Using general practitioners to recruit individuals with low socioeconomic position to preventive health checks is feasible: a cross sectional study

Objective: To test whether demographic and health-related characteristics are associated with non-attendance of preventive health checks offered to individuals with low levels of education using proactive recruitment by the general practitioners. Design: A cross-sectional study. Setting: 32 general practice clinics in Copenhagen, Denmark. Subjects: A total of 549 individuals aged 45–64, with low levels of education, enrolled in the intervention group of a randomised controlled trial on preventive health checks offered by general practitioner. Main outcome measures: Non-attendance of the preventive health checks. Methods: (i) Descriptive characteristics of attendees and non-attendees and (ii) crude and adjusted multi-level logistic regression to examine associations of individual characteristics with non-attendance of preventive health checks. Results: Overall, 33% did not attend the prescheduled preventive health checks at their general practitioners. Non-attendees were more likely to live without a partner, be of non-Western origin, be daily smokers, have poor self-rated health, have higher pulmonary symptoms score, have increased level of stress, have low levels of self-efficacy, have metabolic risk factors or non-communicable diseases and have had no contact with their general practitioner within the past year. Conclusion: The findings suggest that, it is feasible to use general practitioners for recruiting individuals for preventive health checks. However, even in a trial targeting individuals with low levels of education, there are differences between attendees and non-attendees, with a more adverse health behaviour profile and worse health status observed among the non-attendees.KEY POINTSCurrent awareness• Non-attendance of preventive health checks offered to the general population is associated with low socioeconomic position and adverse health behaviours.Main statements• It is feasible to use general practitioners proactively in recruitment to preventive health checks offered to individuals with low socioeconomic positions.• In a trial targeting individuals with low levels of education, there were differences between attendees and non-attendees.• Non-attendance was associated with daily smoking, poor self-rated health, high stress and no contact with the general practitioner within the last year. Current awareness • Non-attendance of preventive health checks offered to the general population is associated with low socioeconomic position and adverse health behaviours. Main statements • It is feasible to use general practitioners proactively in recruitment to preventive health checks offered to individuals with low socioeconomic positions. • In a trial targeting individuals with low levels of education, there were differences between attendees and non-attendees. • Non-attendance was associated with daily smoking, poor self-rated health, high stress and no contact with the general practitioner within the last year. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01979107

Reaching Frail Elderly Patients to Optimize Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation (REAFEL): A Feasibility Study of a Cross-Sectoral Shared-Care Model

Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) management in primary care often requires a referral to cardiology clinics, which can be strenuous for frail patients. We developed “cardio-share” (CS), a new cross-sector collaboration model, to ease this process. General practitioners (GPs) can use a compact Holter monitor (C3 from Cortrium) to receive remote advice from the cardiologist. Objective: To test the feasibility and acceptability of the CS model to manage suspected AF in frail elderly patients. Methods: We used a mixed methods design, including the preparation of qualitative semistructured interviews of GPs and nurses. Results: Between MAR-2019 and FEB-2020, 54 patients were consulted through the CS model, of whom 35 underwent C3 Holter monitoring. The time from referral to a final Holter report was shortened from a mean (SD) of 117 (45) days in usual care to 30 days (13) with the CS model. Furthermore, 90% of the patients did not need to attend visits at the cardiology clinic. The GPs and nurses highlighted the ease of using the C3 monitor. Their perception was that patients were confident in the GPs’ collaboration with cardiologists. Conclusions: The CS model using a C3 monitor for AF is both feasible and seems acceptable to GPs. The elapsed time from referral to the Holter report performed for the diagnosis was significantly reduced

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee