Drooling Reduction Intervention randomised trial (DRI): comparing the efficacy and acceptability of hyoscine patches and glycopyrronium liquid on drooling in children with neurodisability

Objective: Investigate whether hyoscine patch or glycopyrronium liquid is more effective and acceptable to treat drooling in children with neurodisability. Design: Multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Recruitment through neurodisability teams; treatment by parents. Participants: Ninety children with neurodisability who had never received medication for drooling (55 boys, 35 girls; median age 4 years). Exclusion criteria: medication contraindicated; in a trial that could affect drooling or management. Intervention: Children were randomised to receive a hyoscine skin patch or glycopyrronium liquid. Dose was increased over 4 weeks to achieve optimum symptom control with minimal side-effects; steady dose then continued to 12 weeks. Primary and secondary outcomes: Primary outcome: Drooling Impact Scale (DIS) score at week-4. Secondary outcomes: change in DIS scores over 12 weeks, Drooling Severity and Frequency Scale and Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication; adverse events; children’s perception about treatment. Results: Both medications yielded clinically and statistically significant reductions in mean DIS at week-4 (25.0 (SD 22.2) for hyoscine and 26.6 (SD 16) for glycopyrronium). There was no significant difference in change in DIS scores between treatment groups. By week-12, 26/47 (55%) children starting treatment were receiving hyoscine compared with 31/38 (82%) on glycopyrronium. There was a 42% increased chance of being on treatment at week-12 for children randomised to glycopyrronium relative to hyoscine (1.42, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.95). Conclusions: Hyoscine and glycopyrronium are clinically effective in treating drooling in children with neurodisability. Hyoscine produced more problematic side effects leading to a greater chance of treatment cessation

Parent-delivered interventions used at home to improve eating, drinking and swallowing in children with neurodisability: the FEEDS mixed-methods study

This is the final version. Available on open access from the NIHR Journals Library via the DOI in this recordBACKGROUND: Eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties are common in young children with neurodisability. These difficulties may lead to inadequate calorie intake, which affects a child's nutrition, growth and general physical health. OBJECTIVE: To examine which interventions are available that can be delivered at home by parents to improve eating, drinking and swallowing in young children with neurodisability and are suitable for investigation in pragmatic trials. DESIGN: This was a mixed-methods study that included focus groups, surveys, an update of published systematic reviews of interventions, a systematic review of measurement properties of existing tools, evidence mapping, evidence synthesis, a Delphi survey and stakeholder workshops. SETTING: The study was carried out in NHS hospitals, community services, family homes and schools. PARTICIPANTS: Parents of children who had neurodisability and eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. Professionals from health and education. Young people with eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties or young people who had previously experienced eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. DATA SOURCES: Literature reviews; national surveys of parents and professionals; focus groups with parents, young people and professionals; and stakeholder consultation workshops. REVIEW METHODS: An update of published systematic reviews of interventions (searched July-August 2017), a mapping review (searched October 2017) and a systematic review of measurement properties using COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology (searched May 2018). RESULTS: Significant limitations of the available research evidence regarding interventions and tools to measure outcomes were identified. A total of 947 people participated: 400 parents, 475 health professionals, 62 education professionals and 10 young people. The survey showed the wide range of interventions recommended by NHS health professionals, with parents and professionals reporting variability in the provision of these interventions. Parents and professionals considered 19 interventions as relevant because they modified eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. Parents and professionals considered 10 outcomes as important to measure (including Nutrition, Growth and Health/safety); young people agreed that these were important outcomes. Stakeholder consultation workshops identified that project conclusions and recommendations made sense, were meaningful and were valued by parents and professionals. Parents and health professionals were positive about a proposed Focus on Early Eating, Drinking and Swallowing (FEEDS) toolkit of interventions that, through shared decision-making, could be recommended by health professionals and delivered by families. LIMITATIONS: The national surveys included large numbers of parents and professionals but, as expected, these were not representative of the UK population of parents of children with eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. Owing to the limitations of research evidence, pragmatic decisions were made about interventions that might be included in future research and outcomes that might be measured. For instance, the reviews of research found only weak or poor evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions. The review of outcome measures found only limited low-level evidence about their psychometric properties. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities and challenges for conducting clinical trials of the effectiveness of the FEEDS toolkit of interventions are described. Parents and professionals thought that implementation of the toolkit as part of usual NHS practice was appropriate. However, this would first require the toolkit to be operationalised through development as a complex intervention, taking account of constituent interventions, delivery strategies, implementation and manualisation. Subsequently, an evaluation of its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness could be undertaken using appropriate research methods. FUTURE WORK: Initial steps include FEEDS toolkit development and evaluation of its use in clinical practice, and identification of the most robust methods to measure valued outcomes, such as Nutrition and Growth. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10454425. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 22. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Developing the FEEDS toolkit of parent-delivered interventions for eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties in young children with neurodisability: findings from a Delphi survey and stakeholder consultation workshops

This is the final version. Available on open access from BMJ Publishing Group via the DOI in this recordData availability statement: Data are available on reasonable request. Data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author (JP).BACKGROUND: Young children with neurodisability commonly experience eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties (EDSD). Little is documented about which interventions and outcomes are most appropriate for such children. We aimed to seek consensus between parents of children with neurodisability and health professionals on the appropriate interventions and outcomes to inform future clinical developments and research studies. METHODS: Two populations were sampled: parents of children aged up to 12 years with neurodisability who experienced EDSD; health professionals working with children and young people (aged 0-18 years) with neurodisability with experience of EDSD. Participants had taken part in a previous national survey and were invited to take part in a Delphi survey and/or consultation workshops. Two rounds of this Delphi survey sought agreement on the appropriate interventions and outcomes for use with children with neurodisability and EDSD. Two stakeholder consultation workshops were iterative, with the findings of the first discussed at the second, and conclusions reached. RESULTS: A total of 105 parents and 105 health professionals took part. Parents and health professionals viewed 19 interventions and 10 outcomes as essential. Interventions related to improvement in the physical aspects of a child's EDSD, behavioural changes of the child or parent, and changes in the child or family's well-being. Both parents and health professionals supported a 'toolkit' of interventions that they could use together in shared decision making to prioritise and implement timely interventions appropriate to the child. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified interventions viewed as essential to consider for improving EDSD in children with neurodisability. It also identified several key outcomes that are valued by parents and health professionals. The Focus on Early Eating, Drinking and Swallowing (FEEDS) Toolkit of interventions to improve EDSD in children with neurodisability has been developed and now requires evaluation regarding its use and effectiveness.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Incidence, aetiology, and sequelae of viral meningitis in UK adults: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: Viral meningitis is increasingly recognised, but little is known about the frequency with which it occurs, or the causes and outcomes in the UK. We aimed to determine the incidence, causes, and sequelae in UK adults to improve the management of patients and assist in health service planning. Methods: We did a multicentre prospective observational cohort study of adults with suspected meningitis at 42 hospitals across England. Nested within this study, in the National Health Service (NHS) northwest region (now part of NHS England North), was an epidemiological study. Patients were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older, had clinically suspected meningitis, and either underwent a lumbar puncture or, if lumbar puncture was contraindicated, had clinically suspected meningitis and an appropriate pathogen identified either in blood culture or on blood PCR. Individuals with ventricular devices were excluded. We calculated the incidence of viral meningitis using data from patients from the northwest region only and used these data to estimate the population-standardised number of cases in the UK. Patients self-reported quality-of-life and neuropsychological outcomes, using the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Aldenkamp and Baker neuropsychological assessment schedule, for 1 year after admission. Findings: 1126 patients were enrolled between Sept 30, 2011, and Sept 30, 2014. 638 (57%) patients had meningitis: 231 (36%) cases were viral, 99 (16%) were bacterial, and 267 (42%) had an unknown cause. 41 (6%) cases had other causes. The estimated annual incidence of viral meningitis was 2·73 per 100 000 and that of bacterial meningitis was 1·24 per 100 000. The median length of hospital stay for patients with viral meningitis was 4 days (IQR 3–7), increasing to 9 days (6–12) in those treated with antivirals. Earlier lumbar puncture resulted in more patients having a specific cause identified than did those who had a delayed lumbar puncture. Compared with the age-matched UK population, patients with viral meningitis had a mean loss of 0·2 quality-adjusted life-years (SD 0·04) in that first year. Interpretation: Viruses are the most commonly identified cause of meningitis in UK adults, and lead to substantial long-term morbidity. Delays in getting a lumbar puncture and unnecessary treatment with antivirals were associated with longer hospital stays. Rapid diagnostics and rationalising treatments might reduce the burden of meningitis on health services. Funding: Meningitis Research Foundation and UK National Institute for Health Research

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

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

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

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research