Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial of comparing enhanced acceptance and commitment therapy plus (+) added to usual aftercare versus usual aftercare only, in patients living with or beyond cancer: SUrvivors' Rehabilitation Evaluation after CANcer (SURECAN) trial.

BACKGROUND: Two million people in the UK are living with or beyond cancer and a third of them report poor quality of life (QoL) due to problems such as fatigue, fear of cancer recurrence, and concerns about returning to work. We aimed to develop and evaluate an intervention based on acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), suited to address the concerns of cancer survivors and in improving their QoL. We also recognise the importance of exercise and vocational activity on QoL and therefore will integrate options for physical activity and return to work/vocational support, thus ACT Plus (+). METHODS: We will conduct a multi-centre, pragmatic, theory driven, randomised controlled trial. We will assess whether ACT+ including usual aftercare (intervention) is more effective and cost-effective than usual aftercare alone (control). The primary outcome is QoL of participants living with or beyond cancer measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General scale (FACT-G) at 52 weeks. We will recruit 344 participants identified from secondary care sites who have completed hospital-based treatment for cancer with curative intent, with low QoL (determined by the FACT-G) and randomise with an allocation ratio of 1:1 to the intervention or control. The intervention (ACT+) will be delivered by NHS Talking Therapies, specialist services, and cancer charities. The intervention consists of up to eight sessions at weekly or fortnightly intervals using different modalities of delivery to suit individual needs, i.e. face-to-face sessions, over the phone or skype. DISCUSSION: To date, there have been no robust trials reporting both clinical and cost-effectiveness of an ACT based intervention for people with low QoL after curative cancer treatment in the UK. We will provide high quality evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding ACT+ to usual aftercare provided by the NHS. If shown to be effective and cost-effective then commissioners, providers and cancer charities will know how to improve QoL in cancer survivors and their families. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN67900293 . Registered on 09 December 2019. All items from the World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set for this protocol can be found in Additional file 2 Table S1.

Impact of research activity on performance of general practices: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms which might underlie that relationship. AIM: To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity might impact on the performance of general practices. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. METHOD: Individual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in 'research ready' or 'research active' general practices and 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a Framework approach. RESULTS: Participants described potential 'direct' and 'indirect' impacts on their work. 'Direct' impacts included research changing practice work (eg, additional records searches for particular conditions), bringing in additional resources (eg, access to investigations or staff) and improving relationships with patients. 'Indirect' impacts included job satisfaction (eg, perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout) and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Respondents identified few negative impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, respondents generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators.

Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients' musculoskeletal pain and enablement.

INTRODUCTION: Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews. ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION: Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18010240.

Distinguishing emotional distress from mental disorder: A qualitative exploration of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ).

BACKGROUND: Primary care clinicians see people experiencing the full range of mental health problems. Determining when symptoms reflect disorder is complex. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) uniquely distinguishes general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders. It may support diagnostic conversations and targeting of treatment. AIM: We aimed to explore peoples' experiences of completing the 4DSQ and their perceptions of their resulting score profile across distress, depression, anxiety and physical symptoms. DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study conducted in the UK with people recruited from primary care and community settings. METHOD: Participants completed the 4DSQ then took part in semi-structured telephone interviews. They were interviewed about their experience of completing the 4DSQ, their perceptions of their scores across four dimensions, and the perceived utility if used with a clinician. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were conducted. Most participants found the 4DSQ easy to complete and reported that scores across the four dimensions aligned well with their symptom experience. Distinct scores for distress, depression and anxiety appeared to support improved self-understanding. Some valued the opportunity to discuss their scores and provide relevant context. Many felt the use of the 4DSQ with clinicians would be helpful and likely to support treatment decisions, although some were concerned about time-limited consultations. CONCLUSION: Distinguishing general distress from depressive and anxiety disorders aligned well with people's experience of symptoms. Use of the 4DSQ as part of mental health consultations may support targeting of treatment and personalisation of care.

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).

Prognostic factors and prediction models for hospitalisation and all-cause mortality in adults presenting to primary care with a lower respiratory tract infection: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and synthesise relevant existing prognostic factors (PF) and prediction models (PM) for hospitalisation and all-cause mortality within 90 days in primary care patients with acute lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI). DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were performed. All PF and PM studies on the risk of hospitalisation or all-cause mortality within 90 days in adult primary care LRTI patients were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies tool and Prediction Model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool tools for PF and PM studies, respectively. The results of included PF and PM studies were descriptively summarised. RESULTS: Of 2799 unique records identified, 16 were included: 9 PF studies, 6 PM studies and 1 combination of both. The risk of bias was judged high for all studies, mainly due to limitations in the analysis domain. Based on reported multivariable associations in PF studies, increasing age, sex, current smoking, diabetes, a history of stroke, cancer or heart failure, previous hospitalisation, influenza vaccination (negative association), current use of systemic corticosteroids, recent antibiotic use, respiratory rate ≥25/min and diagnosis of pneumonia were identified as most promising candidate predictors. One newly developed PM was externally validated (c statistic 0.74, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.78) whereas the previously hospital-derived CRB-65 was externally validated in primary care in five studies (c statistic ranging from 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.81) to 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92)). None of the PM studies reported measures of model calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of existing models for individualised risk prediction of 90-day hospitalisation or mortality in primary care LRTI patients in everyday practice is hampered by incomplete assessment of model performance. The identified candidate predictors provide useful information for clinicians and warrant consideration when developing or updating PMs using state-of-the-art development and validation techniques. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022341233.

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients.

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031.

Online behavioural interventions for children and young people with eczema: Quantitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Two online behavioural interventions (Eczema Care Online; one website for parents/carers of children with eczema; one for young people with eczema) have been shown in randomised controlled trials to facilitate a sustained improvement in eczema severity. AIM: To describe intervention use and examine potential mediators of intervention outcomes and contextual factors that may influence intervention delivery and outcomes. DESIGN AND SETTING: Quantitative process evaluation; UK primary care. METHOD: Parents/carers and young people were recruited through primary care. Intervention use was recorded and summarised descriptively. Logistic regression explored socio-demographic and other factors associated with intervention engagement. Mediation analysis investigated whether patient enablement (ability to understand and cope with health issues), treatment use, and barriers to adherence were mediators of intervention effect. Subgroup analysis compared intervention effects among pre-specified participants subsets. RESULTS: 340 parents/carers and 337 young people were recruited. 87% (148/171) parent/carers and 91% (153/168) young people in the intervention group completed the core introduction. At 24 weeks, users spent approximately 20 minutes on average on the interventions. Among parents/carers, greater intervention engagement was associated with higher education levels, uncertainty about carrying out treatments, and doubts about treatment efficacy at baseline. Among young people, higher intervention use was associated with higher baseline eczema severity. Patient enablement accounted for approximately 30% of the intervention effect among parents/carers and 50% among young people. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrated that positive intervention outcomes depended on a modest time commitment from users. They provide further support that the wider implementation of Eczema Care Online is justified.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of two online interventions supporting self-care for eczema for parents/carers and young people.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of online behavioral interventions (EczemaCareOnline.org.uk) designed to support eczema self-care management for parents/carers and young people from an NHS perspective. METHODS: Two within-trial economic evaluations, using regression-based approaches, adjusting for baseline and pre-specified confounder variables, were undertaken alongside two independent, pragmatic, parallel group, unmasked randomized controlled trials, recruiting through primary care. Trial 1 recruited 340 parents/carers of children aged 0-12 years and Trial 2 337 young people aged 13-25 years with eczema scored ≥ 5 on Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM). Participants were randomized (1:1) to online intervention plus usual care or usual care alone. Resource use, collected via medical notes review, was valued using published unit costs in UK £Sterling 2021. Quality-of-life was elicited using proxy CHU-9D in Trial 1 and self-report EQ-5D-5L in Trial 2. RESULTS: The intervention was dominant (cost saving and more effective) with a high probability of cost-effectiveness (> 68%) in most analyses. The exception was the complete case cost-utility analysis for Trial 1 (omitting participants with children aged < 2), with adjusted incremental cost savings of -£34.15 (95% CI - 104.54 to 36.24) and incremental QALYs of - 0.003 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.015) producing an incremental cost per QALY of £12,466. In the secondary combined (Trials 1 and 2) cost-effectiveness analysis, the adjusted incremental cost was -£20.35 (95% CI - 55.41 to 14.70) with incremental success (≥ 2-point change on POEM) of 10.3% (95% CI 2.3-18.1%). CONCLUSION: The free at point of use online eczema self-management intervention was low cost to run and cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered prospectively with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN79282252). URL www.EczemaCareOnline.org.uk .

NSAID prescribing and adverse outcomes in common infections: a population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Infections in primary care are often treated with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). This study evaluates whether NSAID prescribing is associated with adverse outcomes for respiratory (RTIs) or urinary track (UTI) infections. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether there is an association between NSAID prescribing and the rate of adverse outcomes for infections for individual consulting in primary care. DESIGN: Cohort study of electronic health records. SETTING: 87 general practices in the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD. PARTICIPANTS: 142 925 patients consulting with RTI or UTI. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Repeat consultations, hospitalisation or death within 30 days of the initial consultation for RTI or UTI. Poisson models estimated the associations between NSAID exposure and outcome. Rate ratios were adjusted for gender, age, ethnicity, deprivation, antibiotic use, seasonal influenza vaccination status, comorbidities and general practice. Since prescribing variations by practice are not explained by case mix-hence, less impacted by confounding by indication-both individual-level and practice-level analyses are included. RESULTS: There was an increase in hospital admission/death for acute NSAID prescriptions (RR 2.73, 95% CI 2.10 to 3.56) and repeated NSAID prescriptions (6.47, 4.46-9.39) in RTI patients, and for acute NSAID prescriptions for UTI (RR 3.03; 1.92 to 4.76). Practice-level analysis, controlling for practice population characteristics, found that for each percentage point increase in NSAID prescription, the percentages of hospital admission/death within 30 days increased by 0.32 percentage points (95% CI 0.16 to 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: In this non-randomised study, prescription of NSAIDs at consultations for RTI or UTIs in primary care is infrequent but may be associated with increased risk of hospital admission. This supports other observational and limited trial data that NSAID prescribing might be associated with worse outcomes following acute infection and should be prescribed with caution.

Optimizing and characterizing 4-methyl substituted pyrazol-3-carboxamides leading to the peripheral cannabinoid 1 receptor inverse agonist TM38837.

Several series of diverse pyrazole-3-carboxamides functionalized with 4-methylamides, 4-methylcarboxylic acids and 4-methyltetrazoles were prepared from the corresponding 4-cyanomethylpyrazoles and investigated as Cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) antagonists and inverse agonists with the aim of making compounds with less CNS (Central Nervous System) mediated side-effects compared to rimonabant. The compounds were evaluated and optimized with respect to lipophilicity, solubility, CB1 potency, metabolism, distribution to brain and liver, effect on weight loss in diet-induced mice models. A few carboxylic acids and tetrazoles were selected as especially promising with the tetrazole TM38837 subsequently demonstrating impressive efficacy in various animal models of obesity, producing considerable weight loss and improvements on plasma markers of inflammation and glucose homeostasis, at doses apparently producing negligible brain exposure. TM38837 became the first peripherally restricted CB1 antagonist or inverse agonist to enter clinical trials supporting its lack of CNS effects and it is now believed that the non-CNS mediated efficacy is linked to high liver exposure. This opens opportunities to be explored in other indications such as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and steatohepatitis (NASH). Note that this is a first-time disclosure of the structure of TM38837 and other structures appearing in literature are not connected with this program.

Experiences of using a supported digital intervention for cancer survivors in primary care: a qualitative process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Increasing healthy behaviours (e.g. physical activity) can improve cancer survivors' quality of life. Renewed is a digital intervention developed to provide behaviour change advice with brief healthcare practitioner support. A three-arm randomised controlled trial (Renewed, Renewed with support or a control condition) suggested that prostate cancer survivors in the supported arm had slightly greater estimates of improvements in quality of life compared to other cancer survivors. This study explored participants' experiences using Renewed to understand how it might have worked and why it might have provided greater benefit for prostate cancer survivors and those in the supported arm. METHODS: Thirty-three semi-structured telephone interviews with cancer survivors' (breast, colorectal, prostate) from the Renewed trial explored their experiences of using Renewed and their perceptions of the intervention. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Some participants only used Renewed modestly but still made behaviour changes. Barriers to using Renewed included low perceived need, joining the study to advance scientific knowledge or 'to give back', or due to perceived availability of support in their existing social networks. Prostate cancer survivors reported less social support outside of Renewed compared to participants with other cancers. CONCLUSION: Renewed may support healthy behaviour changes among cancer survivors even with limited use. Interventions targetting individuals who lack social support may be beneficial. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Cancer survivors' experiences may inform the development of digital interventions to better serve this population.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement.

Importance: Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials. Design: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist. Findings: This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement.

Importance: Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available. Objective: To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials. Evidence Review: The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist. Findings: This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.

Internet Tool to Support Self-Assessment and Self-Swabbing of Sore Throat: Development and Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: Sore throat is a common problem and a common reason for the overuse of antibiotics. A web-based tool that helps people assess their sore throat, through the use of clinical prediction rules, taking throat swabs or saliva samples, and taking throat photographs, has the potential to improve self-management and help identify those who are the most and least likely to benefit from antibiotics. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a web-based tool to help patients and parents or carers self-assess sore throat symptoms and take throat photographs, swabs, and saliva samples for diagnostic testing. We then explored the acceptability and feasibility of using the tool in adults and children with sore throats. METHODS: We used the Person-Based Approach to develop a web-based tool and then recruited adults and children with sore throats who participated in this study by attending general practices or through social media advertising. Participants self-assessed the presence of FeverPAIN and Centor score criteria and attempted to photograph their throat and take throat swabs and saliva tests. Study processes were observed via video call, and participants were interviewed about their views on using the web-based tool. Self-assessed throat inflammation and pus were compared to clinician evaluation of patients' throat photographs. RESULTS: A total of 45 participants (33 adults and 12 children) were recruited. Of these, 35 (78%) and 32 (71%) participants completed all scoring elements for FeverPAIN and Centor scores, respectively, and most (30/45, 67%) of them reported finding self-assessment relatively easy. No valid response was provided for swollen lymph nodes, throat inflammation, and pus on the throat by 11 (24%), 9 (20%), and 13 (29%) participants respectively. A total of 18 (40%) participants provided a throat photograph of adequate quality for clinical assessment. Patient assessment of inflammation had a sensitivity of 100% (3/3) and specificity of 47% (7/15) compared with the clinician-assessed photographs. For pus on the throat, the sensitivity was 100% (3/3) and the specificity was 71% (10/14). A total of 89% (40/45), 93% (42/45), 89% (40/45), and 80% (30/45) of participants provided analyzable bacterial swabs, viral swabs, saliva sponges, and saliva drool samples, respectively. Participants were generally happy and confident in providing samples, with saliva samples rated as slightly more acceptable than swab samples. CONCLUSIONS: Most adult and parent participants were able to use a web-based intervention to assess the clinical features of throat infections and generate scores using clinical prediction rules. However, some had difficulties assessing clinical signs, such as lymph nodes, throat pus, and inflammation, and scores were assessed as sensitive but not specific. Many participants had problems taking photographs of adequate quality, but most were able to take throat swabs and saliva samples.

Predicting adverse outcomes in adults with a community-acquired lower respiratory tract infection: a protocol for the development and validation of two prediction models for (i) all-cause hospitalisation and mortality and (ii) cardiovascular outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) are common in primary care and patients at particular risk of adverse outcomes, e.g., hospitalisation and mortality, are challenging to identify. LRTIs are also linked to an increased incidence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) following the initial infection, whereas concurrent CVD might negatively impact overall prognosis in LRTI patients. Accurate risk prediction of adverse outcomes in LRTI patients, while considering the interplay with CVD, can aid general practitioners (GP) in the clinical decision-making process, and may allow for early detection of deterioration. This paper therefore presents the design of the development and external validation of two models for predicting individual risk of all-cause hospitalisation or mortality (model 1) and short-term incidence of CVD (model 2) in adults presenting to primary care with LRTI. METHODS: Both models will be developed using linked routine electronic health records (EHR) data from Dutch primary and secondary care, and the mortality registry. Adults aged ≥ 40 years with a GP-diagnosis of LRTI between 2016 and 2019 are eligible for inclusion. Relevant patient demographics, medical history, medication use, presenting signs and symptoms, and vital and laboratory measurements will be considered as candidate predictors. Outcomes of interest include 30-day all-cause hospitalisation or mortality (model 1) and 90-day CVD (model 2). Multivariable elastic net regression techniques will be used for model development. During the modelling process, the incremental predictive value of CVD for hospitalisation or all-cause mortality (model 1) will also be assessed. The models will be validated through internal-external cross-validation and external validation in an equivalent cohort of primary care LRTI patients. DISCUSSION: Implementation of currently available prediction models for primary care LRTI patients is hampered by limited assessment of model performance. While considering the role of CVD in LRTI prognosis, we aim to develop and externally validate two models that predict clinically relevant outcomes to aid GPs in clinical decision-making. Challenges that we anticipate include the possibility of low event rates and common problems related to the use of EHR data, such as candidate predictor measurement and missingness, how best to retrieve information from free text fields, and potential misclassification of outcome events.

Implementing Germ Defence digital behaviour change intervention via all primary care practices in England to reduce respiratory infections during the COVID-19 pandemic: an efficient cluster randomised controlled trial using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: Germ Defence ( www.germdefence.org ) is an evidence-based interactive website that promotes behaviour change for infection control within households. To maximise the potential of Germ Defence to effectively reduce the spread of COVID-19, the intervention needed to be implemented at scale rapidly. METHODS: With NHS England approval, we conducted an efficient two-arm (1:1 ratio) cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine the effectiveness of randomising implementation of Germ Defence via general practitioner (GP) practices across England, UK, compared with usual care to disseminate Germ Defence to patients. GP practices randomised to the intervention arm (n = 3292) were emailed and asked to disseminate Germ Defence to all adult patients via mobile phone text, email or social media. Usual care arm GP practices (n = 3287) maintained standard management for the 4-month trial period and then asked to share Germ Defence with their adult patients. The primary outcome was the rate of GP presentations for respiratory tract infections (RTI) per patient. Secondary outcomes comprised rates of acute RTIs, confirmed COVID-19 diagnoses and suspected COVID-19 diagnoses, COVID-19 symptoms, gastrointestinal infection diagnoses, antibiotic usage and hospital admissions. The impact of the intervention on outcome rates was assessed using negative binomial regression modelling within the OpenSAFELY platform. The uptake of the intervention by GP practice and by patients was measured via website analytics. RESULTS: Germ Defence was used 310,731 times. The average website satisfaction score was 7.52 (0-10 not at all to very satisfied, N = 9933). There was no evidence of a difference in the rate of RTIs between intervention and control practices (rate ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% CI 0.96, 1.06, p = 0.70). This was similar to all other eight health outcomes. Patient engagement within intervention arm practices ranged from 0 to 48% of a practice list. CONCLUSIONS: While the RCT did not demonstrate a difference in health outcomes, we demonstrated that rapid large-scale implementation of a digital behavioural intervention is possible and can be evaluated with a novel efficient prospective RCT methodology analysing routinely collected patient data entirely within a trusted research environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN registry (14602359) on 12 August 2020.

Cost-effectiveness of Spironolactone for Adult Female Acne (SAFA): economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of oral spironolactone plus routine topical treatment compared with routine topical treatment alone for persistent acne in adult women from a British NHS perspective over 24 weeks. DESIGN: Economic evaluation undertaken alongside a pragmatic, parallel, double-blind, randomised trial. SETTING: Primary and secondary healthcare, community and social media advertising. PARTICIPANTS: Women ≥18 years with persistent facial acne judged to warrant oral antibiotic treatment. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised 1:1 to 50 mg/day spironolactone (increasing to 100 mg/day after 6 weeks) or matched placebo until week 24. Participants in both groups could continue topical treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost-utility analysis assessed incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L. Cost-effectiveness analysis estimated incremental cost per unit change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale. Adjusted analysis included randomisation stratification variables (centre, baseline severity (investigator's global assessment, IGA <3 vs ≥3)) and baseline variables (Acne-QoL symptom subscale score, resource use costs, EQ-5D score and use of topical treatments). RESULTS: Spironolactone did not appear cost-effective in the complete case analysis (n=126 spironolactone, n=109 control), compared with no active systemic treatment (adjusted incremental cost per QALY £67 191; unadjusted £34 770). Incremental cost per QALY was £27 879 (adjusted), just below the upper National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold value of £30 000, where multiple imputation took account of missing data. Incremental cost per QALY for other sensitivity analyses varied around the base-case, highlighting the degree of uncertainty. The adjusted incremental cost per point change on the Acne-QoL symptom subscale for spironolactone compared with no active systemic treatment was £38.21 (complete case analysis). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate a high level of uncertainty, particularly with respect to estimates of incremental QALYs. Compared with no active systemic treatment, spironolactone was estimated to be marginally cost-effective where multiple imputation was performed but was not cost-effective in complete case analysis. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12892056).

Predicting illness progression for children with lower respiratory infections in primary care: a prospective cohort and observational study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), fuelling antibiotic resistance, and there are few prognostic tools available to inform management. AIM: To externally validate an existing prognostic model (STARWAVe) to identify children at low risk of illness progression, and if model performance was limited to develop a new internally validated prognostic model. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study with a nested trial in a primary care setting. METHOD: Children aged 6 months to 12 years presenting with uncomplicated LRTI were included in the cohort. Children were randomised to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day for 7 days or placebo, or if not randomised they participated in a parallel observational study to maximise generalisability. Baseline clinical data were used to predict adverse outcome (illness progression requiring hospital assessment). RESULTS: A total of 758 children participated (n = 432 trial, n = 326 observational). For predicting illness progression the STARWAVe prognostic model had moderate performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50 to 0.77), but a new, internally validated model (seven items: baseline severity; respiratory rate; duration of prior illness; oxygen saturation; sputum or a rattly chest; passing urine less often; and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped AUROC 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.92) and calibration. A three-item model (respiratory rate; oxygen saturation; and sputum or a rattly chest) also performed well (AUROC 0.81, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.91), as did a score (ranging from 19 to 102) derived from coefficients of the model (AUROC 0.78, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88): a score of <70 classified 89% (n = 600/674) of children having a low risk (<5%) of progression of illness. CONCLUSION: A simple three-item prognostic score could be useful as a tool to identify children with LRTI who are at low risk of an adverse outcome and to guide clinical management.