Alternans in Genetically Modified Langendorff-Perfused Murine Hearts Modeling Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia

The relationship between alternans and arrhythmogenicity was studied in genetically modified murine hearts modeling catecholaminergic polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (CPVT) during Langendorff perfusion, before and after treatment with catecholamines and a β-adrenergic antagonist. Heterozygous (RyR2p/s) and homozygous (RyR2s/s) RyR2-P2328S hearts, and wild-type (WT) controls, were studied before and after treatment with epinephrine (100 nM and 1 μM) and propranolol (100 nM). Monophasic action potential recordings demonstrated significantly greater incidences of arrhythmia in RyR2p/s and RyR2s/s hearts as compared to WTs. Arrhythmogenicity in RyR2s/s hearts was associated with alternans, particularly at short baseline cycle lengths. Both phenomena were significantly accentuated by treatment with epinephrine and significantly diminished by treatment with propranolol, in full agreement with clinical expectations. These changes took place, however, despite an absence of changes in mean action potential durations, ventricular effective refractory periods or restitution curve characteristics. Furthermore pooled data from all hearts in which arrhythmia occurred demonstrated significantly greater alternans magnitudes, but similar restitution curve slopes, to hearts that did not demonstrate arrhythmia. These findings thus further validate the RyR2-P2328S murine heart as a model for human CPVT, confirming an alternans phenotype in common with murine genetic models of the Brugada syndrome and the congenital long-QT syndrome type 3. In contrast to these latter similarities, however, this report demonstrates the dissociation of alternans from changes in the properties of restitution curves for the first time in a murine model of a human arrhythmic syndrome

Remote care in UK general practice: baseline data on 11 case studies [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Accessing and receiving care remotely (by telephone, video or online) became the default option during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, but in-person care has unique benefits in some circumstances. We are studying UK general practices as they try to balance remote and in-person care, with recurrent waves of COVID-19 and various post-pandemic backlogs. Methods: Mixed-methods (mostly qualitative) case study across 11 general practices. Researchers-in-residence have built relationships with practices and become familiar with their contexts and activities; they are following their progress for two years via staff and patient interviews, documents and ethnography, and supporting improvement efforts through co-design. In this paper, we report baseline data. Results: Reflecting our maximum-variety sampling strategy, the 11 practices vary in size, setting, ethos, staffing, population demographics and digital maturity, but share common contextual features—notably system-level stressors such as high workload and staff shortages, and UK’s technical and regulatory infrastructure. We have identified both commonalities and differences between practices in terms of how they: 1] manage the ‘digital front door’ (access and triage) and balance demand and capacity; 2] strive for high standards of quality and safety; 3] ensure digital inclusion and mitigate wider inequalities; 4] support and train their staff (clinical and non-clinical), students and trainees; 5] select, install, pilot and use technologies and the digital infrastructure which support them; and 6] involve patients in their improvement efforts. Conclusions: General practices’ responses to pandemic-induced disruptive innovation appear unique and situated.  We anticipate that by focusing on depth and detail, this longitudinal study will throw light on why a solution that works well in one practice does not work at all in another. As the study unfolds, we will explore how practices achieve timely diagnosis of urgent or serious illness and manage continuity of care, long-term conditions and complex needs

Protocol: Remote care as the ‘new normal’? Multi-site case study in UK general practice [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Following a pandemic-driven shift to remote service provision, UK general practices offer telephone, video or online consultation options alongside face-to-face. This study explores practices’ varied experiences over time as they seek to establish remote forms of accessing and delivering care. Methods: This protocol is for a mixed-methods multi-site case study with co-design and national stakeholder engagement. 11 general practices were selected for diversity in geographical location, size, demographics, ethos, and digital maturity. Each practice has a researcher-in-residence whose role is to become familiar with its context and activity, follow it longitudinally for two years using interviews, public-domain documents and ethnography, and support improvement efforts. Research team members meet regularly to compare and contrast across cases. Practice staff are invited to join online learning events. Patient representatives work locally within their practice patient involvement groups as well as joining an online patient learning set or linking via a non-digital buddy system. NHS Research Ethics Approval has been granted. Governance includes a diverse independent advisory group with lay chair. We also have policy in-reach (national stakeholders sit on our advisory group) and outreach (research team members sit on national policy working groups). Results (anticipated): We expect to produce rich narratives of contingent change over time, addressing cross-cutting themes including access, triage and capacity; digital and wider inequities; quality and safety of care (e.g. continuity, long-term condition management, timely diagnosis, complex needs); workforce and staff wellbeing (including non-clinical staff, students and trainees); technologies and digital infrastructure; patient perspectives; and sustainability (e.g. carbon footprint). Conclusion: By using case study methods focusing on depth and detail, we hope to explain why digital solutions that work well in one practice do not work at all in another. We plan to inform policy and service development through inter-sectoral network-building, stakeholder workshops and topic-focused policy briefings

Is it Safe for Patients With COVID-19 to Fast in Ramadan?

*This article, by the Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service Team Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, along with the British Islamic Medical Association, details guidelines for healthcare professionals who are working with Muslim patients suffering from COVID-19 who wish to fast during Ramadan. The article discusses the impact fasting can have on a COVID-19 patient’s recovery, in addition to the lack of evidence previously available regarding the subject. The article features multiple studies conducted on the COVID-19 pandemic and also focuses on the Black and Minority Ethnic (BAME) populations in the United Kingdom