d-Mannose for Prevention of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection Among Women: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) is a common debilitating condition in women, with limited prophylactic options. d-Mannose has shown promise in trials based in secondary care, but effectiveness in placebo-controlled studies and community settings has not been established. Objective: To determine whether d-mannose taken for 6 months reduces the proportion of women with recurrent UTI experiencing a medically attended UTI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 2-group, double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial took place across 99 primary care centers in the UK. Participants were recruited between March 28, 2019, and January 31, 2020, with 6 months of follow-up. Participants were female, 18 years or older, living in the community, and had evidence in their primary care record of consultations for at least 2 UTIs in the preceding 6 months or 3 UTIs in 12 months. Invitation to participate was made by their primary care center. A total of 7591 participants were approached, 830 responded, and 232 were ineligible or did not proceed to randomization. Statistical analysis was reported in December 2022. Intervention: Two grams daily of d-mannose powder or matched volume of placebo powder. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of women experiencing at least 1 further episode of clinically suspected UTI for which they contacted ambulatory care within 6 months of study entry. Secondary outcomes included symptom duration, antibiotic use, time to next medically attended UTI, number of suspected UTIs, and UTI-related hospital admissions. Results: Of 598 women eligible (mean [range] age, 58 [18-93] years), 303 were randomized to d-mannose (50.7%) and 295 to placebo (49.3%). Primary outcome data were available for 583 participants (97.5%). The proportion contacting ambulatory care with a clinically suspected UTI was 150 of 294 (51.0%) in the d-mannose group and 161 of 289 (55.7%) in the placebo group (risk difference, -5%; 95% CI, -13% to 3%; P = .26). Estimates were similar in per protocol analyses, imputation analyses, and preplanned subgroups. There were no statistically significant differences in any secondary outcome measures. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, daily d-mannose did not reduce the proportion of women with recurrent UTI in primary care who experienced a subsequent clinically suspected UTI. d-Mannose should not be recommended for prophylaxis in this patient group. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN13283516.

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): An open, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The evidence for whether ivermectin impacts recovery, hospital admissions, and longer-term outcomes in COVID-19 is contested. The WHO recommends its use only in the context of clinical trials. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial, we included participants aged ≥18 years in the community, with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, and symptoms lasting ≤14 days. Participants were randomised to usual care, usual care plus ivermectin tablets (target 300-400 µg/kg per dose, once daily for 3 days), or usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery, and COVID-19 related hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at 6 months was the primary, longer term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive participants (median symptom duration 5 days), randomised to ivermectin (n = 2157), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3398) from June 23, 2021 to July 1, 2022. Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the ivermectin group compared with usual care (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% Bayesian credible interval, 1·07 to 1·23], median decrease 2.06 days [1·00 to 3·06]), probability of meaningful effect (pre-specified hazard ratio ≥1.2) 0·192). COVID-19-related hospitalisations/deaths (odds ratio 1·02 [0·63 to 1·62]; estimated percentage difference 0% [-1% to 0·6%]), serious adverse events (three and five respectively), and the proportion feeling fully recovered were similar in both groups at 6 months (74·3% and 71·2% respectively (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]) and also at 3 and 12 months. INTERPRETATION: Ivermectin for COVID-19 is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful improvement in recovery, hospital admissions, or longer-term outcomes. Further trials of ivermectin for SARS-Cov-2 infection in vaccinated community populations appear unwarranted. FUNDING: UKRI/National Institute of Health Research (MC_PC_19079).

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Democratising the design and delivery of large-scale randomised, controlled clinical trials in primary care: A personal view.

BACKGROUND: Rapid identification of effective treatments for use in the community during a pandemic is vital for the well-being of individuals and the sustainability of healthcare systems and society. Furthermore, identifying treatments that do not work reduces research wastage, spares people unnecessary side effects, rationalises the cost of purchasing and stockpiling medication, and reduces inappropriate medication use. Nevertheless, only a small minority of therapeutic trials for SARS-CoV-2 infections have been in primary care: most opened too late, struggled to recruit, and few produced actionable results. Participation in research is often limited by where one lives or receives health care, and trial participants may not represent those for whom the treatments are intended. INNOVATIVE TRIALS: The ALIC4E, PRINCIPLE and the ongoing PANORAMIC trial have randomised over 40,500 people with COVID-19. This personal view describes how these trials have innovated in: trial design (by using novel adaptive platform designs); trial delivery (by complementing traditional site-based recruitment ('the patient comes to the research') with mechanisms to enable sick, infectious people to participate without having to leave home ('taking research to the people'), and by addressing the 'inverse research participation law,' which highlights disproportionate barriers faced by those who have the most to contribute, and benefit from, research, and; in transforming the evidence base by evaluating nine medicines to support guidelines and care decisions world-wide for COVID-19 and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship. CONCLUSION: The PRINCIPLE and PANORAMIC trials represent models of innovation and inclusivity, and exemplify the potential of primary care to lead the way in addressing pressing global health challenges.

Adaptive platform trials can efficiently evaluate several treatments in parallel and sequentially'Taking research to people' can democratise participation by enabling sick, contagious people to contribute from home, country-wideThe PRINCIPLE and PANORAMIC Trials innovated in trial design and delivery to produce evidence on nine treatments for COVID-19 in the community.

Urine tenofovir and dried blood spot tenofovir diphosphate concentrations and viraemia in people taking efavirenz and dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether urine tenofovir (TFV) and dried blood spot (DBS) tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) concentrations are associated with concurrent HIV viraemia. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study among people with HIV (PWH) receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: We used dual tandem liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry to measure urine TFV and DBS TFV-DP concentrations, and evaluated their associations with concurrent viraemia at least 1000 copies/ml using logistic regression models. In exploratory analyses, we used receiver operating curves (ROCs) to estimate optimal urine TFV and DBS TFV-DP thresholds to predict concurrent viraemia. RESULTS: Among 124 participants, 68 (54.8%) were women, median age was 39 years [interquartile range (IQR) 34-45] and 74 (59.7%) were receiving efavirenz versus 50 (40.3%) receiving dolutegravir. Higher concentrations of urine TFV [1000 ng/ml increase, odds ratio (OR) 0.97 95% CI 0.94-0.99, P  = 0.005] and DBS TFV-DP (100 fmol/punch increase, OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.86, P  < 0.001) were associated with lower odds of viraemia. There was evidence that these associations were stronger among people receiving dolutegravir than among people receiving efavirenz (urine TFV, P  = 0.072; DBS TFV-DP, P  = 0.003). Nagelkerke pseudo- R2 for the DBS TFV-DP models was higher for the urine TFV models, demonstrating a stronger relationship between DBS TFV-DP and viraemia. Among people receiving dolutegravir, a DBS TFV-DP concentration of 483 fmol/punch had 88% sensitivity and 85% specificity to predict concurrent viraemia ≥1000 copies/ml. CONCLUSION: Among PWH receiving TDF-based ART, urine TFV concentrations, and in particular DBS TFV-DP concentrations, were strongly associated with concurrent viraemia, especially among people receiving dolutegravir.

T cells, more than antibodies, may prevent symptoms developing from respiratory syncytial virus infections in older adults.

Introduction: The immune mechanisms supporting partial protection from reinfection and disease by the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) have not been fully characterized. In older adults, symptoms are typically mild but can be serious in patients with comorbidities when the infection extends to the lower respiratory tract. Methods: This study formed part of the RESCEU older-adults prospective-cohort study in Northern Europe (2017-2019; NCT03621930) in which a thousand participants were followed over an RSV season. Peripheral-blood samples (taken pre-season, post-season, during illness and convalescence) were analyzed from participants who (i) had a symptomatic acute respiratory tract infection by RSV (RSV-ARTI; N=35) or (ii) asymptomatic RSV infection (RSV-Asymptomatic; N=16). These analyses included evaluations of antibody (Fc-mediated-) functional features and cell-mediated immunity, in which univariate and machine-learning (ML) models were used to explore differences between groups. Results: Pre-RSV-season peripheral-blood biomarkers were predictive of symptomatic RSV infection. T-cell data were more predictive than functional antibody data (area under receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC] for the models were 99% and 76%, respectively). The pre-RSV season T-cell phenotypes which were selected by the ML modelling and which were more frequent in RSV-Asymptomatic group than in the RSV-ARTI group, coincided with prominent phenotypes identified during convalescence from RSV-ARTI (e.g., IFN-γ+, TNF-α+ and CD40L+ for CD4+, and IFN-γ+ and 4-1BB+ for CD8+). Conclusion: The evaluation and statistical modelling of numerous immunological parameters over the RSV season suggests a primary role of cellular immunity in preventing symptomatic RSV infections in older adults.

Clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection: An observational study of respiratory tract infection in primary care in the early phase of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, GPs had to distinguish SARS-CoV-2 from other aetiologies in patients presenting with respiratory tract infection (RTI) symptoms on clinical grounds and adapt management accordingly. OBJECTIVES: To test the diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection in a period when COVID-19 was a new disease. To describe GPs' management of patients presenting with RTI for whom no confirmed diagnosis was available. To investigate associations between patient and clinical features with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: In April 2020-March 2021, 876 patients (9 countries) were recruited when they contacted their GP with symptoms of an RTI of unknown aetiology. A swab was taken at baseline for later analysis. Aetiology (PCR), diagnostic accuracy of GPs' clinical SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, and patient management were explored. Factors related to SARS-CoV-2 infection were determined by logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: GPs suspected SARS-CoV-2 in 53% of patients whereas 27% of patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. True-positive patients (23%) were more intensively managed for follow-up, antiviral prescribing and advice than true-negatives (42%). False negatives (5%) were under-advised, particularly for social distancing and isolation. Older age (OR: 1.02 (1.01-1.03)), male sex (OR: 1.68 (1.16-2.41)), loss of taste/smell (OR: 5.8 (3.7-9)), fever (OR: 1.9 (1.3-2.8)), muscle aches (OR: 2.1 (1.5-3)), and a known risk factor for COVID-19 (travel, health care worker, contact with proven case; OR: 2.7 (1.8-4)) were predictive of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Absence of loss of taste/smell, fever, muscle aches and a known risk factor for COVID-19 correctly excluded SARS-CoV-2 in 92.3% of patients, whereas presence of 3, or 4 of these variables correctly classified SARS-CoV-2 in 57.7% and 87.1%. CONCLUSION: Correct clinical diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, without POC-testing available, appeared to be complicated.

Penicillin allergy status and its effect on antibiotic prescribing, patient outcomes and antimicrobial resistance (ALABAMA): protocol for a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Incorrect penicillin allergy records are recognised as an important barrier to the safe treatment of infection and affect an estimated 2.7 million people in England. Penicillin allergy records are associated with worse health outcome and antimicrobial resistance. The ALlergy AntiBiotics And Microbial resistAnce (ALABAMA) trial aims to determine if an intervention package, centred around a penicillin allergy assessment pathway (PAAP) initiated in primary care, is safe and effective in improving patient health outcomes and antibiotic prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ALABAMA trial is a multicentre, parallel-arm, open-label, randomised pragmatic trial with a nested pilot study. Adults (≥18 years) with a penicillin allergy record and who have received antibiotics in the previous 24 months will be eligible for participation. Between 1592 and 2090 participants will be recruited from participating National Health Service general practices in England. Participants will be randomised to either usual care or intervention to undergo a pre-emptive PAAP using a 1:1 allocation ratio. The primary outcome measure is the percentage of treatment response failures within 28 days of an index prescription. 2090 and 1592 participants are estimated to provide 90% and 80% power, respectively, to detect a clinically important absolute difference of 7.9% in primary outcome at 1 year between groups. The trial includes a mixed-methods process evaluation and cost-effectiveness evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by London Bridge Research Ethics Committee (ref: 19/LO/0176). It will be conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines according to the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all subjects involved in the study. The primary trial results will be submitted for publication to an international, peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN20579216.

Diagnostic accuracy of a point-of-care urine tenofovir assay, and associations with HIV viraemia and drug resistance among people receiving dolutegravir and efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Novel point-of-care assays which measure urine tenofovir (TFV) concentrations may have a role in improving adherence monitoring for people living with HIV (PLHIV) receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, further studies of their diagnostic accuracy, and whether results are associated with viraemia and drug resistance, are needed to guide their use, particularly in the context of the global dolutegravir rollout. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional evaluation among PLHIV receiving first-line ART containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate at enrolment into a randomized trial in two South African public sector clinics. We calculated the diagnostic accuracy of the Abbott point-of-care immunoassay to detect urine TFV compared to liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). We evaluated the association between point-of-care urine TFV results and self-reported adherence, viraemia ≥1000 copies/ml and HIV drug resistance, among people receiving either efavirenz or dolutegravir-based ART. RESULTS: Between August 2020 and March 2022, we enrolled 124 participants. The median age was 39 (IQR 34-45) years, 55% were women, 74 (59.7%) were receiving efavirenz and 50 (40.3%) dolutegravir. The sensitivity and specificity of the immunoassay to detect urine TFV ≥1500 ng/ml compared to LC-MS/MS were 96.1% (95% CI 90.0-98.8) and 95.2% (75.3-100.0), respectively. Urine TFV results were associated with short (p<0.001) and medium-term (p = 0.036) self-reported adherence. Overall, 44/124 (35.5%) had viraemia, which was associated with undetectable TFV in those receiving efavirenz (OR 6.01, 1.27-39.0, p = 0.014) and dolutegravir (OR 25.7, 4.20-294.8, p<0.001). However, in those with viraemia while receiving efavirenz, 8/27 (29.6%) had undetectable urine TFV, compared to 11/17 (64.7%) of those receiving dolutegravir. Drug resistance was detected in 23/27 (85.2%) of those receiving efavirenz and only 1/16 (6.3%) of those receiving dolutegravir. There was no association between urine TFV results and drug resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Among PLHIV receiving ART, a rapid urine TFV immunoassay can be used to accurately monitor urine TFV levels compared to the gold standard of LC-MS/MS. Undetectable point-of-care urine TFV results were associated with viraemia, particularly among people receiving dolutegravir. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan-African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR202001785886049.

Gut microbiology of UK care home residents: a cross-sectional analysis from a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of potentially clinically relevant gut pathogens and associations with the carriage of resistant organisms in UK care home residents. METHODS: Stool samples were collected pre-randomisation from care home residents participating in a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Cultivable clinically relevant bacteria were analysed. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by agar dilution (amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, gentamicin, trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, and ciprofloxacin). We also aimed to detect resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, and vancomycin. RESULTS: Stool samples were available for 159/310 residents participating in the trial (51%) from 23 care homes between 2016 and 2018. In total, 402 bacterial isolates were cultured from 158 stool samples and 29 different species were cultured. The five most common species were Escherichia coli (155/158, 98%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (40/158, 25%), Enterococcus faecalis (35/158, 22%), Enterococcus faecium (30/158, 19%), and Proteus mirabilis (25/158, 16%). Enterobacterales isolates were cultured from 157 samples (99%), and resistance to at least one of the tested antimicrobials was found in 119 of these (76%). There were high levels of variation in outcomes by care home. DISCUSSION: We demonstrated that care home residents harbour significant levels of antimicrobial-resistant organisms in their stool. This work emphasises the importance of both enhanced infection control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programmes to support the appropriate use of antimicrobials in this setting.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Management of asthma in primary care in the changing context of the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative longitudinal study with patients.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic dramatically affected asthma monitoring in primary care, but exploration of patients' views and their experiences of managing their asthma and seeking help from primary care during the pandemic has been limited. AIM: To investigate patients' experiences of asthma management in the community during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative longitudinal study using semi-structured interviews with patients from four GP practices across diverse regions including Thames Valley, Greater Manchester, Yorkshire, and North West Coast. METHOD: Interviews were undertaken with patients with asthma, who were usually managed in primary care. The interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed, and analysed using inductive temporal thematic analysis and a trajectory approach. RESULTS: Forty-six interviews were conducted with 18 patients over an 8-month period that covered contrasting stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients felt less vulnerable as the pandemic subsided, but the process of making sense of risk was dynamic and influenced by multiple factors. Patients relied on self-management strategies, but felt that routine asthma reviews should still have been conducted during the pandemic and highlighted that they had limited opportunities to discuss their asthma with health professionals. Patients with well-controlled symptoms felt that remote reviews were largely satisfactory, but still thought face-to-face reviews were necessary for certain aspects, such as physical examination and patient-led discussions of sensitive or broader issues associated with asthma, including mental health. CONCLUSION: The dynamic nature of patients' perception of risk throughout the pandemic highlighted the need for greater clarity regarding personal risk. Having an opportunity to discuss their asthma is important to patients, even when access to face-to-face consultations in primary care is more restricted than usual.

Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection in children presenting in primary care: ARTIC-PC RCT.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections, but there is little randomised evidence to support the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating these infections, either overall or relating to key clinical subgroups in which antibiotic prescribing is common (chest signs; fever; physician rating of unwell; sputum/rattly chest; shortness of breath). Objectives: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children both overall and in clinical subgroups. Design: Placebo-controlled trial with qualitative, observational and cost-effectiveness studies. Setting: UK general practices. Participants: Children aged 1-12 years with acute uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the duration in days of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary). Secondary outcomes were symptom severity on days 2-4 (0 = no problem to 6 = as bad as it could be); symptom duration until very little/no problem; reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms; complications; side effects; and resource use. Methods: Children were randomised to receive 50 mg/kg/day of oral amoxicillin in divided doses for 7 days, or placebo using pre-prepared packs, using computer-generated random numbers by an independent statistician. Children who were not randomised could participate in a parallel observational study. Semistructured telephone interviews explored the views of 16 parents and 14 clinicians, and the data were analysed using thematic analysis. Throat swabs were analysed using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Results: A total of 432 children were randomised (antibiotics, n = 221; placebo, n = 211). The primary analysis imputed missing data for 115 children. The duration of moderately bad symptoms was similar in the antibiotic and placebo groups overall (median of 5 and 6 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.42), with similar results for subgroups, and when including antibiotic prescription data from the 326 children in the observational study. Reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms (29.7% and 38.2%, respectively; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.05), illness progression requiring hospital assessment or admission (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and side effects (38% vs. 34%) were similar in the two groups. Complete-case (n = 317) and per-protocol (n = 185) analyses were similar, and the presence of bacteria did not mediate antibiotic effectiveness. NHS costs per child were slightly higher (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), with no difference in non-NHS costs (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). A model predicting complications (with seven variables: baseline severity, difference in respiratory rate from normal for age, duration of prior illness, oxygen saturation, sputum/rattly chest, passing urine less often, and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped area under the receiver operator curve 0.83) and calibration. Parents found it difficult to interpret symptoms and signs, used the sounds of the child's cough to judge the severity of illness, and commonly consulted to receive a clinical examination and reassurance. Parents acknowledged that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary', and clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Limitations: The study was underpowered to detect small benefits in key subgroups. Conclusion: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective or to reduce health or societal costs. Parents need better access to information, as well as clear communication about the self-management of their child's illness and safety-netting. Future work: The data can be incorporated in the Cochrane review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN79914298. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Children are commonly prescribed antibiotics for chest infections, but such infections are becoming resistant to antibiotics, and it is not clear if antibiotics work in treating them. A total of 432 children who saw their general practitioner with a chest infection were given either an antibiotic (amoxicillin) or a placebo (no antibiotic) for 7 days. Symptom diaries documented the infection's duration and its side effects. Children not in the placebo study were able to participate in another study that documented the same outcomes (an 'observational study'). We interviewed parents, doctors and nurses about their observations and concerns. Our patient and public involvement and engagement work with parents indicated that a 3-day symptom reduction was required to justify giving antibiotics. After seeing the doctor, parents whose children received antibiotics rated infective symptoms as moderately bad or worse for 5 days, and parents whose children received the placebo rated these for 6 days. Side effects and complications were similar in the two groups. Findings were similar when including the results of the observational study, and for children in whose chest the doctor could hear wheeze or rattles; who had fever; who were rated by the doctor as more unwell, who were short of breath, or who had had bacteria detected in the throat. The costs to the NHS per child were similar (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), and the wider costs to society were the same (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). Parents found it difficult to interpret their child's symptoms, and commonly used the sound of the cough to judge severity. Parents commonly consulted to receive an examination and reassurance, and accepted that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary'. Clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Amoxicillin for chest infections in children is unlikely to be effective. General practitioners should support parents to self-manage at home and give clear communication about when and how to seek medical help if they continue to be concerned.

Evidence-based appraisal of two guidelines for the diagnosis of suspected, uncomplicated urinary tract infections in primary care: a diagnostic accuracy validation study.

OBJECTIVES: Given the lack of accurate rapid diagnostics for urinary tract infection (UTI) in women, many countries have developed guidelines aiming to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing, but some guidelines have not been validated. We performed a diagnostic accuracy validation study of two guidelines: Public Health England (GW-1263) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN160). METHODS: We used data from women with symptoms suggestive of uncomplicated UTI from a randomized controlled trial comparing urine collection devices. Symptom information was recorded via baseline questionnaire and primary care assessment. Women provided urine samples for dipstick testing and culture. We calculated the number within each risk category of diagnostic flowcharts who had positive/mixed growth/no significant growth urine culture. Results were presented as positive/negative predictive values, with 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of women aged under 65 years, 311/509 (61.1%, 95% CI 56.7%-65.3%) classified to the highest risk category (recommended to consider immediate antibiotic prescribing) and 80/199 (40.2%, 95% CI 33.4%-47.4%) classified to the lowest risk category (recommended to reassure that UTI is less likely) by the GW-1263 guideline (n = 810) had positive culture. For the SIGN160 guideline (n = 814), the proportion with positive culture ranged from 60/82 (73.2%, 95% CI 62.1%-82.1%) in those for whom immediate treatment was indicated to 33/76 (43.4%, 95% CI 32.3%-55.3%) in those recommended a self-care/waiting strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be aware of the potential for diagnostic error when using diagnostic guidelines for managing uncomplicated UTI and making antimicrobial prescribing decisions. Infection cannot be excluded on the basis of symptoms and dipstick testing alone.

The experiences of patients ill with COVID-19-like symptoms and the role of testing for SARS-CoV-2 in supporting them: A qualitative study in eight European countries during the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Access to testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was limited, impacting patients with COVID-19-like symptoms. Current qualitative studies have been limited to one country or were conducted outside Europe. OBJECTIVES: To explore - in eight European countries - the experiences of patients consulting in primary care with COVID-19-like symptoms during the first wave of the pandemic. METHODS: Sixty-six semi-structured interviews, informed by a topic guide, were conducted by telephone or in person between April and July 2020. Patients with COVID-19-like symptoms were purposively recruited in primary care sites in eight countries and sampled based on age, gender, and symptom presentation. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis techniques were used to develop a framework representing data across settings. Data adequacy was attained by collecting rich data. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified, which described the experiences of patients consulting. Two themes are reported in this manuscript describing the role of COVID-19 testing in this experience. Patients described significant distress due to their symptoms, especially those at higher risk of complications from COVID-19, and those with severe symptoms. Patients wanted access to testing to identify the cause of their illness and minimise the burden of managing uncertainty. Some patients testing positive for COVID-19 assumed they would be immune from future infection. CONCLUSION: Patients experiencing novel and severe symptoms, particularly those with comorbidities, experienced a significant emotional and psychological burden due to concerns about COVID-19. Testing provided reassurance over health status and helped patients identify which guidance to follow. Testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 led to some patients thinking they were immune from future infection, thus influencing subsequent behaviour.

Point-of-Care Viral Load Testing to Manage HIV Viremia During the Rollout of Dolutegravir-Based ART in South Africa: A Randomized Feasibility Study (POwER).

BACKGROUND: Data are required regarding the feasibility of conducting a randomized trial of point-of-care viral load (VL) testing to guide management of HIV viremia and to provide estimates of effect to guide potential future trial design. SETTING: Two public South African clinics during the dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) rollout. METHODS: We randomized adults receiving first-line ART, with recent VL ≥1000 copies/mL, in a 1:1 ratio to receive point-of-care Xpert HIV-1 VL versus standard-of-care laboratory VL testing after 12 weeks. Feasibility outcomes included proportions of eligible patients enrolled and completing follow-up and VL process outcomes. Estimates of effect were assessed using the trial primary outcome of VL <50 copies/mL after 24 weeks. RESULTS: From August 2020 to March 2022, we enrolled 80 eligible participants, an estimated 24% of those eligible. 47 of 80 (58.8%) were women, and the median age was 38.5 years (interquartile range [IQR], 33-45). 44 of 80 (55.0%) were receiving dolutegravir, and 36 of 80 (465.0%) were receiving efavirenz. After 12 weeks, point-of-care participants received VL results after median 3.1 hours (IQR 2.6-3.8), versus 7 days (IQR 6-8, P < 0.001) in standard of care. Twelve-week follow-up VL was ≥1000 copies/mL in 13 of 39 (33.3%) point-of-care participants and in 16 of 41 (39.0%) standard-of-care participants; 11 of 13 (84.6%) and 12 of 16 (75.0%) switched to second-line ART. After 24 weeks, 76 of 80 (95.0%) completed follow-up. 27 of 39 (69.2% [95% CI: 53.4 to 81.4]) point-of-care participants achieved VL <50 copies/mL versus 29 of 40 (72.5% [57.0 to 83.9]) standard-of-care participants. Point-of-care participants had median 3 (IQR, 3-4) clinical visits versus 4 (IQR, 4-5) in standard-of-care participants ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to conduct a trial of point-of-care VL testing to manage viremia. Point-of-care VL lead to quicker results and fewer clinical visits, but estimates of 24-week VL suppression were similar between arms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry: PACTR202001785886049.

Implementation and outcomes of dolutegravir-based first-line antiretroviral therapy for people with HIV in South Africa: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are few data assessing the uptake of first-line dolutegravir among men and women living with HIV in low-income and middle-income countries, and subsequent clinical outcomes in non-trial settings. We aimed to determine dolutegravir uptake in women, and the effect of dolutegravir on clinical outcomes in routine care in South Africa. METHODS: In this cohort study, we analysed deidentified data from adults receiving first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) at 59 South African clinics from Dec 1, 2019, to Feb 28, 2022, using two distinct cohorts. In the initiator cohort, we used Poisson regression models to assess the outcome of initiation with dolutegravir-based ART by gender, and associations between dolutegravir use and the outcomes of 12-month retention in care and viral suppression at less than 50 copies per mL. In the transition cohort, comprising adults who received non-dolutegravir-based first-line ART in December, 2019, we used Cox proportional hazards models to assess the outcome of transition to first-line dolutegravir by gender. We then used time-dependent propensity score matching to compare the outcomes of subsequent 12-month retention in care and viral suppression between people who transitioned to dolutegravir and those who had not yet transitioned at the same timepoint. In both the initiation and transition cohort, the primary viral load analysis was an intention-to-treat analysis, with a secondary as-treated analysis that excluded people who changed their ART regimen after baseline. FINDINGS: In the initiator cohort, between Dec 1, 2019, and Feb 28, 2022, 45 392 people were initiated on ART. 23 945 (52·8%) of 45 392 were non-pregnant women, 4780 (10·5%) were pregnant women, and 16 667 (36·7%) were men. The median participant age was 31·0 years (IQR 26·0-38·0) and 2401 (5·3%) were receiving tuberculosis treatment at time of ART initiation. 31 264 (68·9%) of 45 392 people were initiated on dolutegravir, 14 102 (31·1%) on efavirenz, and 26 (0·1%) on nevirapine. In a univariable Poisson regression model, pregnant women (risk ratio [RR] 0·57, 95% CI 0·49 to 0·66; risk difference -35·4%, 95% CI -42·3 to -28·5) and non-pregnant women (RR 0·78, 0·74 to 0·82; risk difference -18·4%, -21·6 to -15·2) were less likely to be initiated on dolutegravir than were men. In Poisson models adjusted for age, gender (including pregnancy), time, tuberculosis status, and initiation CD4 count, people initiated on dolutegravir were more likely to be retained in care at 12 months (adjusted RR 1·09, 95% CI 1·04 to 1·14; adjusted risk difference 5·2%, 2·2 to 8·4) and virally suppressed (adjusted RR 1·04, 95% CI 1·01 to 1·06; adjusted risk difference 3·1%, 1·2 to 5·1) compared with those initiated on non-dolutegravir-based regimens. For the transition cohort, on Dec 1, 2019, 180 956 people were receiving non-dolutegravir-based first-line ART at the study clinics, of whom 124 168 (68·6%) were women. The median age was 38 years (IQR 32-45), and the median time on ART was 3·9 years (2·0-6·4) years, with most people receiving efavirenz (178 624 [98·7%] people) and tenofovir (178 148 [98·4%]). By Feb 28, 2022, 121 174 (67·0%) of 180 956 people had transitioned to first-line dolutegravir at a median of 283 days (IQR 203-526). In a univariable Cox regression model the hazard of being transitioned to dolutegravir was lower in women than in men (hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·56 to 0·57). Among 92 318 propensity score matched people, the likelihood of retention in care was higher among the dolutegravir group compared with matched controls (adjusted RR 1·03, 95% CI 1·02 to 1·03; risk difference 2·5%, 95% CI 2·1 to 2·9). In the dolutegravir group, 33 423 (90·5%) of 36 920 people were suppressed at less than 50 copies per mL compared with 31 648 (89·7%) of 35 299 matched controls (adjusted RR 1·01, 95% CI 1·00 to 1·02; risk difference 0·8%, 95% CI 0·3 to 1·4). INTERPRETATION: Women were less likely to receive dolutegravir than men. As dolutegravir was associated with improved outcomes, roll-out should continue, with a particular emphasis on inclusion of women. FUNDING: Wellcome Trust, Africa Oxford Initiative, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. TRANSLATION: For the isiZulu translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Disease-Specific Quality Indicators for Outpatient Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Infections (ESAC Quality Indicators) Applied to Point Prevalence Audit Surveys in General Practices in 13 European Countries.

Up to 80% of antibiotics are prescribed in the community. An assessment of prescribing by indication will help to identify areas where improvement can be made. A point prevalence audit study (PPAS) of consecutive respiratory tract infection (RTI) consultations in general practices in 13 European countries was conducted in January-February 2020 (PPAS-1) and again in 2022 (PPAS-4). The European Surveillance of Antibiotic Consumption quality indicators (ESAC-QI) were calculated to identify where improvements can be made. A total of 3618 consultations were recorded for PPAS-1 and 2655 in PPAS-4. Bacterial aetiology was suspected in 26% (PPAS-1) and 12% (PPAS-4), and an antibiotic was prescribed in 30% (PPAS-1) and 16% (PPAS-4) of consultations. The percentage of adult patients with bronchitis who receive an antibiotic should, according to the ESAC-QI, not exceed 30%, which was not met by participating practices in any country except Denmark and Spain. For patients (≥1) with acute upper RTI, less than 20% should be prescribed an antibiotic, which was achieved by general practices in most countries, except Ireland (both PPAS), Croatia (PPAS-1), and Greece (PPAS-4) where prescribing for acute or chronic sinusitis (0-20%) was also exceeded. For pneumonia in adults, prescribing is acceptable for 90-100%, and this is lower in most countries. Prescribing for tonsillitis (≥1) exceeded the ESAC-QI (0-20%) in all countries and was 69% (PPAS-1) and 75% (PPAS-4). In conclusion, ESAC-QI applied to PPAS outcomes allows us to evaluate appropriate antibiotic prescribing by indication and benchmark general practices and countries.

Implementing antibiotic stewardship in high-prescribing English general practices: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Trials have identified antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) strategies that effectively reduce antibiotic use in primary care. However, many are not commonly used in England. The authors co-developed an implementation intervention to improve use of three AMS strategies: enhanced communication strategies, delayed prescriptions, and point-of-care C-reactive protein tests (POC-CRPTs). AIM: To investigate the use of the intervention in high-prescribing practices and its effect on antibiotic prescribing. DESIGN AND SETTING: Nine high-prescribing practices had access to the intervention for 12 months from November 2019. This was primarily delivered remotely via a website with practices required to identify an 'antibiotic champion'. METHOD: Routinely collected prescribing data were compared between the intervention and the control practices. Intervention use was assessed through monitoring. Surveys and interviews were conducted with professionals to capture experiences of using the intervention. RESULTS: There was no evidence that the intervention affected prescribing. Engagement with intervention materials differed substantially between practices and depended on individual champions' preconceptions of strategies and the opportunity to conduct implementation tasks. Champions in five practices initiated changes to encourage use of at least one AMS strategy, mostly POC-CRPTs; one practice chose all three. POC-CRPTs was used more when allocated to one person. CONCLUSION: Clinicians need detailed information on exactly how to adopt AMS strategies. Remote, one-sided provision of AMS strategies is unlikely to change prescribing; initial clinician engagement and understanding needs to be monitored to avoid misunderstanding and suboptimal use.