Models of care for musculoskeletal health: A cross-sectional qualitative study of Australian stakeholders' perspectives on relevance and standardised evaluation

Background: The prevalence and impact of musculoskeletal conditions are predicted to rapidly escalate in the coming decades. Effective strategies are required to minimise 'evidence-practice', 'burden-policy' and 'burden-service' gaps and optimise health system responsiveness for sustainable, best-practice healthcare. One mechanism by which evidence can be translated into practice and policy is through Models of Care (MoCs), which provide a blueprint for health services planning and delivery. While evidence supports the effectiveness of musculoskeletal MoCs for improving health outcomes and system efficiencies, no standardised national approach to evaluation in terms of their 'readiness' for implementation and 'success' after implementation, is yet available. Further, the value assigned to MoCs by end users is uncertain. This qualitative study aimed to explore end users' views on the relevance of musculoskeletal MoCs to their work and value of a standardised evaluation approach. Methods: A cross-sectional qualitative study was undertaken. Subject matter experts (SMEs) with health, policy and administration and consumer backgrounds were drawn from three Australian states. A semi-structured interview schedule was developed and piloted to explore perceptions about musculoskeletal MoCs including: i) aspects important to their work (or life, for consumers) ii) usefulness of standardised evaluation frameworks to judge 'readiness' and 'success' and iii) challenges associated with standardised evaluation. Verbatim transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach to derive key themes. Results: Twenty-seven SMEs (n = 19; 70.4 % female) including five (18.5 %) consumers participated in the study. MoCs were perceived as critical for influencing and initiating changes to best-practice healthcare planning and delivery and providing practical guidance on how to implement and evaluate services. A 'readiness' evaluation framework assessing whether critical components across the health system had been considered prior to implementation was strongly supported, while 'success' was perceived as an already familiar evaluation concept. Perceived challenges associated with standardised evaluation included identifying, defining and measuring key 'readiness' and 'success' indicators; impacts of systems and context changes; cost; meaningful stakeholder consultation and developing a widely applicable framework. Conclusions: A standardised evaluation framework that includes a strong focus on 'readiness' is important to ensure successful and sustainable implementation of musculoskeletal MoCs

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

PANC Study (Pancreatitis: A National Cohort Study): national cohort study examining the first 30 days from presentation of acute pancreatitis in the UK

Abstract Background Acute pancreatitis is a common, yet complex, emergency surgical presentation. Multiple guidelines exist and management can vary significantly. The aim of this first UK, multicentre, prospective cohort study was to assess the variation in management of acute pancreatitis to guide resource planning and optimize treatment. Methods All patients aged greater than or equal to 18 years presenting with acute pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria, from March to April 2021 were eligible for inclusion and followed up for 30 days. Anonymized data were uploaded to a secure electronic database in line with local governance approvals. Results A total of 113 hospitals contributed data on 2580 patients, with an equal sex distribution and a mean age of 57 years. The aetiology was gallstones in 50.6 per cent, with idiopathic the next most common (22.4 per cent). In addition to the 7.6 per cent with a diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis, 20.1 per cent of patients had a previous episode of acute pancreatitis. One in 20 patients were classed as having severe pancreatitis, as per the Atlanta criteria. The overall mortality rate was 2.3 per cent at 30 days, but rose to one in three in the severe group. Predictors of death included male sex, increased age, and frailty; previous acute pancreatitis and gallstones as aetiologies were protective. Smoking status and body mass index did not affect death. Conclusion Most patients presenting with acute pancreatitis have a mild, self-limiting disease. Rates of patients with idiopathic pancreatitis are high. Recurrent attacks of pancreatitis are common, but are likely to have reduced risk of death on subsequent admissions. </jats:sec

New-Onset Panic, Depression with Suicidal Thoughts, and Somatic Symptoms in a Patient with a History of Lyme Disease

Lyme Disease, or Lyme Borreliosis, caused by Borrelia burgdorferi and spread by ticks, is mainly known to cause arthritis and neurological disorders but can also cause psychiatric symptoms such as depression and anxiety. We present a case of a 37-year-old man with no known psychiatric history who developed panic attacks, severe depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation, and neuromuscular complaints including back spasms, joint pain, myalgias, and neuropathic pain. These symptoms began 2 years after being successfully treated for a positive Lyme test after receiving a tick bite. During inpatient psychiatric hospitalization his psychiatric and physical symptoms did not improve with antidepressant and anxiolytic treatments. The patient’s panic attacks resolved after he was discharged and then, months later, treated with long-term antibiotics for suspected “chronic Lyme Disease” (CLD) despite having negative Lyme titers. He however continued to have subsyndromal depressive symptoms and chronic physical symptoms such as fatigue, myalgias, and neuropathy. We discuss the controversy surrounding the diagnosis of CLD and concerns and considerations in the treatment of suspected CLD patients with comorbid psychiatric diagnoses

Pines

Pinus is the most important genus within the Family Pinaceae and also within the gymnosperms by the number of species (109 species recognized by Farjon 2001) and by its contribution to forest ecosystems. All pine species are evergreen trees or shrubs. They are widely distributed in the northern hemisphere, from tropical areas to northern areas in America and Eurasia. Their natural range reaches the equator only in Southeast Asia. In Africa, natural occurrences are confined to the Mediterranean basin. Pines grow at various elevations from sea level (not usual in tropical areas) to highlands. Two main regions of diversity are recorded, the most important one in Central America (43 species found in Mexico) and a secondary one in China. Some species have a very wide natural range (e.g., P. ponderosa, P. sylvestris). Pines are adapted to a wide range of ecological conditions: from tropical (e.g., P. merkusii, P. kesiya, P. tropicalis), temperate (e.g., P. pungens, P. thunbergii), and subalpine (e.g., P. albicaulis, P. cembra) to boreal (e.g., P. pumila) climates (Richardson and Rundel 1998, Burdon 2002). They can grow in quite pure stands or in mixed forest with other conifers or broadleaved trees. Some species are especially adapted to forest fires, e.g., P. banksiana, in which fire is virtually essential for cone opening and seed dispersal. They can grow in arid conditions, on alluvial plain soils, on sandy soils, on rocky soils, or on marsh soils. Trees of some species can have a very long life as in P. longaeva (more than 3,000 years)