Preliminary findings from the early phases of the Music and Movement for Health study: the feasibility of an arts-based health programme for older adults.

Introduction (including aim): There is a lack of community-based programmes for older adults in Ireland. Such activities are vital to enable older people to (re)connect after COVID-19 measures, which had a detrimental effect on physical function, mental health and socialisation. The aims of the preliminary phases of the Music and Movement for Health study were to refine stakeholder informed eligibility criteria, recruitment pathways and obtain preliminary measures for feasibility of the study design and programme, which incorporates research evidence, practice expertise and participant involvement. METHODS: Two Transparent Expert Consultations (TECs) (EHSREC No: 2021_09_12_EHS), and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) meetings were conducted to refine eligibility criteria and recruitment pathways. Participants from three geographical regions in the mid-west of Ireland will be recruited and randomised by cluster to participate in either a 12-week Music and Movement for Health programme or control. We will assess the feasibility and success of these recruitment strategies by reporting recruitment rates, retention rates and participation in the programme. RESULTS: Both the TECs and PPIs provided stakeholder-informed specification on inclusion/ exclusion criteria and recruitment pathways. This feedback was vital in strengthening our community-based approach as well as effecting change at the local level. The success of these strategies from phase 1 (March-June) are pending. DISCUSSION: Through engaging with relevant stakeholders, this research aims to strengthen community systems by embedding feasible, enjoyable, sustainable and cost-effective programmes for older adults to support community connection and enhance health and wellbeing. This will, in turn, reduce demands on the healthcare system.Note: We would like to thank and acknowledge those who participated in the PPIs for their time and invaluable feedback.

Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers. RESULTS: Of 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question.

Correction to: Efficacy and safety of stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients: a network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Owing to an oversight by the authors, all the figures in the last column of Table 2 (upper section: Number needed to treat; lower section: Number needed to harm) in this article were given without the final digit 0 and are thus 10 times too small.

Probiotics: Prevention of Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial-PROSPECT: protocol for a feasibility randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Probiotics are defined as live microorganisms that may confer health benefits when ingested. Meta-analysis of probiotic trials suggests a 25 % lower ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and 18 % lower infection rates overall when administered to patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, prior trials are small, largely single center, and at high risk of bias. Before a large rigorous trial is launched, testing whether probiotics confer benefit, harm, or have no impact, a pilot trial is needed. The aim of the PROSPECT Pilot Trial is to determine the feasibility of performing a larger trial in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients investigating Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. A priori, we determined that the feasibility of the larger trial would be based on timely recruitment, high protocol adherence, minimal contamination, and an acceptable VAP rate. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients ≥18 years old in the ICU who are anticipated to receive mechanical ventilation for ≥72 hours will be included. Patients are excluded if they are at increased risk of probiotic-associated infection, have strict enteral medication contraindications, are pregnant, previously enrolled in a related trial, or are receiving palliative care. Following informed consent, patients are randomized in variable unspecified block sizes in a fixed 1:1 ratio, stratified by ICU, and medical, surgical, or trauma admitting diagnosis. Patients receive 1 × 1010 colony forming units of L. rhamnosus GG (Culturelle, Locin Industries Ltd) or an identical placebo suspended in tap water administered twice daily via nasogastric tube in the ICU. Clinical and research staff, patients, and families are blinded. DISCUSSION: The primary outcomes for this pilot trial are the following: (1) recruitment success, (2) ≥90 % protocol adherence, (3) ≤5 % contamination, and (4) ~10 % VAP rate. Additional clinical outcomes are VAP, other infections, diarrhea (total, antibiotic associated, and Clostridium difficile), ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. The morbidity, mortality, and cost of VAP underscore the need for cost-effective prophylactic interventions. The PROSPECT Pilot Trial is the initial step toward rigorously evaluating whether probiotics decrease nosocomial infections, have no effect, or actually cause infections in critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT01782755.