Comparison of self-reported health & healthcare utilisation between asylum seekers and refugees: an observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Adult refugees and asylum seekers living in Western countries experience a high prevalence of mental health problems, especially post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. This study compares and contrasts the prevalence of health problems, and potential risk factors as well as the utilisation of health services by asylum seekers and refugees in the Irish context.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross sectional study using validated self reported health status questionnaires of adult asylum seekers (n = 60) and refugees (n = 28) from 30 countries, living in Ireland. Outcome measures included: general health status (SF-36), presence of PTSD symptoms and anxiety/depression symptoms. Data on chronic conditions and pre or post migration stressors are also reported. The two groups are compared for utilisation of the health care system and the use of over the counter medications.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Asylum seekers were significantly more likely than refugees to report symptoms of PTSD (OR 6.3, 95% CI: 2.2–17.9) and depression/anxiety (OR 5.8, 95% CI: 2.2–15.4), while no significant difference was found in self-reported general health. When adjusted by multivariable regression, the presence of more than one chronic disease (OR 4.0, 95%CI: 1.3–12.7; OR 3.4, 95% CI: 1.2–10.1), high levels of pre migration stressors (OR 3.6, 95% CI: 1.1–11.9; OR 3.3, 95% CI: 1.0–10.4) or post migration stressors (OR 17.3, 95% CI: 4.9–60.8; OR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.2–12.3) were independent predictors of self reported PTSD or depression/anxiety symptoms respectively, however, residence status was no longer significantly associated with PTSD or depression/anxiety. Residence status may act as a marker for other explanatory variables; our results show it has a strong relationship with post migration stressors (χ²= 19.74, df = 1, P < 0.001).</p> <p>In terms of health care utilisation, asylum seekers use GP services more often than refugees, while no significant difference was found between these groups for use of dentists, medication, hospitalisation or mental health services.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Asylum seekers have a higher level of self reported PTSD and depression/anxiety symptoms compared to refugees. However, residence status appears to act as a marker for post migration stressors. Compared to refugees, asylum seekers utilise GP services more often, but not mental health services.</p

The Alvarado score for predicting acute appendicitis: a systematic review

Background: The Alvarado score can be used to stratify patients with symptoms of suspected appendicitis; the validity of the score in certain patient groups and at different cut points is still unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the discrimination (diagnostic accuracy) and calibration performance of the Alvarado score. Methods: A systematic search of validation studies in Medline, Embase, DARE and The Cochrane library was performed up to April 2011. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the score at the two cut-off points: score of 5 (1 to 4 vs. 5 to 10) and score of 7 (1 to 6 vs. 7 to 10). Calibration was analysed across low (1 to 4), intermediate (5 to 6) and high (7 to 10) risk strata. The analysis focused on three sub-groups: men, women and children. Results: Forty-two studies were included in the review. In terms of diagnostic accuracy, the cut-point of 5 was good at 'ruling out' admission for appendicitis (sensitivity 99% overall, 96% men, 99% woman, 99% children). At the cut-point of 7, recommended for 'ruling in' appendicitis and progression to surgery, the score performed poorly in each subgroup (specificity overall 81%, men 57%, woman 73%, children 76%). The Alvarado score is well calibrated in men across all risk strata (low RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28; intermediate 1.09, 0.86 to 1.37 and high 1.02, 0.97 to 1.08). The score over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in children in the intermediate and high risk groups and in women across all risk strata. Conclusions: The Alvarado score is a useful diagnostic 'rule out' score at a cut point of 5 for all patient groups. The score is well calibrated in men, inconsistent in children and over-predicts the probability of appendicitis in women across all strata of risk

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Health and use of health services of people who are homeless and at risk of homelessness who receive free primary health care in Dublin.

Background Homeless populations experience poorer physical and mental health, and more barriers to accessing adequate healthcare. This study investigates the health of this population, following the provision of a free to access primary care service for homeless people in Dublin (Safetynet). The health of this group will be compared to previous studies on homelessness conducted in Dublin prior to the establishment of this service (in 1997 and 2005). Methods Participants were recruited through Safetynet clinics. A 133-item questionnaire was administered to determine participants’ physical and mental well-being, use of health services and healthcare needs. Prescription data was extracted from participants’ electronic health records. Results A total of 105 participants were recruited. The majority were  Conclusions This vulnerable population has many physical and mental health problems. Use of drugs, alcohol and smoking is common. Following the establishment of Safetynet, self-reported health was rated more positively, there was also a decrease in the use of A \u26 E and outpatient services and an increase in prescription medicines

Developing an International Register of Clinical Prediction Rules for Use in Primary Care: A Descriptive Analysis

PURPOSE: We describe the methodology used to create a register of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care. We also summarize the rules included in the register according to various characteristics. METHODS: To identify relevant articles, we searched the MEDLINE database (PubMed) for the years 1980 to 2009 and supplemented the results with searches of secondary sources (books on clinical prediction rules) and personal resources (eg, experts in the field). The rules described in relevant articles were classified according to their clinical domain, the stage of development, and the clinical setting in which they were studied. RESULTS: Our search identified clinical prediction rules reported between 1965 and 2009. The largest share of rules (37.2%) were retrieved from PubMed. The number of published rules increased substantially over the study decades. We included 745 articles in the register; many contained more than 1 clinical prediction rule study (eg, both a derivation study and a validation study), resulting in 989 individual studies. In all, 434 unique rules had gone through derivation; however, only 54.8% had been validated and merely 2.8% had undergone analysis of their impact on either the process or outcome of clinical care. The rules most commonly pertained to cardiovascular disease, respiratory, and musculoskeletal conditions. They had most often been studied in the primary care or emergency department settings. CONCLUSIONS: Many clinical prediction rules have been derived, but only about half have been validated and few have been assessed for clinical impact. This lack of thorough evaluation for many rules makes it difficult to retrieve and identify those that are ready for use at the point of patient care. We plan to develop an international web-based register of clinical prediction rules and computer-based clinical decision support systems

Global, regional, and national estimates of the impact of a maternal Klebsiella pneumoniae vaccine: A Bayesian modeling analysis.

BackgroundDespite significant global progress in reducing neonatal mortality, bacterial sepsis remains a major cause of neonatal deaths. Klebsiella pneumoniae (K. pneumoniae) is the leading pathogen globally underlying cases of neonatal sepsis and is frequently resistant to antibiotic treatment regimens recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), including first-line therapy with ampicillin and gentamicin, second-line therapy with amikacin and ceftazidime, and meropenem. Maternal vaccination to prevent neonatal infection could reduce the burden of K. pneumoniae neonatal sepsis in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but the potential impact of vaccination remains poorly quantified. We estimated the potential impact of such vaccination on cases and deaths of K. pneumoniae neonatal sepsis and project the global effects of routine immunization of pregnant women with the K. pneumoniae vaccine as antimicrobial resistance (AMR) increases.Methods and findingsWe developed a Bayesian mixture-modeling framework to estimate the effects of a hypothetical K. pneumoniae maternal vaccine with 70% efficacy administered with coverage equivalent to that of the maternal tetanus vaccine on neonatal sepsis infections and mortality. To parameterize our model, we used data from 3 global studies of neonatal sepsis and/or mortality-with 2,330 neonates who died with sepsis surveilled from 2016 to 2020 undertaken in 18 mainly LMICs across all WHO regions (Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Uganda, Brazil, Italy, Greece, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Thailand, China, and Vietnam). Within these studies, 26.95% of fatal neonatal sepsis cases were culture-positive for K. pneumoniae. We analyzed 9,070 K. pneumoniae genomes from human isolates gathered globally from 2001 to 2020 to quantify the temporal rate of acquisition of AMR genes in K. pneumoniae isolates to predict the future number of drug-resistant cases and deaths that could be averted by vaccination. Resistance rates to carbapenems are increasing most rapidly and 22.43% [95th percentile Bayesian credible interval (CrI): 5.24 to 41.42] of neonatal sepsis deaths are caused by meropenem-resistant K. pneumoniae. Globally, we estimate that maternal vaccination could avert 80,258 [CrI: 18,084 to 189,040] neonatal deaths and 399,015 [CrI: 334,523 to 485,442] neonatal sepsis cases yearly worldwide, accounting for more than 3.40% [CrI: 0.75 to 8.01] of all neonatal deaths. The largest relative benefits are in Africa (Sierra Leone, Mali, Niger) and South-East Asia (Bangladesh) where vaccination could avert over 6% of all neonatal deaths. Nevertheless, our modeling only considers country-level trends in K. pneumoniae neonatal sepsis deaths and is unable to consider within-country variability in bacterial prevalence that may impact the projected burden of sepsis.ConclusionsA K. pneumoniae maternal vaccine could have widespread, sustained global benefits as AMR in K. pneumoniae continues to increase

The relationship between procedural volume and patient outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: The relationship between procedural volume and outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is contentious, with previous reviews suggesting an inverse volume-outcome relationship. The aim of this study was to systematically review contemporary evidence to re-examine this relationship. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the relationship between PCI procedural volume (both at hospital- and operator-levels) and outcomes in adults. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were complications, healthcare utilisation and process outcomes. Searches were conducted from 1 January 2008 to 28 May 2019. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using 'Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations' (GRADE). Screening, data extraction, quality appraisal and GRADE assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results: Of 1,154 unique records retrieved, 22 observational studies with 6,432,265 patients were included. No significant association was found between total PCI hospital volume and mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-1.03, I 2 = 86%). A temporal trend from significant to non-significant pooled effect estimates was observed. The pooled effect estimate for mortality was found to be significantly in favour of high-volume operators for total PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.94, I 2 = 93%), and for high-volume hospitals for primary PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.94, I 2 = 78%). Overall, GRADE certainty of evidence was 'very low'. There were mixed findings for secondary outcomes. Conclusions: A volume-outcome relationship may exist in certain situations, although this relationship appears to be attenuating with time, and there is 'very low' certainty of evidence. While volume might be important, it should not be the only standard used to define an acceptable PCI service and a broader evaluation of quality metrics should be considered that encompass patient experience and clinical outcomes.  Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42019125288.</p

Data from: Quantifying patient preferences for symptomatic breast clinic referral: a decision analysis study

Objectives: Decision analysis study that incorporates patient preferences and probability estimates to investigate the impact of women’s preferences for referral or an alternative strategy of watchful waiting if faced with symptoms that could be due to breast cancer. Setting: Community-based study. Participants: Asymptomatic women aged 30-60 years. Interventions: Participants were presented with 11 health scenarios that represent the possible consequences of symptomatic breast problems. Participants were asked the risk of death that they were willing to take in order to avoid the health scenario using the standard gamble (SG) utility method. This process was repeated for all 11 health scenarios. Formal decision analysis for the preferred individual decision was then estimated for each participant. Primary outcome measure: The preferred diagnostic strategy, either watchful waiting or referral to a breast clinic. Sensitivity analysis was used to examine how each varied according to changes in the probabilities of the health scenarios. Results: A total of 35 participants completed the interviews, with median age 41 years (Interquartile range 35 to 47 years). The majority of the study sample were employed (n=32, 91.4%), with a third-level (university) education (n=32, 91.4%) and with knowledge of someone with breast cancer (n=30, 85.7%). When individual preferences were accounted for, 25 (71.4%) patients preferred watchful waiting to referral for triple assessment as their preferred initial diagnostic strategy. Sensitivity analysis shows that referral for triple assessment becomes the dominant strategy at the upper probability estimate (18%) of breast cancer in the community. Conclusions: Watchful waiting is an acceptable strategy for most women who present to their GP with breast symptoms. These findings suggest that current referral guidelines should take more explicit account of women’s preferences in relation in terms of the initial diagnostic strategy for symptomatic breast problems