Agoraphobic avoidance in patients with psychosis: Severity and response to automated VR therapy in a secondary analysis of a randomised controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The social withdrawal of many patients with psychosis can be conceptualised as agoraphobic avoidance due to a range of long-standing fears. We hypothesised that greater severity of agoraphobic avoidance is associated with higher levels of psychiatric symptoms and lower levels of quality of life. We also hypothesised that patients with severe agoraphobic avoidance would experience a range of benefits from an automated virtual reality (VR) therapy that allows them to practise everyday anxiety-provoking situations in simulated environments.

METHODS

345 patients with psychosis in a randomised controlled trial were categorised into average, moderate, high, and severe avoidance groups using the Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale. Associations of agoraphobia severity with symptom and functioning variables, and response over six months to brief automated VR therapy (gameChange), were tested.

RESULTS

Greater severity of agoraphobic avoidance was associated with higher levels of persecutory ideation, auditory hallucinations, depression, hopelessness, and threat cognitions, and lower levels of meaningful activity, quality of life, and perceptions of recovery. Patients with severe agoraphobia showed the greatest benefits with gameChange VR therapy, with significant improvements at end of treatment in agoraphobic avoidance, agoraphobic distress, ideas of reference, persecutory ideation, paranoia worries, recovering quality of life, and perceived recovery, but no significant improvements in depression, suicidal ideation, or health-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with psychosis with severe agoraphobic avoidance, such as being unable to leave the home, have high clinical need. Automated VR therapy can deliver clinical improvement in agoraphobia for these patients, leading to a number of wider benefits.

A randomised controlled trial to compare clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online parent-led treatment for child anxiety problems with usual care in the context of COVID-19 delivered in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services in the UK (Co-CAT): a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the context of COVID-19, NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and other children's mental health services have faced major challenges in providing psychological treatments that (i) work when delivered remotely and (ii) can be delivered efficiently to manage increases in referrals as social distancing measures have been relaxed. Anxiety problems are a common reason for referral to CAMHS, children with pre-existing anxiety problems are particularly vulnerable in the context of COVID-19, and there were concerns about increases in childhood anxiety as schools reopened. The proposed research will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a brief online parent-led cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT) delivered by the OSI (Online Support and Intervention for child anxiety) platform with remote support from a CAMHS therapist compared to 'COVID-19 treatment as usual' (C-TAU) in CAMHS and other children's mental health services throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We will conduct a two-arm, multi-site, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of OSI with therapist support compared to CAMHS and other child mental health services 'COVID-19 treatment as usual' (C-TAU) during the COVID-19 outbreak and to explore parent and therapists' experiences.

DISCUSSION

If non-inferiority is shown, the research will provide (1) a solution for efficient psychological treatment for child anxiety disorders while social distancing (for the COVID-19 context and future pandemics); (2) an efficient means of treatment delivery as 'normal service' resumes to enable CAMHS to cope with the anticipated increase in referrals; and (3) a demonstration of rapid, high-quality evaluation and application of online interventions within NHS CAMHS to drive forward much-needed further digital innovation and evaluation in CAMHS settings. The primary beneficiaries will be children with anxiety disorders and their families, NHS CAMHS teams, and commissioners who will access a potentially effective, cost-effective, and efficient treatment for child anxiety problems.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN ISRCTN12890382 . Registered prospectively on 23 October 2020.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision.

METHODS

A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships.

RESULTS

71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK: the Oxford coronavirus explanations, attitudes, and narratives survey (Oceans) II

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to estimate provisional willingness to receive a coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine, identify predictive socio-demographic factors, and, principally, determine potential causes in order to guide information provision.

METHODS

A non-probability online survey was conducted (24th September-17th October 2020) with 5,114 UK adults, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, ethnicity, income, and region. The Oxford COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy scale assessed intent to take an approved vaccine. Structural equation modelling estimated explanatory factor relationships.

RESULTS

71.7% (n=3,667) were willing to be vaccinated, 16.6% (n=849) were very unsure, and 11.7% (n=598) were strongly hesitant. An excellent model fit (RMSEA=0.05/CFI=0.97/TLI=0.97), explaining 86% of variance in hesitancy, was provided by beliefs about the collective importance, efficacy, side-effects, and speed of development of a COVID-19 vaccine. A second model, with reasonable fit (RMSEA=0.03/CFI=0.93/TLI=0.92), explaining 32% of variance, highlighted two higher-order explanatory factors: 'excessive mistrust' (r=0.51), including conspiracy beliefs, negative views of doctors, and need for chaos, and 'positive healthcare experiences' (r=-0.48), including supportive doctor interactions and good NHS care. Hesitancy was associated with younger age, female gender, lower income, and ethnicity, but socio-demographic information explained little variance (9.8%). Hesitancy was associated with lower adherence to social distancing guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy is relatively evenly spread across the population. Willingness to take a vaccine is closely bound to recognition of the collective importance. Vaccine public information that highlights prosocial benefits may be especially effective. Factors such as conspiracy beliefs that foster mistrust and erode social cohesion will lower vaccine up-take.

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.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Blood Pressure Control in Pregnant Individuals With Chronic or Gestational Hypertension: The BUMP 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. The role of blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy in improving clinical outcomes for the pregnant individual and infant is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of blood pressure self-monitoring, compared with usual care alone, on blood pressure control and other related maternal and infant outcomes, in individuals with pregnancy hypertension.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that recruited between November 2018 and September 2019 in 15 hospital maternity units in England. Individuals with chronic hypertension (enrolled up to 37 weeks' gestation) or with gestational hypertension (enrolled between 20 and 37 weeks' gestation). Final follow-up was in May 2020.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to either blood pressure self-monitoring using a validated monitor and a secure telemonitoring system in addition to usual care (n = 430) or to usual care alone (n = 420). Usual care comprised blood pressure measured by health care professionals at regular antenatal clinics.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary maternal outcome was the difference in mean systolic blood pressure recorded by health care professionals between randomization and birth.

Results

Among 454 participants with chronic hypertension (mean age, 36 years; mean gestation at entry, 20 weeks) and 396 with gestational hypertension (mean age, 34 years; mean gestation at entry, 33 weeks) who were randomized, primary outcome data were available from 444 (97.8%) and 377 (95.2%), respectively. In the chronic hypertension cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure for the self-monitoring groups vs the usual care group (133.8 mm Hg vs 133.6 mm Hg, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -1.73 to 1.79]). In the gestational hypertension cohort, there was also no significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure (137.6 mm Hg compared with 137.2 mm Hg; adjusted mean difference, -0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.29 to 2.24]). There were 8 serious adverse events in the self-monitoring group (4 in each cohort) and 3 in the usual care group (2 in the chronic hypertension cohort and 1 in the gestational hypertension cohort).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among pregnant individuals with chronic or gestational hypertension, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly improved clinic-based blood pressure control.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Diagnosis of Hypertension During Higher-Risk Pregnancy: The BUMP 1 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure (BP) is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. Self-monitoring of BP in the general population has been shown to improve the diagnosis and management of hypertension; however, little is known about its use in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether self-monitoring of BP in higher-risk pregnancies leads to earlier detection of pregnancy hypertension.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that included 2441 pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia and recruited at a mean of 20 weeks' gestation from 15 hospital maternity units in England between November 2018 and October 2019. Final follow-up was completed in April 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participating individuals were randomized to either BP self-monitoring with telemonitoring (n = 1223) plus usual care or usual antenatal care alone (n = 1218) without access to telemonitored BP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first recorded hypertension measured by a health care professional.

RESULTS

Among 2441 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 33 [5.6] years; mean gestation, 20 [1.6] weeks), 2346 (96%) completed the trial. The time from randomization to clinic recording of hypertension was not significantly different between individuals in the self-monitoring group (mean [SD], 104.3 [32.6] days) vs in the usual care group (mean [SD], 106.2 [32.0] days) (mean difference, -1.6 days [95% CI, -8.1 to 4.9]; P = .64). Eighteen serious adverse events were reported during the trial with none judged as related to the intervention (12 [1%] in the self-monitoring group vs 6 [0.5%] in the usual care group).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly earlier clinic-based detection of hypertension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Automated virtual reality therapy to treat agoraphobic avoidance and distress in patients with psychosis (gameChange): a multicentre, parallel-group, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial in England with mediation and moderation analyses

BACKGROUND

Automated delivery of psychological therapy using immersive technologies such as virtual reality (VR) might greatly increase the availability of effective help for patients. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an automated VR cognitive therapy (gameChange) to treat avoidance and distress in patients with psychosis, and to analyse how and in whom it might work.

METHODS

We did a parallel-group, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial across nine National Health Service trusts in England. Eligible patients were aged 16 years or older, with a clinical diagnosis of a schizophrenia spectrum disorder or an affective diagnosis with psychotic symptoms, and had self-reported difficulties going outside due to anxiety. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either gameChange VR therapy plus usual care or usual care alone, using a permuted blocks algorithm with randomly varying block size, stratified by study site and service type. gameChange VR therapy was provided in approximately six sessions over 6 weeks. Trial assessors were masked to group allocation. Outcomes were assessed at 0, 6 (primary endpoint), and 26 weeks after randomisation. The primary outcome was avoidance of, and distress in, everyday situations, assessed using the self-reported Oxford Agoraphobic Avoidance Scale (O-AS). Outcome analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population (ie, all participants who were assigned to a study group for whom data were available). We performed planned mediation and moderation analyses to test the effects of gameChange VR therapy when added to usual care. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 17308399.

FINDINGS

Between July 25, 2019, and May 7, 2021 (with a pause in recruitment from March 16, 2020, to Sept 14, 2020, due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions), 551 patients were assessed for eligibility and 346 were enrolled. 231 (67%) patients were men and 111 (32%) were women, 294 (85%) were White, and the mean age was 37·2 years (SD 12·5). 174 patients were randomly assigned to the gameChange VR therapy group and 172 to the usual care alone group. Compared with the usual care alone group, the gameChange VR therapy group had significant reductions in agoraphobic avoidance (O-AS adjusted mean difference -0·47, 95% CI -0·88 to -0·06; n=320; Cohen's d -0·18; p=0·026) and distress (-4·33, -7·78 to -0·87; n=322; -0·26; p=0·014) at 6 weeks. Reductions in threat cognitions and within-situation defence behaviours mediated treatment outcomes. The greater the severity of anxious fears and avoidance, the greater the treatment benefits. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of serious adverse events between the gameChange VR therapy group (12 events in nine patients) and the usual care alone group (eight events in seven patients; p=0·37).

INTERPRETATION

Automated VR therapy led to significant reductions in anxious avoidance of, and distress in, everyday situations compared with usual care alone. The mediation analysis indicated that the VR therapy worked in accordance with the cognitive model by reducing anxious thoughts and associated protective behaviours. The moderation analysis indicated that the VR therapy particularly benefited patients with severe agoraphobic avoidance, such as not being able to leave the home unaccompanied. gameChange VR therapy has the potential to increase the provision of effective psychological therapy for psychosis, particularly for patients who find it difficult to leave their home, visit local amenities, or use public transport.

FUNDING

National Institute of Health Research Invention for Innovation programme, National Institute of Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

Supporting People With Type 2 Diabetes in the Effective Use of Their Medicine Through Mobile Health Technology Integrated With Clinical Care to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk: Protocol for an Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes is a common lifelong condition that affects over 400 million people worldwide. The use of effective medications and active self-management can reduce the risk of serious complications. However, people often have concerns when starting new medications and face difficulties in taking their medications regularly. Support provided by brief messages delivered through mobile phone-based SMS text messages can be effective in some long-term conditions. We have identified promising behavior change techniques (BCTs) to promote medication adherence in this population via a systematic review and developed SMS text messages that target these BCTs. Feasibility work has shown that these messages have fidelity to intended BCTs, are acceptable to patients, and are successful in changing the intended determinants of medication adherence. We now plan to test this intervention on a larger scale in a clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this trial is to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention for reducing cardiovascular risk in people with type 2 diabetes by comparing it with usual care.

METHODS

The trial will be a 12-month, multicenter, individually randomized controlled trial in primary care and will recruit adults (aged ≥35 years) with type 2 diabetes in England. Consenting participants will be randomized to receive short SMS text messages intended to affect a change in medication adherence 3 to 4 times per week in addition to usual care. The aim is to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention when it is added to usual care. The primary clinical outcome will be a composite cardiovascular risk measure. Data including patient-reported measures will be collected at baseline, at 13 and 26 weeks, and at the end of the 12-month follow-up period. With 958 participants (479 in each group), the trial is powered at 92.5% to detect a 4-percentage point difference in cardiovascular risk. The analysis will follow a prespecified plan. A nested quantitative and qualitative process analysis will be used to examine the putative mechanisms of behavior change and wider contextual influences. A health economic analysis will be used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

RESULTS

The trial has completed the recruitment phase and is in the follow-up phase. The publication of results is anticipated in 2024.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of this intervention for people with type 2 diabetes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN15952379; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN15952379.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/32918.

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

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.

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.

Is Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home an Alternative to Hospital Admission for Older Persons? : A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Delivering hospital-level care with comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in the home is one approach to deal with the increased demand for bed-based hospital care, but clinical effectiveness is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical effectiveness of admission avoidance hospital at home (HAH) with CGA for older persons.

DESIGN

Multisite randomized trial. (ISRCTN registry number: ISRCTN60477865).

SETTING

9 hospital and community sites in the United Kingdom.

PATIENTS

1055 older persons who were medically unwell, were physiologically stable, and were referred for a hospital admission.

INTERVENTION

Admission avoidance HAH with CGA versus hospital admission with CGA when available using 2:1 randomization.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome of living at home was measured at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were new admission to long-term residential care, death, health status, delirium, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Participants had a mean age of 83.3 years (SD, 7.0). At 6-month follow-up, 528 of 672 (78.6%) participants in the CGA HAH group versus 247 of 328 (75.3%) participants in the hospital group were living at home (relative risk [RR], 1.05 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.15]; P = 0.36); 114 of 673 (16.9%) versus 58 of 328 (17.7%) had died (RR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P = 0.92); and 37 of 646 (5.7%) versus 27 of 311 (8.7%) were in long-term residential care (RR, 0.58 [CI, 0.45 to 0.76]; P < 0.001).

LIMITATION

The findings are most applicable to older persons referred from a hospital short-stay acute medical assessment unit; episodes of delirium may have been undetected.

CONCLUSION

Admission avoidance HAH with CGA led to similar outcomes as hospital admission in the proportion of older persons living at home as well as a decrease in admissions to long-term residential care at 6 months. This type of service can provide an alternative to hospitalization for selected older persons.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (12/209/66).

Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE (PRINCIPLE): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform, trial of community treatment of COVID-19 syndromic illness in people at higher risk

INTRODUCTION

There is an urgent need to idenfy treatments for COVID-19 that reduce illness duration and hospital admission in those at higher risk of a longer illness course and complications.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Platform Randomised trial of INterventions against COVID-19 In older peoPLE trial is an open-label, multiarm, prospective, adaptive platform, randomised clinical trial to evaluate potential treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new interventions as they become available, as well as the inclusion and cessation of existing intervention arms via frequent interim analyses. The first three interventions are hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and doxycycline. Eligible participants must be symptomatic in the community with possible or confirmed COVID-19 that started in the preceding 14 days and either (1) aged 65 years and over or (2) aged 50-64 years with comorbidities. Recruitment is through general practice, health service helplines, COVID-19 'hot hubs' and directly through the trial website. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a study drug plus usual care, and outcomes are collected via daily online symptom diary for 28 days from randomisation. The research team contacts participants and/or their study partner following days 7, 14 and 28 if the online diary is not completed. The trial has two coprimary endpoints: time to first self-report of feeling recovered from possible COVID-19 and hospital admission or death from possible COVID-19 infection, both within 28 days from randomisation. Prespecified interim analyses assess efficacy or futility of interventions and to modify randomisation probabilities that allocate more participants to interventions with better outcomes.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval Ref: 20/SC/0158 South Central - Berkshire Research Ethics Committee; IRAS Project ID: 281958; EudraCT Number: 2020-001209-22. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN86534580.

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.

Azithromycin for community treatment of suspected COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial

BACKGROUND

Azithromycin, an antibiotic with potential antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has been used to treat COVID-19, but evidence from community randomised trials is lacking. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of azithromycin to treat suspected COVID-19 among people in the community who had an increased risk of complications.

METHODS

In this UK-based, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, adaptive platform randomised trial of interventions against COVID-19 in people at increased risk of an adverse clinical course (PRINCIPLE), we randomly assigned people aged 65 years and older, or 50 years and older with at least one comorbidity, who had been unwell for 14 days or less with suspected COVID-19, to usual care plus azithromycin 500 mg daily for three days, usual care plus other interventions, or usual care alone. The trial had two coprimary endpoints measured within 28 days from randomisation: time to first self-reported recovery, analysed using a Bayesian piecewise exponential, and hospital admission or death related to COVID-19, analysed using a Bayesian logistic regression model. Eligible participants with outcome data were included in the primary analysis, and those who received the allocated treatment were included in the safety analysis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN86534580.

FINDINGS

The first participant was recruited to PRINCIPLE on April 2, 2020. The azithromycin group enrolled participants between May 22 and Nov 30, 2020, by which time 2265 participants had been randomly assigned, 540 to azithromycin plus usual care, 875 to usual care alone, and 850 to other interventions. 2120 (94%) of 2265 participants provided follow-up data and were included in the Bayesian primary analysis, 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group, 823 in the usual care alone group, and 797 in other intervention groups. 402 (80%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 631 (77%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group reported feeling recovered within 28 days. We found little evidence of a meaningful benefit in the azithromycin plus usual care group in time to first reported recovery versus usual care alone (hazard ratio 1·08, 95% Bayesian credibility interval [BCI] 0·95 to 1·23), equating to an estimated benefit in median time to first recovery of 0·94 days (95% BCI -0·56 to 2·43). The probability that there was a clinically meaningful benefit of at least 1·5 days in time to recovery was 0·23. 16 (3%) of 500 participants in the azithromycin plus usual care group and 28 (3%) of 823 participants in the usual care alone group were hospitalised (absolute benefit in percentage 0·3%, 95% BCI -1·7 to 2·2). There were no deaths in either study group. Safety outcomes were similar in both groups. Two (1%) of 455 participants in the azothromycin plus usual care group and four (1%) of 668 participants in the usual care alone group reported admission to hospital during the trial, not related to COVID-19.

INTERPRETATION

Our findings do not justify the routine use of azithromycin for reducing time to recovery or risk of hospitalisation for people with suspected COVID-19 in the community. These findings have important antibiotic stewardship implications during this pandemic, as inappropriate use of antibiotics leads to increased antimicrobial resistance, and there is evidence that azithromycin use increased during the pandemic in the UK.

FUNDING

UK Research and Innovation and UK Department of Health and Social Care.

The early use of Antibiotics for at Risk CHildren with InfluEnza-like illness (ARCHIE): a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The UK government stockpiles co-amoxiclav to treat bacterial complications during influenza pandemics. This pragmatic trial examines whether early co-amoxiclav use reduces re-consultation due to clinical deterioration in "at risk" children presenting with influenza-like illness (ILI) in primary or ambulatory care.

METHODS

"At risk" children aged 6 months to 12 years presenting within f5 days of ILI onset were randomly assigned to oral co-amoxiclav 400/57 or placebo twice daily for 5 days (dosing based on age±weight). "At risk" groups included children with respiratory, cardiac, and neurological conditions. Randomisation was stratified by region and used a non-deterministic minimisation algorithm to balance age and current seasonal influenza vaccination status. Our target sample size was 650 children, which would have allowed us to detect a reduction in the proportion of children re-consulting due to clinical deterioration from 40% to 26% with 90% power and 5% two-tailed alpha error, including allowance for 25% loss to follow-up and an inflation factor of 1.041. Participants, caregivers and investigators were blinded to treatment allocation. Intention-to-treat analysis included all randomised participants with primary outcome data on re-consultation due to clinical deterioration within 28 days. Safety analysis included all randomised participants.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN 70714783. EudraCT 2013-002822-21.

RESULTS

We recruited 271 children between February 11, 2015 and April 20, 2018. Primary outcome data were available for 265 children. Only 61/265 children (23.0%) re-consulted due to clinical deterioration. No evidence of a treatment effect was observed for re-consultation due to clinical deterioration (co-amoxiclav 33/133 (24.8%), placebo 28/132 (21.2%), adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75 to 1.80). There was also no evidence of a difference between groups in the proportion of children for whom one or more adverse events were reported (co-amoxiclav 32/136 (23.5%), placebo 22/135 (16.3%), adjusted RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.34). Sixty-six adverse events were reported in total (co-amoxiclav n=37, placebo n=29). Nine serious adverse events were reported per group; none were considered related to study medication.

CONCLUSION

Our trial did not find evidence that treatment with co-amoxiclav reduces risk of re-consultation due to clinical deterioration in "at risk" children who present early with ILI during influenza season. Our findings therefore do not support early co-amoxiclav use in children with seasonal ILI.

Prospective validation of the RAPID clinical risk prediction score in adult patients with pleural infection: the PILOT study

BACKGROUND

Over 30% of adult patients with pleural infection either die and/or require surgery. There is no robust means of predicting at baseline presentation which patients will suffer a poor clinical outcome. A validated risk prediction score would allow early identification of high-risk patients, potentially directing more aggressive treatment thereafter.

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively assess a previously described risk score (the RAPID (Renal (urea), Age, fluid Purulence, Infection source, Dietary (albumin)) score) in adults with pleural infection.

METHODS

Prospective observational cohort study that recruited patients undergoing treatment for pleural infection. RAPID score and risk category were calculated at baseline presentation. The primary outcome was mortality at 3 months; secondary outcomes were mortality at 12 months, length of hospital stay, need for thoracic surgery, failure of medical treatment and lung function at 3 months.

RESULTS

Mortality data were available in 542 out of 546 patients recruited (99.3%). Overall mortality was 10% at 3 months (54 out of 542) and 19% at 12 months (102 out of 542). The RAPID risk category predicted mortality at 3 months. Low-risk mortality (RAPID score 0-2): five out of 222 (2.3%, 95% CI 0.9 to 5.7%); medium-risk mortality (RAPID score 3-4): 21 out of 228 (9.2%, 95% CI 6.0 to 13.7%); and high-risk mortality (RAPID score 5-7): 27 out of 92 (29.3%, 95% CI 21.0 to 39.2%). C-statistics for the scores at 3 months and 12 months were 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.72-0.82), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The RAPID score stratifies adults with pleural infection according to increasing risk of mortality and should inform future research directed at improving outcomes in this patient population.

Development and internal validation of a prognostic model for mortality of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular aneurysm repair

Background: Morbidity and mortality associated with elective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) must be balanced against the impending risk of aneurysm rupture and the estimated remaining lifetime. The aim of this study is to develop and validate a prognostic model for mortality of patients with AAA treated with EVAR. Methods: This retrospective observational study included 251 consecutive patients treated with EVAR for asymptomatic AAA between January 2001 and December 2012 at the University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland. Pre-selection of variables was based on a literature review; least absolute shrinkage and selection operator technique was used for the final variable selection. A Firth's bias reduced Cox proportional hazard model was developed and validated using 10,000 bootstrap samples to predict survival after EVAR. Results: The median follow-up time was 5.3 years (range 0.1 to 15.9). At the study closing date 95% of follow-up information was available. The mortality rates were 31.9% at 5 years and 50.5% at the study closing date, respectively. Identified predictors for overall mortality after EVAR were age, hazard ratio (HR) = 2.24 per 10-year increase (95% CI 1.64 to 3.09), the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), HR = 2.22 (95% CI 1.48 to 3.31), and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, HR = 1.24 per 10 ml/min/1.73 m² decrease (95% CI 1.12 to 1.39). The model showed good discrimination ability, Harrell's C = 0.722 (95% CI 0.667 to 0.778) and was very robust in the bootstrap in-sample validation Harrell's C = 0.726 (95% CI 0.662 to 0.788). Conclusion: Higher age, the presence of COPD and impaired kidney function are independent predictors for impaired survival after EVAR. The expected remaining lifetime should be considered in patients with AAA. This prognostic model can help improving patient care; however, external validation is needed prior to clinical implementation.

Nocturnal temperature-controlled laminar airflow device for adults with severe allergic asthma: the LASER RCT

BACKGROUND

Severe asthma exacerbations are costly to patients and the NHS, and occur frequently in severely allergic patients.

OBJECTIVE

To ascertain whether or not nocturnal temperature-controlled laminar airflow (TLA) device usage over 12 months can reduce severe exacerbations and improve asthma control and quality of life compared with a placebo device, while being cost-effective and acceptable to adults with severe allergic asthma.

DESIGN

A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, superiority trial with qualitative interviews. The trial included an internal pilot with qualitative focus groups.

SETTING

Fourteen hospitals in the UK that manage patients with severe asthma.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults (16-75 years) with severe, poorly controlled, exacerbation-prone asthma despite high-intensity treatment, and who are sensitised to a perennial indoor aeroallergen.

INTERVENTION

Nocturnal, home-based TLA treatment using an Airsonett^® (Airsonett AB, Ängelholm, Sweden) device. The comparator was a placebo device that was identical to the active device except that it did not deliver the laminar airflow. Participants were allocated 1 : 1 to TLA therapy or placebo, minimised by site, origin of case, baseline severe exacerbation frequency, maintenance oral corticosteroid use and pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 second.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - frequency of severe asthma exacerbations occurring within the 12-month follow-up period, defined as worsening of asthma requiring systemic corticosteroids [≥ 30 mg of prednisolone or equivalent daily (or ≥ 50% increase in dose if on maintenance dose of ≥ 30 mg of prednisolone)] for ≥ 3 days. Secondary outcomes - changes in asthma control, lung function, asthma-specific and global quality of life for participants, adherence to the intervention, device acceptability, health-care resource use and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

Between May 2014 and January 2016, 489 patients consented to participate in the trial, of whom 249 failed screening and 240 were randomised (n = 119 in the treatment group and n = 121 in the placebo group); all were analysed. In total, 202 participants (84%) reported use of the device for 9-12 months. Qualitative analyses showed high levels of acceptability. The mean [standard deviation (SD)] rate of severe exacerbations did not differ between groups [active 1.39 (1.57), placebo 1.48 (2.03); risk ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.27; p = 0.616]. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes for lung function, except for a reduction in mean daily peak expiratory flow [mean (SD) difference 14.7 l/minute (7.35 l/minute), 95% CI 0.32 to 29.1 l/minute; p = 0.045) for those in the active device group. There were no differences in asthma control or airway inflammation and no serious harms related to the device. No significant difference between the groups in quality-adjusted life-years gained over 1 year was observed. In addition, there was no difference in generic or disease-specific health-related quality of life overall, although statistically significant higher quality of life at month 6 was observed. Increases in quality of life were not sufficient to offset the annual costs associated with use of the TLA device.

LIMITATIONS

Missing outcome data could have resulted in an underestimation of exacerbations and rendered the study inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of the data, no consistent benefits of the active device were demonstrated, and the differences observed were not sufficient to make the device cost-effective. The types of patients who may benefit from the TLA device, and the reasons for large reductions in exacerbation frequency in severe asthma trials, which also incorporate other methods of recording exacerbations, need to be explored.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN46346208.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A Delphi study to establish consensus on a definition of major bleeding in adult trauma

BACKGROUND

The majority of potentially preventable deaths in trauma are due to uncontrolled hemorrhage and occur early after injury. How major bleeding is defined is integral to early identification and treatment of this group of high-risk patients. However, there is no consensus on a definition of major bleeding in trauma. The aim of this Delphi study was to develop a consensus definition for research, with transfusion used as a surrogate marker of bleeding.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Trauma experts from three international groups were invited to take part in an online Delphi survey. Over the course of four rounds, the group developed a number of definitions of major bleeding and reached consensus on a new definition.

RESULTS

Forty-four trauma experts agreed to become members of the Delphi panel, and 30 of 44 (68%) completed all four rounds. The panel agreed to exclude the historical massive transfusion definition (≥10 units of red blood cells within 24 hours). Consensus was reached on a new definition for use in clinical research: 4 or more units of any blood component within 2 hours of injury.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi process has yielded a pragmatic transfusion-based definition of major bleeding. The consensus definition differs from historical definitions: a shorter time frame to reflect the acuity of bleeding, and multiple blood components in keeping with a balanced approach to resuscitation. The definition developed may be best suited to mature trauma systems (reflecting the demographics of the expert panel), and could be used to guide registry data recording and to characterize patients at risk of major bleeding.