Mixed-methods feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a paramedic-administered breathlessness management intervention for acute-on-chronic breathlessness (BREATHE): Study findings

Introduction: One-fifth of emergency department presentations by ambulance are due to acute-on-chronic breathlessness. We explored the feasibility of an evaluation-phase, cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic-administered, non-pharmacological breathlessness intervention for people with acute-on-chronic breathlessness at ambulance call-out (BREATHE) regarding breathlessness intensity and conveyance to hospital.Methods: This mixed-methods, feasibility cRCT (ISRCTN80330546), randomised paramedics to usual care or intervention plus usual care. Retrospective patient consent to use call-out data (primary endpoint) and prospective patient/carer consent for follow-up was sought. Potential primary outcomes included breathlessness intensity (numerical rating scale) and conveyance. Follow-up included: interviews with patients/carers and questionnaires at 14 days, 1 and 6 months; paramedic focus groups and surveys.Results: Recruitment was during COVID-19, with high demands on paramedics and fewer call-outs by eligible patients. We enrolled 29 paramedics; nine withdrew. Randomisation/trial procedures were acceptable. Paramedics recruited thirteen patients, not meeting recruitment target (n=36); eight patients and three carers were followed up. Data quality was good but insufficient for future sample size estimation.The intervention did not extend call-out time, was delivered with fidelity and was acceptable to patients, carers and paramedics. There were no repeat call-outs within 48 hours. All trained paramedics strongly recommended BREATHE as a highly relevant, simple intervention. Conclusion: Patient recruitment to target was not feasible during the pandemic. Training and intervention were acceptable and delivered with fidelity. Results include valuable information on recruitment, consent, attrition, and data collection that will inform the design and delivery of a definitive trial

Mixed-methods feasibility cluster randomised controlled trial of a paramedic-administered breathlessness management intervention for acute-on-chronic breathlessness (BREATHE) : study findings

INTRODUCTION: One-fifth of emergency department presentations by ambulance are due to acute-on-chronic breathlessness. We explored the feasibility of an evaluation-phase, cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a paramedic-administered, non-pharmacological breathlessness intervention for people with acute-on-chronic breathlessness at ambulance call-out (BREATHE) regarding breathlessness intensity and conveyance to hospital. METHODS: This mixed-methods, feasibility cRCT (ISRCTN80330546) randomised paramedics to usual care or intervention plus usual care. Retrospective patient consent to use call-out data (primary end-point) and prospective patient/carer consent for follow-up was sought. Potential primary outcomes included breathlessness intensity (numerical rating scale) and conveyance. Follow-up included: interviews with patients/carers and questionnaires at 14 days, 1 and 6 months; paramedic focus groups and surveys. RESULTS: Recruitment was during COVID-19, with high demands on paramedics and fewer call-outs by eligible patients. We enrolled 29 paramedics; nine withdrew. Randomisation/trial procedures were acceptable. Paramedics recruited 13 patients, not meeting recruitment target (n=36); eight patients and three carers were followed-up. Data quality was good but insufficient for future sample size estimation. The intervention did not extend call-out time, was delivered with fidelity and was acceptable to patients, carers and paramedics. There were no repeat call-outs within 48 h. All trained paramedics strongly recommended BREATHE as a highly relevant, simple intervention. CONCLUSION: Patient recruitment to target was not feasible during the pandemic. Training and intervention were acceptable and delivered with fidelity. Results include valuable information on recruitment, consent, attrition and data collection that will inform the design and delivery of a definitive trial

RA-MAP, molecular immunological landscapes in early rheumatoid arthritis and healthy vaccine recipients

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic inflammatory disorder with poorly defined aetiology characterised by synovial inflammation with variable disease severity and drug responsiveness. To investigate the peripheral blood immune cell landscape of early, drug naive RA, we performed comprehensive clinical and molecular profiling of 267 RA patients and 52 healthy vaccine recipients for up to 18 months to establish a high quality sample biobank including plasma, serum, peripheral blood cells, urine, genomic DNA, RNA from whole blood, lymphocyte and monocyte subsets. We have performed extensive multi-omic immune phenotyping, including genomic, metabolomic, proteomic, transcriptomic and autoantibody profiling. We anticipate that these detailed clinical and molecular data will serve as a fundamental resource offering insights into immune-mediated disease pathogenesis, progression and therapeutic response, ultimately contributing to the development and application of targeted therapies for RA.</p

Artificial cell research as a field that connects chemical, biological and philosophical questions

This review article discusses the interdisciplinary nature and implications of artificial cell research. It starts from two historical theories: Gánti's chemoton model and the autopoiesis theory by Maturana and Varela. They both explain the transition from chemical molecules to biological cells. These models exemplify two different ways in which disciplines of chemistry, biology and philosophy can profit from each other. In the chemoton model, conclusions from one disciplinary approach are relevant for the other disciplines. In contrast, the autopoiesis model itself (rather than its conclusions) is transferred from one discipline to the other. The article closes by underpinning the relevance of artificial cell research for philosophy with reference to the on-going philosophical debates on emergence, biological functions and biocentrism

Patient empowerment in long-term conditions: development and preliminary testing of a new measure

BACKGROUND: Patient empowerment is viewed by policy makers and health care practitioners as a mechanism to help patients with long-term conditions better manage their health and achieve better outcomes. However, assessing the role of empowerment is dependent on effective measures of empowerment. Although many measures of empowerment exist, no measure has been developed specifically for patients with long-term conditions in the primary care setting. This study presents preliminary data on the development and validation of such a measure. METHODS: We conducted two empirical studies. Study one was an interview study to understand empowerment from the perspective of patients living with long-term conditions. Qualitative analysis identified dimensions of empowerment, and the qualitative data were used to generate items relating to these dimensions. Study two was a cross-sectional postal study involving patients with different types of long-term conditions recruited from general practices. The survey was conducted to test and validate our new measure of empowerment. Factor analysis and regression were performed to test scale structure, internal consistency and construct validity. RESULTS: Sixteen predominately elderly patients with different types of long-term conditions described empowerment in terms of 5 dimensions (identity, knowledge and understanding, personal control, personal decision-making, and enabling other patients). One hundred and ninety seven survey responses were received from mainly older white females, with relatively low levels of formal education, with the majority retired from paid work. Almost half of the sample reported cardiovascular, joint or diabetes long-term conditions. Factor analysis identified a three factor solution (positive attitude and sense of control, knowledge and confidence in decision making and enabling others), although the structure lacked clarity. A total empowerment score across all items showed acceptable levels of internal consistency and relationships with other measures were generally supportive of its construct validity. CONCLUSION: Initial analyses suggest that the new empowerment measure meets basic psychometric criteria. Reasons concerning the failure to confirm the hypothesized factor structure are discussed alongside further developments of the scale

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