26 research outputs found

    Recent trends in the incidence of anxiety and prescription of anxiolytics and hypnotics in children and young people: An e-cohort study

    Get PDF
    AbstractBackgroundLittle is known regarding the recognition of anxiety in children and young people (CYP) in primary care. This study examined trends in the presentation, recognition and recording of anxiety and of anxiolytic and hypnotic prescriptions for CYP in primary care.MethodA population-based retrospective electronic cohort of individuals aged 6–18 years between 2003 and 2011 within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank primary care database was created. Incidence rates were calculated using person years at risk (PYAR) as a denominator accounting for deprivation, age and gender.ResultsWe identified a cohort of 311,343 registered individuals providing a total of 1,546,489 person years of follow up. The incidence of anxiety symptoms more than tripled over the study period (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR)=3.55, 95% CI 2.65–4.77) whilst that of diagnosis has remained stable. Anxiolytic/hypnotic prescriptions for the cohort as a whole did not change significantly over time; however there was a significant increase in anxiolytic prescriptions for the 15–18 year age group (IRR 1.62, 95% CI 1.30–2.02).LimitationsThere was a lack of reliable information regarding other interventions available or received at a primary, secondary or tertiary level such as psychological treatments.ConclusionsThere appears to be a preference over time for the recording of general symptoms over diagnosis for anxiety in CYP. The increase in anxiolytic prescriptions for 15–18 year olds is discrepant with current prescribing guidelines. Specific guidance is required for the assessment and management of CYP presenting with anxiety to primary care, particularly older adolescents

    Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

    Get PDF
    Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2,3,4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

    Can reference images improve interobserver agreement in reporting liver fibrosis?

    No full text
    Staging of fibrosis in medical liver biopsies has inherent interobserver variability. There are a number of disease-specific scoring systems available. While recognising the importance of these scoring systems, there is scope to consider how concordance amongst histopathologists could be improved using a generic fibrosis staging system. Using virtual slides, we approached both specialist liver histopathologists and general histopathologists from the UK to assess the degree of fibrosis against a proposed four-tiered reporting system. Example reference images were then produced and distributed to the same responders who were asked to rate a second set of slides to assess if the use of reference images improved concordance between pathologists. The use of reference images eliminated spread across three categories (from 15% to 0%). Overall, agreement was already good; our study showed an improved agreement amongst all participants for percentage agreement (67.79% to 70.08%) and interobserver agreement improved (Fleiss' Kappa 0.55 to 0.59). © 2018 Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article). All rights reserved
    corecore