Part II: Blood Transfusion and Donor Exposure in the Surgical Management of Trigonocephaly Patients: A Protocol From Alder Hey Craniofacial Unit.

Trigonocephaly is a craniofacial malformation caused by premature fusion of the metopic suture. Surgical correction frequently results in the need for blood transfusion. Transfusion complications include transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs), immune-mediated reactions, and volume overload. Donor exposure (DE) describes the number of blood products from unique donors with increasing DE equating to an increased risk of TTI. We evaluate data on 204 trigonocephaly patients covering 20 years of practice with respect to blood transfusions and DE. This represents the largest series from a single unit to date. A protocol based on our experiences has been devised that summarizes the key interventions we recommend to minimize blood transfusions and DE in craniofacial surgery. Patients operated on between 2000 and 2020 were included. DE and a range of values were calculated including estimated red cell loss (ERCL) and estimated red cell volume transfused (ERCVT). Groups were established by relevant interventions and compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Mean DE fell from 1.46 at baseline to 0.85 ( P <0.05). Median allogenic transfusion volume fell from 350 mL at baseline to 250 mL ( P <0.05). Median ERCL fell from 15.05 mL/kg at baseline to 12.39 mL/kg and median ERCVT fell from 20.85 to 15.98 mL/kg. Changes in ERCL and ERCVT did not reach statistical significance. DE can be minimized with the introduction of key interventions such as a restrictive transfusion policy, preoperative iron, cell saver, tranexamic acid, and use of a matchstick burr for osteotomies.

COVID-19 risk mitigation in reopening mass cultural events: population-based observational study for the UK Events Research Programme in Liverpool City Region.

OBJECTIVES: To understand severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission risks, perceived risks and the feasibility of risk mitigations from experimental mass cultural events before coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) restrictions were lifted. DESIGN: Prospective, population-wide observational study. SETTING: Four events (two nightclubs, an outdoor music festival and a business conference) open to Liverpool City Region UK residents, requiring a negative lateral flow test (LFT) within the 36 h before the event, but not requiring social distancing or face-coverings. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 12,256 individuals attending one or more events between 28 April and 2 May 2021. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SARS-CoV-2 infections detected using audience self-swabbed (5-7 days post-event) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests, with viral genomic analysis of cases, plus linked National Health Service COVID-19 testing data. Audience experiences were gathered via questionnaires, focus groups and social media. Indoor CO2 concentrations were monitored. RESULTS: A total of 12 PCR-positive cases (likely 4 index, 8 primary or secondary), 10 from the nightclubs. Two further cases had positive LFTs but no PCR. A total of 11,896 (97.1%) participants with scanned tickets were matched to a negative pre-event LFT: 4972 (40.6%) returned a PCR within a week. CO2 concentrations showed areas for improving ventilation at the nightclubs. Population infection rates were low, yet with a concurrent outbreak of >50 linked cases around a local swimming pool without equivalent risk mitigations. Audience anxiety was low and enjoyment high. CONCLUSIONS: We observed minor SARS-CoV-2 transmission and low perceived risks around events when prevalence was low and risk mitigations prominent. Partnership between audiences, event organisers and public health services, supported by information systems with real-time linked data, can improve health security for mass cultural events.

A two-arm, randomised feasibility trial using link workers to improve dental visiting in people with severe mental illness: a protocol paper.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (e.g. psychosis, bipolar disorder) experience poor oral health compared to the general population as shown by more decayed, missing and filled teeth and a higher prevalence of periodontal disease. Attending dental services allows treatment of oral health problems and support for prevention. However, people with severe mental illness face multiple barriers to attending routine dental appointments and often struggle to access care. Link work interventions use non-clinical support staff to afford vulnerable populations the capacity, opportunity, and motivation to navigate use of services. The authors have co-developed with service users a link work intervention for supporting people with severe mental illness to access routine dental appointments. The Mouth Matters in Mental Health Study aims to explore the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention within the context of a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) measuring outcomes related to the recruitment of participants, completion of assessments, and adherence to the intervention. The trial will closely monitor the safety of the intervention and trial procedures. METHODS: A feasibility RCT with 1:1 allocation to two arms: treatment as usual (control) or treatment as usual plus a link work intervention (treatment). The intervention consists of six sessions with a link worker over 9 months. Participants will be adults with severe mental illness receiving clinical input from secondary care mental health service and who have not attended a planned dental appointment in the past 3 years. Assessments will take place at baseline and after 9 months. The target recruitment total is 84 participants from across three NHS Trusts. A subset of participants and key stakeholders will complete qualitative interviews to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial procedures. DISCUSSION: The link work intervention aims to improve dental access and reduce oral health inequalities in people with severe mental illness. There is a dearth of research relating to interventions that attempt to improve oral health outcomes in people with mental illness and the collected feasibility data will offer insights into this important area. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was preregistered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN13650779) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05545228).

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial of Long-Term Doxycycline Therapy on Exacerbation Rate in Patients with Stable Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

Rationale: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and preventing them is a key treatment target. Long-term macrolide treatment is effective at reducing exacerbations, but there is a paucity of evidence for other antibiotic classes. Objectives: To assess whether 12-month use of doxycycline reduces the exacerbation rate in people with COPD. Methods: People with moderate to very severe COPD and an exacerbation history were recruited from three UK centers and randomized to 12 months of doxycycline 100 mg once daily or placebo. The primary study outcome was the exacerbation rate per person-year. Results: A total of 222 people were randomized. Baseline mean FEV1 was 1.35 L (SD, 0.35 L), 52.5% predicted (SD, 15.9% predicted). The median number of treated exacerbations in the year before the study was 2 (SD, 1-4). A total of 71% of patients reported two or more exacerbations, and 81% were already prescribed inhaled corticosteroids at baseline. The COPD exacerbation rate did not differ between the groups (doxycycline/placebo rate ratio [RR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.10; P = 0.23). No difference was seen if only treated exacerbations or hospitalizations were considered. In preplanned subgroup analysis, doxycycline appeared to better reduce the exacerbation rate among people with severe COPD (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.85; P = 0.019) and in those with an eosinophil count <300 cells/µl (RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84; P = 0.01). Health status measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire was 5.2 points worse in the doxycycline group at 12 months (P < 0.007). Conclusions: Doxycycline did not significantly reduce the exacerbation rate, over 12 months, in participants with COPD who exacerbated regularly, but it may have benefitted those with more severe COPD or blood eosinophil counts <300 cells/µl. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02305940).

Community based sociotherapy for depressive symptomatology of Congolese refugees in Rwanda and Uganda (CoSTAR): a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Background: Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo has led to large numbers of refugees fleeing to Uganda and Rwanda. Refugees experience elevated levels of adverse events and daily stressors, which are associated with common mental health difficulties such as depression. The current cluster randomised controlled trial aims to investigate whether an adapted form of Community-based Sociotherapy (aCBS) is effective and cost-effective in reducing depressive symptomatology experienced by Congolese refugees in Uganda and Rwanda.Methods: A two-arm, single-blind cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) will be conducted in Kyangwali settlement, Uganda and Gihembe camp, Rwanda. Sixty-four clusters will be recruited and randomly assigned to either aCBS or Enhanced Care As Usual (ECAU). aCBS, a 15-session group-based intervention, will be facilitated by two people drawn from the refugee communities. The primary outcome measure will be self-reported levels of depressive symptomatology (PHQ-9) at 18-weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include levels of mental health difficulties, subjective wellbeing, post-displacement stress, perceived social support, social capital, quality of life, and PTSD symptoms at 18-week and 32-week post-randomisation. Cost effectiveness of aCBS will be measured in terms of health care costs (cost per Disability Adjusted Life Year, DALY) compared to ECAU. A process evaluation will be undertaken to investigate the implementation of aCBS.Conclusion: This cRCT will be the first investigating aCBS for mental health difficulties experienced by refugees and will contribute to knowledge about the use of psychosocial interventions for refugees at a time when levels of forced migration are at a record high.Trial registration: ISRCTN.org identifier: ISRCTN20474555.

There is a need to evaluate community-based psychosocial interventions for refugees.Community-based sociotherapy has been used to support communities in post-conflict situations but has not been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial.This protocol outlines a proposed randomised controlled trial of community-based sociotherapy adapted for Congolese refugees in Uganda and Rwanda.

The Paediatric Vault Score (PVS)-A Novel Scoring Tool for Prioritisation of Surgical Management of Craniosynostosis Patients.

Craniosynostosis is the premature fusion of the skull sutures, resulting in abnormal skull shape and volume. Timely management is a priority in avoiding raised intracranial pressure which can result in blindness and neurodevelopmental delay. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, theater access was reduced. A risk stratification scoring system was thus devised to score patients attending surgery and aid in prioritization according to surgical need. The authors present the Paediatric Vault Score (PVS), which can also be customized to each unit's individual protocols. Ten patients on the waiting list were randomly selected and their clinical information was summarized in uniform anonymized reports. Six craniofacial consultants were selected as assessors and given 1 week to independently rank the patients from 1 to 10. Each scorer's ranking was verified against the PVS template and concordance was analyzed using the Kendall tau correlation coefficient (KT). Three cycles of the scoring process were carried out. Improvements were made to the scoring tool following cycle 1. Cycle 1 revealed 2 clinicians to be concordant with the PVS system and 4 to be discordant. Cycle 2 revealed all 6 clinicians to be concordant, with a mean KT score of 0.61. The final cycle revealed all 6 clinicians to be concordant, with a mean KT score of 0.70. Four scorers increased their concordance once the scoring sheet was introduced. Kendall's correlation of concordance calculated the interrater reliability to be 0.81. The PVS is the first known vault scoring system to aid in risk stratification and waiting list prioritization.

Online Unproctored Clinical Examinations: The Perceptions and Performance of Final Year Dental Students.

BACKGROUND: Take home, or open-book, examinations (OBE) are designed to be completed at a location of student choice, whilst providing comprehensive assessment of learning outcomes. Supporters of OBE refer to their authenticity, in that they reflect real-world practice where use of external resources is routine and encouraged. A contrasting view is that efficient practice requires a solid base of knowledge upon which to draw. The aim of this evaluation was to elicit learners' perceptions of the open-book, unproctored examination approach; we sought student views on authenticity, assessment preparation, use of resources, and anxiety. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data were gathered using an online, self-administered survey. We sought to determine the correlation between student views and examination performance via consideration of final examination marks. RESULTS: Heightened anxiety levels tended to increase assessment preparations and were found to be inversely related to learners' perceptions that the OBE was an authentic test. An inverse relationship was seen between learners' OBE examination performance and consulting resources during the examination. Examination marks were not significantly related to endorsement of continued online delivery of learning, time spent preparing for OBE in comparison to other types of assessment, greater anxiety than usual, perceptions of test authenticity, or experiencing a supportive test environment. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study may inform curriculum and assessment development, learning and teaching practices, and support student voice and experience.

Managing clustering effects and learning effects in the design and analysis of randomised surgical trials: a review of existing guidance.

BACKGROUND: The complexities associated with delivering randomised surgical trials, such as clustering effects, by centre or surgeon, and surgical learning, are well known. Despite this, approaches used to manage these complexities, and opinions on these, vary. Guidance documents have been developed to support clinical trial design and reporting. This work aimed to identify and examine existing guidance and consider its relevance to clustering effects and learning curves within surgical trials. METHODS: A review of existing guidelines, developed to inform the design and analysis of randomised controlled trials, is undertaken. Guidelines were identified using an electronic search, within the Equator Network, and by a targeted search of those endorsed by leading UK funding bodies, regulators, and medical journals. Eligible documents were compared against pre-specified key criteria to identify gaps or inconsistencies in recommendations. RESULTS: Twenty-eight documents were eligible (12 Equator Network; 16 targeted search). Twice the number of guidance documents targeted design (n/N=20/28, 71%) than analysis (n/N=10/28, 36%). Managing clustering by centre through design was well documented. Clustering by surgeon had less coverage and contained some inconsistencies. Managing the surgical learning curve, or changes in delivery over time, through design was contained within several documents (n/N=8/28, 29%), of which one provided guidance on reporting this and restricted to early phase studies only. Methods to analyse clustering effects and learning were provided in five and four documents respectively (N=28). CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first review as to the extent to which existing guidance for designing and analysing randomised surgical trials covers the management of clustering, by centre or surgeon, and the surgical learning curve. Twice the number of identified documents targeted design aspects than analysis. Most notably, no single document exists for use when designing these studies, which may lead to inconsistencies in practice. The development of a single document, with agreed principles to guide trial design and analysis across a range of realistic clinical scenarios, is needed.

Acute seizure risk in patients with encephalitis: development and validation of clinical prediction models from two independent prospective multicentre cohorts.

Objective: In patients with encephalitis, the development of acute symptomatic seizures is highly variable, but when present is associated with a worse outcome. We aimed to determine the factors associated with seizures in encephalitis and develop a clinical prediction model. Methods: We analysed 203 patients from 24 English hospitals (2005-2008) (Cohort 1). Outcome measures were seizures prior to and during admission, inpatient seizures and status epilepticus. A binary logistic regression risk model was converted to a clinical score and independently validated on an additional 233 patients from 31 UK hospitals (2013-2016) (Cohort 2). Results: In Cohort 1, 121 (60%) patients had a seizure including 103 (51%) with inpatient seizures. Admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≤8/15 was predictive of subsequent inpatient seizures (OR (95% CI) 5.55 (2.10 to 14.64), p<0.001), including in those without a history of prior seizures at presentation (OR 6.57 (95% CI 1.37 to 31.5), p=0.025).A clinical model of overall seizure risk identified admission GCS along with aetiology (autoantibody-associated OR 11.99 (95% CI 2.09 to 68.86) and Herpes simplex virus 3.58 (95% CI 1.06 to 12.12)) (area under receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) =0.75 (95% CI 0.701 to 0.848), p<0.001). The same model was externally validated in Cohort 2 (AUROC=0.744 (95% CI 0.677 to 0.811), p<0.001). A clinical scoring system for stratifying inpatient seizure risk by decile demonstrated good discrimination using variables available on admission; age, GCS and fever (AUROC=0.716 (95% CI 0.634 to 0.798), p<0.001) and once probable aetiology established (AUROC=0.761 (95% CI 0.6840.839), p<0.001). Conclusion: Age, GCS, fever and aetiology can effectively stratify acute seizure risk in patients with encephalitis. These findings can support the development of targeted interventions and aid clinical trial design for antiseizure medication prophylaxis.

Adverse drug reactions, multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a prospective analysis of 1 month of medical admissions.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the burden and associated cost of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), polypharmacy and multimorbidity through a prospective analysis of all medical admissions to a large university teaching hospital over a 1-month period. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Liverpool University Hospital Foundation National Health Service (NHS) Trust, England. PARTICIPANTS: All medical admissions with greater than 24-hour stay over a 1-month period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of admissions due to an ADR and associated mortality, prevalence and association of multimorbidity and polypharmacy with ADRs, and estimated local financial cost of admissions where an ADR was a contributing or main reason for admission with projected costs for NHS in England. RESULTS: There were 218 identified patient admissions with an ADR giving a prevalence of 18.4%. The majority of these (90.4%) were ADRs that directly resulted in or contributed to admission. ADRs thus accounted for 16.5% of total admissions. Those with an ADR were on average taking more medicines (10.5 vs 7.8, p<0.01) and had more comorbidities than those without an ADR (6.1 vs 5.2, p<0.01). Drugs most commonly implicated were diuretics, steroid inhalers, anticoagulants and antiplatelets, proton pump inhibitors, chemotherapeutic agents and antihypertensives. 40.4% of ADRs were classified avoidable or possibly avoidable. The mortality rate due to an ADR was 0.34%. The average length of stay for those with an ADR was 6 days. Direct 1-month cost to the Trust from ADR admissions was £490 716. Extrapolated nationally, the projected annual cost to the NHS in England is 2.21 billion. CONCLUSION: The local prevalence of admission and mortality from ADRs is higher than previously reported. Important factors that could be contributing to this include polypharmacy and multimorbidity. ADRs place a significant burden on patients and healthcare services with associated financial implications. Reducing inappropriate polypharmacy should be a major aim for preventing ADRs.

Lamotrigine versus levetiracetam or zonisamide for focal epilepsy and valproate versus levetiracetam for generalised and unclassified epilepsy: two SANAD II non-inferiority RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) are licensed as monotherapy for focal epilepsy, and levetiracetam is increasingly used as a first-line treatment for generalised epilepsy, particularly for women of childbearing age. However, there is uncertainty as to whether or not they should be recommended as first-line treatments owing to a lack of evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam and zonisamide (new treatments) for focal epilepsy, and to compare valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) (standard treatment) with levetiracetam (new treatment) for generalised and unclassified epilepsy. DESIGN: Two pragmatic randomised unblinded non-inferiority trials run in parallel. SETTING: Outpatient services in NHS hospitals throughout the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Those aged ≥ 5 years with two or more spontaneous seizures that require anti-seizure medication. INTERVENTIONS: Participants with focal epilepsy were randomised to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam or zonisamide. Participants with generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy were randomised to receive valproate or levetiracetam. The randomisation method was minimisation using a web-based program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was time to 12-month remission from seizures. For this outcome, and all other time-to-event outcomes, we report hazard ratios for the standard treatment compared with the new treatment. For the focal epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (lamotrigine vs. new treatments) was 1.329. For the generalised and unclassified epilepsy trial, the non-inferiority limit (valproate vs. new treatments) was 1.314. Secondary outcomes included time to treatment failure, time to first seizure, time to 24-month remission, adverse reactions, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Focal epilepsy. A total of 990 participants were recruited, of whom 330 were randomised to receive lamotrigine, 332 were randomised to receive levetiracetam and 328 were randomised to receive zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority (hazard ratio 1.329) in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.18, 97.5% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.47), but zonisamide did meet the criteria (hazard ratio vs. lamotrigine 1.03, 97.5% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.28). In the per-protocol analysis, lamotrigine was superior to both levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.66) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 1.37, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.73). For time to treatment failure, lamotrigine was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.77) and zonisamide (hazard ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.60). Adverse reactions were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% starting levetiracetam and 45% starting zonisamide. In the economic analysis, both levetiracetam and zonisamide were more costly and less effective than lamotrigine and were therefore dominated. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy. Of 520 patients recruited, 260 were randomised to receive valproate and 260 were randomised to receive to levetiracetam. A total of 397 patients had generalised epilepsy and 123 had unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the primary intention-to-treat analysis of time to 12-month remission (hazard ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.47; non-inferiority margin 1.314). In the per-protocol analysis of time to 12-month remission, valproate was superior to levetiracetam (hazard ratio 1.68, 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 2.15). Valproate was superior to levetiracetam for time to treatment failure (hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.83). Adverse reactions were reported by 37.4% of participants receiving valproate and 41.5% of those receiving levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was both more costly (incremental cost of £104, 95% central range -£587 to £1234) and less effective (incremental quality-adjusted life-year of -0.035, 95% central range -0.137 to 0.032) than valproate, and was therefore dominated. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, levetiracetam was associated with a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The SANAD II trial was unblinded, which could have biased results by influencing decisions about dosing, treatment failure and the attribution of adverse reactions. FUTURE WORK: SANAD II data could now be included in an individual participant meta-analysis of similar trials, and future similar trials are required to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of other new treatments, including lacosamide and perampanel. CONCLUSIONS: Focal epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. Generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy - The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. For women of childbearing potential, these results inform discussions about the benefit (lower teratogenicity) and harm (worse seizure outcomes and higher treatment failure rate) of levetiracetam compared with valproate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30294119 and EudraCT 2012-001884-64. 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. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BACKGROUND AND METHODS: The SANAD II trial was a clinical trial designed to identify the most clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for adults and children aged > 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy. There are two main epilepsy types: focal and generalised. In focal epilepsy, seizures start at a single place in the brain (a focus), whereas in generalised epilepsy seizures start in both sides of the brain at the same time. Anti-seizure medications are the main treatment. For people with newly diagnosed epilepsy, the first anti-seizure medication should control the seizures as quickly as possible while avoiding side effects. The first-choice treatments are lamotrigine (Lamictal®, GlaxoSmithKline plc, Brentford, UK) for focal epilepsy and valproate (Epilim®, Sanofi SA, Paris, France) for generalised epilepsy (however, the latter should be avoided in women who could become pregnant). A number of newer anti-seizure medications have been approved for NHS use, but it is unclear whether or not they should be used as first-line treatments. The SANAD II trial focused on the new medicines levetiracetam (Keppra®, UCB Pharma Ltd, Slough, UK) and zonisamide (Zonegran®, Eisai Co. Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). We recruited 1510 people aged ≥ 5 years with newly diagnosed epilepsy: 990 with focal epilepsy and 520 with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. FINDINGS: FOCAL EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam or zonisamide were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting treatment with lamotrigine, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 33% of participants starting lamotrigine, 44% of those starting levetiracetam and 45% of those starting zonisamide. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that neither levetiracetam nor zonisamide is value for money for the NHS when compared with lamotrigine. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments in focal epilepsy. FINDINGS: GENERALISED AND UNCLASSIFIABLE EPILEPSY: People starting treatment with levetiracetam were significantly less likely to have a 12-month remission from seizures than people starting valproate, unless they were changed to another anti-seizure medication. Side effects that were thought to be caused by anti-seizure medications were reported by 37% of participants starting valproate and 42% of participants starting levetiracetam. The cost-effectiveness analyses showed that levetiracetam is not good value for money for the NHS when compared with valproate. The SANAD II findings do not support the use of levetiracetam as a first-line treatment for newly diagnosed generalised epilepsy. Importantly, our results will inform treatment decisions for women, who may choose a less effective treatment that is safer in pregnancy.

A study to assess the awareness of periodontitis and its relationship with systemic health among undergraduate medical students.

Introduction The association between periodontitis and certain systemic diseases is well established; however, there is a distinct lack of research available on its awareness among medical students in the United Kingdom.Aims To determine the awareness of fourth-year undergraduate medical students concerning periodontitis including its risk factors, relationship with systemic health and students' attitudes towards oral diseases and further education.Methods We delivered an online survey via a weekly email news bulletin to 299 fourth-year medical students and received 101 completed responses.Results Medical students were largely aware of the most common features of periodontitis and recognised that systemic diseases may affect the periodontium. There was less awareness of the associations between certain systemic diseases and periodontitis and there appeared to be confusion with tooth decay. Perceived knowledge was generally reported to be poor and most students believed that further teaching would improve their medical practice.Conclusions Increased teaching on periodontitis within the medical curriculum would benefit students. This may be achieved using an integrated teaching approach. Future doctors should graduate with an adequate education on the interdisciplinary links and should be capable of signposting or referring patients early to the appropriate services where indicated to improve patient care.

Spectrum, risk factors and outcomes of neurological and psychiatric complications of COVID-19: a UK-wide cross-sectional surveillance study.

SARS-CoV-2 is associated with new-onset neurological and psychiatric conditions. Detailed clinical data, including factors associated with recovery, are lacking, hampering prediction modelling and targeted therapeutic interventions. In a UK-wide cross-sectional surveillance study of adult hospitalized patients during the first COVID-19 wave, with multi-professional input from general and sub-specialty neurologists, psychiatrists, stroke physicians, and intensivists, we captured detailed data on demographics, risk factors, pre-COVID-19 Rockwood frailty score, comorbidities, neurological presentation and outcome. A priori clinical case definitions were used, with cross-specialty independent adjudication for discrepant cases. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using demographic and clinical variables, to determine the factors associated with outcome. A total of 267 cases were included. Cerebrovascular events were most frequently reported (131, 49%), followed by other central disorders (95, 36%) including delirium (28, 11%), central inflammatory (25, 9%), psychiatric (25, 9%), and other encephalopathies (17, 7%), including a severe encephalopathy (n = 13) not meeting delirium criteria; and peripheral nerve disorders (41, 15%). Those with the severe encephalopathy, in comparison to delirium, were younger, had higher rates of admission to intensive care and a longer duration of ventilation. Compared to normative data during the equivalent time period prior to the pandemic, cases of stroke in association with COVID-19 were younger and had a greater number of conventional, modifiable cerebrovascular risk factors. Twenty-seven per cent of strokes occurred in patients <60 years. Relative to those >60 years old, the younger stroke patients presented with delayed onset from respiratory symptoms, higher rates of multi-vessel occlusion (31%) and systemic thrombotic events. Clinical outcomes varied between disease groups, with cerebrovascular disease conferring the worst prognosis, but this effect was less marked than the pre-morbid factors of older age and a higher pre-COVID-19 frailty score, and a high admission white cell count, which were independently associated with a poor outcome. In summary, this study describes the spectrum of neurological and psychiatric conditions associated with COVID-19. In addition, we identify a severe COVID-19 encephalopathy atypical for delirium, and a phenotype of COVID-19 associated stroke in younger adults with a tendency for multiple infarcts and systemic thromboses. These clinical data will be useful to inform mechanistic studies and stratification of patients in clinical trials.

Performance of the Innova SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test in the Liverpool asymptomatic testing pilot: population based cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid lateral flow test (LFT) versus polymerase chain reaction testing in the asymptomatic general population attending testing centres. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Community LFT pilot at covid-19 testing sites in Liverpool, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 5869 asymptomatic adults (≥18 years) voluntarily attending one of 48 testing sites during 6-29 November 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were tested using both an Innova LFT and a quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) test based on supervised self-administered swabbing at testing sites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of LFT compared with RT-qPCR in an epidemic steady state of covid-19 among adults with no classic symptoms of the disease. RESULTS: Of 5869 test results, 22 (0.4%) LFT results and 343 (5.8%) RT-qPCR results were void (that is, when the control line fails to appear within 30 minutes). Excluding the void results, the LFT versus RT-qPCR showed a sensitivity of 40.0% (95% confidence interval 28.5% to 52.4%; 28/70), specificity of 99.9% (99.8% to 99.99%; 5431/5434), positive predictive value of 90.3% (74.2% to 98.0%; 28/31), and negative predictive value of 99.2% (99.0% to 99.4%; 5431/5473). When the void samples were assumed to be negative, a sensitivity was observed for LFT of 37.8% (26.8% to 49.9%; 28/74), specificity of 99.6% (99.4% to 99.8%; 5431/5452), positive predictive value of 84.8% (68.1% to 94.9%; 28/33), and negative predictive value of 93.4% (92.7% to 94.0%; 5431/5814). The sensitivity in participants with an RT-qPCR cycle threshold (Ct) of <18.3 (approximate viral loads >106 RNA copies/mL) was 90.9% (58.7% to 99.8%; 10/11), a Ct of <24.4 (>104 RNA copies/mL) was 69.4% (51.9% to 83.7%; 25/36), and a Ct of >24.4 (<104 RNA copies/mL) was 9.7% (1.9% to 23.7%; 3/34). LFT is likely to detect at least three fifths and at most 998 in every 1000 people with a positive RT-qPCR test result with high viral load. CONCLUSIONS: The Innova LFT can be useful for identifying infections among adults who report no symptoms of covid-19, particularly those with high viral load who are more likely to infect others. The number of asymptomatic adults with lower Ct (indicating higher viral load) missed by LFT, although small, should be considered when using single LFT in high consequence settings. Clear and accurate communication with the public about how to interpret test results is important, given the chance of missing some cases, even at high viral loads. Further research is needed to understand how infectiousness is reflected in the viral antigen shedding detected by LFT versus the viral loads approximated by RT-qPCR.

Protocol for DexEnceph: a randomised controlled trial of dexamethasone therapy in adults with herpes simplex virus encephalitis.

INTRODUCTION: Herpes simplex virus (HSV) encephalitis is a rare severe form of brain inflammation that commonly leaves survivors and their families with devastating long-term consequences. The virus particularly targets the temporal lobe of the brain causing debilitating problems in memory, especially verbal memory. It is postulated that immunomodulation with the corticosteroid, dexamethasone, could improve outcomes by reducing brain swelling. However, there are concerns (so far not observed) that such immunosuppression might facilitate increased viral replication with resultant worsening of disease. A previous trail closed early because of slow recruitment. METHOD: DexEnceph is a pragmatic multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, observer-blind trial to determine whether adults with HSV encephalitis who receive dexamethasone alongside standard antiviral treatment with aciclovir for have improved clinical outcomes compared with those who receive standard treatment alone. Overall, 90 patients with HSV encephalitis are being recruited from a target of 45 recruiting sites; patients are randomised 1:1 to the dexamethasone or control arms of the study. The primary outcome measured is verbal memory as assessed by the Weschler Memory Scale fourth edition Auditory Memory Index at 26 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are measured up to 72 weeks include additional neuropsychological, clinical and functional outcomes as well as comparison of neuroimaging findings. Patient safety monitoring occurs throughout and includes the detection of HSV DNA in cerebrospinal fluid 2 weeks after randomisation, which is indicative of ongoing viral replication. Innovative methods are being used to ensure recrutiment targets are met for this rare disease. DISCUSSION: DexEnceph aims to be the first completed randomised controlled trial of corticosteroid therapy in HSV encephalitis. The results will provide evidence for future practice in managing adults with the condition and has the potential to improve outcomes . ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has ethical approval from the UK National Research Ethics Committee (Liverpool Central, REF: 15/NW/0545, 10 August 2015). Protocol V.2.1, July 2019. The results will be published and presented as soon as possible on completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN11774734, EUDRACT 2015-001609-16.

Surgical microdiscectomy versus transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc (NERVES): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal invasive treatment for sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc remains controversial, with a paucity of evidence for use of non-surgical treatments such as transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) over surgical microdiscectomy. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these options for management of radicular pain secondary to herniated lumbar disc. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 11 spinal units across the UK. Eligible patients were aged 16-65 years, had MRI-confirmed non-emergency sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc with symptom duration between 6 weeks and 12 months, and had leg pain that was not responsive to non-invasive management. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either TFESI or surgical microdiscectomy by an online randomisation system that was stratified by centre with random permuted blocks. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks. All randomly assigned participants who completed a valid ODQ at baseline and at 18 weeks were included in the analysis. Safety analysis included all treated participants. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from the EuroQol-5D-5L, Hospital Episode Statistics, medication usage, and self-reported resource-use data. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN04820368, and EudraCT, number 2014-002751-25. FINDINGS: Between March 6, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, 163 (15%) of 1055 screened patients were enrolled, with 80 participants (49%) randomly assigned to the TFESI group and 83 participants (51%) to the surgery group. At week 18, ODQ scores were 30·02 (SD 24·38) for 63 assessed patients in the TFESI group and 22·30 (19·83) for 61 assessed patients in the surgery group. Mean improvement was 24·52 points (18·89) for the TFESI group and 26·74 points (21·35) for the surgery group, with an estimated treatment difference of -4·25 (95% CI -11·09 to 2·59; p=0·22). There were four serious adverse events in four participants associated with surgery, and none with TFESI. Compared with TFESI, surgery had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38 737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and a 0·17 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: For patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc, with symptom duration of up to 12 months, TFESI should be considered as a first invasive treatment option. Surgery is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to TFESI. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

Evaluating social and spatial inequalities of large scale rapid lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen testing in COVID-19 management: An observational study of Liverpool, UK (November 2020 to January 2021).

BACKGROUND: Large-scale asymptomatic testing of communities in Liverpool (UK) for SARS-CoV-2 was used as a public health tool for containing COVID-19. The aim of the study is to explore social and spatial inequalities in uptake and case-detection of rapid lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 antigen tests (LFTs) offered to people without symptoms of COVID-19. METHODS: Linked pseudonymised records for asymptomatic residents in Liverpool who received a LFT for COVID-19 between 6th November 2020 to 31st January 2021 were accessed using the Combined Intelligence for Population Health Action resource. Bayesian Hierarchical Poisson Besag, York, and Mollié models were used to estimate ecological associations for uptake and positivity of testing. FINDINGS: 214 525 residents (43%) received a LFT identifying 5192 individuals as positive cases of COVID-19 (1.3% of tests were positive). Uptake was highest in November when there was military assistance. High uptake was observed again in the week preceding Christmas and was sustained into a national lockdown. Overall uptake were lower among males (e.g. 40% uptake over the whole period), Black Asian and other Minority Ethnic groups (e.g. 27% uptake for 'Mixed' ethnicity) and in the most deprived areas (e.g. 32% uptake in most deprived areas). These population groups were also more likely to have received positive tests for COVID-19. Models demonstrated that uptake and repeat testing were lower in areas of higher deprivation, areas located further from test sites and areas containing populations less confident in the using Internet technologies. Positive tests were spatially clustered in deprived areas. INTERPRETATION: Large-scale voluntary asymptomatic community testing saw social, ethnic, digital and spatial inequalities in uptake. COVID-19 testing and support to isolate need to be more accessible to the vulnerable communities most impacted by the pandemic, including non-digital means of access. FUNDING: Department of Health and Social Care (UK) and Economic and Social Research Council.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95-1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83-1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08-1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319-1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110-1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. INTERPRETATION: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5-12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). FINDINGS: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0-94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96-1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of -0·040 (95% central range -0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. INTERPRETATION: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.