Development, acceptability and feasibility of a personalised, behavioural intervention to prevent bacterial skin and soft tissue infections among people who inject drugs: a mixed-methods Person-Based Approach study.

BACKGROUND: Skin and soft tissue infections (SSTI) among people who inject drugs (PWID) are a public health concern. This study aimed to co-produce and assess the acceptability and feasibility of a behavioural intervention to prevent SSTI. METHODS: The Person-Based Approach (PBA) was followed which involves: (i) collating and analysing evidence; (ii) developing guiding principles; (iii) a behavioural analysis; (iv) logic model development; and (v) designing and refining intervention materials. Co-production activities with target group representatives and key collaborators obtained feedback on the intervention which was used to refine its design and content. The intervention, harm reduction advice cards to support conversation between service provider and PWID and resources to support safer injecting practice, was piloted with 13 PWID by four service providers in Bristol and evaluated using a mixed-methods approach. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 PWID and four service providers. Questionnaires completed by all PWID recorded demographic characteristics, SSTI, drug use and treatment history. Interviews were analysed thematically and questionnaires were analysed descriptively. RESULTS: Published literature highlighted structural barriers to safer injecting practices, such as access to hygienic injecting environments and injecting practices associated with SSTI included: limited handwashing/injection-site swabbing and use of too much acidifier to dissolve drugs. Co-production activities and the literature indicated vein care and minimisation of pain as PWID priorities. The importance of service provider-client relationships and non-stigmatising delivery was highlighted through the co-production work. Providing practical resources was identified as important to address environmental constraints to safer injecting practices. Most participants receiving the intervention were White British, male, had a history of SSTI and on average were 43.6 years old and had injected for 22.7 years. The intervention was well-received by PWID and service providers. Intervention content and materials given out to support harm reduction were viewed positively. The intervention appeared to support reflections on and intentions to change injecting behaviours, though barriers to safer injecting practice remained prominent. CONCLUSIONS: The PBA ensured the intervention aligned to the priorities of PWID. It was viewed as acceptable and mostly feasible to PWID and service providers and has transferability promise. Further implementation alongside broader harm reduction interventions is needed.

CardioMotion: identification of functional and structural cardiotoxic liabilities in small molecules through brightfield kinetic imaging.

Cardiovascular toxicity is an important cause of drug failures in the later stages of drug development, early clinical safety assessment, and even postmarket withdrawals. Early-stage in vitro assessment of potential cardiovascular liabilities in the pharmaceutical industry involves assessment of interactions with cardiac ion channels, as well as induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocyte-based functional assays, such as calcium flux and multielectrode-array assays. These methods are appropriate for the identification of acute functional cardiotoxicity but structural cardiotoxicity, which manifests effects after chronic exposure, is often only captured in vivo. CardioMotion is a novel, label-free, high throughput, in vitro assay and analysis pipeline which records and assesses the spontaneous beating of cardiomyocytes and identifies compounds which impact beating. This is achieved through the acquisition of brightfield images at a high framerate, combined with an optical flow-based python analysis pipeline which transforms the images into waveform data which are then parameterized. Validation of this assay with a large dataset showed that cardioactive compounds with diverse known direct functional and structural mechanisms-of-action on cardiomyocytes are identified (sensitivity = 72.9%), importantly, known structural cardiotoxins also disrupt cardiomyocyte beating (sensitivity = 86%) in this method. Furthermore, the CardioMotion method presents a high specificity of 82.5%.

Laser peripheral iridoplasty for chronic angle closure.

BACKGROUND: In at least a third of primary angle closure cases, appositional angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy, and further intervention may be considered. Laser peripheral iridoplasty (LPIp) can be used in treating chronic angle closure when angle closure persists after laser peripheral iridotomy. Previous reviews have found insufficient data to determine its clinical effectiveness, compared to other interventions. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2008 and updated in 2012. It examines all studies to date to establish whether LPIp shows any effectiveness over other available treatment options. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of laser peripheral iridoplasty in the treatment of people with chronic angle closure, when compared to laser peripheral iridotomy, medical therapy or no further treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched various electronic databases. The date of the search was 20 December 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the use of LPIp in cases of suspected primary angle closure (PACS), confirmed primary angle closure (PAC), or primary chronic angle-closure glaucoma (PACG). We applied no restrictions with respect to gender, age or ethnicity of participants. Trials evaluating LPIp for acute attacks of angle closure were not eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two authors independently assessed studies for risk of bias using Cochrane's 'risk of bias' tool. We collected adverse effects information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs involving 252 participants (276 eyes). In total, three different methods of intervention were used and 15 outcomes reported, with different time points. We used narrative synthesis to describe the majority of the findings, as meta-analysis was only possible for a limited number of outcomes due to the variation in study design and outcomes assessed. Study Characteristics Participants were adults recruited from outpatient settings in the UK, Singapore, China and Korea with either PACS, PAC or PACG. All studies compared argon LPIp (as either a primary or secondary procedure) to an alternative intervention or no further treatment. Three studies were of parallel group design, and one within-person, randomised by eye. All studies showed elements of high risk of bias. Due to the nature of the intervention assessed, a lack of masking of both participants and assessors was noted in all trials. Findings Laser peripheral iridoplasty with iridotomy versus iridotomy alone as a primary procedure Two RCTs assessed the use of argon LPIp as a primary procedure with peripheral iridotomy, compared with peripheral iridotomy alone. However, neither study reported data for the primary outcome, disease progression. Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on: final mean intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months and 12 months (mean difference (MD) 0.39 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to 1.85; I2 = 38%; 2 studies, 174 participants; low-certainty evidence); further surgical or laser intervention at 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.21; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence); or mean number of additional medications required at 12 months (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.54; 1 study, 126 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were assessed at 3 to 12 months (2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence) and found to be mild and uncommon, with comparable levels between groups. The only severe complication encountered was one case of malignant glaucoma in one study's argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. In the other study, investigators found that argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on final mean anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) measurements, including anterior chamber depth (MD 0.00 mm, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.10; 24 participants, 48 eyes; very low-certainty evidence). Laser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus no treatment One RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with no further treatment in 22 participants over three months. Disease progression, additional medications required, complications, further surgical or laser intervention, and quality of life outcomes were not assessed. There was only very low-certainty evidence regarding final maximum IOP value (MD -1.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.11 to -0.51; very low-certainty evidence), with no evidence of effect on final minimum IOP values (MD -0.31 mmHg, 95% CI -1.93 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group. Laser peripheral iridoplasty as a secondary procedure versus medication One RCT assessed the use of argon LPIp as a secondary procedure compared with travoprost 0.004% in 80 participants over 12 months. The primary outcome of disease progression was reported for this method: argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect on mean final cup/disk ratio (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; low-certainty evidence). Argon LPIp showed no evidence of effect for: mean change in IOP (MD -1.20 mmHg, 95% CI -2.87 to 0.47; low-certainty evidence) or mean number of additional medications (MD 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.61; low-certainty evidence). Further surgical intervention was required by one participant in the intervention group alone, with none in the control group  (low-certainty evidence). No serious adverse events were reported, with mild complications consisting of two cases of 'post-laser IOP spike' in the argon LPIp group. Quality of life measures were not assessed. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of argon LPIp on AS-OCT parameters. The trial did not report AS-OCT measurements for the control group. Adverse events Availability of data were limited for adverse effects. Similar rates were observed in control and intervention groups, where reported. Serious adverse events were rare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: After reviewing the outcomes of four RCTs, argon LPIp as an intervention may be no more clinically effective than comparators in the management of people with chronic angle closure. Despite a potential positive impact on anterior chamber morphology, its use in clinical practice in treating people with chronic angle closure is not supported by the results of trials published to date. Given these results, further research into LPIp is unlikely to be worthwhile.