Development of a quality of life measure for left ventricular assist device recipients using a mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients report symptom improvement but find adjusting to life with the LVAD challenging. These challenges are unique, and existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) do not reflect their experiences. This study aimed to develop a culturally relevant quality of life PROM for use with LVAD recipients in future research, design evolutions and clinical practice. METHODS: A three-stage mixed-methods approach was used to develop a PROM: stage 1 included group concept mapping (GCM); stage 2 semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 11 LVAD recipients and 10 clinicians, and a questionnaire was developed using a conceptual framework; and stage 3 used exploratory psychometric analysis of the PROM data using Rasch measurement theory. This paper presents stages 2 and 3. RESULTS: The conceptual framework consisted of four key concepts, including general health, life with the LVAD, equipment and clothing and emotional impact. Statements from interviews and GCM were used to create items for the LVAD quality of life (LVAD-QoL). Cognitive interviews tested face validity and participant comprehension. Forty-nine participants were recruited from three UK transplant centres. PROM data were collected and analysed using Rasch analysis. Four items displayed misfit; dependency between item sets was the biggest issue (57/485 pairwise differences). After restructuring and dealing with item misfit, the LVAD-QoL conformed to the Rasch model, supporting the psychometric properties and quality of the LVAD-QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Using a mixed-methods approach ensured the development of a robust and psychometrically sound tool for research, design evolution and clinical practice with LVAD recipients.

The Management of Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy and Hyperemesis Gravidarum (Green-top Guideline No. 69).

An objective and validated index of nausea and vomiting such as the Pregnancy-Unique Quantification of Emesis (PUQE) and HyperEmesis Level Prediction (HELP) tools can be used to classify the severity of NVP and HG. [Grade C] Ketonuria is not an indicator of dehydration and should not be used to assess severity. [Grade A] There are safety and efficacy data for first line antiemetics such as anti (H1) histamines, phenothiazines and doxylamine/pyridoxine (Xonvea®) and they should be prescribed initially when required for NVP and HG (Appendix III). [Grade A] There is evidence that ondansetron is safe and effective. Its use as a second line antiemetic should not be discouraged if first line antiemetics are ineffective. Women can be reassured regarding a very small increase in the absolute risk of orofacial clefting with ondansetron use in the first trimester, which should be balanced with the risks of poorly managed HG. [Grade B] Metoclopramide is safe and effective and can be used alone or in combination with other antiemetics. [Grade B] Because of the risk of extrapyramidal effects metoclopramide should be used as second-line therapy. Intravenous doses should be administered by slow bolus injection over at least 3 minutes to help minimise these. [Grade C] Women should be asked about previous adverse reactions to antiemetic therapies. If adverse reactions occur, there should be prompt cessation of the medications. [GPP] Normal saline (0.9% NaCl) with additional potassium chloride in each bag, with administration guided by daily monitoring of electrolytes, is the most appropriate intravenous hydration. [Grade C] Combinations of different drugs should be used in women who do not respond to a single antiemetic. Suggested antiemetics for UK use are given in Appendix III. [GPP] Thiamine supplementation (either oral 100 mg tds or intravenous as part of vitamin B complex (Pabrinex®)) should be given to all women admitted with vomiting, or severely reduced dietary intake, especially before administration of dextrose or parenteral nutrition. [Grade D] All therapeutic measures should have been tried before considering termination of pregnancy. [Grade C].

Core outcome measurement instruments for use in clinical and research settings for adults with post-COVID-19 condition: an international Delphi consensus study.

Post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID) is a new, complex, and poorly understood disorder. A core outcome set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in adults has been developed and agreement is now required on the most appropriate measurement instruments for these core outcomes. We conducted an international consensus study involving multidisciplinary experts and people with lived experience of long COVID. The study comprised a literature review to identify measurement instruments for the core outcomes, a three-round online modified Delphi process, and an online consensus meeting to generate a core outcome measurement set (COMS). 594 individuals from 58 countries participated. The number of potential instruments for the 12 core outcomes was reduced from 319 to 19. Consensus was reached for inclusion of the modified Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale for respiratory outcomes. Measures for two relevant outcomes from a previously published COS for acute COVID-19 were also included: time until death, for survival, and the Recovery Scale for COVID-19, for recovery. Instruments were suggested for consideration for the remaining nine core outcomes: fatigue or exhaustion, pain, post-exertion symptoms, work or occupational and study changes, and cardiovascular, nervous system, cognitive, mental health, and physical outcomes; however, consensus was not achieved for instruments for these outcomes. The recommended COMS and instruments for consideration provide a foundation for the evaluation of post-COVID-19 condition in adults, which should help to optimise clinical care and accelerate research worldwide. Further assessment of this COMS is warranted as new data emerge on existing and novel measurement instruments.

Impact of long COVID-19 on work: a co-produced survey.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of people infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop post-COVID-19 condition (also known as long COVID), a predominantly multisystem condition resulting in varying degrees of functional disability limiting day-to-day activities. We aimed to describe the impact of long COVID on work. METHODS: We co-produced baseline and follow-up online surveys with people with lived experience of long COVID (including three of the co-authors). Respondents were aged 18 years and older with self-reported long COVID following confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection who were not hospitalised in the first 2 weeks of illness. The baseline survey was administered in November, 2020, using convenience non-probability sampling through social media. Following informed consent, participants completed a follow-up survey at 1 year (November, 2021). Ethics approval was granted by the University of Southampton. FINDINGS: Of 2210 invited, 1153 (52%) participants responded to the survey (mean age of 47·7 years [SD 10·6], 965 [84%] female, 1096 [95%] White, and 892 [78%] holding a university degree). 54 participants (4·7%) reported recovery at follow-up. Median duration of illness was 19·8 months (IQR 19·3-20·1) at follow-up. An equal proportion reported being unable to work at baseline (20·4%, n=235) and follow-up (20·6%, n=237). However, a higher proportion reported being made redundant or taking early retirement at follow-up (8·9%, n=102) than at baseline (2·2%, n=25). 209 (18·1%) reported losing or resigning or leaving their job due to long COVID at follow-up compared with 170 (14·8%) participants at baseline. 307 (26·6%) participants reported not taking time off-sick due to long COVID at baseline, decreasing to 122 (10·6%) at follow-up. Of the 656 individuals reporting length of time off-sick, 354 (54%) were off-sick for more than 3 months, with 113 (17·2%) off-sick for more than 12 months. Nearly half (47%, n=538) reported a loss in income. INTERPRETATION: The convenience non-probability sampling limits generalisability. Research is needed in a representative population sample to characterise the effect on working patterns in people with long COVID, particularly in those with less flexible and more physically demanding occupations who may be less able to take time off to recover. FUNDING: None.

Risk of New-Onset Long COVID Following Reinfection With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2: A Community-Based Cohort Study.

Background: Little is known about the risk of long COVID following reinfection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We estimated the likelihood of new-onset, self-reported long COVID after a second SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to a first infection. Methods: We included UK COVID-19 Infection Survey participants who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between 1 November 2021 and 8 October 2022. The primary outcome was self-reported long COVID 12-20 weeks after each infection. Separate analyses were performed for those <16 years and ≥16 years. We estimated adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for new-onset long COVID using logistic regression, comparing second to first infections, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and calendar date of infection, plus vaccination status in participants ≥16 years of age. Results: Overall, long COVID was reported by those ≥16 years after 4.0% and 2.4% of first and second infections, respectively; the corresponding estimates among those aged <16 years were 1.0% and 0.6%. The aOR for long COVID after second compared to first infections was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .63-.81) for those ≥16 years and 0.93 (95% CI, .57-1.53) for those <16 years. Conclusions: The risk of new-onset long COVID after a second SARS-CoV-2 infection is lower than that after a first infection for persons aged ≥16 years, though there is no evidence of a difference in risk for those <16 years. However, there remains some risk of new-onset long COVID after a second infection, with around 1 in 40 of those aged ≥16 years and 1 in 165 of those <16 years reporting long COVID after a second infection.

Conceptualising the episodic nature of disability among adults living with Long COVID: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to describe episodic nature of disability among adults living with Long COVID. METHODS: We conducted a community-engaged qualitative descriptive study involving online semistructured interviews and participant visual illustrations. We recruited participants via collaborator community organisations in Canada, Ireland, UK and USA.We recruited adults who self-identified as living with Long COVID with diversity in age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation and duration since initial COVID infection between December 2021 and May 2022. We used a semistructured interview guide to explore experiences of disability living with Long COVID, specifically health-related challenges and how they were experienced over time. We asked participants to draw their health trajectory and conducted a group-based content analysis. RESULTS: Among the 40 participants, the median age was 39 years (IQR: 32-49); majority were women (63%), white (73%), heterosexual (75%) and living with Long COVID for ≥1 year (83%). Participants described their disability experiences as episodic in nature, characterised by fluctuations in presence and severity of health-related challenges (disability) that may occur both within a day and over the long-term living with Long COVID. They described living with 'ups and downs', 'flare-ups' and 'peaks' followed by 'crashes', 'troughs' and 'valleys', likened to a 'yo-yo', 'rolling hills' and 'rollercoaster ride' with 'relapsing/remitting', 'waxing/waning', 'fluctuations' in health. Drawn illustrations demonstrated variety of trajectories across health dimensions, some more episodic than others. Uncertainty intersected with the episodic nature of disability, characterised as unpredictability of episodes, their length, severity and triggers, and process of long-term trajectory, which had implications on broader health. CONCLUSION: Among this sample of adults living with Long COVID, experiences of disability were described as episodic, characterised by fluctuating health challenges, which may be unpredictable in nature. Results can help to better understand experiences of disability among adults living with Long COVID to inform healthcare and rehabilitation.

Long Covid stigma: Estimating burden and validating scale in a UK-based sample.

BACKGROUND: Stigma can be experienced as perceived or actual disqualification from social and institutional acceptance on the basis of one or more physical, behavioural or other attributes deemed to be undesirable. Long Covid is a predominantly multisystem condition that occurs in people with a history of SARSCoV2 infection, often resulting in functional disability. This study aimed to develop and validate a Long Covid Stigma Scale (LCSS); and to quantify the burden of Long Covid stigma. METHODS: Data from the follow-up of a co-produced community-based Long Covid online survey using convenience non-probability sampling was used. Thirteen questions on stigma were designed to develop the LCSS capturing three domains-enacted (overt experiences of discrimination), internalised (internalising negative associations with Long Covid and accepting them as self-applicable) and anticipated (expectation of bias/poor treatment by others) stigma. Confirmatory factor analysis tested whether LCSS consisted of the three hypothesised domains. Model fit was assessed and prevalence was calculated. RESULTS: 966 UK-based participants responded (888 for stigma questions), with mean age 48 years (SD: 10.7) and 85% female. Factor loadings for enacted stigma were 0.70-0.86, internalised 0.75-0.84, anticipated 0.58-0.87, and model fit was good. The prevalence of experiencing stigma at least 'sometimes' and 'often/always' was 95% and 76% respectively. Anticipated and internalised stigma were more frequently experienced than enacted stigma. Those who reported having a clinical diagnosis of Long Covid had higher stigma prevalence than those without. CONCLUSION: This study establishes a scale to measure Long Covid stigma and highlights common experiences of stigma in people living with Long Covid.

Living with a left ventricular assist device: Capturing recipients experiences using group concept mapping software.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation significantly impacts on a recipient's symptoms and quality of life. Capturing their experiences and post implant journey is an important part of clinical practice, research and device design evolution. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a useful tool for capturing that experience. However, patient reported outcome measures need to reflect recipients' experiences. Discussions with a patient partner group found that none of the frequently used cardiology PROMs captured their unique experiences. AIMS: To capture the experiences and important issues for LVAD recipients. Develop a conceptual map of domains and items that should be reflected in patient reported outcomes. METHODS: Group concept mapping (GCM) web-based software was used to remotely capture and structure recipients' experiences across a wide geographical area. GCM is a semi-quantitative mixed method consisting of 3 stages: item generation, item sorting and rating (importance, relevance and frequency). Patient partners were involved in all aspects of the study design and development. RESULTS: 18 LVAD recipients consented to take part. 101 statements were generated and multi-dimensional scaling, and hierarchical cluster analysis identified 9 clusters. Cluster themes included: Activities, Partner/family support, Travel, Mental wellbeing, Equipment and clothing, Physical and cognitive limitations, LVAD Restrictions, LVAD Challenges and positive impact of the LVAD (LVAD Positives). LVAD Positives were scored highest across all the rating variables, e.g., frequency (2.85), relevance (2.44) and importance (2.21). Other domains rated high for importance included physical and cognitive limitations (2.19), LVAD restrictions (2.11), Partner/family support (2.02), and Equipment and clothing (2.01). CONCLUSION: Online GCM software facilitated the inclusion of geographically dispersed recipients and provided useful insights into the experiences of LVAD recipients. The conceptual framework identifies important domains and items that should be prioritised and included in patient reported outcomes in future research, LVAD design evolution, and clinical practice.

Enhancing the health of NHS staff: eTHOS - protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial of an employee health screening clinic for NHS staff to reduce absenteeism and presenteeism, compared with usual care.

BACKGROUND: Staff absenteeism and presenteeism incur high costs to the NHS and are associated with adverse health outcomes. The main causes are musculoskeletal complaints and mental ill-health, which are potentially modifiable, and cardiovascular risk factors are also common. We will test the feasibility of an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an employee health screening clinic on reducing sickness absenteeism and presenteeism. METHODS: This is an individually randomised controlled pilot trial aiming to recruit 480 participants. All previously unscreened employees from four hospitals within three UK NHS hospital Trusts will be eligible. Those randomised to the intervention arm will be invited to attend an employee health screening clinic consisting of a screening assessment for musculoskeletal (STarT MSK and STarT Back), mental (PHQ-9 and GAD-7) and cardiovascular (NHS Health Check if aged ≥ 40, lifestyle check if < 40 years) health. Screen positives will be given advice and/or referral to recommended services. Those randomised to the control arm will receive usual care. Participants will complete a questionnaire at baseline and 26 weeks; anonymised absenteeism and staff demographics will also be collected from personnel records. The co-primary outcomes are as follows: recruitment, referrals and uptake of recommended services in the intervention arm. Secondary outcomes include the following: results of screening assessments, uptake of individual referrals, reported changes in health behaviours, acceptability and feasibility of intervention, indication of contamination and costs. Outcomes related to the definitive trial include self-reported and employee records of absenteeism with reasons. Process evaluation to inform a future trial includes interviews with participants, intervention delivery staff and service providers receiving referrals. Analyses will include presentation of descriptive statistics, framework analysis for qualitative data and costs and consequences presented for health economics. DISCUSSION: The study will provide data to inform the design of a definitive RCT which aims to find an effective and cost-effective method of reducing absenteeism and presenteeism amongst NHS staff. The feasibility study will test trial procedures, and process outcomes, including the success of strategies for including underserved groups, and provide information and data to help inform the design and sample size for a definitive trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN reference number 10237475 .

Long COVID and episodic disability: advancing the conceptualisation, measurement and knowledge of episodic disability among people living with Long COVID - protocol for a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: As the prevalence of Long COVID increases, there is a critical need for a comprehensive assessment of disability. Our aims are to: (1) characterise disability experiences among people living with Long COVID in Canada, UK, USA and Ireland; and (2) develop a patient-reported outcome measure to assess the presence, severity and episodic nature of disability with Long COVID. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In phase 1, we will conduct semistructured interviews with adults living with Long COVID to explore experiences of disability (dimensions, uncertainty, trajectories, influencing contextual factors) and establish an episodic disability (ED) framework in the context of Long COVID (n~10 each country). Using the conceptual framework, we will establish the Long COVID Episodic Disability Questionnaire (EDQ). In phase 2, we will examine the validity (construct, structural) and reliability (internal consistency, test-retest) of the EDQ for use in Long COVID. We will electronically administer the EDQ and four health status criterion measures with adults living with Long COVID, and readminister the EDQ 1 week later (n~170 each country). We will use Rasch analysis to refine the EDQ, and confirm structural and cross-cultural validity. We will calculate Cronbach's alphas (internal consistency reliability), and intraclass correlation coefficients (test-retest reliability), and examine correlations for hypotheses theorising relationships between EDQ and criterion measure scores (construct validity). Using phase 2 data, we will characterise the profile of disability using structural equation modelling techniques to examine relationships between dimensions of disability and the influence of intrinsic and extrinsic contextual factors. This research involves an academic-clinical-community partnership building on foundational work in ED measurement, Long COVID and rehabilitation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the University of Toronto Research Ethics Board. Knowledge translation will occur with community collaborators in the form of presentations and publications in open access peer-reviewed journals and presentations.

Characteristics and impact of Long Covid: Findings from an online survey.

BACKGROUND: Long Covid is a public health concern that needs defining, quantifying, and describing. We aimed to explore the initial and ongoing symptoms of Long Covid following SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe its impact on daily life. METHODS: We collected self-reported data through an online survey using convenience non-probability sampling. The survey enrolled adults who reported lab-confirmed (PCR or antibody) or suspected COVID-19 who were not hospitalised in the first two weeks of illness. This analysis was restricted to those with self-reported Long Covid. Univariate comparisons between those with and without confirmed COVID-19 infection were carried out and agglomerative hierarchical clustering was used to identify specific symptom clusters, and their demographic and functional correlates. RESULTS: We analysed data from 2550 participants with a median duration of illness of 7.6 months (interquartile range (IQR) 7.1-7.9). 26.5% reported lab-confirmation of infection. The mean age was 46.5 years (standard deviation 11 years) with 82.8% females and 79.9% of participants based in the UK. 89.5% described their health as good, very good or excellent before COVID-19. The most common initial symptoms that persisted were exhaustion, chest pressure/tightness, shortness of breath and headache. Cognitive dysfunction and palpitations became more prevalent later in the illness. Most participants described fluctuating (57.7%) or relapsing symptoms (17.6%). Physical activity, stress, and sleep disturbance commonly triggered symptoms. A third (32%) reported they were unable to live alone without any assistance at six weeks from start of illness. 16.9% reported being unable to work solely due to COVID-19 illness. 37.0% reported loss of income due to illness, and 64.4% said they were unable to perform usual activities/duties. Acute systems clustered broadly into two groups: a majority cluster (n = 2235, 88%) with cardiopulmonary predominant symptoms, and a minority cluster (n = 305, 12%) with multisystem symptoms. Similarly, ongoing symptoms broadly clustered in two groups; a majority cluster (n = 2243, 88.8%) exhibiting mainly cardiopulmonary, cognitive symptoms and exhaustion, and a minority cluster (n = 283, 11.2%) exhibiting more multisystem symptoms. Belonging to the more severe multisystem cluster was associated with more severe functional impact, lower income, younger age, being female, worse baseline health, and inadequate rest in the first two weeks of the illness, with no major differences in the cluster patterns when restricting analysis to the lab-confirmed subgroup. CONCLUSION: This is an exploratory survey of Long Covid characteristics. Whilst this is a non-representative population sample, it highlights the heterogeneity of persistent symptoms, and the significant functional impact of prolonged illness following confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. To study prevalence, predictors and prognosis, research is needed in a representative population sample using standardised case definitions.

Studying the post-COVID-19 condition: research challenges, strategies, and importance of Core Outcome Set development.

BACKGROUND: A substantial portion of people with COVID-19 subsequently experience lasting symptoms including fatigue, shortness of breath, and neurological complaints such as cognitive dysfunction many months after acute infection. Emerging evidence suggests that this condition, commonly referred to as long COVID but also known as post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) or post-COVID-19 condition, could become a significant global health burden. MAIN TEXT: While the number of studies investigating the post-COVID-19 condition is increasing, there is no agreement on how this new disease should be defined and diagnosed in clinical practice and what relevant outcomes to measure. There is an urgent need to optimise and standardise outcome measures for this important patient group both for clinical services and for research and to allow comparing and pooling of data. CONCLUSIONS: A Core Outcome Set for post-COVID-19 condition should be developed in the shortest time frame possible, for improvement in data quality, harmonisation, and comparability between different geographical locations. We call for a global initiative, involving all relevant partners, including, but not limited to, healthcare professionals, researchers, methodologists, patients, and caregivers. We urge coordinated actions aiming to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for post-COVID-19 condition in both the adult and paediatric populations.

Systematic evidence map of evidence addressing the top 10 priority research questions for hyperemesis gravidarum.

OBJECTIVE: Knowledge gaps regarding hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) are substantial. We aimed to systematically identify and map recent evidence addressing the top 10 priority questions for HG, as published in 2021 in a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. DESIGN: Systematic evidence map. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE on 12 January 2021 and CINAHL on 22 February 2021 with search terms hyperemesis gravidarum, pernicious vomiting in pregnancy and their synonyms. Results were limited to 2009 onwards. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts to assess whether the studies addressed a top 10 priority questions for HG. Differences were discussed until consensus was reached. Publications were allocated to one or more top 10 research questions. Study design was noted, as was patient or public involvement. Two reviewers extracted data synchronously and both cross-checked 10%. Extracted data were imported into EPPI-Reviewer software to create an evidence map. OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and design of studies in the search yield, displayed per the published 10 priority questions. RESULTS: Searches returned 4338 results for screening; 406 publications were included in the evidence map. 136 publications addressed multiple questions. Numerous studies address the immediate and long-term outcomes or possible markers for HG (question 8 and 9, respectively 164 and 82 studies). Very few studies seek a possible cure for HG (question 1, 8 studies), preventative treatment (question 4, 2 studies) or how to achieve nutritional requirements of pregnancy (question 10, 17 studies). Case reports/series were most numerous with 125 (30.7%) included. Few qualitative studies (9, 2.2%) were identified. 25 (6.1%) systematic reviews addressed eight questions, or aspects of them. 31 (7.6%) studies included patient involvement. CONCLUSIONS: There are significant gaps and overlap in the current HG literature addressing priority questions. Researchers and funders should direct their efforts at addressing the gaps in the top 10 questions.

Ondansetron and metoclopramide as second-line antiemetics in women with nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: the EMPOWER pilot factorial RCT.

BACKGROUND: Around one-third of pregnant women suffer from moderate to severe nausea and vomiting, causing physical and emotional distress and reducing their quality of life. There is no cure for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Management focuses on relieving symptoms and preventing morbidity, and often requires antiemetic therapy. National guidelines make recommendations about first-, second- and third-line antiemetic therapies, although care varies in different hospitals and women report feeling unsupported, dissatisfied and depressed. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether or not, in addition to intravenous rehydration, ondansetron compared with no ondansetron and metoclopramide compared with no metoclopramide reduced the rate of treatment failure up to 10 days after drug initiation; improved symptom severity at 2, 5 and 10 days after drug initiation; improved quality of life at 10 days after drug initiation; and had an acceptable side effect and safety profile. To estimate the incremental cost per treatment failure avoided and the net monetary benefits from the perspectives of the NHS and women. DESIGN: This was a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, double-blinded, dummy-controlled 2 × 2 factorial trial (with an internal pilot phase), with qualitative and health economic evaluations. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-three patients (who were < 17 weeks pregnant and who attended hospital with nausea and vomiting after little or no improvement with first-line antiemetic medication) who attended 12 secondary care NHS trusts in England, 22 health-care professionals and 21 women participated in the qualitative evaluation. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly allocated to one of four treatment groups (1 : 1 : 1: 1 ratio): (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron; (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide; (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron; or (4) double dummy. Trial medication was initially given intravenously and then continued orally once women were able to tolerate oral fluids for a maximum of 10 days of treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the number of participants who experienced treatment failure, which was defined as the need for further treatment because symptoms had worsened between 12 hours and 10 days post treatment. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost per additional successful treatment and incremental net benefit. RESULTS: Of the 592 patients screened, 122 were considered eligible and 33 were recruited into the internal pilot (metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, n = 8; ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, n = 8; metoclopramide and ondansetron, n = 8; double dummy, n = 9). Owing to slow recruitment, the trial did not progress beyond the pilot. Fifteen out of 30 evaluable participants experienced treatment failure. No statistical analyses were performed. The main reason for ineligibility was prior treatment with trial drugs, reflecting an unpredicted change in prescribing practice at several points along the care pathway. The qualitative evaluation identified the requirements of the study protocol, in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs, and the diversity of pathways to care as key hurdles to recruitment while the role of research staff was a key enabler. No important adverse events or side effects were reported. LIMITATIONS: The pilot trial failed to achieve the recruitment target owing to unforeseen changes in the provision of care. CONCLUSIONS: The trial was unable to provide evidence to support clinician decisions about the best choice of second-line antiemetic for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16924692 and EudraCT 2017-001651-31. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Nausea and vomiting in pregnancy cause physical and emotional distress, and up to 30% of affected women require medical treatment. Guidelines on the use of anti-sickness drugs exist, but evidence is limited about which drugs work the best. The EMPOWER (EMesis in Pregnancy ­ Ondansetron With mEtoClopRamide) trial aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two anti-sickness drugs [metoclopramide (metoclopramide hydrochloride, Actavis UK Ltd, Barnstable, UK; IV Ratiopharm GmbH, Ulm, Germany) and ondansetron (ondansetron hydrochloride dehydrate, Wockhardt UK Ltd, Wrexham, UK; IV Hameln Pharma plus GmbH, Hameln)] for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Women who were < 17 weeks pregnant with severe nausea and vomiting who attended hospital because their first anti-sickness drug had failed to improve their symptoms were asked to take part in the trial. Participants received fluids and, with consent, were randomly allocated to one of four groups: (1) metoclopramide and dummy ondansetron, (2) ondansetron and dummy metoclopramide, (3) metoclopramide and ondansetron or (4) double dummy. Trial drugs were administered into a vein and then by tablet for 10 days. On advice from sufferers, the trial focused on treatment failure, but other outcomes, including drug side effects, costs and pregnancy outcome, were collected. The trial was unable to recruit enough women and, therefore, did not progress. Nearly 600 women at 11 hospitals were screened, of whom 122 (21%) were eligible and 33 were recruited. The main reason for ineligibility (68%) was prior use of trial drug (mostly ondansetron). Overall, 15 out of 30 evaluable women experienced treatment failure. Interviews with 21 women who were approached about the trial and 22 research staff identified complex hurdles to and enablers of recruitment. The main hurdles were the requirements of the study protocol in relation to guidelines on anti-sickness drugs and the diversity of pathways to care. The role of research staff was a key enabler. The trial was too small to draw useful conclusions and it highlights the challenges of conducting complex studies on sick pregnant women. Subsequent concerns about the safety of ondansetron highlight the need for further studies to help inform women and the NHS about the best care for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy.

Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: While it is now apparent clinical sequelae (long COVID) may persist after acute COVID-19, their nature, frequency and aetiology are poorly characterised. This study aims to regularly synthesise evidence on long COVID characteristics, to help inform clinical management, rehabilitation strategies and interventional studies to improve long-term outcomes. METHODS: A living systematic review. Medline, CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database, LitCovid and Google Scholar were searched till 17 March 2021. Studies including at least 100 people with confirmed or clinically suspected COVID-19 at 12 weeks or more post onset were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the tool produced by Hoy et al. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics and meta-analyses to estimate prevalence. RESULTS: A total of 39 studies were included: 32 cohort, 6 cross-sectional and 1 case-control. Most showed high or moderate risk of bias. None were set in low-income countries and few included children. Studies reported on 10 951 people (48% female) in 12 countries. Most included previously hospitalised people (78%, 8520/10 951). The longest mean follow-up time was 221.7 (SD: 10.9) days post COVID-19 onset. Over 60 physical and psychological signs and symptoms with wide prevalence were reported, most commonly weakness (41%; 95% CI 25% to 59%), general malaise (33%; 95% CI 15% to 57%), fatigue (31%; 95% CI 24% to 39%), concentration impairment (26%; 95% CI 21% to 32%) and breathlessness (25%; 95% CI 18% to 34%). 37% (95% CI 18% to 60%) of patients reported reduced quality of life; 26% (10/39) of studies presented evidence of reduced pulmonary function. CONCLUSION: Long COVID is a complex condition with prolonged heterogeneous symptoms. The nature of studies precludes a precise case definition or risk evaluation. There is an urgent need for prospective, robust, standardised, controlled studies into aetiology, risk factors and biomarkers to characterise long COVID in different at-risk populations and settings. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020211131.

Long Covid in adults discharged from UK hospitals after Covid-19: A prospective, multicentre cohort study using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to establish the long-term effects of Covid-19 following hospitalisation. METHODS: 327 hospitalised participants, with SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited into a prospective multicentre cohort study at least 3 months post-discharge. The primary outcome was self-reported recovery at least ninety days after initial Covid-19 symptom onset. Secondary outcomes included new symptoms, disability (Washington group short scale), breathlessness (MRC Dyspnoea scale) and quality of life (EQ5D-5L). FINDINGS: 55% of participants reported not feeling fully recovered. 93% reported persistent symptoms, with fatigue the most common (83%), followed by breathlessness (54%). 47% reported an increase in MRC dyspnoea scale of at least one grade. New or worse disability was reported by 24% of participants. The EQ5D-5L summary index was significantly worse following acute illness (median difference 0.1 points on a scale of 0 to 1, IQR: -0.2 to 0.0). Females under the age of 50 years were five times less likely to report feeling recovered (adjusted OR 5.09, 95% CI 1.64 to 15.74), were more likely to have greater disability (adjusted OR 4.22, 95% CI 1.12 to 15.94), twice as likely to report worse fatigue (adjusted OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31) and seven times more likely to become more breathless (adjusted OR 7.15, 95% CI 2.24 to 22.83) than men of the same age. INTERPRETATION: Survivors of Covid-19 experienced long-term symptoms, new disability, increased breathlessness, and reduced quality of life. These findings were present in young, previously healthy working age adults, and were most common in younger females. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, Department for International Development and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.