Clinical and cost-effectiveness of spironolactone in treating persistent facial acne in women: SAFA double-blinded RCT.

Background: Acne is common, can cause significant impact on quality of life and is a frequent reason for long-term antibiotic use. Spironolactone has been prescribed for acne in women for many years, but robust evidence is lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether spironolactone is clinically effective and cost-effective in treating acne in women. Design: Pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised superiority trial. Setting: Primary and secondary healthcare and community settings (community and social media advertising). Participants: Women aged 18 years and older with facial acne persisting for at least 6 months, judged to potentially warrant oral antibiotic treatment. Interventions: Participants were randomised 1 : 1, using an independent web-based procedure, to either 50 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 6, increasing to 100 mg/day spironolactone or matched placebo until week 24. Participants continued usual topical treatment. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the adjusted mean difference in Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale score at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included Acne-Specific Quality of Life total and subscales; participant self-assessed improvement; Investigator's Global Assessment; Participant's Global Assessment; satisfaction; adverse effects and cost-effectiveness. Results: Of 1267 women assessed for eligibility, 410 were randomised (201 intervention, 209 control), 342 in the primary analysis (176 intervention, 166 control). Mean age was 29.2 years (standard deviation 7.2) and 7.9% (28/356) were from non-white backgrounds. At baseline, Investigator's Global Assessment classified acne as mild in 46%, moderate in 40% and severe in 13%. At baseline, 82.9% were using topical treatments. Over 95% of participants in both groups tolerated the treatment and increased their dose. Mean baseline Acne-Specific Quality of Life symptom subscale was 13.0 (standard deviation 4.7) across both groups. Mean scores at week 12 were 19.2 (standard deviation 6.1) for spironolactone and 17.8 (standard deviation 5.6) for placebo [difference favouring spironolactone 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.46) adjusting for baseline variables]. Mean scores at week 24 were 21.2 (standard deviation 5.9) in spironolactone group and 17.4 (standard deviation 5.8) in placebo group [adjusted difference 3.77 (95% confidence interval 2.50 to 5.03) adjusted]. Secondary outcomes also favoured spironolactone at 12 weeks with greater differences at 24 weeks. Participants taking spironolactone were more likely than those taking placebo to report overall acne improvement at 12 weeks {72.2% vs. 67.9% [adjusted odds ratio 1.16 (95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.91)]} and at 24 weeks {81.9% vs. 63.3% [adjusted odds ratio 2.72 (95% confidence interval 1.50 to 4.93)]}. Investigator's Global Assessment was judged successful at week 12 for 31/201 (18.5%) taking spironolactone and 9/209 (5.6%) taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 5.18 (95% confidence interval 2.18 to 12.28)]. Satisfaction with treatment improved in 70.6% of participants taking spironolactone compared with 43.1% taking placebo [adjusted odds ratio 3.12 (95% confidence interval 1.80 to 5.41)]. Adverse reactions were similar between groups, but headaches were reported more commonly on spironolactone (20.4% vs. 12.0%). No serious adverse reactions were reported. Taking account for missing data through multiple imputation gave an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of £27,879 (adjusted) compared to placebo or £2683 per quality-adjusted life-year compared to oral antibiotics. Conclusions: Spironolactone resulted in better participant-reported and investigator-reported outcomes than placebo, with greater differences at week 24 than week 12. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN12892056 and EudraCT (2018-003630-33). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/13/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 56. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Acne (or spots) is common and often persists into adulthood. Many people take long courses of antibiotic tablets, but concerns about antibiotic resistance mean alternatives are needed. Spironolactone is a medicine that is sometimes used for acne in women. However, we do not know whether it works. This trial aimed to answer this question. We invited women aged over 18 who had acne on their face for at least 6 months to take part via their general practitioner surgery, hospital or advertising. Women were randomly assigned to two groups: one group was given spironolactone and the other group was given identical-looking placebo ('dummy pill') daily for 24 weeks. Women in both groups could continue using acne treatments applied to the skin (gels/creams/lotions). We asked participants to rate their acne using a questionnaire called Acne-Specific Quality of Life, asked whether they felt their skin had improved and asked skin specialists to assess their skin. Four hundred and ten women took part, many of whom had had acne for a long time. Acne-Specific Quality of Life scores improved in both groups by 12 weeks but improved more in the spironolactone group at 12 and 24 weeks. When asked directly whether their skin had improved, 71% of participants in the spironolactone group said it had, compared with 43% on placebo. Skin specialists were also more likely to report that the acne had improved in the spironolactone group. Side effects were mild and similar in both groups but there were slightly more headaches on spironolactone (20% compared with 12%). Spironolactone is likely to represent value for money for the National Health Service, though this depends on a number of factors including what it is compared to. This trial suggests that spironolactone is a useful additional treatment for women with persistent acne.

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.

Nasal sprays and behavioural interventions compared with usual care for acute respiratory illness in primary care: a randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: A small amount of evidence suggests that nasal sprays, or physical activity and stress management, could shorten the duration of respiratory infections. This study aimed to assess the effect of nasal sprays or a behavioural intervention promoting physical activity and stress management on respiratory illnesses, compared with usual care. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, parallel-group trial was done at 332 general practitioner practices in the UK. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 years) had at least one comorbidity or risk factor increasing their risk of adverse outcomes due to respiratory illness (eg, immune compromise due to serious illness or medication; heart disease; asthma or lung disease; diabetes; mild hepatic impairment; stroke or severe neurological problem; obesity [BMI ≥30 kg/m2]; or age ≥65 years) or at least three self-reported respiratory tract infections in a normal year (ie, any year before the COVID-19 pandemic). Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) using a computerised system to: usual care (brief advice about managing illness); gel-based spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); saline spray (two sprays per nostril at the first sign of an infection or after potential exposure to infection, up to 6 times per day); or a brief behavioural intervention in which participants were given access to a website promoting physical activity and stress management. The study was partially masked: neither investigators nor medical staff were aware of treatment allocation, and investigators who did the statistical analysis were unaware of treatment allocation. The sprays were relabelled to maintain participant masking. Outcomes were assessed using data from participants' completed monthly surveys and a survey at 6 months. The primary outcome was total number of days of illness due to self-reported respiratory tract illnesses (coughs, colds, sore throat, sinus or ear infections, influenza, or COVID-19) in the previous 6 months, assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, which included all randomly assigned participants who had primary outcome data available. Key secondary outcomes were possible harms, including headache or facial pain, and antibiotic use, assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, 17936080, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2020, and April 7, 2023, of 19 475 individuals screened for eligibility, 13 799 participants were randomly assigned to usual care (n=3451), gel-based nasal spray (n=3448), saline nasal spray (n=3450), or the digital intervention promoting physical activity and stress management (n=3450). 11 612 participants had complete data for the primary outcome and were included in the primary outcome analysis (usual care group, n=2983; gel-based spray group, n=2935; saline spray group, n=2967; behavioural website group, n=2727). Compared with participants in the usual care group, who had a mean of 8·2 (SD 16·1) days of illness, the number of days of illness was significantly lower in the gel-based spray group (mean 6·5 days [SD 12·8]; adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·82 [99% CI 0·76-0·90]; p<0·0001) and the saline spray group (6·4 days [12·4]; 0·81 [0·74-0·88]; p<0·0001), but not in the group allocated to the behavioural website (7·4 days [14·7]; 0·97 [0·89-1·06]; p=0·46). The most common adverse event was headache or sinus pain in the gel-based group: 123 (4·8%) of 2556 participants in the usual care group; 199 (7·8%) of 2498 participants in the gel-based group (risk ratio 1·61 [95% CI 1·30-1·99]; p<0·0001); 101 (4·5%) of 2377 participants in the saline group (0·81 [0·63-1·05]; p=0·11); and 101 (4·5%) of 2091 participants in the behavioural intervention group (0·95 [0·74-1·22]; p=0·69). Compared with usual care, antibiotic use was lower for all interventions: IRR 0·65 (95% CI 0·50-0·84; p=0·001) for the gel-based spray group; 0·69 (0·45-0·88; p=0·003) for the saline spray group; and 0·74 (0·57-0·94; p=0·02) for the behavioural website group. INTERPRETATION: Advice to use either nasal spray reduced illness duration and both sprays and the behavioural website reduced antibiotic use. Future research should aim to address the impact of the widespread implementation of these simple interventions. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Predicting type 1 diabetes in children using electronic health records in primary care in the UK: development and validation of a machine-learning algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Children presenting to primary care with suspected type 1 diabetes should be referred immediately to secondary care to avoid life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis. However, early recognition of children with type 1 diabetes is challenging. Children might not present with classic symptoms, or symptoms might be attributed to more common conditions. A quarter of children present with diabetic ketoacidosis, a proportion unchanged over 25 years. Our aim was to investigate whether a machine-learning algorithm could lead to earlier detection of type 1 diabetes in primary care. METHODS: We developed the predictive algorithm using Welsh primary care electronic health records (EHRs) linked to the Brecon Dataset, a register of children newly diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Children were included from their first primary care record within the study period of Jan 1, 2000, to Dec 31, 2016, until either type 1 diabetes diagnosis, they turned 15 years of age, or study end. We developed an ensemble learner (SuperLearner) using 26 potential predictors. Validation of the algorithm was done in English EHRs from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (primary care) and Hospital Episode Statistics, focusing on the ability of the algorithm to identify children who went on to develop type 1 diabetes and the time by which diagnosis could be anticipated. FINDINGS: The development dataset comprised 34 754 400 primary care contacts, relating to 952 402 children, and the validation dataset comprised 43 089 103 primary care contacts, relating to 1 493 328 children. Of these, 1829 (0·19%) children younger than 15 years in the development dataset, and 1516 (0·10%) in the validation dataset had a reliable date of type 1 diabetes diagnosis. If set to give an alert in 10% of contacts, an estimated 71·6% (95% CI 68·8-74·4) of the children with type 1 diabetes would receive an alert by the algorithm in the 90 days before diagnosis, with diagnosis anticipated, on average, by an estimated 9·34 days (95% CI 7·77-10·9). INTERPRETATION: If implemented into primary care settings, this predictive algorithm could substantially reduce the proportion of patients with new-onset type 1 diabetes presenting in diabetic ketoacidosis. Acceptability of alert thresholds should be explored in primary care. FUNDING: Diabetes UK.

Use of the FebriDx® host-response point-of-care test may reduce antibiotic use for respiratory tract infections in primary care: a mixed-methods feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: FebriDx® is a CE-marked, single-use point-of-care test with markers for bacterial [C-reactive protein (CRP)] and viral [myxovirus resistance protein A (MxA)] infection, using finger-prick blood samples. Results are available after 10-12 min. We explored the usability and potential impact of FebriDx® in reducing antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infection (LRTI) in primary care, and the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: Patients (aged ≥1 year) with LRTI deemed likely to receive antibiotic prescription were recruited at nine general practices and underwent FebriDx® testing. Data collection included FebriDx® results, antibiotic prescribing plan (before and after testing) and re-consultation rates. Staff completed System Usability Scale questionnaires. RESULTS: From 31 January 2023 to 9 June 2023, 162 participants participated (median age 57 years), with a median symptom duration of 7 days (IQR 5-14). A valid FebriDx® result was obtained in 97% (157/162). Of 155 patients with available results, 103 (66%) had no detectable CRP or MxA, 28 (18%) had CRP only, 5 (3%) had MxA only, and 19 (12%) had both CRP and MxA. The clinicians' stated management plan was to prescribe antibiotics for 86% (134/155) before testing and 45% (69/155) after testing, meaning a 41% (95% CI: 31%, 51%) difference after testing, without evidence of increased re-consultation rates. Ease-of-use questionnaires showed 'good' user-friendliness. CONCLUSIONS: Use of FebriDx® to guide antibiotic prescribing for LRTI in primary care was associated with a substantial reduction in prescribing intentions. These results support a fully powered RCT to confirm its impact and safety.

Long-term consequences of urinary tract infection in childhood: an electronic population-based cohort study in Welsh primary and secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Childhood urinary tract infection (UTI) can cause renal scarring, and possibly hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Previous studies have focused on selected populations, with severe illness or underlying risk factors. The risk for most children with UTI is unclear. AIM: To examine the association between childhood UTI and outcomes in an unselected population of children. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective population-based cohort study using linked GP, hospital, and microbiology records in Wales, UK. METHOD: Participants were all children born in 2005-2009, with follow-up until 31 December 2017. The exposure was microbiologically confirmed UTI before the age of 5 years. The key outcome measures were renal scarring, hypertension, CKD, and ESRF. RESULTS: In total, 159 201 children were included; 77 524 (48.7%) were female and 7% (n = 11 099) had UTI before the age of 5 years. A total of 0.16% (n = 245) were diagnosed with renal scarring by the age of 7 years. Odds of renal scarring were higher in children by age 7 years with UTI (1.24%; adjusted odds ratio 4.60 [95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.33 to 6.35]). Mean follow-up was 9.53 years. Adjusted hazard ratios were: 1.44 (95% CI = 0.84 to 2.46) for hypertension; 1.67 (95% CI = 0.85 to 3.31) for CKD; and 1.16 (95% CI = 0.56 to 2.37) for ESRF. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of renal scarring in an unselected population of children with UTI is low. Without underlying risk factors, UTI is not associated with CKD, hypertension, or ESRF by the age of 10 years. Further research with systematic scanning of children's kidneys, including those with less severe UTI and without UTI, is needed to increase the certainty of these results, as most children are not scanned. Longer follow-up is needed to establish if UTI, without additional risk factors, is associated with hypertension, CKD, or ESRF later in life.

Systemic antibiotics for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.

BACKGROUND: Dental pain can have a detrimental effect on quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for these conditions should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists frequently prescribe antibiotics in the absence of these signs. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This review is the second update of the original version first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling, or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (26 February 2018 (discontinued)), CENTRAL (2022, Issue 10), MEDLINE Ovid (23 November 2022), Embase Ovid (23 November 2022), CINAHL EBSCO (25 November 2022) and two trials registries, and performed a grey literature search. There were no restrictions on language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage, or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We used a fixed-effect model in the meta-analysis as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to request missing information. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: There was one new completed trial on this topic since the last update in 2018. In total, we included three trials with 134 participants. Systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess One trial (72 participants) compared the effects of a single preoperative dose of clindamycin versus a matched placebo when provided with a surgical intervention (endodontic chemo-mechanical debridement and filling) and analgesics to adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis. We assessed this study at low risk of bias. There were no differences in participant-reported pain or swelling across trial arms at any time point assessed. The median values for pain (numerical rating scale 0 to 10) were 3.0 in both groups at 24 hours (P = 0.219); 1.0 in the antibiotic group versus 2.0 in the control group at 48 hours (P = 0.242); and 0 in both groups at 72 hours and seven days (P = 0.116 and 0.673, respectively). The risk ratio of swelling when comparing preoperative antibiotic to placebo was 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 2.56; P = 0.41). The certainty of evidence for all outcomes in this comparison was low. Two trials (62 participants) compared the effects of a seven-day course of oral phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo when provided with a surgical intervention (total or partial endodontic chemo-mechanical debridement) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth. Participants in both trials also received oral analgesics. We assessed one study at high risk of bias and the other at unclear risk of bias. There were no differences in participant-reported pain or swelling at any time point assessed. The mean difference for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3, where 0 was no pain) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours; and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The standardised mean difference for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours; and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The certainty of evidence for all the outcomes in this comparison was very low. Adverse effects, as reported in two studies, were diarrhoea (one participant in the placebo group), fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant in the antibiotic group) and dizziness preoperatively (one participant in the antibiotic group). Systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess We found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that preoperative clindamycin for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis results in little to no difference in participant-reported pain or swelling at any of the time points included in this review when provided with chemo-mechanical endodontic debridement and filling under local anaesthesia. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of postoperative phenoxymethylpenicillin for adults with localised apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth when provided with chemo-mechanical debridement and oral analgesics. We found no studies which compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults.

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.].

Use of the FebriDx point-of-care test for lower respiratory tract infections in primary care: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: FebriDx is a single-use, analyser-free, point-of-care test with markers for bacterial (C-reactive protein [CRP]) and viral (myxovirus resistance protein A [MxA]) infection, measured on a finger-prick blood sample. AIM: As part of a larger feasibility study, we explored the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on the use of FebriDx to safely reduce antibiotic prescriptions for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: Remote semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in South England. METHOD: In total, 22 individuals (12 patients who underwent FebriDx testing and 10 HCPs from general practices that conducted testing) participated in interviews, which were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Patients and HCPs expressed positive views about use of the test. They felt FebriDx was a useful tool to inform prescribing decisions and provided a visual aid to support shared decision making and appropriate antibiotic use. Most felt it would be feasible to integrate use into routine primary care consultations. Some practical difficulties with blood collection and interpreting results, which impacted on usability, were identified. Some patients' reactions to negative test results suggested the need for better communication alongside use of the test. CONCLUSION: FebriDx was perceived as a useful tool to guide antibiotic prescribing and support shared decision making. Initial practical problems with testing and communicating results are potential barriers to use. Training and practice on using the test and effective communication are likely to be important elements in ensuring patient understanding and satisfaction, and successful adoption.

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.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of Spironolactone for Adult Female Acne (SAFA): economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks. DESIGN: Economic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising. PARTICIPANTS: Women ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator's global assessment, IGA <3 vs ≥3)) and baseline variables (Acne-QoL symptom subscale score, resource use costs, EQ-5D score and use of topical treatments). RESULTS: Spironolactone did not appear cost-effective in the complete case analysis (n=126 spironolactone, n=109 control), compared with no active systemic treatment (adjusted incremental cost per QALY £67 191; unadjusted £34 770). Incremental cost per QALY was £27 879 (adjusted), just below the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold value of £30 000, where multiple imputation took account of missing data. Incremental cost per QALY for other sensitivity analyses varied around the base-case, highlighting the degree of uncertainty. The adjusted incremental cost per point change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale for spironolactone compared with no active systemic treatment was £38.21 (complete case analysis). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a high level of uncertainty, particularly with respect to estimates of incremental QALYs. Compared with no active systemic treatment, spironolactone was estimated to be marginally cost-effective where multiple imputation was performed but was not cost-effective in complete case analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12892056).

Implementing Germ Defence digital behaviour change intervention via all primary care practices in England to reduce respiratory infections during the COVID-19 pandemic: an efficient cluster randomised controlled trial using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Germ Defence ( www.germdefence.org ) is an evidence-based interactive website that promotes behaviour change for infection control within households. To maximise the potential of Germ Defence to effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19, the intervention needed to be implemented at scale rapidly. METHODS: With NHS England approval, we conducted an efficient two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effectiveness of randomising implementation of Germ Defence via general practitioner (GP) practices across England, UK, compared with usual care to disseminate Germ Defence to patients. GP practices randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3292) were emailed and asked to disseminate Germ Defence to all adult patients via mobile phone text, email or social media. Usual care arm GP practices (n = 3287) maintained standard management for the 4-month trial period and then asked to share Germ Defence with their adult patients. The primary outcome was the rate of GP presentations for respiratory tract infections (RTI) per patient. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of acute RTIs, confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and suspected COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 symptoms, gastrointestinal infection diagnoses, antibiotic usage and hospital admissions. The impact of the intervention on outcome rates was assessed using negative binomial regression modelling within the OpenSAFELY platform. The uptake of the intervention by GP practice and by patients was measured via website analytics. RESULTS: Germ Defence was used 310,731 times. The average website satisfaction score was 7.52 (0-10 not at all to very satisfied, N = 9933). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of RTIs between intervention and control practices (rate ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.96, 1.06, p = 0.70). This was similar to all other eight health outcomes. Patient engagement within intervention arm practices ranged from 0 to 48% of a practice list. CONCLUSIONS: While the RCT did not demonstrate a difference in health outcomes, we demonstrated that rapid large-scale implementation of a digital behavioural intervention is possible and can be evaluated with a novel efficient prospective RCT methodology analysing routinely collected patient data entirely within a trusted research environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (14602359) on 12 August 2020.

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.

Using microbiological data to improve the use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: A protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to antibiotics is rising and threatens future antibiotic effectiveness. 'Antibiotic targeting' ensures patients who may benefit from antibiotics receive them, while being safely withheld from those who may not. Point-of-care tests may assist with antibiotic targeting by allowing primary care clinicians to establish if symptomatic patients have a viral, bacterial, combined, or no infection. However, because organisms can be harmlessly carried, it is important to know if the presence of the virus/bacteria is related to the illness for which the patient is being assessed. One way to do this is to look for associations with more severe/prolonged symptoms and test results. Previous research to answer this question for acute respiratory tract infections has given conflicting results with studies has not having enough participants to provide statistical confidence. AIM: To undertake a synthesis of IPD from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies of respiratory tract infections (RTI) in order to investigate the prognostic value of microbiological data in addition to, or instead of, clinical symptoms and signs. METHODS: A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase will be carried out for studies of acute respiratory infection in primary care settings. The outcomes of interest are duration of disease, severity of disease, repeated consultation with new/worsening illness and complications requiring hospitalisation. Authors of eligible studies will be contacted to provide anonymised individual participant data. The data will be harmonised and aggregated. Multilevel regression analysis will be conducted to determine key outcome measures for different potential pathogens and whether these offer any additional information on prognosis beyond clinical symptoms and signs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023376769.

Predicting illness progression for children with lower respiratory infections in primary care: a prospective cohort and observational study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), fuelling antibiotic resistance, and there are few prognostic tools available to inform management. AIM: To externally validate an existing prognostic model (STARWAVe) to identify children at low risk of illness progression, and if model performance was limited to develop a new internally validated prognostic model. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study with a nested trial in a primary care setting. METHOD: Children aged 6 months to 12 years presenting with uncomplicated LRTI were included in the cohort. Children were randomised to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day for 7 days or placebo, or if not randomised they participated in a parallel observational study to maximise generalisability. Baseline clinical data were used to predict adverse outcome (illness progression requiring hospital assessment). RESULTS: A total of 758 children participated (n = 432 trial, n = 326 observational). For predicting illness progression the STARWAVe prognostic model had moderate performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50 to 0.77), but a new, internally validated model (seven items: baseline severity; respiratory rate; duration of prior illness; oxygen saturation; sputum or a rattly chest; passing urine less often; and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped AUROC 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.92) and calibration. A three-item model (respiratory rate; oxygen saturation; and sputum or a rattly chest) also performed well (AUROC 0.81, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.91), as did a score (ranging from 19 to 102) derived from coefficients of the model (AUROC 0.78, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88): a score of <70 classified 89% (n = 600/674) of children having a low risk (<5%) of progression of illness. CONCLUSION: A simple three-item prognostic score could be useful as a tool to identify children with LRTI who are at low risk of an adverse outcome and to guide clinical management.

Treating acute exacerbations of COPD with Chinese herbal medicine to aid antibiotic use reduction (Excalibur): a randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled feasibility trial.

Background: Although many acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are triggered by non-bacterial causes, they are often treated with antibiotics. Preliminary research suggests that the Chinese herbal medicine "Shufeng Jiedu" (SFJD), may improve recovery and therefore reduce antibiotic use in patients with AECOPD. Aims: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial of SFJD for AECOPD in UK primary care. Methods: GPs opportunistically recruited patients experiencing an AECOPD. Participants were randomised 1:1 to usual care plus SFJD or placebo for 14 days. Participants, GPs and research nurses were blinded to treatment allocation. GPs could prescribe immediate, delayed or no antibiotics, with delayed prescribing encouraged where appropriate. Participants were asked to complete a participant diary, including EXACT-PRO and CAT™ questionnaires for up to 4 weeks. Outcomes included recruitment rate and other measures of study feasibility described using only descriptive statistics and with no formal comparisons between groups. We also conducted qualitative interviews with recruited and non-recruited COPD patients and clinicians, analysed using framework analysis. Results: Over 6 months, 19 participants (6 SFJD, 13 placebo) were recruited. Sixteen (84%) participants returned diaries or provided a diary by recall. Overall, 1.3 participants were recruited per 1,000 patients on the COPD register per month open. Median duration of treatment was 9.8 days in the intervention group vs 13.3 days in the placebo group. The main reason for discontinuation in both groups was perceived side-effects. in both groups. Point estimates for both the EXACT-PRO and CAT™ outcomes suggested possible small benefits of SFJD. Most patients and clinicians were happy to try SFJD as an alternative to antibiotics for AECOPD. Recruitment was lower than expected because of the short recruitment period, the lower incidence of AECOPD during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients starting antibiotics from "rescue packs" before seeing their GP, and workforce challenges in primary care. Conclusion: Recruitment was impaired by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, we were able to demonstrate the feasibility of recruiting and randomising participants and identified approaches to address recruitment challenges such as including the trial medication in COPD patients' "rescue packs" and delegating recruitment to a central trials team. Clinical Trial Registration: Identifier, ISRCTN26614726.

Feasibility of home administration of nebulised interferon ß-1a (SNG001) for COVID-19: a remote study.

BACKGROUND: Effective therapeutics given early to high-risk ambulatory patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) could improve outcomes and reduce overall healthcare burden. However, conducting site visits in non-hospitalised patients, who should remain isolated, is problematic. AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of a purely remote (virtual) study in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19; and the efficacy and safety of nebulised recombinant interferon-ß1a (SNG001) in this setting. DESIGN & SETTING: Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group study, which was conducted remotely. METHOD: Eligible patients aged ≥65 years (or ≥50 years with risk factors) with COVID-19 and not requiring hospital admission were recruited remotely. They were randomised to SNG001 or placebo once-daily via nebuliser for 14 days. The main outcomes were assessments of feasibility and safety, which were all conducted remotely. RESULTS: Of 114 patients treated, 111 (97.4%) completed 28 days of follow-up. Overall compliance to study medication was high, with ≥13 doses taken by 89.7% and 92.9% of treated patients in the placebo and SNG001 groups, respectively. Over the course of the study, only two patients were hospitalised, both in the placebo group; otherwise there were no notable differences between treatments for the efficacy parameters. No patients withdrew owing to an adverse event, and a similar proportion of patients experienced on-treatment adverse events in the two treatment groups (64.3% and 67.2% with SNG001 and placebo, respectively); most were mild or moderate and not treatment-related. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that it is feasible to conduct a purely virtual study in community-based patients with COVID-19, when the study included detailed daily assessments and with medication administered via nebuliser.

Multidisciplinary ecosystem to study lifecourse determinants and prevention of early-onset burdensome multimorbidity (MELD-B) - protocol for a research collaboration.

Background: Most people living with multiple long-term condition multimorbidity (MLTC-M) are under 65 (defined as 'early onset'). Earlier and greater accrual of long-term conditions (LTCs) may be influenced by the timing and nature of exposure to key risk factors, wider determinants or other LTCs at different life stages. We have established a research collaboration titled 'MELD-B' to understand how wider determinants, sentinel conditions (the first LTC in the lifecourse) and LTC accrual sequence affect risk of early-onset, burdensome MLTC-M, and to inform prevention interventions. Aim: Our aim is to identify critical periods in the lifecourse for prevention of early-onset, burdensome MLTC-M, identified through the analysis of birth cohorts and electronic health records, including artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced analyses. Design: We will develop deeper understanding of 'burdensomeness' and 'complexity' through a qualitative evidence synthesis and a consensus study. Using safe data environments for analyses across large, representative routine healthcare datasets and birth cohorts, we will apply AI methods to identify early-onset, burdensome MLTC-M clusters and sentinel conditions, develop semi-supervised learning to match individuals across datasets, identify determinants of burdensome clusters, and model trajectories of LTC and burden accrual. We will characterise early-life (under 18 years) risk factors for early-onset, burdensome MLTC-M and sentinel conditions. Finally, using AI and causal inference modelling, we will model potential 'preventable moments', defined as time periods in the life course where there is an opportunity for intervention on risk factors and early determinants to prevent the development of MLTC-M. Patient and public involvement is integrated throughout.

Shufeng Jiedu capsule for acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a protocol of multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represents one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Published clinical trials suggest that the Chinese patent herbal medicine Shufeng Jiedu capsule (SFJD) is safe and may be effective for treating acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). However, these effects have been reported with low or very low certainty evidence. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of SFJD for AECOPD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is designed as a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Three hundred patients with moderate or severe hospitalised AECOPD will be recruited in Beijing, Shanghai and Hefei. Participants will be randomly assigned to SFJD and usual care or placebo and usual care at a ratio of 1:1. SFJD and placebo will be administered orally four capsules three times daily for 7 consecutive days followed by an 8-week follow-up period. The primary outcome will be COPD symptom severity as measured by the EXAcerbation of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool score. Secondary outcomes include clinical symptoms, quality of life, length of hospital stay, a total dose of antibiotics, the frequency of recurrence of AECOPD, haematological biomarkers, death and adverse events. This study will answer the question of whether SFJD was safe to use and will improve symptoms in people with AECOPD, and will therefore reduce the necessity for antibiotics, the risk and duration of admission to hospital, and the risk of recurrence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The ethics committee of the first affiliated hospital of Anhui Medical University, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine affiliated Dongzhimen hospital and fifth people's hospital of Shanghai Fudan University approved the study protocol. Informed written consent will be obtained from all the participants. The results of this trial will be disseminated at academic conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN99049821.