Cardiovascular imaging research priorities.

OBJECTIVES: Two interlinked surveys were organised by the British Heart Foundation Data Science Centre, which aimed to establish national priorities for cardiovascular imaging research. METHODS: First a single time point public survey explored their views of cardiovascular imaging research. Subsequently, a three-phase modified Delphi prioritisation exercise was performed by researchers and healthcare professionals. Research questions were submitted by a diverse range of stakeholders to the question 'What are the most important research questions that cardiovascular imaging should be used to address?'. Of these, 100 research questions were prioritised based on their positive impact for patients. The 32 highest rated questions were further prioritised based on three domains: positive impact for patients, potential to reduce inequalities in healthcare and ability to be implemented into UK healthcare practice in a timely manner. RESULTS: The public survey was completed by 354 individuals, with the highest rated areas relating to improving treatment, quality of life and diagnosis. In the second survey, 506 research questions were submitted by diverse stakeholders. Prioritisation was performed by 90 researchers or healthcare professionals in the first round and 64 in the second round. The highest rated questions were 'How do we ensure patients have equal access to cardiovascular imaging when it is needed?' and 'How can we use cardiovascular imaging to avoid invasive procedures'. There was general agreement between healthcare professionals and researchers regarding priorities for the positive impact for patients and least agreement for their ability to be implemented into UK healthcare practice in a timely manner. There was broad overlap between the prioritised research questions and the results of the public survey. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified priorities for cardiovascular imaging research, incorporating the views of diverse stakeholders. These priorities will be useful for researchers, funders and other organisations planning future research.

Mixed-methods evaluation of a nurse-led allergy clinic model in primary care: Feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: It is now widely acknowledged that there are serious shortcomings in allergy care provision for patients seen in primary care. We sought to assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a new nurse-led allergy service in primary care, measured by recruitment, retention and estimates of the potential impact of the intervention on disease-specific quality of life. METHODS: Mixed-methods evaluation of a nurse-led primary care-based allergy clinic in Edinburgh, UK undertaken during the period 2017-2021 with a focus on suspected food allergy and atopic eczema in young children, allergic rhinitis in children and young people, and suspected anaphylaxis in adults. Prior to March 2020, patients were seen face-to-face (Phase 1). Due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions, recruitment was halted between March-August 2020, and a remote clinic was restarted in September 2020 (Phase 2). Disease-specific quality of life was measured at baseline and 6-12 weeks post intervention using validated instruments. Quantitative data were descriptively analysed. We undertook interviews with 16 carers/patients and nine healthcare professionals, which were thematically analysed. RESULTS: During Phase 1, 426/506 (84%) referred patients met the eligibility criteria; 40/46 (87%) of Phase 2 referrals were eligible. Males and females were recruited in approximately equal numbers. The majority (83%) of referrals were for possible food allergy or anaphylaxis. Complete data were available for 338/426 (79%) patients seen in Phase 1 and 30/40 (75%) in Phase 2. Compared with baseline assessments, there were improvements in disease-specific quality of life for most categories of patients. Patients/carers and healthcare professionals reported high levels of satisfaction, this being reinforced by the qualitative interviews in which convenience and speed of access to expert opinion, the quality of the consultation, and patient/care empowerment were particularly emphasised. CONCLUSION: This large feasibility trial has demonstrated that it is possible to recruit, deliver and retain individuals into a nurse-led allergy clinic with both face-to-face and remote consultations. Our data indicate that the intervention was considered acceptable to patients/carers and healthcare professionals. The before-after data of disease-specific quality of life suggest that the intervention may prove effective, but this now needs to be confirmed through a formal randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov reference NCT03826953.

Early Pandemic Evaluation and Enhanced Surveillance of COVID-19 (EAVE II): protocol for an observational study using linked Scottish national data.

INTRODUCTION: Following the emergence of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in December 2019 and the ensuing COVID-19 pandemic, population-level surveillance and rapid assessment of the effectiveness of existing or new therapeutic or preventive interventions are required to ensure that interventions are targeted to those at highest risk of serious illness or death from COVID-19. We aim to repurpose and expand an existing pandemic reporting platform to determine the attack rate of SARS-CoV-2, the uptake and effectiveness of any new pandemic vaccine (once available) and any protective effect conferred by existing or new antimicrobial drugs and other therapies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A prospective observational cohort will be used to monitor daily/weekly the progress of the COVID-19 epidemic and to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic interventions in approximately 5.4 million individuals registered in general practices across Scotland. A national linked dataset of patient-level primary care data, out-of-hours, hospitalisation, mortality and laboratory data will be assembled. The primary outcomes will measure association between: (A) laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, morbidity and mortality, and demographic, socioeconomic and clinical population characteristics; and (B) healthcare burden of COVID-19 and demographic, socioeconomic and clinical population characteristics. The secondary outcomes will estimate: (A) the uptake (for vaccines only); (B) effectiveness; and (C) safety of new or existing therapies, vaccines and antimicrobials against SARS-CoV-2 infection. The association between population characteristics and primary outcomes will be assessed via multivariate logistic regression models. The effectiveness of therapies, vaccines and antimicrobials will be assessed from time-dependent Cox models or Poisson regression models. Self-controlled study designs will be explored to estimate the risk of therapeutic and prophylactic-related adverse events. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained approval from the National Research Ethics Service Committee, Southeast Scotland 02. The study findings will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

Development and implementation of a nurse-led allergy clinic model in primary care: feasibility trial protocol.

In the United Kingdom, there are acknowledged short comings in allergy care provision for patients seen in primary care. There is a lack of allergy training for healthcare professionals and this leads to inappropriate referrals to the limited number of allergy specialists. The primary aims of this study are to assess the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a new nurse-led allergy service in primary care, measured by recruitment, retention and quality of life. This is a single arm feasibility trial in which up to 250 participants referred to the nurse-led allergy clinic will receive the intervention and complete 6-12 weeks follow-up before being referred back to their usual care. Primary outcomes for this study will be establishment of clinics, recruitment and retention rates, and estimates of change in disease-specific quality of life measures. Secondary outcomes will be acceptability of the new service to participants/carers and healthcare professionals. A sample of participants and professional stakeholders will take part in more in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data from this feasibility trial will be used to inform plans for a pilot randomised controlled trial of nurse-led allergy clinics.

A pilot, open labelled, randomised controlled trial of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling for the common cold.

There are no antivirals to treat viral upper respiratory tract infection (URTI). Since numerous viruses cause URTI, antiviral therapy is impractical. As we have evidence of chloride-ion dependent innate antiviral response in epithelial cells, we conducted a pilot, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial of hypertonic saline nasal irrigation and gargling (HSNIG) vs standard care on healthy adults within 48 hours of URTI onset to assess recruitment (primary outcome). Acceptability, symptom duration and viral shedding were secondary outcomes. Participants maintained a symptom diary until well for two days or a maximum of 14 days and collected 5 sequential mid-turbinate swabs to measure viral shedding. The intervention arm prepared hypertonic saline and performed HSNIG. We recruited 68 participants (2.6 participants/week; November 2014-March 2015). A participant declined after randomisation. Another was on antibiotics and hence removed (Intervention:32, Control:34). Follow up data was available from 61 (Intervention:30, Control:31). 87% found HSNIG acceptable, 93% thought HSNIG made a difference to their symptoms. In the intervention arm, duration of illness was lower by 1.9 days (p = 0.01), over-the-counter medications (OTCM) use by 36% (p = 0.004), transmission within household contacts by 35% (p = 0.006) and viral shedding by ≥0.5 log10/day (p = 0.04). We hence need a larger trial to confirm our findings.