from 250 to 333 per 1000, 95% CI 95 to 1000). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to guide continence care of adults in the rehabilitative phase after stroke. As few trials tested the same intervention, conclusions are drawn from few, usually small, trials. CIs were wide, making it difficult to ascertain if there were clinically important differences. Only four trials had adequate allocation concealment and many were limited by poor reporting, making it impossible to judge the extent to which they were prone to bias. More appropriately powered, multicentre trials of interventions are required to provide robust evidence for interventions to improve urinary incontinence after stroke.

Interventions for treating anxiety after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of stroke patients experience clinically significant levels of anxiety at some point after stroke. Physicians can treat these patients with antidepressants or other anxiety-reducing drugs, or both, or they can provide psychological therapy. This review looks at available evidence for these interventions. This is an update of the review first published in October 2011. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to assess the effectiveness of pharmaceutical, psychological, complementary, or alternative therapeutic interventions in treating stroke patients with anxiety disorders or symptoms. The secondary objective was to identify whether any of these interventions for anxiety had an effect on quality of life, disability, depression, social participation, caregiver burden, or risk of death. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Stroke Group (January 2017). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2017, Issue 1: searched January 2017); MEDLINE (1966 to January 2017) in Ovid; Embase (1980 to January 2017) in Ovid; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1937 to January 2017) in EBSCO; and PsycINFO (1800 to January 2017) in Ovid. We conducted backward citation searches of reviews identified through database searches and forward citation searches of included studies. We contacted researchers known to be involved in related trials, and we searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials including participants with a diagnosis of both stroke and anxiety for which treatment was intended to reduce anxiety. Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We performed a narrative review. We planned to do a meta-analysis but were unable to do so as included studies were not sufficiently comparable. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (four interventions) involving 196 participants with stroke and co-morbid anxiety. One trial (described as a 'pilot study') randomised 21 community-dwelling stroke survivors to four-week use of a relaxation CD or to wait list control. This trial assessed anxiety using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and reported a reduction in anxiety at three months among participants who had used the relaxation CD (mean (standard deviation (SD) 6.9 (± 4.9) and 11.0 (± 3.9)), Cohen's d = 0.926, P value = 0.001; 19 participants analysed).The second trial randomised 81 participants with co-morbid anxiety and depression to paroxetine, paroxetine plus psychotherapy, or standard care. Mean levels of anxiety severity scores based on the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) at follow-up were 5.4 (SD ± 1.7), 3.8 (SD ± 1.8), and 12.8 (SD ± 1.9), respectively (P value < 0.01).The third trial randomised 94 stroke patients, also with co-morbid anxiety and depression, to receive buspirone hydrochloride or standard care. At follow-up, the mean levels of anxiety based on the HAM-A were 6.5 (SD ± 3.1) and 12.6 (SD ± 3.4) in the two groups, respectively, which represents a significant difference (P value < 0.01). Half of the participants receiving paroxetine experienced adverse events that included nausea, vomiting, or dizziness; however, only 14% of those receiving buspirone experienced nausea or palpitations. Trial authors provided no information about the duration of symptoms associated with adverse events. The trial of relaxation therapy reported no adverse events.The quality of the evidence was very low. Each study included a small number of participants, particularly the study of relaxation therapy. Studies of pharmacological agents presented details too limited to allow judgement of selection, performance, and detection bias and lack of placebo treatment in control groups. Although the study of relaxation therapy had allocated participants to treatment using an adequate method of randomisation, study recruitment methods might have introduced bias, and drop-outs in the intervention group may have influenced results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to guide the treatment of anxiety after stroke. Further well-conducted randomised controlled trials (using placebo or attention controls) are required to assess pharmacological agents and psychological therapies.

An occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke related disabilities in UK care homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of an established programme of occupational therapy in maintaining functional activity and reducing further health risks from inactivity in care home residents living with stroke sequelae. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 228 care homes (>10 beds each), both with and without the provision of nursing care, local to 11 trial administrative centres across the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: 1042 care home residents with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, including those with language and cognitive impairments, not receiving end of life care. 114 homes (n=568 residents, 64% from homes providing nursing care) were allocated to the intervention arm and 114 homes (n=474 residents, 65% from homes providing nursing care) to standard care (control arm). Participating care homes were randomised between May 2010 and March 2012. INTERVENTION: Targeted three month programme of occupational therapy, delivered by qualified occupational therapists and assistants, involving patient centred goal setting, education of care home staff, and adaptations to the environment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome at the participant level: scores on the Barthel index of activities of daily living at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures at the participant level: Barthel index scores at six and 12 months post-randomisation, and scores on the Rivermead mobility index, geriatric depression scale-15, and EuroQol EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, at all time points. RESULTS: 64% of the participants were women and 93% were white, with a mean age of 82.9 years. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups for all measures, personal characteristics, and diagnostic tests. Overall, 2538 occupational therapy visits were made to 498 participants in the intervention arm (mean 5.1 visits per participant). No adverse events attributable to the intervention were recorded. 162 (11%) died before the primary outcome time point, and 313 (30%) died over the 12 months of the trial. The primary outcome measure did not differ significantly between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Barthel index score at three months was 0.19 points higher in the intervention arm (95% confidence interval -0.33 to 0.70, P=0.48). Secondary outcome measures also showed no significant differences at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: This large phase III study provided no evidence of benefit for the provision of a routine occupational therapy service, including staff training, for care home residents living with stroke related disabilities. The established three month individualised course of occupational therapy targeting stroke related disabilities did not have an impact on measures of functional activity, mobility, mood, or health related quality of life, at all observational time points. Providing and targeting ameliorative care in this clinically complex population requires alternative strategies.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00757750.

Interventions for treating anxiety after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of stroke patients experience anxiety at some point after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To determine if any treatment for anxiety after stroke decreases the proportion of patients with anxiety disorders or symptoms, and to determine the effect of treatment on quality of life, disability, depression, social participation, risk of death or caregiver burden. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials register of the Cochrane Stroke Group (October 2010), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to October 2010), EMBASE (1947 to October 2010), PsycINFO (1806 to October 2010), Allied and Complementary Medicine database (AMED) (1985 to October 2010), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) (1982 to October 2010), Proquest Digital Dissertations (1861 to October 2010), and Psychological Database for Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy (PsycBITE) (2004 to October 2010). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished and ongoing trials, we searched trial registries and major international stroke conference proceedings, scanned reference lists, and contacted select individuals known to the review team who are actively involved in psychological aspects of stroke research, and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected titles and abstracts for inclusion in the review. Randomised trials of any intervention in patients with stroke where the treatment of anxiety was an outcome were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data for analysis. We performed a narrative review. A meta-analysis was planned but not carried out as studies were not of sufficient quality to warrant doing so. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials (three interventions) involving 175 participants with co-morbid anxiety and depression in the review. Both trials used the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) to assess anxiety, and neither included a placebo control group. One trial randomised 81 patients to paroxetine, paroxetine plus psychotherapy or standard care. Mean level of anxiety severity scores were 58% and 71% lower in the paroxetine, and paroxetine plus psychotherapy groups respectively compared with those in standard care at follow-up (P < 0.01). The second trial randomised 94 stroke patients, also with co-morbid anxiety and depression, to receive buspirone hydrochloride or standard care. At follow-up, the mean level of anxiety was significantly lower for those receiving buspirone relative to controls (P < 0.01). Half of the participants receiving paroxetine experienced adverse events that included nausea, vomiting or dizziness; however, only 14% of those receiving buspirone experienced nausea or palpitations. No information was provided about the duration of symptoms associated with adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to guide the treatment of anxiety after stroke. The data available suggest that pharmaceutical therapy (paroxetine and buspirone) may be effective in reducing anxiety symptoms in stroke patients with co-morbid anxiety and depression. No information was available for stroke patients with anxiety only. Randomised placebo controlled trials are needed.

Can early onset bone loss be effectively managed in post-stroke patients? An integrative review of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: bone loss post-stroke can lead to an increased risk of fracture. Fractures compound the effects of a stroke, resulting in greater dependency for the individual and an increased burden for health and social care. OBJECTIVES: to identify risk factors for bone loss post-stroke and appraise bone loss or fracture risk reduction interventions. To develop a research agenda that informs the design and development of risk reduction strategies. DESIGN: an integrative review. METHODS: the search strategies used in Medline, Embase, AMED and CINAHL from 1966 to July 2006 identified 530 records. Ninety-nine papers with a focus on risk factors or interventions to prevent bone loss or fractures post-stroke were identified. Hand searching and scoping grey literature produced 59 additional papers. Data analysis, including data reduction and data display using matrices, enabled patterns and themes to be derived from differing study designs. RESULTS: risk factors for bone loss post-stroke are reduced mobility, vitamin D deficiency, gender and time since stroke. Early mobilisation post-stroke may reduce bone loss, and so avoid fractures, but evidence is needed. Providing vitamin D supplements and Bisphosphonates in post-stroke patients tends to reduce bone loss, but larger treatment trials are required. CONCLUSIONS: the evidence base for bone loss management post-stroke is limited. Large, prospective, multi-centre, longitudinal studies are needed to clarify optimum treatments to reduce post-stroke bone loss, and test the effects on clinical outcomes. A 'skeletal health' checklist to aid implementation of treatments within stroke rehabilitation has been suggested but not yet developed.