General population screening for type 1 diabetes using islet autoantibodies at the preschool vaccination visit: a proof-of-concept study (the T1Early study).

OBJECTIVE: Type 1 diabetes (T1D) screening programmes testing islet autoantibodies (IAbs) in childhood can reduce life-threatening diabetic ketoacidosis. General population screening is required to detect the majority of children with T1D, since in >85% there is no family history. Age 3-5 years has been proposed as an optimal age for a single screen approach. DESIGN: Capillary samples were collected from children attending their preschool vaccination and analysed for IAbs to insulin, glutamic acid decarboxylase, islet antigen-2 and zinc transporter 8 using radiobinding/luciferase immunoprecipitation system assays. Acceptability was assessed using semistructured interviews and open-ended postcard questionnaires with parents. SETTING: Two primary care practices in Oxfordshire, UK. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The ability to collect capillary blood to test IAbs in children at the routine preschool vaccination (3.5-4 years). RESULTS: Of 134 parents invited, 66 (49%) were recruited (median age 3.5 years (IQR 3.4-3.6), 26 (39.4%) male); 63 provided a sample (97% successfully), and one participant was identified with a single positive IAb. Parents (n=15 interviews, n=29 postcards) were uniformly positive about screening aligned to vaccination and stated they would have been less likely to take part had screening been a separate visit. Themes identified included preparedness for T1D and the long-term benefit outweighing short-term upset. The perceived volume of the capillary sample was a potential concern and needs optimising. CONCLUSIONS: Capillary IAb testing is a possible method to screen children for T1D. Aligning collection to the preschool vaccination visit can be convenient for families without the need for an additional visit.

Blood eosinophil-guided oral prednisolone for COPD exacerbations in primary care in the UK (STARR2): a non-inferiority, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic glucocorticoids are recommended for use in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations; however, there is increased harm associated with their use. We hypothesised that the use of eosinophil biomarker-directed oral prednisolone therapy at the time of an exacerbation of COPD was effective at reducing prednisolone use without affecting adverse outcomes. METHODS: The studying acute exacerbations and response (STARR2) study was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 14 primary care practices in the UK. We included adults (aged ≥40 years), who were current or former smokers (with at least a 10 pack year smoking history) with a diagnosis of COPD, defined as a post-bronchodilator FEV1/forced vital capacity ratio of less than 0·7 previously recorded by the primary care physician, and a history of at least one exacerbation in the previous 12 months requiring systemic corticosteroids with or without antibiotics. All study staff and participants were masked to study group allocation and to treatment allocation. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to blood eosinophil-directed treatment (BET; to receive oral prednisolone 30 mg once daily if eosinophil count was high [≥2%] or placebo if eosinophil count was low [<2%]) or to standard care treatment (ST; to receive prednisolone 30 mg once daily irrespective of the point-of-care eosinophil result). Treatment was prescribed for 14 days and all patients also received antibiotics. The primary outcome was the rate of treatment failure, defined as any need for re-treatment with antibiotics or steroids, hospitalisation for any cause, or death, assessed at 30 days after exacerbation in the modified intention-to-treat population. Participants were eligible for re-randomisation at further exacerbations (with a maximum of four exacerbations per participant). A safety analysis was conducted on all randomly assigned participants. Although designed as a superiority trial, after identification of an error in the randomisation code before data lock the study converted to show non-inferiority. An upper margin of 1·105 for the 95% CI was defined as the non-inferiority margin. This study was registered with EudraCT, 2017-001586-24, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2017, and April 30, 2020, 308 participants were recruited from 14 general practices. 144 exacerbations (73 in the BET group and 71 in the ST group) from 93 participants (mean age 70 years [range 46-84] and mean percent predicted FEV1 60·9% [SD 19·4]; 52 [56%] male and 41 [44%] female; ethnicity data was not collected]) were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. There were 14 (19%) treatment failures at 30 days post-exacerbation in the BET group and 23 (32%) in the ST group; we found a large non-significant estimated effect between BET and ST (RR 0·60 [95% CI 0·33-1·04]; p=0·070) in reducing treatment failures after a COPD exacerbation. The non-inferiority analysis supported that BET was non-inferior to ST. Frequency of adverse events were similar between the study groups; glycosuria (2/102 [2%] in BET group and 1/101 [1%] in the ST group) and hospital admission for COPD exacerbation (2/102 [2%] in BET group and 1/101 [1%] in the ST group) were the two most common adverse events in both groups. No deaths occurred in the study. INTERPRETATION: Blood eosinophil-directed prednisolone therapy at the time of an acute exacerbation of COPD is non-inferior to standard care and can be used to safely reduce systemic glucocorticoid use in clinical practice. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Dietary Approaches to the Management Of type 2 Diabetes (DIAMOND) in primary care: A protocol for a cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: There is strong evidence that type 2 diabetes (T2D) remission can be achieved by adopting a low-energy diet achieved through total dietary replacement products. There is promising evidence that low-carbohydrate diets can achieve remission of T2D. The Dietary Approaches to the Management of type 2 Diabetes (DIAMOND) programme combines both approaches in a behaviourally informed low-energy, low-carbohydrate diet for people with T2D, delivered by nurses in primary care. This trial compares the effectiveness of the DIAMOND programme to usual care in inducing remission of T2D and in reducing risk of cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We aim to recruit 508 people in 56 practices with T2D diagnosed within 6 years, who are demographically representative of the UK population. We will allocate general practices, based on ethnicity and socioeconomic status, to provide usual care for diabetes or offer the DIAMOND programme. Participants in practices offering DIAMOND will see the nurse seven times over 6 months. At baseline, 6 months, and 1 year we will measure weight, blood pressure, HbA1c, lipid profile and risk of fatty liver disease. The primary outcome is diabetes remission at 1 year, defined as HbA1c < 48 mmol/mol and off glucose-lowering medication for at least 6 months. Thereafter, we will assess whether people resume treatment for diabetes and the incidence of microvascular and macrovascular disease through the National Diabetes Audit. Data will be analysed using mixed-effects generalised linear models. This study has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 22/EM/0074). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN46961767.

Unblinded and Blinded N-of-1 Trials Versus Usual Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Increase Statin Uptake in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess whether an intervention incorporating a practicable open-label n-of-1 trial would lead to greater uptake of statin than usual care and comparable uptake to a closed-label gold-standard n-of-1 trial. METHODS: We enrolled patients who had stopped or declined statins into a 3-arm trial (usual care, unblinded, and blinded n-of-1 intervention arms). Physicians advised participants randomized to usual care to take statin therapy to prevent cardiovascular disease. In both intervention arms, physicians delivered a theoretically informed informed intervention endorsing the value of experimenting with medication in n-of-1 trials to assess whether it caused side-effects. In these trials, participants alternated between 4 weeks of medication and no medication (unblinded arm) or randomly sorted active and placebo (blinded arm) and recorded symptoms and symptom attributions for 6 months. Thereafter, physicians discussed participants' symptom reports during active/inactive treatment periods and asked participants to resume statins if appropriate. RESULTS: Seventy-three were randomized to the intervention arms and 20 to the control group. Fifty-six of 73 (77%) attempted the n-of-1 experiment; 28/36 (78%) in the unblinded arm; and 28/37 (76%) in the blinded arm. Forty-three of 56 (77%) completed the 6-month experiment and received feedback from the physician; 20/28 (71%) in the unblinded arm and 23/28 (82%) in the blinded arm. Thirty-three of 76 (45%) people restarted statins in the n-of-1 arms compared with 4/20 (20%) in the control arm, difference 24% (95% CI, 5%-43%; P=0.041). There was no evidence this differed between blinded and unblinded arms, difference 2% (95% CI, -20% to 24%; P=0.86). Adverse events occurred at a similar rate on and off statin. CONCLUSIONS: In patients refusing or intolerant of statin, supporting experimentation with n-of-1 trials increases medication uptake compared with usual care. Alternating on-off medication in unblinded n-of-1 experiments appears as effective as a blinded experiment. REGISTRATION: URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11142694; Unique identifier: ISRCTN11142694.

Inhaled budesonide in the treatment of early COVID-19 (STOIC): a phase 2, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple early reports of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 showed that patients with chronic respiratory disease were significantly under-represented in these cohorts. We hypothesised that the widespread use of inhaled glucocorticoids among these patients was responsible for this finding, and tested if inhaled glucocorticoids would be an effective treatment for early COVID-19. METHODS: We performed an open-label, parallel-group, phase 2, randomised controlled trial (Steroids in COVID-19; STOIC) of inhaled budesonide, compared with usual care, in adults within 7 days of the onset of mild COVID-19 symptoms. The trial was done in the community in Oxfordshire, UK. Participants were randomly assigned to inhaled budsonide or usual care stratified for age (≤40 years or >40 years), sex (male or female), and number of comorbidities (≤1 and ≥2). Randomisation was done using random sequence generation in block randomisation in a 1:1 ratio. Budesonide dry powder was delivered using a turbohaler at a dose of 400 µg per actuation. Participants were asked to take two inhalations twice a day until symptom resolution. The primary endpoint was COVID-19-related urgent care visit, including emergency department assessment or hospitalisation, analysed for both the per-protocol and intention-to-treat (ITT) populations. The secondary outcomes were self-reported clinical recovery (symptom resolution), viral symptoms measured using the Common Cold Questionnare (CCQ) and the InFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome Questionnaire (FLUPro), body temperature, blood oxygen saturations, and SARS-CoV-2 viral load. The trial was stopped early after independent statistical review concluded that study outcome would not change with further participant enrolment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04416399. FINDINGS: From July 16 to Dec 9, 2020, 167 participants were recruited and assessed for eligibility. 21 did not meet eligibility criteria and were excluded. 146 participants were randomly assigned-73 to usual care and 73 to budesonide. For the per-protocol population (n=139), the primary outcome occurred in ten (14%) of 70 participants in the usual care group and one (1%) of 69 participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·131, 95% CI 0·043 to 0·218; p=0·004). For the ITT population, the primary outcome occurred in 11 (15%) participants in the usual care group and two (3%) participants in the budesonide group (difference in proportions 0·123, 95% CI 0·033 to 0·213; p=0·009). The number needed to treat with inhaled budesonide to reduce COVID-19 deterioration was eight. Clinical recovery was 1 day shorter in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (median 7 days [95% CI 6 to 9] in the budesonide group vs 8 days [7 to 11] in the usual care group; log-rank test p=0·007). The mean proportion of days with a fever in the first 14 days was lower in the budesonide group (2%, SD 6) than the usual care group (8%, SD 18; Wilcoxon test p=0·051) and the proportion of participants with at least 1 day of fever was lower in the budesonide group when compared with the usual care group. As-needed antipyretic medication was required for fewer proportion of days in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (27% [IQR 0-50] vs 50% [15-71]; p=0·025) Fewer participants randomly assigned to budesonide had persistent symptoms at days 14 and 28 compared with participants receiving usual care (difference in proportions 0·204, 95% CI 0·075 to 0·334; p=0·003). The mean total score change in the CCQ and FLUPro over 14 days was significantly better in the budesonide group compared with the usual care group (CCQ mean difference -0·12, 95% CI -0·21 to -0·02 [p=0·016]; FLUPro mean difference -0·10, 95% CI -0·21 to -0·00 [p=0·044]). Blood oxygen saturations and SARS-CoV-2 load, measured by cycle threshold, were not different between the groups. Budesonide was safe, with only five (7%) participants reporting self-limiting adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and AstraZeneca.

Risks of use and non-use of antibiotics in primary care: qualitative study of prescribers' views.

PURPOSE: The emergence of antimicrobial resistance has led to increasing efforts to reduce unnecessary use of antibiotics in primary care, but potential hazards from bacterial infection continue to cause concern. This study investigated how primary care prescribers perceive risk and safety concerns associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing. METHODS: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews conducted with primary care prescribers from 10 general practices in an urban area and a shire town in England. A thematic analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Thirty participants were recruited, including twenty-three general practitioners, five nurses and two pharmacists. Three main themes were identified: risk assessment, balancing treatment risks and negotiating decisions and risks. Respondents indicated that their decisions were grounded in clinical risk assessment, but this was informed by different approaches to antibiotic use, with most leaning towards reduced prescribing. Prescribers' perceptions of risk included the consequences of both inappropriate prescribing and inappropriate withholding of antibiotics. Sepsis was viewed as the most concerning potential outcome of non-prescribing, leading to possible patient harm and potential litigation. Risks of antibiotic prescribing included antibiotic resistant and Clostridium difficile infections, as well as side effects, such as rashes, that might lead to possible mislabelling as antibiotic allergy. Prescribers elicited patient preferences for use or avoidance of antibiotics to inform management strategies, which included educational advice, advice on self-management including warning signs, use of delayed prescriptions and safety netting. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes towards antibiotic prescribing are evolving, with reduced antibiotic prescribing now being approached more systematically. The safety trade-offs associated with either use or non-use of antibiotics present difficulties especially when prescribing decisions are inconsistent with patients' expectations.

Cortical foot.

An 83-year-old woman presented with an acute onset of foot drop. Whilst the pattern of weakness initially appeared to be most likely due to a peripheral cause, an MR scan of the brain showed a small cortical stroke. This rare phenomenon appears similar to the more widely described 'cortical hand'.

Probability of sepsis after infection consultations in primary care in the United Kingdom in 2002-2017: Population-based cohort study and decision analytic model.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing have coincided with increasing awareness of sepsis. We aimed to estimate the probability of sepsis following infection consultations in primary care when antibiotics were or were not prescribed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a cohort study including all registered patients at 706 general practices in the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink, with 66.2 million person-years of follow-up from 2002 to 2017. There were 35,244 first episodes of sepsis (17,886, 51%, female; median age 71 years, interquartile range 57-82 years). Consultations for respiratory tract infection (RTI), skin or urinary tract infection (UTI), and antibiotic prescriptions were exposures. A Bayesian decision tree was used to estimate the probability (95% uncertainty intervals [UIs]) of sepsis following an infection consultation. Age, gender, and frailty were evaluated as association modifiers. The probability of sepsis was lower if an antibiotic was prescribed, but the number of antibiotic prescriptions required to prevent one episode of sepsis (number needed to treat [NNT]) decreased with age. At 0-4 years old, the NNT was 29,773 (95% UI 18,458-71,091) in boys and 27,014 (16,739-65,709) in girls; over 85 years old, NNT was 262 (236-293) in men and 385 (352-421) in women. Frailty was associated with greater risk of sepsis and lower NNT. For severely frail patients aged 55-64 years, the NNT was 247 (156-459) in men and 343 (234-556) in women. At all ages, the probability of sepsis was greatest for UTI, followed by skin infection, followed by RTI. At 65-74 years, the NNT following RTI was 1,257 (1,112-1,434) in men and 2,278 (1,966-2,686) in women; the NNT following skin infection was 503 (398-646) in men and 784 (602-1,051) in women; following UTI, the NNT was 121 (102-145) in men and 284 (241-342) in women. NNT values were generally smaller for the period from 2014 to 2017, when sepsis was diagnosed more frequently. Lack of random allocation to antibiotic therapy might have biased estimates; patients may sometimes experience sepsis or receive antibiotic prescriptions without these being recorded in primary care; recording of sepsis has increased over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: These stratified estimates of risk help to identify groups in which antibiotic prescribing may be more safely reduced. Risks of sepsis and benefits of antibiotics are more substantial among older adults, persons with more advanced frailty, or following UTIs.

Hydrology, rheumatology, and rehabilitation: the campaigning of Fortescue Fox.

Soon after qualification, Fortescue Fox (1858-1940) began practice in a Scottish spa where he acquired a lifelong interest in chronic disorders, especially arthritis. He worked to improve the status of spa medicine, recasting it as medical hydrology. At the start of the First World War, his interests turned to the handling of war casualties and a seminal work on physical treatment and rehabilitation was published in 1916. He set up a physical treatment clinic for damaged soldiers and co-founded a residential community where such treatment could be coupled with paid work in rural crafts. After the war Fox was a founder and president of the International League against Rheumatism and helped establish a groundbreaking outpatient clinic from which academic rheumatology in the UK developed. Yet he is not seen as a founding father of British rheumatology, having been on the losing side of an argument about the focus of the specialty. In medical rehabilitation he does have that honour.

Serious bacterial infections and antibiotic prescribing in primary care: cohort study using electronic health records in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether serious bacterial infections are more frequent at family practices with lower antibiotic prescribing rates. DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: 706 UK family practices in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink from 2002 to 2017. PARTICIPANTS: 10.1 million registered patients with 69.3 million patient-years' follow-up. EXPOSURES: All antibiotic prescriptions, subgroups of acute and repeat antibiotic prescriptions, and proportion of antibiotic prescriptions associated with specific-coded indications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First episodes of serious bacterial infections. Poisson models were fitted adjusting for age group, gender, comorbidity, deprivation, region and calendar year, with random intercepts representing family practice-specific estimates. RESULTS: The age-standardised antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient-years increased from 2002 (male 423; female 621) to 2012 (male 530; female 842) before declining to 2017 (male 449; female 753). The median family practice had an antibiotic prescribing rate of 648 per 1000 patient-years with 95% range for different practices of 430-1038 antibiotic prescriptions per 1000 patient-years. Specific coded indications were recorded for 58% of antibiotic prescriptions at the median family practice, the 95% range at different family practices was from 10% to 75%. There were 139 759 first episodes of serious bacterial infection. After adjusting for covariates and the proportion of coded consultations, there was no evidence that serious bacterial infections were lower at family practices with higher total antibiotic prescribing. The adjusted rate ratio for 20% higher total antibiotic prescribing was 1.03, (95% CI 1.00 to 1.06, p=0.074). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find population-level evidence that family practices with lower total antibiotic prescribing might have more frequent occurrence of serious bacterial infections overall. Improving the recording of infection episodes has potential to inform better antimicrobial stewardship in primary care.

Tackling statin intolerance with n-of-1 trials (TaSINI) in primary care: protocol for a feasibility randomised trial to increase statin adherence.

INTRODUCTION: Statins reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cause few adverse effects. Half of patients prescribed statins discontinue treatment due to perceived intolerance. Placebo-controlled (blinded) n-of-1 trials have shown people with perceived intolerance that the statin does not cause adverse events and most resume treatment. However, blinded n-of-1 trials are impractical to deliver in routine practice. Tackling Statin Intolerance using n-of-1 trials (TaSINI) will test the feasibility of a general practitioner (GP)-delivered behavioural intervention endorsing an unblinded n-of-1 trial to increase adherence to statins relative to usual care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TaSINI is a feasibility randomised controlled trial with a nested qualitative substudy. Ninety primary care patients who have discontinued statins due to intolerance or refused treatment will be randomised to an unblinded n-of-1 trial, a blinded n-of-1 trial (positive control) or usual care (negative control). Participants randomised to usual care will be advised to take statin therapy to prevent CVD. In both n-of-1 trial arms, GPs will deliver a behaviourally informed intervention that accessibly explains the benefits of statins, the prevalence of adverse effects and endorse the benefit of experimenting with medication. Participants will alternate between 4 weeks of medication and no medication (unblinded arm) or randomly sorted active and placebo (blinded arm) and will record adherence, symptoms and symptom attributions throughout. After 6 months, GPs will feedback symptom data during active/inactive treatment periods. All participants will be asked if they would like to initiate statin treatment. Measures of feasibility will be met if 4% of invited patients enrol, 50% of participants randomised to n-of-1 trials engage with the experiment and 25% more participants initiate statin in the unblinded n-of-1 arm than in usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been granted ethical approval by North of Scotland Research Ethics Service. The results will be written up for publication and show whether to progress to an effectiveness trial where the primary outcome would be differences in low-density lipoprotein concentration.

A food-based, low-energy, low-carbohydrate diet for people with type 2 diabetes in primary care: A randomized controlled feasibility trial.

AIM: To examine the feasibility of a food-based, low-energy, low-carbohydrate diet with behavioural support delivered by practice nurses for patients with type 2 diabetes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: People with type 2 diabetes and a body mass index (BMI) of ≥30 kg/m2 were randomized 2:1 to intervention or control (usual care) and assessed at 12 weeks. The intervention comprised an 800-1000 kcal/day, food-based, low-carbohydrate (<26% energy) diet for 8 weeks, followed by a 4-week weight maintenance period and four 15-20-minute appointments with a nurse. Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruitment, fidelity of intervention delivery and retention of participants at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included change in weight and HbA1c. Focus groups explored the intervention experience. RESULTS: Forty-eight people were screened, 33 enrolled and 32 followed-up. Mean (±SD) weight loss in the intervention group was 9.5 kg (± 5.4 kg) compared with 2 kg (± 2.5 kg) in the control group (adjusted difference - 7.5 kg [-11.0 to -4.0, P < 0.001]). Mean reduction in HbA1c in the intervention group was 16.3 mmol/mol (± 13.3 mmol/mol) compared with 0.7 mmol/mol (±4.5 mmol/mol) in the control group (difference - 15.7 mmol/mol [-24.1 to -7.3, P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to recruit participants to a food-based, low-energy, low-carbohydrate intervention, for practice nurses to deliver the programme in primary care, and to retain participants in both groups. There is evidence of clinically significant short-term improvements in weight and glycaemic control.

Electronically delivered interventions to reduce antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care: cluster RCT using electronic health records and cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Unnecessary prescribing of antibiotics in primary care is contributing to the emergence of antimicrobial drug resistance. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a multicomponent intervention for antimicrobial stewardship in primary care, and to evaluate the safety of reducing antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting respiratory infections (RTIs). INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent intervention, developed as part of this study, including a webinar, monthly reports of general practice-specific data for antibiotic prescribing and decision support tools to inform appropriate antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN: A parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: The trial was conducted in 79 general practices in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). PARTICIPANTS: All registered patients were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the rate of antibiotic prescriptions for self-limiting RTIs over the 12-month intervention period. COHORT STUDY: A separate population-based cohort study was conducted in 610 CPRD general practices that were not exposed to the trial interventions. Data were analysed to evaluate safety outcomes for registered patients with 45.5 million person-years of follow-up from 2005 to 2014. RESULTS: There were 41 intervention trial arm practices (323,155 patient-years) and 38 control trial arm practices (259,520 patient-years). There were 98.7 antibiotic prescriptions for RTIs per 1000 patient-years in the intervention trial arm (31,907 antibiotic prescriptions) and 107.6 per 1000 patient-years in the control arm (27,923 antibiotic prescriptions) [adjusted antibiotic-prescribing rate ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 0.99; p = 0.040]. There was no evidence of effect in children aged < 15 years (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.12) or adults aged ≥ 85 years (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.18). Antibiotic prescribing was reduced in adults aged between 15 and 84 years (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95), that is, one antibiotic prescription was avoided for every 62 patients (95% CI 40 to 200 patients) aged 15-84 years per year. Analysis of trial data for 12 safety outcomes, including pneumonia and peritonsillar abscess, showed no evidence that these outcomes might be increased as a result of the intervention. The analysis of data from non-trial practices showed that if a general practice with an average list size of 7000 patients reduces the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed by 10%, then 1.1 (95% CI 0.6 to 1.5) more cases of pneumonia per year and 0.9 (95% CI 0.5 to 1.3) more cases of peritonsillar abscesses per decade may be observed. There was no evidence that mastoiditis, empyema, meningitis, intracranial abscess or Lemierre syndrome were more frequent at low-prescribing practices. LIMITATIONS: The research was based on electronic health records that may not always provide complete data. The number of practices included in the trial was smaller than initially intended. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence that, overall, general practice antibiotic prescribing for RTIs was reduced by this electronically delivered intervention. Antibiotic prescribing rates were reduced for adults aged 15-84 years, but not for children or the senior elderly. FUTURE WORK: Strategies for antimicrobial stewardship should employ stratified interventions that are tailored to specific age groups. Further research into the safety of reduced antibiotic prescribing is also needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95232781. 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. 23, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The overuse of antibiotics to treat infections is contributing to the rise of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. A trial was carried out to evaluate whether or not interventions delivered through general practice computer systems may be used to reduce antibiotic prescribing for self-limiting respiratory tract infections (RTIs). The study was carried out in 79 UK general practices. The study tested the effect of a webinar to introduce the trial interventions, which included monthly feedback reports of data for respiratory consultations and antibiotic prescriptions, as well as computer-delivered decision support tools. These interventions were specially developed for this study and were pre-tested with general practitioners and practice nurses. Over the 12-month intervention period, the antibiotic-prescribing rate was about 12% lower in the intervention trial arm than in the control arm. There was no effect of intervention in children aged < 15 years or adults aged ≥ 85 years, but antibiotic prescribing was reduced by about 16% in adults aged between 15 and 84 years. Assuming this was caused by the intervention, one antibiotic prescription was avoided per year for every 62 patients aged between 15 and 84 years and registered with a trial practice. The study found no evidence that the intervention might increase the risk of 12 bacterial infections. In addition, a follow-up study of 610 UK general practices not included in the trial was conducted. The study found that if a general practice with an average list size of 7000 patients reduces the proportion of RTI consultations with antibiotics prescribed by 10%, then it may be possible to observe about one more case of pneumonia per year and one more case of peritonsillar abscess per decade, but no increase in other infections is likely. It can be concluded that electronically delivered interventions, including feedback of antibiotic-prescribing data for specific indications, may have the potential to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing; however, antimicrobial stewardship interventions need to be tailored to particular age groups.

Effectiveness and safety of electronically delivered prescribing feedback and decision support on antibiotic use for respiratory illness in primary care: REDUCE cluster randomised trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety at population scale of electronically delivered prescribing feedback and decision support interventions at reducing antibiotic prescribing for self limiting respiratory tract infections. DESIGN: Open label, two arm, cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: UK general practices in the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, randomised between 11 November 2015 and 9 August 2016, with final follow-up on 9 August 2017. PARTICIPANTS: 79 general practices (582 675 patient years) randomised (1:1) to antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) intervention or usual care. INTERVENTIONS: AMS intervention comprised a brief training webinar, automated monthly feedback reports of antibiotic prescribing, and electronic decision support tools to inform appropriate prescribing over 12 months. Intervention components were delivered electronically, supported by a local practice champion nominated for the trial. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was the rate of antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory tract infections from electronic health records. Serious bacterial complications were evaluated for safety. Analysis was by Poisson regression with general practice as a random effect, adjusting for covariates. Prespecified subgroup analyses by age group were reported. RESULTS: The trial included 41 AMS practices (323 155 patient years) and 38 usual care practices (259 520 patient years). Unadjusted and adjusted rate ratios for antibiotic prescribing were 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16) and 0.88 (0.78 to 0.99, P=0.04), respectively, with prescribing rates of 98.7 per 1000 patient years for AMS (31 907 prescriptions) and 107.6 per 1000 patient years for usual care (27 923 prescriptions). Antibiotic prescribing was reduced most in adults aged 15-84 years (adjusted rate ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.95), with one antibiotic prescription per year avoided for every 62 patients (95% confidence interval 40 to 200). There was no evidence of effect for children younger than 15 years (adjusted rate ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.12) or people aged 85 years and older (0.97, 0.79 to 1.18); there was also no evidence of an increase in serious bacterial complications (0.92, 0.74 to 1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Electronically delivered interventions, integrated into practice workflow, result in moderate reductions of antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract infections in adults, which are likely to be of importance for public health. Antibiotic prescribing to very young or old patients requires further evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN95232781.

Dietary Approaches to the Management Of type 2 Diabetes (DIAMOND): protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.

INTRODUCTION: Some clinicians have observed that low-carbohydrate, low-energy diets can improve blood glucose control, with reports of remission from type 2 diabetes in some patients. In clinical trials, support for low-carbohydrate, low-energy diets has been provided by specialist staff and these programmes are unsuitable for widespread deployment in routine primary care. The aim of this trial is to test whether a newly developed behavioural support programme can effectively deliver a low-energy, low-carbohydrate diet in a primary care setting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a feasibility randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded qualitative study. Thirty adult patients with type 2 diabetes and body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 in 2-4 general practices will be randomised 2:1 intervention or control and followed up over 12 weeks. The intervention diet comprises 8 weeks of a low-carbohydrate food-based diet providing around 800 kcal/day, followed by 4 weeks of weight maintenance. This programme will be delivered by practice nurses, who will also support patients through goal-setting, motivation and self-monitoring across four appointments, and provide a self-help booklet with recipes, shopping lists and other behavioural support. Primary outcome measures of feasibility will be met if CIs do not cross the following proportions: that 60% of intervention group participants attempt the dietary intervention, healthcare professionals conduct the intervention delivery session with at least 60% of essential elements present and 60% of participants attend the final follow-up session. Secondary outcome measures will assess process and qualitative measures, as well as exploratory outcomes including change in haemoglobin A1c and change in weight. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been granted ethical approval by the National Research Ethics Service, South Central Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (ref: 18/SC/0071). The study results will inform whether to progress to a full-scale RCT to test the efficacy of offering this programme for patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN62452621; Pre-results.

Changes in HbA1c and weight, and treatment persistence, over the 18 months following initiation of second-line therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: results from the United Kingdom Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of metformin monotherapy with additional glucose-lowering drugs is often required in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). This study evaluated changes in HbA1c and weight, as well as treatment persistence, associated with different second-line therapies used in UK clinical practice. METHODS: The UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink was used to identify patients with T2D who initiated second-line therapy after metformin monotherapy between 1 August 2013 and 14 June 2016. Treatment persistence and changes in HbA1c and weight were assessed at 6-month intervals up to 18 months. RESULTS: In total, 9097 patients (mean age 61.2 years, 57.2% men, mean [standard deviation] HbA1c 9.0% [1.8]/ 75 mmol/mol [19.7]) were included in the analysis, with a median 2.3 years between initiating metformin monotherapy and initiating second-line therapy. Patients were stratified according to second-line therapy: metformin in combination with sulfonylurea (SU; n = 4655 [51.2%]), a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP-4 inhibitor; n = 2899 [31.9%]), or a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor (SGLT-2 inhibitor; n = 441 [4.9%]) or other therapies (all other second-line treatments; n = 1102 [12.1%]). At 18 months, the cumulative proportion of patients changing treatment was lowest for those who received metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor (42.3%), followed by patients on metformin plus SU or metformin plus a DPP-4 inhibitor (46.8%). HbA1c reductions were seen with all second-line therapies, with an overall mean (standard error) reduction of -1.23% (0.05)/-13.4 mmol/mol (0.5). Changes were directly, but not linearly, related to baseline HbA1c and were greater in those with higher HbA1c at baseline. Weight loss from baseline was greatest in patients treated with metformin plus either an SGLT-2 inhibitor (-4.2 kg) or a DPP-4 inhibitor (-1.5 kg). The highest proportion of patients who achieved the composite outcome of HbA1c reduction ≥ 0.5%, body weight loss ≥ 2.0 kg and treatment persistence for 18 months was observed in those receiving metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor (36.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based cohort, all second-line therapies added to metformin monotherapy improved glycaemic control, but the lowest treatment change/discontinuation rate and most sustained weight loss was seen with patients receiving metformin plus an SGLT-2 inhibitor.

Electronically delivered, multicomponent intervention to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for respiratory infections in primary care: a cluster randomised trial using electronic health records-REDUCE Trial study original protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) account for about 60% of antibiotics prescribed in primary care. This study aims to test the effectiveness, in a cluster randomised controlled trial, of electronically delivered, multicomponent interventions to reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing when patients consult for RTIs in primary care. The research will specifically evaluate the effectiveness of feeding back electronic health records (EHRs) data to general practices. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 2-arm cluster randomised trial using the EHRs of the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). General practices in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are being recruited and the general population of all ages represents the target population. Control trial arm practices will continue with usual care. Practices in the intervention arm will receive complex multicomponent interventions, delivered remotely to information systems, including (1) feedback of each practice's antibiotic prescribing through monthly antibiotic prescribing reports estimated from CPRD data; (2) delivery of educational and decision support tools; (3) a webinar to explain and promote effective usage of the intervention. The intervention will continue for 12 months. Outcomes will be evaluated from CPRD EHRs. The primary outcome will be the number of antibiotic prescriptions for RTIs per 1000 patient years. Secondary outcomes will be: the RTI consultation rate; the proportion of consultations for RTI with an antibiotic prescribed; subgroups of age; different categories of RTI and quartiles of intervention usage. There will be more than 80% power to detect an absolute reduction in antibiotic prescription for RTI of 12 per 1000 registered patient years. Total healthcare usage will be estimated from CPRD data and compared between trial arms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Trial protocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee (14/LO/1730). The pragmatic design of the trial will enable subsequent translation of effective interventions at scale in order to achieve population impact. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN95232781; Pre-results.