A cohort study of the impact of COVID-19 on the quality of life of people newly diagnosed with dementia and their family carers

Introduction COVID-19 has impacted people with dementia and their family carers, yet little is known about effects on overall quality of life. Methods In a UK cohort study, pre- and post-pandemic data were collected from 114 carers and 93 recently diagnosed people with dementia. Latent growth curve modeling examined change in quality of life. Results Carers reported significant decline in quality of life, although no change was demonstrated by people with dementia. In multivariable analyses, higher levels of cognitive impairment, deprivation, study site, and lower number of memory clinic contacts were associated with greater decline in carer quality of life. Discussion Maintaining life quality for people with dementia during the pandemic appears to have come at the expense of their family carers. This inequity has fallen hardest on those caring for people with more severe dementia, in deprived areas, and with least support from memory services. These effects may be prevented or reversed by post-diagnostic care

Long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of life of people with dementia and their family carers

\ua9 The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. INTRODUCTION: Few studies have longitudinally mapped quality of life (QoL) trajectories of newly diagnosed people with dementia and their carers, particularly during coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: In a UK cohort study, 261 newly diagnosed people with dementia and 206 family carers were assessed prior to the pandemic (July 2019-March 2020), followed up after the first lockdown (July-October 2020) and then again a year and 2 years later. Latent growth curve modelling examined the level and change of QoL over the four time-points using dementia-specific QoL measures (DEMQOL and C-DEMQOL). RESULTS: Despite variations in individual change scores, our results suggest that generally people with dementia maintained their QoL during the pandemic and experienced some increase towards the end of the period. This contrasted with carers who reported a general deterioration in their QoL over the same period. \u27Confidence in future\u27 and \u27Feeling supported\u27 were the only carer QoL subscales to show some recovery post-pandemic. DISCUSSION: It is positive that even during a period of global disruption, decline in QoL is not inevitable following the onset of dementia. However, it is of concern that carer QoL declined during this same period even after COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted. Carers play an invaluable role in the lives of people with dementia and wider society, and our findings suggest that, post-pandemic, they may require greater support to maintain their QoL

Levetiracetam versus phenytoin for second-line treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus (EcLiPSE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised trial

Background Phenytoin is the recommended second-line intravenous anticonvulsant for treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus in the UK; however, some evidence suggests that levetiracetam could be an effective and safer alternative. This trial compared the efficacy and safety of phenytoin and levetiracetam for second-line management of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus.Methods This open-label, randomised clinical trial was undertaken at 30 UK emergency departments at secondary and tertiary care centres. Participants aged 6 months to under 18 years, with convulsive status epilepticus requiring second-line treatment, were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to receive levetiracetam (40 mg/kg over 5 min) or phenytoin (20 mg/kg over at least 20 min), stratified by centre. The primary outcome was time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population (excluding those who did not require second-line treatment after randomisation and those who did not provide consent). This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN22567894.Findings Between July 17, 2015, and April 7, 2018, 1432 patients were assessed for eligibility. After exclusion of ineligible patients, 404 patients were randomly assigned. After exclusion of those who did not require second-line treatment and those who did not consent, 286 randomised participants were treated and had available data: 152 allocated to levetiracetam, and 134 to phenytoin. Convulsive status epilepticus was terminated in 106 (70%) children in the levetiracetam group and in 86 (64%) in the phenytoin group. Median time from randomisation to cessation of convulsive status epilepticus was 35 min (IQR 20 to not assessable) in the levetiracetam group and 45 min (24 to not assessable) in the phenytoin group (hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 0·91–1·60; p=0·20). One participant who received levetiracetam followed by phenytoin died as a result of catastrophic cerebral oedema unrelated to either treatment. One participant who received phenytoin had serious adverse reactions related to study treatment (hypotension considered to be immediately life-threatening [a serious adverse reaction] and increased focal seizures and decreased consciousness considered to be medically significant [a suspected unexpected serious adverse reaction]). Interpretation Although levetiracetam was not significantly superior to phenytoin, the results, together with previously reported safety profiles and comparative ease of administration of levetiracetam, suggest it could be an appropriate alternative to phenytoin as the first-choice, second-line anticonvulsant in the treatment of paediatric convulsive status epilepticus

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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the quality of life of people with dementia and their family carers

Introduction: Few studies have longitudinally mapped Quality of Life (QoL) trajectories of newly diagnosed people with dementia and their carers, particularly during COVID-19. Methods: In a UK cohort study, 261 newly diagnosed people with dementia and 206 family carers were assessed prior to the pandemic (July 2019-March 2020), followed up after the first lockdown (July-October 2020) and then again a year and two years later. Latent growth curve modeling examined the level and change of QoL over the four time-points using dementia-specific QoL measures (DEMQOL and C-DEMQOL). Results: Despite variations in individual change scores, our results suggest that generally people with dementia maintained their QoL during the pandemic, and experienced some increase towards the end of the period. This contrasted with carers who reported a general deterioration in their QoL over the same period. ‘Confidence in future’ and ‘Feeling supported’ were the only carer QoL subscales to show some recovery post-pandemic. Discussion: It is positive that even during a period of global disruption, decline in QoL is not inevitable following the onset of dementia. However, it is of concern that carer QoL declined during this same period even after COVID-19 restrictions had been lifted. Carers play an invaluable role in the lives of people with dementia and wider society, and our findings suggest that, post-pandemic, they may require greater support to maintain their QoL

Albumin versus balanced crystalloid for resuscitation in the treatment of sepsis: A protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility study, ABC-Sepsis""

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with suspected sepsis to secondary care often require fluid resuscitation to correct hypovolaemia and/or septic shock. Existing evidence signals, but does not demonstrate, a benefit for regimes including albumin over balanced crystalloid alone. However, interventions may be started too late, missing a critical resuscitation window. METHODS: ABC Sepsis is a currently recruiting randomised controlled feasibility trial comparing 5% human albumin solution (HAS) with balanced crystalloid for fluid resuscitation in patients with suspected sepsis. This multicentre trial is recruiting adult patients within 12 hours of presentation to secondary care with suspected community acquired sepsis, with a National Early Warning Score ≥5, who require intravenous fluid resuscitation. Participants are randomised to 5% HAS or balanced crystalloid as the sole resuscitation fluid for the first 6 hours. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives are feasibility of recruitment to the study and 30-day mortality between groups. Secondary objectives include in-hospital and 90-day mortality, adherence to trial protocol, quality of life measurement and secondary care costs. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to determine the feasibility of conducting a trial to address the current uncertainty around optimal fluid resuscitation of patients with suspected sepsis. Understanding the feasibility of delivering a definitive study will be dependent on how the study team are able to negotiate clinician choice, Emergency Department pressures and participant acceptability, as well as whether any clinical signal of benefit is detected.Accepted versionThe article is available via Open Access. Click on the 'Additional link' above to access the full-text

Albumin Versus Balanced Crystalloid for the Early Resuscitation of Sepsis: An Open Parallel-Group Randomized Feasibility Trial. The ABC-Sepsis Trial

OBJECTIVES: International guidelines recommend IV crystalloid as the primary fluid for sepsis resuscitation, with 5% human albumin solution (HAS) as the second line. However, it is unclear which fluid has superior clinical effectiveness. We conducted a trial to assess the feasibility of delivering a randomized controlled trial comparing balanced crystalloid against 5% HAS as sole early resuscitation fluid in patients with sepsis presenting to hospital. DESIGN: Multicenter, open, parallel-group randomized feasibility trial. SETTING: Emergency departments (EDs) in 15 U.K. National Health Service (NHS) hospitals. PATIENTS: Adult patients with sepsis and a National Early Warning Score 2 greater than or equal to five requiring IV fluids withing one hour of randomization. INTERVENTIONS: IV fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloid or 5% HAS for the first 6 hours following randomization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and 30-day mortality. We successfully recruited 301 participants over 12 months. Mean (sd) age was 69 years (± 16 yr), and 151 (50%) were male. From 1303 participants screened; 502 participants were potentially eligible and 300 randomized to receive trial intervention with greater than 95% of participants receiving the intervention. The median number of participants per site was 19 (range, 1-63). Thirty-day mortality was 17.9% (n = 53). Thirty-one participants died (21.1%) within 30 days in the 5% HAS arm, compared with 22 participants (14.8%) in the crystalloid arm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.50; 95% CIs, 0.84-2.83). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest it is feasible to recruit critically ill patients to a fluid resuscitation trial in U.K. EDs using 5% HAS as a primary resuscitation fluid. There was lower mortality in the balanced crystalloid arm. Given these findings, a definitive trial is likely to be deliverable, but the point estimates suggest such a trial would be unlikely to demonstrate a significant benefit from using 5% HAS as a primary resuscitation fluid in sepsis.Published version, accepted version (12 month embargo)Journal content freely available via Open Access. Some content may be unavailable due to publisher embargo. Click on the 'Additional link' above to access the full-text