Provider diversity in the English NHS: a study of recent developments in four local health economies

Objectives: The overall objective of the research was to assess the impact of provider diversity on quality and innovation in the English NHS. The aims were to map the extent of diverse provider activity, identify the differences in performance between Third Sector Organisations (TSOs), for-profit private enterprises, and incumbent organisations within the NHS, and the factors that affect the entry and growth of new private and TSOs. Methods: Case studies of four Local Health Economies (LHEs). Data included: semi-structured interviews with 48 managerial and clinical staff from NHS organizations and providers from the private and Third Sector; some documentary evidence; a focus group with service users; and routine data from the Care Quality Commission and Companies House. Data collection was mainly between November 2008 and November 2009. Results: Involvement of diverse providers in the NHS is limited. Commissioners’ local strategies influence degrees of diversity. Barriers to the entry for TSOs include lack of economies of scale in the bidding process. Private providers have greater concern to improve patient pathways and patient experience, whereas TSOs deliver quality improvements by using a more holistic approach and a greater degree of community involvement. Entry of new providers drives NHS Trusts to respond by making improvements. Information sharing diminishes as competition intensifies. Conclusions: There is scope to increase the participation of diverse providers in the NHS, but care must be taken not to damage public accountability, overall productivity, equity and NHS providers (especially acute hospitals, which are likely to remain in the NHS) in the process

Dual tasking impairments are associated with striatal pathology in Huntington’s disease

Background: Recent findings suggest that individuals with Huntington’s disease (HD) have an impaired capacity to execute cognitive and motor tasks simultaneously, or dual task, which gradually worsens as the disease advances. The onset and neuropathological changes mediating impairments in dual tasking in individuals with HD are unclear. The reliability of dual tasking assessments for individuals with HD is also unclear. Objectives: To evaluate differences in dual tasking performance between individuals with HD (presymptomatic and prodromal) and matched controls, to investigate associations between striatal volume and dual tasking performance, and to determine the reliability of dual tasking assessments. Methods: Twenty individuals with HD (10 presymptomatic and 10 prodromal) and 20 healthy controls were recruited for the study. Individuals undertook four single and dual task assessments, comprising motor (postural stability or force steadiness) and cognitive (simple or complex mental arithmetic) components, with single and dual tasks performed three times each. Participants also undertook a magnetic resonance imaging assessment. Results: Compared to healthy controls, individuals with presymptomatic and prodromal HD displayed significant deficits in dual tasking, particularly cognitive task performance when concurrently undertaking motor tasks (P \u3c 0.05). The observed deficits in dual tasking were associated with reduced volume in caudate and putamen structures (P \u3c 0.05),however, not with clinical measures of disease burden. An analysis of the reliability of dual tasking assessments revealed moderate to high test–retest reliability [ICC: 0.61-0.99] for individuals with presymptomatic and prodromal HD and healthy controls. Conclusions: Individuals with presymptomatic and prodromal HD have significant deficits in dual tasking that are associated with striatal degeneration. Findings also indicate that dual tasking assessments are reliable in individuals presymptomatic and prodromal HD and healthy controls

Retreatment with brentuximab vedotin in patients with CD30-positive hematologic malignancies

BACKGROUND: Brentuximab vedotin is a CD30-directed antibody-drug conjugate. Retreatment with brentuximab vedotin monotherapy was investigated in patients with CD30-positive Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) or systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) who relapsed after achieving complete or partial remission (CR or PR) with initial brentuximab vedotin therapy in a previous study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00947856). METHODS: Twenty-one patients with HL and 8 patients with systemic ALCL were retreated; 3 patients with systemic ALCL were retreated twice. Patients generally received brentuximab vedotin 1.8 mg/kg intravenously approximately every 3 weeks over 30 minutes as an outpatient infusion. The primary objectives of this study were to assess safety and to estimate antitumor activity of brentuximab vedotin retreatment. RESULTS: The objective response rate was 60% (30% CR) in HL patients and 88% (63% CR) in systemic ALCL patients. The estimated median duration of response for patients with an objective response was 9.5 months (range, 0.0+ to 28.0+ months) at the time of study closure. Of the 19 patients with objective response, 7 patients had not had an event of disease progression or death at the time of study closure; duration of response for these patients ranged from 3.5 to 28 months. Of the 11 patients with CR, 45% had response durations of over 1 year. Adverse events (AEs) occurring in ≥25% of patients during the retreatment period were generally similar in type and frequency to those observed in the pivotal trials of brentuximab vedotin monotherapy, with the exception of peripheral neuropathy, which is known to have a cumulative effect. Grade 3 or higher events were observed in 48% of patients; these were generally transient and managed by dose modifications or delays. Deaths due to AEs occurred in 3 HL patients; none were considered to be related to brentuximab vedotin retreatment. DISCUSSION: With the exception of a higher rate of peripheral motor neuropathy, retreatment with brentuximab vedotin was associated with similar side effects seen in the pivotal trials. CONCLUSIONS: Retreatment with brentuximab vedotin monotherapy is associated with response rates in 68% (39% CR) of patients with relapsed HL and systemic ALCL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: United States registry and results database ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00947856

Patient-reported outcomes of brentuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma

BACKGROUND: Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) or R/R systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) treated with brentuximab vedotin (BV) experienced high remission rates in two Phase II trials. With increased response rates and survival times, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are becoming increasingly important and can help inform treatment decisions to enhance care of cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to qualitatively assess HRQoL in long-term survivors treated with BV. METHODS: An eight-question survey assessing PRO-related aspects was developed and fielded to a subset of patients with HL or sALCL who remained in long-term follow-up after completing BV treatment in the two pivotal studies. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 25 of 38 patients (12 with HL, 13 with sALCL). The majority of patients reported that their energy level, outlook on life, difficulties with daily activities, ability to participate in physical activities, and overall HRQoL improved compared to those before BV treatment. LIMITATIONS: Small sample size and lack of a baseline questionnaire or validated assessment instrument limit broad applicability of these findings to large populations of patients with HL or sALCL. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of BV PRO data in R/R HL and sALCL. Given the patients’ poor prognostic outcomes before stem cell transplant, these encouraging results warrant formal evaluation of PRO end points in BV trials

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Innovation and the English National Health Service: A qualitative study of the independent sector treatment centre programme

Over the past two decades, an international trend of exposing public health services to different forms of economic organisation has emerged. In the English National Health Service (NHS), care is currently provided through a quasi-market including 'diverse' providers from the private and third sector. The predominant scheme through which private sector companies have been awarded NHS contracts is the Independent Sector Treatment Centre (ISTC) programme. ISTCs were designed to produce innovative models of service delivery for elective care and stimulate innovation among incumbent NHS providers. This paper investigates these claims using qualitative data on the impact of an ISTC upon a local health economy (LHE) composed of NHS organisations in England. Using the case of elective orthopaedic surgery, we conducted semi-structured interviews with senior managers from incumbent NHS providers and an ISTC in 2009. We show that ISTCs exhibit a different relationship with frontline clinicians because they counteract the power of professional communities associated with the NHS. This has positive and negative consequences for innovation. ISTCs have introduced new routines unencumbered by the extant norms of professional communities, but they appear to represent weaker learning environments and do not reproduce cooperation across organisational boundaries to the same extent as incumbent NHS providers.NHS UK Innovation Communities of practice Independent sector treatment centres Governance For-profit sector Clinicians