Long-Term Blood Pressure Control After Hypertensive Pregnancy Following Physician-Optimized Self-Management: The POP-HT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pregnancy hypertension results in adverse cardiac remodeling and higher incidence of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases in later life. Objective: To evaluate whether an intervention designed to achieve better blood pressure control in the postnatal period is associated with lower blood pressure than usual outpatient care during the first 9 months postpartum. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, open-label, blinded, end point trial set in a single hospital in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older, following pregnancy complicated by preeclampsia or gestational hypertension, requiring antihypertensive medication postnatally when discharged. The first enrollment occurred on February 21, 2020, and the last follow-up, November 2, 2021. The follow-up period was approximately 9 months. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to self-monitoring along with physician-optimized antihypertensive titration or usual postnatal care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 24-hour mean diastolic blood pressure at 9 months postpartum, adjusted for baseline postnatal blood pressure. Results: Two hundred twenty participants were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n = 112) or the control group (n = 108). The mean (SD) age of participants was 32.6 (5.0) years, 40% had gestational hypertension, and 60% had preeclampsia. Two hundred participants (91%) were included in the primary analysis. The 24-hour mean (SD) diastolic blood pressure, measured at 249 (16) days postpartum, was 5.8 mm Hg lower in the intervention group (71.2 [5.6] mm Hg) than in the control group (76.6 [5.7] mm Hg). The between-group difference was -5.80 mm Hg (95% CI, -7.40 to -4.20; P < .001). Similarly, the 24-hour mean (SD) systolic blood pressure was 6.5 mm Hg lower in the intervention group (114.0 [7.7] mm Hg) than in the control group (120.3 [9.1] mm Hg). The between-group difference was -6.51 mm Hg (95% CI, -8.80 to -4.22; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this single-center trial, self-monitoring and physician-guided titration of antihypertensive medications was associated with lower blood pressure during the first 9 months postpartum than usual postnatal outpatient care in the UK. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04273854.

Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: A previous efficacy trial found benefit from inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in patients not admitted to hospital, but effectiveness in high-risk individuals is unknown. We aimed to establish whether inhaled budesonide reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related hospital admissions or deaths among people at high risk of complications in the community. METHODS: PRINCIPLE is a multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial done remotely from a central trial site and at primary care centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 65 years or older or 50 years or older with comorbidities, and unwell for up to 14 days with suspected COVID-19 but not admitted to hospital. Participants were randomly assigned to usual care, usual care plus inhaled budesonide (800 µg twice daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions, and followed up for 28 days. Participants were aware of group assignment. The coprimary endpoints are time to first self-reported recovery and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The primary analysis population included all eligible SARS-CoV-2-positive participants randomly assigned to budesonide, usual care, and other interventions, from the start of the platform trial until the budesonide group was closed. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN86534580) and is ongoing. FINDINGS: The trial began enrolment on April 2, 2020, with randomisation to budesonide from Nov 27, 2020, until March 31, 2021, when the prespecified time to recovery superiority criterion was met. 4700 participants were randomly assigned to budesonide (n=1073), usual care alone (n=1988), or other treatments (n=1639). The primary analysis model includes 2530 SARS-CoV-2-positive participants, with 787 in the budesonide group, 1069 in the usual care group, and 974 receiving other treatments. There was a benefit in time to first self-reported recovery of an estimated 2·94 days (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI] 1·19 to 5·12) in the budesonide group versus the usual care group (11·8 days [95% BCI 10·0 to 14·1] vs 14·7 days [12·3 to 18·0]; hazard ratio 1·21 [95% BCI 1·08 to 1·36]), with a probability of superiority greater than 0·999, meeting the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·99. For the hospital admission or death outcome, the estimated rate was 6·8% (95% BCI 4·1 to 10·2) in the budesonide group versus 8·8% (5·5 to 12·7) in the usual care group (estimated absolute difference 2·0% [95% BCI -0·2 to 4·5]; odds ratio 0·75 [95% BCI 0·55 to 1·03]), with a probability of superiority 0·963, below the prespecified superiority threshold of 0·975. Two participants in the budesonide group and four in the usual care group had serious adverse events (hospital admissions unrelated to COVID-19). INTERPRETATION: Inhaled budesonide improves time to recovery, with a chance of also reducing hospital admissions or deaths (although our results did not meet the superiority threshold), in people with COVID-19 in the community who are at higher risk of complications. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research and United Kingdom Research Innovation.

Extended follow-up of a short total diet replacement programme: results of the Doctor Referral of Overweight People to Low Energy total diet replacement Treatment (DROPLET) randomised controlled trial at 3 years.

OBJECTIVES: To test the long-term effectiveness of a total diet replacement programme (TDR) for routine treatment of obesity in a primary care setting. METHODS: This study was a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, open-label, individually randomised controlled trial in adults with obesity. The outcomes were change in weight and biomarkers of diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk from baseline to 3 years, analysed as intention-to-treat with mixed effects models. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was TDR for 8 weeks, followed by food-reintroduction over 4 weeks. Behavioural support was provided weekly for 8 weeks, bi-weekly for the next 4 weeks, then monthly for 3 months after which no further support was provided. The usual care (UC) group received dietary advice and behavioural support from a practice nurse for up to 3 months. RESULTS: Outcome measures were collected from 179 (66%) participants. Compared with baseline, at 3 years the TDR group lost -6.2 kg (SD 9.1) and usual care -2.7 kg (SD 7.7); adjusted mean difference -3.3 kg (95% CI: -5.2, -1.5), p < 0.0001. Regain from programme end (6 months) to 3 years was greater in TDR group +8.9 kg (SD 9.4) than UC + 1.2, (SD 9.1); adjusted mean difference +6.9 kg (95% CI 4.2, 9.5) P < 0.001. At 3 years TDR led to greater reductions than UC in diastolic blood pressure (mean difference -3.3 mmHg (95% CI:-6.2; -0.4) P = 0.024), and systolic blood pressure (mean differences -3.7 mmHg (95% CI: -7.4; 0.1) P = 0.057). There was no evidence of differences between groups in the change from baseline to 3 years HbA1c (-1.9 mmol/mol (95% CI: -0.7; 4.5; P = 0.15), LDL cholesterol concentrations (0.2 mmol/L (95% CI -0.3, 0.7) P = 0.39), cardiovascular risk score (QRISK2) (-0.37 (95% CI -0.96; 0.22); P = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of people with obesity with a TDR programme compared with support from a practice nurse leads to greater weight loss which persists to at least 3 years, but there was only evidence of sustained improvements in BP and not in other aspects of cardiometabolic risk.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of a Self-Guided Internet Intervention for Social Anxiety Symptoms in a General Population Sample: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many people are accessing digital self-help for mental health problems, often with little evidence of effectiveness. Social anxiety is one of the most common sources of mental distress in the population, and many people with symptoms do not seek help for what represents a significant public health problem. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-guided cognitive behavioral internet intervention for people with social anxiety symptoms in the general population. METHODS: We conducted a two-group randomized controlled trial in England between May 11, 2016, and June 27, 2018. Adults with social anxiety symptoms who were not receiving treatment for social anxiety were recruited using online advertisements. All participants had unrestricted access to usual care and were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a Web-based unguided self-help intervention based on cognitive behavioral principles or a waiting list control group. All outcomes were collected through self-report online questionnaires. The primary outcome was the change in 17-item Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN-17) score from baseline to 6 weeks using a linear mixed-effect model that used data from all time points (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months). RESULTS: A total of 2122 participants were randomized, and 6 were excluded from analyses because they were ineligible. Of the 2116 eligible randomized participants (mean age 37 years; 80.24%, 1698/2116 women), 70.13% (1484/2116) had follow-up data available for analysis, and 56.95% (1205/2116) had data on the primary outcome, although attrition was higher in the intervention arm. At 6 weeks, the mean (95% CI) adjusted difference in change in SPIN-17 score in the intervention group compared with control was -1.94 (-3.13 to -0.75; P=.001), a standardized mean difference effect size of 0.2. The improvement was maintained at 12 months. Given the high dropout rate, sensitivity analyses explored missing data assumptions, with results that were consistent with those of the primary analysis. The economic evaluation demonstrated cost-effectiveness with a small health status benefit and a reduction in health service utilization. CONCLUSIONS: For people with social anxiety symptoms who are not receiving other forms of help, this study suggests that the use of an online self-help tool based on cognitive behavioral principles can provide a small improvement in social anxiety symptoms compared with no intervention, although dropout rates were high. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02451878; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02451878.

Is physician assessment of alcohol consumption useful in predicting risk of severe liver disease among people with HIV and HIV/HCV co-infection?

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption is a known risk factor for liver disease in HIV-infected populations. Therefore, knowledge of alcohol consumption behaviour and risk of disease progression associated with hazardous drinking are important in the overall management of HIV disease. We aimed at assessing the usefulness of routine data collected on alcohol consumption in predicting risk of severe liver disease (SLD) among people living with HIV (PLWHIV) with or without hepatitis C infection seen for routine clinical care in Italy. METHODS: We included PLWHIV from two observational cohorts in Italy (ICONA and HepaICONA). Alcohol consumption was assessed by physician interview and categorized according to the National Institute for Food and Nutrition Italian guidelines into four categories: abstainer; moderate; hazardous and unknown. SLD was defined as presence of FIB4 > 3.25 or a clinical diagnosis of liver disease or liver-related death. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between level of alcohol consumption at baseline and risk of SLD. RESULTS: Among 9542 included PLWHIV the distribution of alcohol consumption categories was: abstainers 3422 (36%), moderate drinkers 2279 (23%), hazardous drinkers 637 (7%) and unknown 3204 (34%). Compared to moderate drinkers, hazardous drinking was associated with higher risk of SLD (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.03-2.03). After additionally controlling for mode of HIV transmission, HCV infection and smoking, the association was attenuated (aHR = 1.32; 95% CI: 0.94-1.85). There was no evidence that the association was stronger when restricting to the HIV/HCV co-infected population. CONCLUSIONS: Using a brief physician interview, we found evidence for an association between hazardous alcohol consumption and subsequent risk of SLD among PLWHIV, but this was not independent of HIV mode of transmission, HCV-infection and smoking. More efforts should be made to improve quality and validity of data on alcohol consumption in cohorts of HIV/HCV-infected individuals.

Incidence and predictors of single drug discontinuation according to the presence of HCV coinfection in HIV patients from the ICONA Foundation Cohort Study.

To evaluate incidence rates of and predictors for any antiretroviral (ART) drug discontinuation by HCV infection status in a large Italian cohort of HIV infected patients. All patients enrolled in ICONA who started combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) containing abacavir or tenofovir or emtricitabine or lamivudine plus efavirenz or rilpivirine or atazanavir/r or darunavir/r (DRV/r) or lopinavir/r or dolutegravir or elvitegravir or raltegravir were included. Multivariate Poisson regression models were used to determine factors independently associated with single ART drug discontinuation. Inverse probability weighting method to control for potential informative censoring was applied. Data from 10,637 patients were analyzed and 1,030 (9.7%) were HCV-Ab positive. Overall, there were 15,464 ART discontinuations due to any reason in 82,415.9 person-years of follow-up (PYFU) for an incidence rate (IR) of 18.8 (95% confidence interval [95%CI] 18.5-19.1) per 100 PYFU. No difference in IR of ART discontinuation due to any reason between HCV-infected and -uninfected patients was found. In a multivariable Poisson regression model, HCV-infected participants were at higher risk of darunavir/r discontinuation due to any reason (adjusted incidence rate ratio = 1.5, 95%CI 1.01-2.22, p value = 0.045) independently of demographics, HIV-related, ART and life-style factors. Among DRV/r treated patients, we found that HCV-viremic patients had twice the risk of ART discontinuation due to any reason than HCV-aviremic patients. In conclusion, HIV/HCV coinfected patients had a marginal risk increase of DRV/r discontinuation due to any reason compared with those without coinfection.

Mobile Phone Text Messages to Support Treatment Adherence in Adults With High Blood Pressure (SMS-Text Adherence Support [StAR]): A Single-Blind, Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the effect of automated treatment adherence support delivered via mobile phone short message system (SMS) text messages on blood pressure. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this pragmatic, single-blind, 3-arm, randomized trial (SMS-Text Adherence Support [StAR]) undertaken in South Africa, patients treated for high blood pressure were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to information only, interactive SMS text messaging, or usual care. The primary outcome was change in systolic blood pressure at 12 months from baseline measured with a validated oscillometric device. All trial staff were masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were intention to treat. Between June 26, 2012, and November 23, 2012, 1372 participants were randomized to receive information-only SMS text messages (n=457), interactive SMS text messages (n=458), or usual care (n=457). Primary outcome data were available for 1256 participants (92%). At 12 months, the mean adjusted change in systolic blood pressure compared with usual care was -2.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -4.4 to -0.04) with information-only SMS and -1.6 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, -3.7 to 0.6) with interactive SMS. Odds ratios for the proportion of participants with a blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg were 1.42 (95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.95) for information-only messaging and 1.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.95) for interactive messaging compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial of an automated adherence support program delivered by SMS text message in a general outpatient population of adults with high blood pressure, we found a small reduction in systolic blood pressure control compared with usual care at 12 months. There was no evidence that an interactive intervention increased this effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02019823. South African National Clinical Trials Register, number SANCTR DOH-27-1212-386; Pan Africa Trial Register, number PACTR201411000724141.

External validation of multivariable prediction models: a systematic review of methodological conduct and reporting.

BACKGROUND: Before considering whether to use a multivariable (diagnostic or prognostic) prediction model, it is essential that its performance be evaluated in data that were not used to develop the model (referred to as external validation). We critically appraised the methodological conduct and reporting of external validation studies of multivariable prediction models. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of articles describing some form of external validation of one or more multivariable prediction models indexed in PubMed core clinical journals published in 2010. Study data were extracted in duplicate on design, sample size, handling of missing data, reference to the original study developing the prediction models and predictive performance measures. RESULTS: 11,826 articles were identified and 78 were included for full review, which described the evaluation of 120 prediction models. in participant data that were not used to develop the model. Thirty-three articles described both the development of a prediction model and an evaluation of its performance on a separate dataset, and 45 articles described only the evaluation of an existing published prediction model on another dataset. Fifty-seven percent of the prediction models were presented and evaluated as simplified scoring systems. Sixteen percent of articles failed to report the number of outcome events in the validation datasets. Fifty-four percent of studies made no explicit mention of missing data. Sixty-seven percent did not report evaluating model calibration whilst most studies evaluated model discrimination. It was often unclear whether the reported performance measures were for the full regression model or for the simplified models. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of studies describing some form of external validation of a multivariable prediction model were poorly reported with key details frequently not presented. The validation studies were characterised by poor design, inappropriate handling and acknowledgement of missing data and one of the most key performance measures of prediction models i.e. calibration often omitted from the publication. It may therefore not be surprising that an overwhelming majority of developed prediction models are not used in practice, when there is a dearth of well-conducted and clearly reported (external validation) studies describing their performance on independent participant data.

A pilot study: dose adaptation of capecitabine using mobile phone toxicity monitoring - supporting patients in their homes.

PURPOSE: Real-time symptom monitoring using a mobile phone is potentially advantageous for patients receiving oral chemotherapy. We therefore conducted a pilot study of patient dose adaptation using mobile phone monitoring of specific symptoms to investigate relative dose intensity of capecitabine, level of toxicity and perceived supportive care. METHODS: Patients with breast or colorectal cancer receiving capecitabine completed a symptom, temperature and dose diary twice a day using a mobile phone application. This information was encrypted and automatically transmitted in real time to a secure server, with moderate levels of toxicity automatically prompting self-care symptom management messages on the screen of the patient's mobile phone or in severe cases, a call from a specialist nurse to advise on care according to an agreed protocol. RESULTS: Patients (n = 26) completed the mobile phone diary on 92.6 % of occasions. Twelve patients had a maximum toxicity grade of 3 (46.2 %). The average dose intensity for all patients as a percentage of standard dose was 90 %. In eight patients, the dose of capecitabine was reduced, and in eight patients, the dose of capecitabine was increased. Patients and healthcare professionals involved felt reassured by the novel monitoring system, in particular, during out of hours. CONCLUSION: It is possible to optimise the individual dose of oral chemotherapy safely including dose increase and to manage chemotherapy side effects effectively using real-time mobile phone monitoring of toxicity parameters entered by the patient.

FOUND Trial: randomised controlled trial study protocol for case finding of obstructive sleep apnoea in primary care using a novel device.

INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common, but underdiagnosed, sleep disorder. If untreated, it leads to poor health outcomes, including Alzheimer's disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Our aim is to determine the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of moving the testing for OSA into general practice and how general practitioner (GP)-based screening affects overall detection rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Randomised controlled trial of case finding of OSA in general practice using a novel Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency-registered device (AcuPebble SA100) compared with usual care with internal feasibility phase. A diverse sample of general practices (approximately 40) from across the West Midlands Clinical Research Network will identify participants from their records. Eligible participants will be aged 50-70 years with body mass index >30 kg/m2 and diabetes (type 1 or 2) and/or hypertension (office blood pressure >145/90 mm Hg or on treatment). They will exclude individuals with known OSA or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or those they deem unable to take part. After eligibility screening, consent and baseline assessment, participants will be randomised to either the intervention or control group. Participants in the intervention arm will receive by post the AcuPebble sleep test kit. Those in the control arm will continue with usual care. Follow-up questionnaires will be completed at 6 months. The study is powered (90%) to detect a 5% difference and will require 606 patients in each arm (713 will be recruited to each arm to allow for attrition). Due to the nature of the intervention, participants and GPs will not be blinded to the allocation. OUTCOMES: Primary: Detection rate of moderate-to-severe OSA in the intervention group versus control group. Secondary: Time to diagnosis and time to treatment for intervention versus control group for mild, moderate and severe OSA; cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the different testing pathways. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial started on 1 November 2022. Ethical approval was granted from the South Central Oxford A Research Ethics Committee on 9 June 2023 (23/SC/0188) (protocol amendment version 1.3; update with amendment and approval to renumber to V2.0 on 29 August 2023). Patient recruitment began on 7 January 2024; initial planned end date will be on 31 April 2025.Results will be uploaded to the ISRCTN register within 12 months of the end of the trial date, presented at conferences, submitted to peer-reviewed journals and distributed via our patient and public involvement networks.The University of Warwick will act as the trial sponsor. The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Sponsor and Primary Care Clinical Trials Unit standard operating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 16982033.

Favipiravir for COVID-19 in adults in the community in PRINCIPLE, an open-label, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial of short- and longer-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for the effect of favipiravir treatment of acute COVID-19 on recovery, hospital admissions and longer-term outcomes in community settings is limited. METHODS: In this multicentre. open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised controlled trial participants aged ≥18 years in the community with a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 and symptoms lasting ≤14 days were randomised to: usual care; usual care plus favipiravir tablets (loading dose of 3600 mg in divided doses on day one, then 800 mg twice a day for four days); or, usual care plus other interventions. Co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and hospitalisation/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. Recovery at six months was the primary longer-term outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN86534580. FINDINGS: The primary analysis model included 8811 SARS-CoV-2 positive mostly COVID vaccinated participants, randomised to favipiravir (n = 1829), usual care (n = 3256), and other treatments (n = 3726). Time to self-reported recovery was shorter in the favipiravir group than usual care (estimated hazard ratio 1·23 [95% credible interval 1·14 to 1·33]), a reduction of 2·98 days [1·99 to 3·94] from 16 days in median time to self-reported recovery for favipiravir versus usual care alone. COVID-19 related hospitalisations/deaths were similar (estimated odds ratio 0·99 [0·61 to 1·61]; estimated difference 0% [-0·9% to 0·6%]). 14 serious adverse events occurred in the favipiravir group and 4 in usual care. By six months, the proportion feeling fully recovered was 74·9% for favipiravir versus 71·3% for usual care (RR = 1·05, [1·02 to 1·08]). INTERPRETATION: In this open-label trial in a largely vaccinated population with COVID-19 in the community, favipiravir did not reduce hospital admissions, but shortened time to recovery and had a marginal positive impact on long term outcomes.

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).

Hepatitis delta coinfection in persons with HIV: misdiagnosis and disease burden in Italy.

Hepatitis Delta virus (HDV) causes severe liver disease. Due to similarities in transmission routes, persons living with HIV (PLWH) are at risk of HDV infection. This analysis investigates the prevalence and the long-term clinical outcome of people with HDV in a large cohort of PLWH. We retrieved HBsAg ± anti-HDV positive PLWH enrolled from 1997 to 2015 in the multicentre, prospective ICONA study. The primary endpoint was a composite clinical outcome (CCO = having experienced ≥1 of the following: Fib4 score >3.25; diagnosis of cirrhosis; decompensation; hepatocellular carcinoma or liver-related death). Kaplan-Meier curves and unweighted and weighted Cox regression models were used for data analysis. Less than half of HBsAg positive patients had been tested for anti-HDV in clinical practice. After testing stored sera, among 617 HBV/HIV cases, 115 (19%) were anti-HDV positive; 405 (65%) HBV monoinfected; 99 (16%) undeterminate. The prevalence declined over the observation period. HDV patients were more often males, intravenous drug users, HCV coinfected. After a median of 26 months, 55/115 (48%) developed CCO among HDV+; 98/403 (24%) among HBV monoinfected; 18/99 (18%) in HDV unknown (p < 0.001). After controlling for geographical region, alcohol consumption, CD4 count, anti-HCV status and IFN-based therapies, the association with HDV retained statistical significance [HR = 1.67 (1.15, 2.95; p = 0.025)]. HDV infection among PLWH is underdiagnosed, although HDV entails an high risk of liver disease progression. Because effective drugs to treat HDV are now available, it is even more crucial to identify PLWH at an early stage of liver disease.

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.

PAX-D: study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and mechanism of pramipexole as add-on treatment for people with treatment resistant depression.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical depression is usually treated in primary care with psychological therapies and antidepressant medication. However, when patients do not respond to at least two or more antidepressants within a depressive episode, they are considered to have treatment resistant depression (TRD). Previous small randomised controlled trials suggested that pramipexole, a dopamine D2/3 receptor agonist, may be effective for treating patients with unipolar and bipolar depression as it is known to influence motivational drive and reward processing. PAX-D will compare the effects of pramipexole vs placebo when added to current antidepressant medication for people with TRD. Additionally, PAX-D will investigate the mechanistic effect of pramipexole on reward sensitivity using a probabilistic decision-making task. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PAX-D will assess effectiveness in the short- term (during the first 12 weeks) and in the longer-term (48 weeks) in patients with TRD from the UK. The primary outcome will be change in self-reported depressive symptoms from baseline to week 12 post-randomisation measured using the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16). Performance on the decision-making task will be measured at week 0, week 2 and week 12. Secondary outcomes include anhedonia, anxiety and health economic measures including quality of life, capability, well-being and costs. PAX-D will also assess the adverse effects of pramipexole including impulse control difficulties. DISCUSSION: Pramipexole is a promising augmentation agent for TRD and may be a useful addition to existing treatment regimes. PAX-D will assess its effectiveness and test for a potential mechanism of action in patients with TRD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN84666271.

Colchicine for COVID-19 in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine has been proposed as a COVID-19 treatment. AIM: To determine whether colchicine reduces time to recovery and COVID-19-related admissions to hospital and/or deaths among people in the community. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicentre, open-label, multi-arm, randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial (PRINCIPLE). METHOD: Adults aged ≥65 years or ≥18 years with comorbidities or shortness of breath, and unwell for ≤14 days with suspected COVID-19 in the community, were randomised to usual care, usual care plus colchicine (500 µg daily for 14 days), or usual care plus other interventions. The co-primary endpoints were time to first self-reported recovery and admission to hospital/death related to COVID-19, within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. RESULTS: The trial opened on 2 April 2020. Randomisation to colchicine started on 4 March 2021 and stopped on 26 May 2021 because the prespecified time to recovery futility criterion was met. The primary analysis model included 2755 participants who were SARS-CoV-2 positive, randomised to colchicine (n = 156), usual care (n = 1145), and other treatments (n = 1454). Time to first self-reported recovery was similar in the colchicine group compared with usual care with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.92 (95% credible interval (CrI) = 0.72 to 1.16) and an estimated increase of 1.4 days in median time to self-reported recovery for colchicine versus usual care. The probability of meaningful benefit in time to recovery was very low at 1.8%. COVID-19-related admissions to hospital/deaths were similar in the colchicine group versus usual care, with an estimated odds ratio of 0.76 (95% CrI = 0.28 to 1.89) and an estimated difference of -0.4% (95% CrI = -2.7 to 2.4). CONCLUSION: Colchicine did not improve time to recovery in people at higher risk of complications with COVID-19 in the community.

Questions asked and answered in pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade several authors have reviewed the features of pilot and feasibility studies and advised on the issues that should be addressed within them. We extend this literature by examining published pilot/feasibility trials that incorporate random allocation, examining their stated objectives, results presented and conclusions drawn, and comparing drug and non-drug trials. METHODS: A search of EMBASE and MEDLINE databases for 2000 to 2009 revealed 3652 papers that met our search criteria. A random sample of 50 was selected for detailed review. RESULTS: Most of the papers focused on efficacy: those reporting drug trials additionally addressed safety/toxicity; while those reporting non-drug trials additionally addressed methodological issues. In only 56% (95% confidence intervals 41% to 70%) were methodological issues discussed in substantial depth, 18% (95% confidence interval 9% to 30%) discussed future trials and only 12% (95% confidence interval 5% to 24%) of authors were actually conducting one. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent advice on topics that can appropriately be described as pilot or feasibility studies the large majority of recently published papers where authors have described their trial as a pilot or addressing feasibility do not primarily address methodological issues preparatory to planning a subsequent study, and this is particularly so for papers reporting drug trials. Many journals remain willing to accept the pilot/feasibility designation for a trial, possibly as an indication of inconclusive results or lack of adequate sample size.

Effects of different types of written vaccination information on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK (OCEANS-III): a single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme depends on mass participation: the greater the number of people vaccinated, the less risk to the population. Concise, persuasive messaging is crucial, particularly given substantial levels of vaccine hesitancy in the UK. Our aim was to test which types of written information about COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to a statement of efficacy and safety, might increase vaccine acceptance. METHODS: For this single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, we aimed to recruit 15 000 adults in the UK, who were quota sampled to be representative. Participants were randomly assigned equally across ten information conditions stratified by level of vaccine acceptance (willing, doubtful, or strongly hesitant). The control information condition comprised the safety and effectiveness statement taken from the UK National Health Service website; the remaining conditions addressed collective benefit, personal benefit, seriousness of the pandemic, and safety concerns. After online provision of vaccination information, participants completed the Oxford COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Scale (outcome measure; score range 7-35) and the Oxford Vaccine Confidence and Complacency Scale (mediation measure). The primary outcome was willingness to be vaccinated. Participants were analysed in the groups they were allocated. p values were adjusted for multiple comparisons. The study was registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN37254291. FINDINGS: From Jan 19 to Feb 5, 2021, 15 014 adults were recruited. Vaccine hesitancy had reduced from 26·9% the previous year to 16·9%, so recruitment was extended to Feb 18 to recruit 3841 additional vaccine-hesitant adults. 12 463 (66·1%) participants were classified as willing, 2932 (15·6%) as doubtful, and 3460 (18·4%) as strongly hesitant (ie, report that they will avoid being vaccinated for as long as possible or will never get vaccinated). Information conditions did not alter COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in those willing or doubtful (adjusted p values >0·70). In those strongly hesitant, COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy was reduced, in comparison to the control condition, by personal benefit information (mean difference -1·49, 95% CI -2·16 to -0·82; adjusted p=0·0015), directly addressing safety concerns about speed of development (-0·91, -1·58 to -0·23; adjusted p=0·0261), and a combination of all information (-0·86, -1·53 to -0·18; adjusted p=0·0313). In those strongly hesitant, provision of personal benefit information reduced hesitancy to a greater extent than provision of information on the collective benefit of not personally getting ill (-0·97, 95% CI -1·64 to -0·30; adjusted p=0·0165) or the collective benefit of not transmitting the virus (-1·01, -1·68 to -0·35; adjusted p=0·0150). Ethnicity and gender were found to moderate information condition outcomes. INTERPRETATION: In the approximately 10% of the population who are strongly hesitant about COVID-19 vaccines, provision of information on personal benefit reduces hesitancy to a greater extent than information on collective benefits. Where perception of risk from vaccines is most salient, decision making becomes centred on the personal. As such, messaging that stresses the counterbalancing personal benefits is likely to prove most effective. The messaging from this study could be used in public health communications. Going forwards, the study highlights the need for future health campaigns to engage with the public on the terrain that is most salient to them. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre and NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Efficacy and Safety of a Modified Vaccinia Ankara-NP+M1 Vaccine Combined with QIV in People Aged 65 and Older: A Randomised Controlled Clinical Trial (INVICTUS).

BACKGROUND: Pre-existing T cell responses to influenza have been correlated with improved clinical outcomes in natural history and human challenge studies. We aimed to determine the efficacy, safety and immunogenicity of a T-cell directed vaccine in older people. METHODS: This was a multicentre, participant- and safety assessor-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the co-administration of Modified Vaccinia Ankara encoding nucleoprotein and matrix protein 1 (MVA-NP+M1) and annual influenza vaccine in participants ≥ 65. The primary outcome was the number of days with moderate or severe influenza-like symptoms (ILS) during the influenza season. RESULTS: 846 of a planned 2030 participants were recruited in the UK prior to, and throughout, the 2017/18 flu season. There was no evidence of a difference in the reported rates of days of moderate or severe ILS during influenza-like illness episodes (unadjusted OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.54-1.69; adjusted OR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.51-1.65). The trial was stopped after one season due to a change in the recommended annual flu vaccine, for which safety of the new combination had not been established. More participants in the MVA-NP+M1 group had transient moderate or severe pain, redness, and systemic responses in the first seven days. CONCLUSION: The MVA-NP+M1 vaccine is well tolerated in those aged 65 years and over. Larger trials would be needed to determine potential efficacy.

A phase 2a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, add-on clinical trial of ebselen (SPI-1005) as a novel treatment for mania or hypomania.

RATIONALE: Lithium is an effective prophylactic and anti-manic treatment in bipolar disorder; however, its use is declining through perceived poor tolerance and toxicity. Lithium inhibits inositol monophosphatase (IMPase), a probable key therapeutic mechanism. The anti-inflammatory drug, ebselen, also inhibits IMPase and appears well-tolerated and safe. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of adjunctive ebselen in mania using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) (primary outcome) and the Altman Self-Rating Mania (ASRM) Scale and Clinical Global Impression-Severity Scale (CGI-S) among the secondary outcomes. METHODS: Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial conducted between October 2017 and June 2019, at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust. Pharmacy-controlled randomisation was computer-generated, with full allocation concealment. In/outpatients (n = 68) aged 18-70, experiencing mania or hypomania, were assigned to 3 weeks ebselen (600 mg bd) (n = 33) or placebo (n = 35). Participants received usual clinical care and psychotropic medication. RESULTS: Ebselen was numerically, but not statistically, superior to placebo in lowering scores on the YMRS (adjusted mean difference and 95% confidence interval, - 1.71 (- 5.34 to 1.91), p = 0.35) and ASRM (- 1.36 (- 3.75 to 1.17), p = 0.29). However, scores on the CGI-S were significantly lower at week 3 in ebselen-treated participants (adjusted mean difference, - 0.58 (- 1.14 to - 0.03), p = 0.04). A post hoc analysis excluding patients taking concomitant valproate treatment magnified the difference between ebselen and placebo on the YMRS. Adverse events were comparable between groups, and mild. CONCLUSIONS: Ebselen merits further investigation where concomitant psychotropic medication is better controlled and participants taking valproate are excluded. If effective, ebselen's superior tolerance and safety could make it a useful alternative to lithium. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial Registry: www.clinicaltrials.gov , Identifier: NCT03013400.