European expert consensus recommendations on the primary care use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants for the treatment of venous thromboembolism are supported by robust clinical trial evidence. Despite published guidance, general practitioners are faced with increasingly complex decisions and implementation remains sub-optimal in certain real-world scenarios. METHODS: A two stage formal consensus exercise was performed to formulate consensus statements and a summary guide, facilitating optimal management of direct oral anticoagulants in venous thromboembolism patients by generalist physicians across Europe. An online questionnaire distributed to a broad panel (Phase 1), followed by a virtual panel discussion by an expert group (Phase 2) were conducted. Phase 1 statements covered nine management domains, and were developed via a literature review and expert steering committee. Participants rated statements by their level of agreement. Phase 1 responses were collated and analysed prior to discussion and iterative refinement in Phase 2. RESULTS: In total 56 participants from across Europe responded to Phase 1. The majority had experience working as general practitioners. Consensus indicated that direct oral anticoagulants are the treatment of choice for managing patients with venous thromboembolism, at initiation and for extended treatment, with a review at three to six months to re-assess treatment effect and risk profile. Direct oral anticoagulant choice should be based on individual patient factors and include shared treatment choice between clinicians and patients; the only sub-group of patients requiring specific guidance are those with cancer. CONCLUSION: Results demonstrate an appreciation of best practices, but highlight challenges in clinical practice. The patient pathway and consensus recommendations provided, aim to highlight key considerations for general practice decision making, and aid optimal venous thromboembolism treatment.

Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN: We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. SETTING: England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance. RESULTS: A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3-7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44)). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety.

A model for the electronic support of practice-based research networks.

PURPOSE: The principal goal of the electronic Primary Care Research Network (ePCRN) is to enable the development of an electronic infrastructure to support clinical research activities in primary care practice-based research networks (PBRNs). We describe the model that the ePCRN developed to enhance the growth and to expand the reach of PBRN research. METHODS: Use cases and activity diagrams were developed from interviews with key informants from 11 PBRNs from the United States and United Kingdom. Discrete functions were identified and aggregated into logical components. Interaction diagrams were created, and an overall composite diagram was constructed describing the proposed software behavior. Software for each component was written and aggregated, and the resulting prototype application was pilot tested for feasibility. A practical model was then created by separating application activities into distinct software packages based on existing PBRN business rules, hardware requirements, network requirements, and security concerns. RESULTS: We present an information architecture that provides for essential interactions, activities, data flows, and structural elements necessary for providing support for PBRN translational research activities. The model describes research information exchange between investigators and clusters of independent data sites supported by a contracted research director. The model was designed to support recruitment for clinical trials, collection of aggregated anonymous data, and retrieval of identifiable data from previously consented patients across hundreds of practices. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed model advances our understanding of the fundamental roles and activities of PBRNs and defines the information exchange commonly used by PBRNs to successfully engage community health care clinicians in translational research activities. By describing the network architecture in a language familiar to that used by software developers, the model provides an important foundation for the development of electronic support for essential PBRN research activities.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake, effectiveness, and waning in 82,959 health care workers: A national prospective cohort study in Wales.

BACKGROUND: While population estimates suggest high vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection, the protection for health care workers, who are at higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure, is less understood. METHODS: We conducted a national cohort study of health care workers in Wales (UK) from 7 December 2020 to 30 September 2021. We examined uptake of any COVID-19 vaccine, and the effectiveness of BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) against polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. We used linked and routinely collected national-scale data within the SAIL Databank. Data were available on 82,959 health care workers in Wales, with exposure extending to 26 weeks after second doses. RESULTS: Overall vaccine uptake was high (90%), with most health care workers receiving theBNT162b2 vaccine (79%). Vaccine uptake differed by age, staff role, socioeconomic status; those aged 50-59 and 60+ years old were 1.6 times more likely to get vaccinated than those aged 16-29. Medical and dental staff, and Allied Health Practitioners were 1.5 and 1.1 times more likely to get vaccinated, compared to nursing and midwifery staff. The effectiveness of the BNT162b2 vaccine was found to be strong and consistent across the characteristics considered; 52% three to six weeks after first dose, 86% from two weeks after second dose, though this declined to 53% from 22 weeks after the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: With some variation in rate of uptake, those who were vaccinated had a reduced risk of PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those unvaccinated. Second dose has provided stronger protection for longer than first dose but our study is consistent with waning from seven weeks onwards.

In vitro evaluation of five rapid antigen detection tests for group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal sore throat infections.

BACKGROUND: Using accurate and easy to use rapid antigen detection tests (RADTs) to identify group A beta-haemolytic Streptococci (GABHS) sore throat infections could reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial resistance. Although there is no international consensus on the use of RADTs, these kits have been widely adopted in Finland, France and the USA. Yet in the UK, the Clinical Knowledge Summaries, that provide the main online guidance for GPs, discourage RADTs use, citing their poor sensitivity and inability to impact on prescribing decisions in acute sore throat infections. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ease of use and in vitro accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of the five most commonly used RADTs in Europe (OSOM Ultra, Quickvue Dipstick, Streptatest, Clearview Exact Strep A and IMI Test Pack). METHODS: To ensure the RADTs were evaluated objectively, a standardized in vitro method using known concentrations of GABHS was used to remove the inherent biases associated with clinical studies. RESULTS: The IMI Test Pack was the easiest RADT to use overall. The ability to detect all positive GABHS (sensitivity) varied considerably between kits from 95% [95% confidence interval (CI): 88-98%], for the IMI Test Pack and OSOM, to 62% (95% CI: 51-72%) for Clearview, at the highest GABHS concentration. None of the RADTs gave any false-positive results with commensal flora-they were 100% specific. CONCLUSIONS: The IMI Test Pack is most suitable for use in primary care, as it had high sensitivity, high specificity and was easy to use.

Survival of patients with chronic heart failure in the community: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) is a common condition affecting more than 10% of those over 70 years of age. Reliable estimates of survival following a diagnosis of HF are important to guide management and facilitate advanced care planning. Most existing research has focused on survival rates for patients admitted to hospital with acute HF. However, the majority of patients with HF are diagnosed in the outpatient setting and can have periods of sustained symptom stability in the chronic phase of their illness. There has not been a systematic review of the literature to determine the prognosis of patients with chronic HF in the community. METHODS: We will undertake a comprehensive search of the following databases: CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Embase, MEDLINE and the Clinical Trials Register ( clinicaltrials.gov ). Two reviewers will independently complete screening, data extraction and quality appraisal with the option of input from a third reviewer to arbitrate. We will include data from observational or database studies conducted in either community or outpatient settings. Studies of acute HF or specific subgroups of patients will be excluded. There is no restriction by geographical setting, publication language or study date. We will complete QUIPS and GRADE assessments to systematically appraise the quality of evidence within and between studies. Where possible, we will seek to pool results to conduct a meta-analysis and undertake relevant subgroup analysis including by study setting, participant age and study decade. The primary outcome will be survival time from diagnosis. The secondary outcomes will be HF-related hospital admissions, symptom burden and measures of morbidity. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will provide up to date evidence on the current survival rates and prognostic indicators for patients with chronic HF. We will put this into historical perspective, comparing outcomes across time to help understand the impact of advances in evidence-based treatment on average survival. This information is important in facilitating informed decision-making for patients and health professionals as well as highlighting areas to focus resources and improve public health planning. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017075680.

Cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in hypertensive patients over 70 years with suboptimal control and established cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk diseases (TASMIN-SR).

BACKGROUND: A previous economic analysis of self-management, that is, self-monitoring with self-titration of antihypertensive medication evaluated cost-effectiveness among patients with uncomplicated hypertension. This study considered cost-effectiveness of self-management in those with raised blood pressure plus diabetes, chronic kidney disease and/or previous cardiovascular disease. DESIGN AND METHODS: A Markov model-based economic evaluation was undertaken to estimate the long-term cost-effectiveness of self-management of blood pressure in a cohort of 70-year-old 'high risk' patients, compared with usual care. The model used the results of the TASMIN-SR trial. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken from a UK health and social care perspective, taking into account lifetime costs of treatment, cardiovascular events and quality adjusted life years. A subgroup analysis ran the model separately for men and women. Deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the effect of different time horizons and reduced effectiveness of self-management. RESULTS: Base-case results indicated that self-management was cost-effective compared with usual care, resulting in more quality adjusted life years (0.21) and cost savings (-£830) per patient. There was a 99% chance of the intervention being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality adjusted life year gained. Similar results were found for separate cohorts of men and women. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses, provided that the blood pressure lowering effect of self-management was maintained for more than a year. CONCLUSION: Self-management of blood pressure in high-risk people with poorly controlled hypertension not only reduces blood pressure, compared with usual care, but also represents a cost-effective use of healthcare resources.

Cohort identification for clinical research: querying federated electronic healthcare records using controlled vocabularies and semantic types.

In the United Kingdom (UK), local initiatives have started to federate electronic healthcare records from different primary care clinical systems, mainly for the purposes of ensuring that health care services effectively meet the needs of the population. The use of such information is being investigated for clinical research, notably in patient cohort identification and recruitment. To achieve these aims, it is essential that the information from different systems can be searched from a single interface. While interoperability is a widely researched topic, interoperable methods and data sources in primary care are largely missing. This paper describes our approach to enabling primary care data in England to be searchable on a platform developed for performing large national collaborative primary care research studies throughout the United States.