Community-acquired pneumonia in the United Kingdom:a call to action

Abstract Pneumococcal disease has a high burden in adults in the United Kingdom (UK); however, the total burden is underestimated, principally because most cases of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) are non-invasive. Research into pneumonia receives poor funding relative to its disease burden (global mortality, disability-adjusted life years, and years lived with disability), ranking just 20 out of 25 for investment in infectious diseases in the UK. The current accuracy of data for establishing incidence rates is questionable, and it is a reflection of the paucity of research that much of the background information available derives from nearly 30 years ago. Given the relationship between CAP and mortality (pneumonia accounts for 29,000 deaths per annum in the UK, and 5–15% of patients hospitalised with CAP die within 30 days of admission), and the increasing threat of antimicrobial resistance associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescribing, such neglect of a highly prevalent problem is concerning. In this Call to Action, we explore the poorly understood burden of CAP in the UK, discuss the importance of an accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment, and suggest how national collaboration could improve the management of an often life-threatening, yet potentially preventable disease

Development and initial validation of the bronchiectasis exacerbation and symptom tool (BEST)

BACKGROUND: Recurrent bronchiectasis exacerbations are related to deterioration of lung function, progression of the disease, impairment of quality of life, and to an increased mortality. Improved detection of exacerbations has been accomplished in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease through the use of patient completed diaries. These tools may enhance exacerbation reporting and identification. The aim of this study was to develop a novel symptom diary for bronchiectasis symptom burden and detection of exacerbations, named the BEST diary. METHODS: Prospective observational study of patients with bronchiectasis conducted at Ninewells Hospital, Dundee. We included patients with confirmed bronchiectasis by computed tomography, who were symptomatic and had at least 1 documented exacerbation of bronchiectasis in the previous 12\u2009months to participate. Symptoms were recorded daily in a diary incorporating cough, sputum volume, sputum colour, dyspnoea, fatigue and systemic disturbance scored from 0 to 26. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included in the study. We identified 29 reported (treated exacerbations) and 23 unreported (untreated) exacerbations over 6-month follow-up. The BEST diary score showed a good correlation with the established and validated questionnaires and measures of health status (COPD Assessment Test, r =\u20090.61, p =\u20090.0037, Leicester Cough Questionnaire, r =\u2009-\u20090.52,p =\u20090.0015, St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire, r =\u20090.61,p <\u20090.0001 and 6\u2009min walk test, r =\u2009-\u20090.46,p =\u20090.037). The mean BEST score at baseline was 7.1 points (SD 2.2). The peak symptom score during exacerbation was a mean of 16.4 (3.1), and the change from baseline to exacerbation was a mean of 9.1 points (SD 2.5). Mean duration of exacerbations based on time for a return to baseline symptoms was 15.3\u2009days (SD 5.7). A minimum clinically important difference of 4 points is proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The BEST symptom diary has shown concurrent validity with current health questionnaires and is responsive at onset and recovery from exacerbation. The BEST diary may be useful to detect and characterise exacerbations in bronchiectasis clinical trials

Message to complementary and alternative medicine: evidence is a better friend than power

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is being embraced by an increasing number of practitioners and advocates of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). A significant constituency within CAM, however, appears to have substantive doubts about EBM and some are expressly hostile. DISCUSSION: Many of the arguments raised against EBM within the CAM community are based on a caricature radically at odds with established, accepted and published principles of EBM practice. Contrary to what has sometimes been argued, EBM is not cookbook medicine that ignores individual needs. Neither does EBM mandate that only proven therapies should be used. Before EBM, decisions on health care tended to be based on tradition, power and influence. Such modes usually act to the disadvantage of marginal groups. CONCLUSION: By placing CAM on an equal footing with conventional medicine - what matters for both is evidence of effectiveness - EBM provides an opportunity for CAM to find an appropriate and just place in health care

The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials

Randomised evaluations of surgical interventions are rare; some interventions have been widely adopted without rigorous evaluation. Unlike other medical areas, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design has not become the default study design for the evaluation of surgical interventions. Surgical trials are difficult to successfully undertake and pose particular practical and methodological challenges. However, RCTs have played a role in the assessment of surgical innovations and there is scope and need for greater use. This article will consider the design, conduct and analysis of an RCT of a surgical intervention. The issues will be reviewed under three headings: the timing of the evaluation, defining the research question and trial design issues. Recommendations on the conduct of future surgical RCTs are made. Collaboration between research and surgical communities is needed to address the distinct issues raised by the assessmentof surgical interventions and enable the conduct of appropriate and well-designed trials.The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Scottish Government Health DirectoratesPeer reviewedPublisher PD

How do we create, and improve, the evidence base?

Providing best clinical care involves using the best available evidence of effectiveness to inform treatment decisions. Producing this evidence begins with trials and continues through synthesis of their findings towards evidence incorporation within comprehensible, usable guidelines, for clinicians and patients at the point of care. However, there is enormous wastage in this evidence production process, with less than 50% of the published biomedical literature considered sufficient in conduct and reporting to be fit for purpose. Over the last 30 years, independent collaborative initiatives have evolved to optimise the evidence to improve patient care. These collaborations each recommend how to improve research quality in a small way at many different stages of the evidence production and distillation process. When we consider these minimal improvements at each stage from an 'aggregation of marginal gains' perspective, the accumulation of small enhancements aggregates, thereby greatly improving the final product of 'best available evidence'. The myriad of tools to reduce research quality leakage and evidence loss should be routinely used by all those with responsibility for ensuring that research benefits patients, that is, those who pay for research (funders), produce it (researchers), take part in it (patients/participants) and use it (clinicians, policy makers and service commissioners)

Hydroxychloroquine and short-course radiotherapy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma: a randomized phase II trial

Background: Effective treatment for patients at least 70 years with newly diagnosed glioblastoma remains challenging and alternatives to conventional cytotoxics are appealing. Autophagy inhibition has shown promising efficacy and safety in small studies of glioblastoma and other cancers. Methods: We conducted a randomized phase II trial to compare radiotherapy with or without hydroxychloroquine (2:1 allocation). Patients aged at least 70 years with newly diagnosed high-grade glioma deemed suitable for short-course radiotherapy with an ECOG performance status of 0–1 were included. Radiotherapy treatment consisted of 30 Gy, delivered as 6 fractions given over 2 weeks (5 Gy per fraction). Hydroxychloroquine was given as 200 mg orally b.d. from 7 days prior to radiotherapy until disease progression. The primary endpoint was 1-year overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life, and toxicity. Results: Fifty-four patients with a median age of 75 were randomized between May 2013 and October 2016. The trial was stopped early in 2016. One-year OS was 20.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.2–36.0) hydroxychloroquine group, and 41.2% (95% CI 18.6–62.6) radiotherapy alone, with a median survival of 7.9 and 11.5 months, respectively. The corresponding 6-month PFS was 35.3% (95% CI 19.3–51.7) and 29.4% (95% CI 10.7–51.1). The outcome in the control arm was better than expected and the excess of deaths in the hydroxychloroquine group appeared unrelated to cancer. There were more grade 3–5 events in the hydroxychloroquine group (60.0%) versus radiotherapy alone (38.9%) without any clear common causation. Conclusions: Hydroxychloroquine with short-course radiotherapy did not improve survival compared to radiotherapy alone in elderly patients with glioblastoma

Evidence based medicine as science

Evidence based medicine has claimed to be science on a number of occasions but it is not clear that this status is deserved. Within philosophy of science four main theories about the nature of science are historically recognised: inductivism, falsificationism, Kuhnian paradigms and research programmes. If evidence based medicine is science knowledge claims should be derived using a process that corresponds to one of these theories. This paper analyses whether this is the case. In the first section, different theories about the nature of science are introduced. In the second section, the claim that evidence based medicine is science is reinterpreted as the claim that knowledge claims derived from randomised controlled trails and meta-analyses are science. In the third section the knowledge claims valued within evidence based medicine are considered from the perspective of inductivism, falsificationism, Kuhnian paradigms and research programmes. In the final section possible counter arguments are considered. It is argued that the knowledge claims valued by evidence based medicine are not justified using inductivism, falsificationism, Kuhnian paradigms or research programmes. If these are the main criteria for evaluating if something is science or not, evidence based medicine does not meet these criteria

Immigrant women’s experiences of maternity-care services in Canada: a systematic review using a narrative synthesis

Background: Canada’s diverse society and its statutory commitment to multiculturalism means that a synthesis of knowledge related to the healthcare experiences of immigrants is essential to realise the health potential for future Canadians. Although concerns about the maternity experiences of immigrants in Canada are relatively new, recent national guidelines explicitly call for the tailoring of services to user needs. We therefore assessed the experiences of immigrant women accessing maternity-care services in Canada. In particular, we investigated the experiences of immigrant women in Canada in accessing and navigating maternity and related healthcare services from conception to 6 months postpartum in Canada. Our focus was on (a) the accessibility and acceptability of maternity-care services for immigrant women and (b) the effects of the perceptions and experiences of these women on their birth and postnatal outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review using a systematic search and narrative synthesis of peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed reports of empirical research, with the aim of providing stakeholders with perspectives on maternity-care services as experienced by immigrant women. We partnered with key stakeholders (‘integrated knowledge users’) to ensure the relevancy of topics and to tailor recommendations for effective translation into future policy, practice and programming. Two search phases and a three-stage selection process for published and grey literature were conducted prior to appraisal of literature quality and narrative synthesis of the findings. Results: Our knowledge synthesis of maternity care among immigrants to Canada provided a coherent evidence base for (a) eliciting a better understanding of the factors that generate disparities in accessibility, acceptability and outcomes during maternity care; and (b) improving culturally based competency in maternity care. Our synthesis also identified pertinent issues in multiple sectors that should be addressed to configure maternity services and programs appropriately. Conclusions: Although immigrant women in Canada are generally given the opportunity to obtain necessary services, they face many barriers in accessing and utilising these services. These barriers include lack of information about or awareness of the services, insufficient supports to access these services and discordant expectations between the women and their service providers. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42012002185