Potential impact of the validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) clinical prediction tool: A clinical vignette study

Background The validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool estimates the probability of abusive head trauma (AHT) in children <3 years old with intracranial injury. Objective To explore the impact of PredAHT on clinicians’ AHT probability estimates and child protection (CP) actions, and assess inter-rater agreement between their estimates and between their CP actions, before and after PredAHT. Participants and Setting Twenty-nine clinicians from different specialties, at teaching and community hospitals. Methods Clinicians estimated the probability of AHT and indicated their CP actions in six clinical vignettes. One vignette described a child with AHT, another described a child with non-AHT, and four represented “gray” cases, where the diagnosis was uncertain. Clinicians calculated the PredAHT score, and reported whether this altered their estimate/actions. The ‘think-aloud’ method was used to capture the reasoning behind their responses. Analysis included linear modelling, linear mixed-effects modelling, chi-square tests, Fisher’s exact tests, intraclass correlation, Gwet’s AC1 coefficient and thematic analysis. Results Overall, PredAHT significantly influenced clinicians’ probability estimates in all vignettes (p < 0.001), although the impact on individual clinicians varied. However, the influence of PredAHT on clinicians’ CP actions was limited; after using PredAHT, 9/29 clinicians changed their CP actions in only 11/174 instances. Clinicians’ AHT probability estimates and CP actions varied somewhat both before and after PredAHT. Qualitative data suggested that PredAHT may increase clinicians’ confidence in their decisions when considered alongside other associated clinical, historical and social factors. Conclusions PredAHT significantly influenced clinicians’ AHT probability estimates, but had minimal impact on their CP actions

Acceptability of the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) clinical prediction tool: A qualitative study with child protection professionals

The validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool estimates the probability of abusive head trauma (AHT) based on combinations of six clinical features: head/neck bruising; apnea; seizures; rib/long-bone fractures; retinal hemorrhages. We aimed to determine the acceptability of PredAHT to child protection professionals. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 56 participants: clinicians (25), child protection social workers (10), legal practitioners (9, including 4 judges), police officers (8), and pathologists (4), purposively sampled across southwest United Kingdom. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and imported into NVivo for thematic analysis (38% double-coded). We explored participants’ evaluations of PredAHT, their opinions about the optimal way to present the calculated probabilities, and their interpretation of probabilities in the context of suspected AHT. Clinicians, child protection social workers and police thought PredAHT would be beneficial as an objective adjunct to their professional judgment, to give them greater confidence in their decisions. Lawyers and pathologists appreciated its value for prompting multidisciplinary investigations, but were uncertain of its usefulness in court. Perceived disadvantages included: possible over-reliance and false reassurance from a low score. Interpretations regarding which percentages equate to ‘low’, ‘medium’ or ‘high’ likelihood of AHT varied; participants preferred a precise % probability over these general terms. Participants would use PredAHT with provisos: if they received multi-agency training to define accepted risk thresholds for consistent interpretation; with knowledge of its development; if it was accepted by colleagues. PredAHT may therefore increase professionals’ confidence in their decision-making when investigating suspected AHT, but may be of less value in court

Factors influencing clinicians', health visitors' and social workers' professional judgements, decision‐making and multidisciplinary collaboration when safeguarding children with burn injuries: a qualitative study

Burns are a common injury to young children, sometimes related to neglect or physical abuse. Emergency department (ED) clinicians, health visitors and social workers must work collaboratively when safeguarding children with burns; however, little is known about the factors influencing their professional judgements, decision‐making and multidisciplinary collaboration. Objective was to explore factors affecting ED clinicians', health visitors' and social workers' professional judgements and decision‐making when children present to the ED with burns, and experiences of multidisciplinary collaboration, to identify areas for improvement. This was a qualitative semi‐structured interview study using purposive and snowball sampling to recruit participants. Data were analysed using ‘codebook’ thematic analysis. Four themes were identified: ‘perceived roles and responsibilities when safeguarding children with burn injuries’, ‘factors influencing judgment of risk and decision‐making’, ‘information sharing’ and ‘barriers and facilitators to successful multidisciplinary collaboration’. There is limited understanding between the groups about each other's roles. Each agency is dependent on one another to understand the full picture; however, information sharing is lacking in detail and context and hindered by organisational and resource constraints. Formal opportunities for multiagency team working such as strategy meetings can be facilitators of more successful collaborations. Professionals may benefit from multiagency training to improve understanding of one another's roles. Greater detail and context are needed when notifying health visitors of burn injuries in children or making a referral to children's services

Developing a patient-centred tool for pain measurement and evaluation in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Pain affects 60% of the autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) population. Despite being an early and debilitating symptom, it is poorly characterized and management is suboptimal. This study aimed to develop an ADPKD-specific pain assessment tool (APAT) to facilitate pain research. METHODS: Following a systematic review of PATs used in ADPKD studies and against international recommendations for pain trials, our multi-disciplinary team of clinical experts and patients constructed an ADPKD-pain conceptual framework of key pain evaluation themes. We compiled a new APAT covering domains prioritized within our framework using components of questionnaires validated in other chronic pain disorders. The APAT was administered longitudinally within a randomized high-water intake trial (NCT02933268) to ascertain feasibility and provide pilot data on ADPKD pain. RESULTS: Thirty-nine ADPKD participants with chronic kidney disease Stages 1-4 provided 129 APAT responses. Each participant completed a median of 3 (range 1-10) assessments. Respondents' mean ± standard deviation age was 47 ± 13 years; 59% (23) were female; and 69% (27) had enlarged kidneys with median time from diagnosis 14.2 (interquartile range 7.0-25.9) years. Pain (52%) and associated analgesic use (29%) were common. Pain severity was associated with increasing age [odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, P = 0.009], female gender (OR = 4.34, P = 0.018), estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 (OR = 5.45, P = 0.021) and hypertension (OR = 12.11, P = 0.007), but not with kidney size (P = 0.23). The APAT achieved good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.91) and test-retest reliability (domain intra-class correlation coefficients ranging from 0.62 to 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The APAT demonstrated good acceptability and reliability, and following further validation in a larger cohort could represent an invaluable tool for future ADPKD pain studies.Addenbrookes Charitable Trust Kidney Care UK British Renal Society Kidney Research U

Genetic mechanisms of critical illness in COVID-19.

Host-mediated lung inflammation is present1, and drives mortality2, in the critical illness caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Host genetic variants associated with critical illness may identify mechanistic targets for therapeutic development3. Here we report the results of the GenOMICC (Genetics Of Mortality In Critical Care) genome-wide association study in 2,244 critically ill patients with COVID-19 from 208 UK intensive care units. We have identified and replicated the following new genome-wide significant associations: on chromosome 12q24.13 (rs10735079, P = 1.65 × 10-8) in a gene cluster that encodes antiviral restriction enzyme activators (OAS1, OAS2 and OAS3); on chromosome 19p13.2 (rs74956615, P = 2.3 × 10-8) near the gene that encodes tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2); on chromosome 19p13.3 (rs2109069, P = 3.98 ×  10-12) within the gene that encodes dipeptidyl peptidase 9 (DPP9); and on chromosome 21q22.1 (rs2236757, P = 4.99 × 10-8) in the interferon receptor gene IFNAR2. We identified potential targets for repurposing of licensed medications: using Mendelian randomization, we found evidence that low expression of IFNAR2, or high expression of TYK2, are associated with life-threatening disease; and transcriptome-wide association in lung tissue revealed that high expression of the monocyte-macrophage chemotactic receptor CCR2 is associated with severe COVID-19. Our results identify robust genetic signals relating to key host antiviral defence mechanisms and mediators of inflammatory organ damage in COVID-19. Both mechanisms may be amenable to targeted treatment with existing drugs. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials will be essential before any change to clinical practice

The development and validation of a scoring tool to predict the operative duration of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background: The ability to accurately predict operative duration has the potential to optimise theatre efficiency and utilisation, thus reducing costs and increasing staff and patient satisfaction. With laparoscopic cholecystectomy being one of the most commonly performed procedures worldwide, a tool to predict operative duration could be extremely beneficial to healthcare organisations. Methods: Data collected from the CholeS study on patients undergoing cholecystectomy in UK and Irish hospitals between 04/2014 and 05/2014 were used to study operative duration. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was produced in order to identify significant independent predictors of long (> 90 min) operations. The resulting model was converted to a risk score, which was subsequently validated on second cohort of patients using ROC curves. Results: After exclusions, data were available for 7227 patients in the derivation (CholeS) cohort. The median operative duration was 60 min (interquartile range 45–85), with 17.7% of operations lasting longer than 90 min. Ten factors were found to be significant independent predictors of operative durations > 90 min, including ASA, age, previous surgical admissions, BMI, gallbladder wall thickness and CBD diameter. A risk score was then produced from these factors, and applied to a cohort of 2405 patients from a tertiary centre for external validation. This returned an area under the ROC curve of 0.708 (SE = 0.013, p  90 min increasing more than eightfold from 5.1 to 41.8% in the extremes of the score. Conclusion: The scoring tool produced in this study was found to be significantly predictive of long operative durations on validation in an external cohort. As such, the tool may have the potential to enable organisations to better organise theatre lists and deliver greater efficiencies in care

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Risk Factors Associated With Primary Care–Reported Domestic Violence for Women Involved in Family Law Care Proceedings: Data Linkage Observational Study

BackgroundDomestic violence and abuse (DVA) has a detrimental impact on the health and well-being of children and families but is commonly underreported, with an estimated prevalence of 5.5% in England and Wales in 2020. DVA is more common in groups considered vulnerable, including those involved in public law family court proceedings; however, there is a lack of evidence regarding risk factors for DVA among those involved in the family justice system. ObjectiveThis study examines risk factors for DVA within a cohort of mothers involved in public law family court proceedings in Wales and a matched general population comparison group. MethodsWe linked family justice data from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass Cymru [Wales]) to demographic and electronic health records within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. We constructed 2 study cohorts: mothers involved in public law family court proceedings (2011-2019) and a general population group of mothers not involved in public law family court proceedings, matched on key demographics (age and deprivation). We used published clinical codes to identify mothers with exposure to DVA documented in their primary care records and who therefore reported DVA to their general practitioner. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to examine risk factors for primary care–recorded DVA. ResultsMothers involved in public law family court proceedings were 8 times more likely to have had exposure to DVA documented in their primary care records than the general population group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 8.0, 95% CI 6.6-9.7). Within the cohort of mothers involved in public law family court proceedings, risk factors for DVA with the greatest effect sizes included living in sparsely populated areas (AOR 3.9, 95% CI 2.8-5.5), assault-related emergency department attendances (AOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5-3.1), and mental health conditions (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.2). An 8-fold increased risk of DVA emphasizes increased vulnerabilities for individuals involved in public law family court proceedings. ConclusionsPreviously reported DVA risk factors do not necessarily apply to this group of women. The additional risk factors identified in this study could be considered for inclusion in national guidelines. The evidence that living in sparsely populated areas and assault-related emergency department attendances are associated with increased risk of DVA could be used to inform policy and practice interventions targeting prevention as well as tailored support services for those with exposure to DVA. However, further work should also explore other sources of DVA, such as that recorded in secondary health care, family, and criminal justice records, to understand the true scale of the problem