Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Correction: Internet Tool to Support Self-Assessment and Self-Swabbing of Sore Throat: Development and Feasibility Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/39791.].

What makes a multidisciplinary medication review and deprescribing intervention for older people work well in primary care? A realist review and synthesis.

BACKGROUND: A third of older people take five or more regular medications (polypharmacy). Conducting medication reviews in primary care is key to identify and reduce/ stop inappropriate medications (deprescribing). Recent recommendations for effective deprescribing include shared-decision making and a multidisciplinary approach. Our aim was to understand when, why, and how interventions for medication review and deprescribing in primary care involving multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) work (or do not work) for older people. METHODS: A realist synthesis following the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards guidelines was completed. A scoping literature review informed the generation of an initial programme theory. Systematic searches of different databases were conducted, and documents screened for eligibility, with data extracted based on a Context, Mechanisms, Outcome (CMO) configuration to develop further our programme theory. Documents were appraised based on assessments of relevance and rigour. A Stakeholder consultation with 26 primary care health care professionals (HCPs), 10 patients and three informal carers was conducted to test and refine the programme theory. Data synthesis was underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory to identify key mechanisms to enhance the implementation of MDT medication review and deprescribing in primary care. FINDINGS: A total of 2821 abstracts and 175 full-text documents were assessed for eligibility, with 28 included. Analysis of documents alongside stakeholder consultation outlined 33 CMO configurations categorised under four themes: 1) HCPs roles, responsibilities and relationships; 2) HCPs training and education; 3) the format and process of the medication review 4) involvement and education of patients and informal carers. A number of key mechanisms were identified including clearly defined roles and good communication between MDT members, integration of pharmacists in the team, simulation-based training or team building training, targeting high-risk patients, using deprescribing tools and drawing on expertise of other HCPs (e.g., nurses and frailty practitioners), involving patents and carers in the process, starting with 'quick wins', offering deprescribing as 'drug holidays', and ensuring appropriate and tailored follow-up plans that allow continuity of care and management. CONCLUSION: We identified key mechanisms that could inform the design of future interventions and services that successfully embed deprescribing in primary care.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions and risk of COVID-19 infection: survey of U.K. public from November 2020 - May 2021.

INTRODUCTION: Non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), such as handwashing, social distancing and face mask wearing, have been widely promoted to reduce the spread of COVID-19. This study aimed to explore the relationship between self-reported use of NPIs and COVID-19 infection. METHODS: We conducted an online questionnaire study recruiting members of the UK public from November 2020 to May 2021. The association between self-reported COVID-19 illness and reported use of NPIs was explored using logistic regression and controlling for participant characteristics, month of questionnaire completion, and vaccine status. Participants who had been exposed to COVID-19 in their household in the previous 2 weeks were excluded. RESULTS: Twenty-seven thousand seven hundred fifty-eight participants were included and 2,814 (10.1%) reported having a COVID-19 infection. The odds of COVID-19 infection were reduced with use of a face covering in unadjusted (OR 0.17 (95% CI: 0.15 to 0.20) and adjusted (aOR 0.19, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.23) analyses. Social distancing (OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.31; aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.43) and handwashing when arriving home (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.73; aOR 0.63, 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83) also reduced the odds of COVID-19. Being in crowded places of 10-100 people (OR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.70 to 2.11; aOR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.42 to 1.85) and > 100 people (OR 2.33, 95% CI: 2.11 to 2.58; aOR 1.73, 95% CI: 1.53 to 1.97) were both associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection. Handwashing before eating, avoiding touching the face, and cleaning things with virus on were all associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infections. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study found evidence for strong protective effects for individuals from use of face coverings, social distancing (including avoiding crowded places) and handwashing on arriving home on developing COVID-19 infection. We also found evidence for an increased risk associated with other behaviours, possibly from recall bias.

Internet Tool to Support Self-Assessment and Self-Swabbing of Sore Throat: Development and Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common problem and a common reason for the overuse of antibiotics. A web-based tool that helps people assess their sore throat, through the use of clinical prediction rules, taking throat swabs or saliva samples, and taking throat photographs, has the potential to improve self-management and help identify those who are the most and least likely to benefit from antibiotics. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a web-based tool to help patients and parents or carers self-assess sore throat symptoms and take throat photographs, swabs, and saliva samples for diagnostic testing. We then explored the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool in adults and children with sore throats. METHODS: We used the Person-Based Approach to develop a web-based tool and then recruited adults and children with sore throats who participated in this study by attending general practices or through social media advertising. Participants self-assessed the presence of FeverPAIN and Centor score criteria and attempted to photograph their throat and take throat swabs and saliva tests. Study processes were observed via video call, and participants were interviewed about their views on using the web-based tool. Self-assessed throat inflammation and pus were compared to clinician evaluation of patients' throat photographs. RESULTS: A total of 45 participants (33 adults and 12 children) were recruited. Of these, 35 (78%) and 32 (71%) participants completed all scoring elements for FeverPAIN and Centor scores, respectively, and most (30/45, 67%) of them reported finding self-assessment relatively easy. No valid response was provided for swollen lymph nodes, throat inflammation, and pus on the throat by 11 (24%), 9 (20%), and 13 (29%) participants respectively. A total of 18 (40%) participants provided a throat photograph of adequate quality for clinical assessment. Patient assessment of inflammation had a sensitivity of 100% (3/3) and specificity of 47% (7/15) compared with the clinician-assessed photographs. For pus on the throat, the sensitivity was 100% (3/3) and the specificity was 71% (10/14). A total of 89% (40/45), 93% (42/45), 89% (40/45), and 80% (30/45) of participants provided analyzable bacterial swabs, viral swabs, saliva sponges, and saliva drool samples, respectively. Participants were generally happy and confident in providing samples, with saliva samples rated as slightly more acceptable than swab samples. CONCLUSIONS: Most adult and parent participants were able to use a web-based intervention to assess the clinical features of throat infections and generate scores using clinical prediction rules. However, some had difficulties assessing clinical signs, such as lymph nodes, throat pus, and inflammation, and scores were assessed as sensitive but not specific. Many participants had problems taking photographs of adequate quality, but most were able to take throat swabs and saliva samples.

Effect of Probiotic Use on Antibiotic Administration Among Care Home Residents: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Probiotics are frequently used by residents in care homes (residential homes or nursing homes that provide residents with 24-hour support for personal care or nursing care), although the evidence on whether probiotics prevent infections and reduce antibiotic use in these settings is limited. Objective: To determine whether a daily oral probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 compared with placebo reduces antibiotic administration in care home residents. Design, Setting, and Participants: Placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of 310 care home residents, aged 65 years and older, recruited from 23 care homes in the United Kingdom between December 2016 and May 2018, with last follow-up on October 31, 2018. Interventions: Study participants were randomized to receive a daily capsule containing a probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 (total cell count per capsule, 1.3 × 1010 to 1.6 × 1010) (n = 155), or daily matched placebo (n = 155), for up to 1 year. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cumulative antibiotic administration days for all-cause infections measured from randomization for up to 1 year. Results: Among 310 randomized care home residents (mean age, 85.3 years; 66.8% women), 195 (62.9%) remained alive and completed the trial. Participant diary data (daily data including study product use, antibiotic administration, and signs of infection) were available for 98.7% randomized to the probiotic group and 97.4% randomized to placebo. Care home residents randomized to the probiotic group had a mean of 12.9 cumulative systemic antibiotic administration days (95% CI, 0 to 18.05), and residents randomized to placebo had a mean of 12.0 days (95% CI, 0 to 16.95) (absolute difference, 0.9 days [95% CI, -3.25 to 5.05]; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.63]; P = .50). A total of 120 care home residents experienced 283 adverse events (150 adverse events in the probiotic group and 133 in the placebo group). Hospitalizations accounted for 94 of the events in probiotic group and 78 events in the placebo group, and deaths accounted for 33 of the events in the probiotic group and 32 of the events in the placebo group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among care home residents in the United Kingdom, a daily dose of a probiotic combination of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp lactis BB-12 did not significantly reduce antibiotic administration for all-cause infections. These findings do not support the use of probiotics in this setting. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier:16392920.

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.

Predictors of Adverse Outcomes in Uncomplicated Lower Respiratory Tract Infections.

PURPOSE: Presentation with acute lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in primary care is common. The aim of this study was to help clinicians treat patients presenting with LRTI in primary care by identifying those at risk of serious adverse outcomes (death, admission, late-onset pneumonia). METHODS: In a prospective cohort study of patients presenting with LRTI symptoms, patient characteristics and clinical findings were recorded and adverse events identified over 30 days by chart review. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified predictors of adverse outcomes. RESULTS: Participants were recruited from 522 UK practices in 2009-2013. The analysis was restricted to the 28,846 adult patients not referred immediately to the hospital. Serious adverse outcomes occurred in 325/28,846 (1.1%). Eight factors were independently predictive; these characterized symptom severity (absence of coryza, fever, chest pain, and clinician-assessed severity), patient vulnerability (age >65 years, comorbidity), and physiological impact (oxygen saturation <95%, low blood pressure). In aggregate, the 8 features had moderate predictive value (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.71, 95% CI, 0.68-0.74); the 4% of patients with ≥5 features had an approximately 1 in 17 (5.7%) risk of serious adverse outcomes, the 35% with 3 or 4 features had an intermediate risk (1 in 50, 2.0%), and the 61% with ≤2 features had a low (1 in 200, 0.5%) risk. CONCLUSIONS: In routine practice most patients presenting with LRTI in primary care can be identified as at intermediate or low risk of serious outcome.

Predictors of pneumonia in lower respiratory tract infections: 3C prospective cough complication cohort study.

The aim was to aid diagnosis of pneumonia in those presenting with lower respiratory tract symptoms in routine primary care.A cohort of 28 883 adult patients with acute cough attributed to lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) was recruited from 5222 UK practices in 2009-13. Symptoms, signs and treatment were recorded at presentation and subsequent events followed-up for 30 days by chart review. The predictive value of patient characteristics, presenting symptoms and clinical findings for the diagnosis of pneumonia in the first 7 days was established.Of the 720 out of 28 883 (2.5.%) radiographed within 1 week of the index consultation, 115 (16.0%; 0.40% of 28 883) were assigned a definite or probable pneumonia diagnosis. The significant independent predictors of radiograph-confirmed pneumonia were temperature >37.8°C (RR 2.6; 95% CI 1.5-4.8), crackles on auscultation (RR 1.8; 1.1-3.0), oxygen saturation <95% (RR 1.7; 1.0-3.1) and pulse >100·min-1 (RR 1.9; 1.1-3.2). Most patients with pneumonia (99/115, 86.1%) exhibited at least one of these four clinical signs; the positive predictive value of having at least one of these signs was 20.2% (95% CI 17.3-23.1).In routine practice, radiograph-confirmed pneumonia as a short-term complication of LRTI is very uncommon (one in 270). Pulse oximetry may aid the diagnosis of pneumonia in this setting.

Effect of antihypertensive deprescribing on hospitalisation and mortality: long-term follow-up of the OPTiMISE randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with low blood pressure and frailty. The OPTiMISE trial showed that this deprescribing can be achieved with no differences in blood pressure control at 3 months compared with usual care. We aimed to examine effects of deprescribing on longer-term hospitalisation and mortality. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial enrolled participants from 69 general practices across central and southern England. Participants aged 80 years or older, with systolic blood pressure less than 150 mm Hg and who were receiving two or more antihypertensive medications, were randomly assigned (1:1) to antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of one antihypertensive) or usual care. General practitioners and participants were aware of the treatment allocation following randomisation but individuals responsible for analysing the data were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. Participants were followed up via their primary and secondary care electronic health records at least 3 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was time to all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. Intention-to-treat analyses were done using Cox regression modelling. A per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome was also done, excluding participants from the intervention group who did not reduce treatment or who had medication reinstated during the initial trial 12-week follow-up period. This study is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT2016-004236-38) and the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN97503221). FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017, and Sept 30, 2018, a total of 569 participants were randomly assigned. Of these, 564 (99%; intervention=280; control=284) were followed up for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 3·7-4·3). Participants had a mean age of 84·8 years (SD 3·4) at baseline and 273 (48%) were women. Medication reduction was sustained in 109 participants at follow-up (51% of the 213 participants alive in the intervention group). Participants in the intervention group had a larger reduction in antihypertensives than the control group (adjusted mean difference -0·35 drugs [95% CI -0·52 to -0·18]). Overall, 202 (72%) participants in the intervention group and 218 (77%) participants in the control group experienced hospitalisation or mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·76 to 1·12]). There was some evidence that the proportion of participants experiencing the primary outcome in the per-protocol population was lower in the intervention group (aHR 0·80 [0·64 to 1·00]). INTERPRETATION: Half of participants sustained medication reduction with no evidence of an increase in all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. These findings suggest that an antihypertensive deprescribing intervention might be safe for people aged 80 years or older with controlled blood pressure taking two or more antihypertensives. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Randomised controlled trial of population screening for atrial fibrillation in people aged 70 years and over to reduce stroke: protocol for the SAFER trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of evidence that the benefits of screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) outweigh the harms. Following the completion of the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) pilot trial, the aim of the main SAFER trial is to establish whether population screening for AF reduces incidence of stroke risk. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Approximately 82 000 people aged 70 years and over and not on oral anticoagulation are being recruited from general practices in England. Patients on the palliative care register or residents in a nursing home are excluded. Eligible people are identified using electronic patient records from general practices and sent an invitation and consent form to participate by post. Consenting participants are randomised at a ratio of 2:1 (control:intervention) with clustering by household. Those randomised to the intervention arm are sent an information leaflet inviting them to participate in screening, which involves use of a handheld single-lead ECG four times a day for 3 weeks. ECG traces identified by an algorithm as possible AF are reviewed by cardiologists. Participants with AF are seen by a general practitioner for consideration of anticoagulation. The primary outcome is stroke. Major secondary outcomes are: death, major bleeding and cardiovascular events. Follow-up will be via electronic health records for an average of 4 years. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat using time-to-event modelling. Results from this trial will be combined with follow-up data from the cluster-randomised pilot trial by fixed-effects meta-analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The London-Central National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will include public-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN72104369.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir for high-risk, community-based adults with COVID-19: an economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over 6 months. DESIGN AND SETTING: An economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK NHS and personal social services perspective and a 6-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI = 0.0044 to 0.0067) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81 190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except for those aged ≥75 years, with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30 000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15 000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: At the current cost of £513 per course, molnupiravir is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a 6-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated patients with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients.

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031.

Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation. METHODS: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (<50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0-10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]>0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference -2·1% [-2·9% to -1·5%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: -2·5% [-3·3% to -1·6%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)>0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)>0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)>0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference -1·6% [-2·6% to -0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: -1·9% [-2·9% to -0·9%]; p(sup)>0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference -1·4% [-2·3% to -0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: -0·5% [-1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)>0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up. INTERPRETATION: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Systematic review of clinical practice guidelines for acne vulgaris published between January 2017 and July 2021.

Background: Acne is very common, can cause considerable negative impact on quality of life and there is increasing concern over the use of long courses of oral antibiotics for this condition. Objectives: (1) To critically appraise reporting in acne guidelines and compare this with previous systematic review of acne guidelines. (2) Examine acne treatment guidance on pre-specified acne treatments of interest and compare between acne guidelines. Methods: Searches for new or updated guidelines were carried out in MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar, LILACS from 1 January 2017 to 31 July 2021, supplemented by searching a guideline-specific depository and checking for updates to guidelines included in previous review. We included guidelines, consensus statements or care protocols on the medical treatment of acne vulgaris in adults and/or children and excluded those that focused on a single intervention or subgroup of acne, regional adaptations of guidelines or guidelines included in previous review. AGREE II checklist was applied to critically appraise reporting of guidelines. Results were synthesised narratively. Results: Of 807 abstracts identified nine guidelines were identified that were eligible for inclusion. All guidelines had AGREE II scores above average in at least one domain and reporting was substantially improved compared to the systematic review of acne carried out 5 years previously. There was consensus between guidelines on the key role of topical treatments as first-line acne treatment and most recommended continuing topical treatments as maintenance therapy. There was considerable variation between guidelines on classification of severity, indications for commencing oral antibiotics and on maximum duration of oral antibiotics. However, there was consensus on the need for co-prescription of a non-antibiotic topical treatment when using oral antibiotics. There were notable differences on recommendations regarding provision of information for patients on how to use topical treatments or how to mitigate against side effects. Conclusions: Substantial differences in classification of acne severity hampered comparisons between guidelines. Although development and reporting of guidelines has improved over the past 5 years, differences in key recommendations remain, possibly reflecting uncertainties in the underlying evidence base. Differences between guidelines could have substantial implications for prevalence of antibiotic prescribing for acne.

Feasibility of a placebo-controlled trial of antibiotics for possible urinary tract infection in care homes: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of suspected urinary tract infection (UTI) in care and nursing home residents is commonly based on vague non-localising symptoms (for example, confusion), potentially leading to inappropriate antibiotic prescription. The safety of withholding antibiotics in such cases could be addressed by a randomised controlled trial (RCT); however, this would require close monitoring of residents, and support from care home staff, clinicians, residents, and families. AIM: To explore the views of residential care and nursing home staff (herein referred to as care home staff) and primary care clinicians on the feasibility and design of a potential RCT of antibiotics for suspected UTI in care home residents, with no localising urinary symptoms. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative interview study with primary care clinicians and care home staff in the UK. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews with 16 care home staff and 11 primary care clinicians were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Participants were broadly supportive of the proposed RCT. The safety of residents was a priority and there was strong support for using the RESTORE2 (Recognise Early Soft Signs, Take Observations, Respond, Escalate) assessment tool to monitor residents; however, there were concerns about associated training requirements, especially for night and temporary staff. Effective communication (with residents, families, and staff) was deemed essential, and carers were confident that residents and families would be supportive of the RCT if the rationale was clearly explained and safety systems were robust. There were mixed views on a placebo-controlled design. The perceived additional burden was seen as a potential barrier, and the use of temporary staff and the out-of-hours period were highlighted as potential risk areas. CONCLUSION: The support for this potential trial was encouraging. Future development will need to prioritise resident safety (especially in the out-of-hours period), effective communication, and minimising additional burden on staff to optimise recruitment.

Gut microbiology of UK care home residents: a cross-sectional analysis from a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of potentially clinically relevant gut pathogens and associations with the carriage of resistant organisms in UK care home residents. METHODS: Stool samples were collected pre-randomisation from care home residents participating in a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Cultivable clinically relevant bacteria were analysed. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by agar dilution (amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, gentamicin, trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, and ciprofloxacin). We also aimed to detect resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, and vancomycin. RESULTS: Stool samples were available for 159/310 residents participating in the trial (51%) from 23 care homes between 2016 and 2018. In total, 402 bacterial isolates were cultured from 158 stool samples and 29 different species were cultured. The five most common species were Escherichia coli (155/158, 98%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (40/158, 25%), Enterococcus faecalis (35/158, 22%), Enterococcus faecium (30/158, 19%), and Proteus mirabilis (25/158, 16%). Enterobacterales isolates were cultured from 157 samples (99%), and resistance to at least one of the tested antimicrobials was found in 119 of these (76%). There were high levels of variation in outcomes by care home. DISCUSSION: We demonstrated that care home residents harbour significant levels of antimicrobial-resistant organisms in their stool. This work emphasises the importance of both enhanced infection control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programmes to support the appropriate use of antimicrobials in this setting.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Horticultural therapy for general health in the older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: With a pronounced and historically unprecedented tendency of population ageing, research on ageing and related disorders has been increasingly brought into focus. Horticultural therapy (HT), as an important role of social prescribing, has been an integrative for decades. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate HT for general health in older adults. METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Wanfang database, grey literature databases and clinical trials registers were searched from inception to March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs (QRCTs) and the cohort studies about HT for adults aged over 60 were included in this study. Outcome measures were physical function, quality of life, BMI, mood tested by self-reported questionnaire and the expression of the immune cells. The study was registered under PROSPERO (CRD42019146184). RESULTS: Totally, fifteen studies (thirteen RCTs and two cohort studies) involving 1046 older participants were included. Meta-analysis showed that HT resulted in better quality of life (MD 2.09, 95% CI [1.33, 2.85], P<0. 01) and physical function (SMD 0.82, 95% [0.36, 1.29], P<0.01) compared with no-gardener; the similar findings showed in BMI (SMD -0.30, 95% [-0.57, -0.04], P = 0.02) and mood tested by self-reported questionnaire (SMD 2.80, 95% CI [1.82, 3.79], P<0. 01). And HT might be conducive on blood pressure and immunity, while all the evidence were moderate-quality judged by GRADE. CONCLUSIONS: HT may improve physical function and quality of life in older adults, reduce BMI and enhance positive mood. A suitable duration of HT may be between 60 to 120 minutes per week lasting 1.5 to 12 months. However, it remains unclear as to what constitutes an optimal recommendation.

Cost-Effectiveness of Antihypertensive Deprescribing in Primary Care: a Markov Modelling Study Using Data From the OPTiMISE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications for older patients with normal blood pressure is recommended by some clinical guidelines, where the potential harms of treatment may outweigh the benefits. This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of this approach. METHODS: A Markov patient-level simulation was undertaken to model the effect of withdrawing one antihypertensive compared with usual care, over a life-time horizon. Model population characteristics were estimated using data from the OPTiMISE antihypertensive deprescribing trial, and the effects of blood pressure changes on outcomes were derived from the literature. Health-related quality of life was modeled in Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and presented as costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, medication reduction resulted in lower costs than usual care (mean difference £185), but also lower QALYs (mean difference 0.062) per patient over a life-time horizon. Usual care was cost-effective at £2975 per QALY gained (more costly, but more effective). Medication reduction resulted more heart failure and stroke/TIA events but fewer adverse events. Medication reduction may be the preferred strategy at a willingness-to-pay of £20 000/QALY, where the baseline absolute risk of serious drug-related adverse events was ≥7.7% a year (compared with 1.7% in the base-case). CONCLUSIONS: Although there was uncertainty around many of the assumptions underpinning this model, these findings suggest that antihypertensive medication reduction should not be attempted in many older patients with controlled systolic blood pressure. For populations at high risk of adverse effects, deprescribing may be beneficial, but a targeted approach would be required in routine practice.