XLIX. Discours

BackgroundAn online weight management intervention (POWeR+) combined with a small amount of primary care healthcare practitioner support is effective in helping patients to lose weight, but little is known about how practitioners interact with the POWeR+ intervention or their experiences of providing support for patients using POWeR+. The aim of this study was to explore practitioners’ usage of POWeR+ and their experiences of providing support to patients using POWeR+. MethodsSet within a randomised controlled trial of POWeR+, practitioners’ usage of POWeR+ was automatically captured and a qualitative process analysis was conducted employing semi-structured telephone interviews with practitioners who provided support to patients using POWeR+. The usage analysis captured how 54 practitioners used the POWeR+ intervention. Thirteen telephone interviews explored practitioners’ experiences of using POWeR+ and providing patients with face-to-face or remote (email and telephone) support. Interview data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. ResultsUsage analysis indicated that almost all practitioners engaged with POWeR+. Pages which displayed patients’ progress and allowed practitioners to email patients were used the most. Practitioners found POWeR+ straightforward and easy to use. Some practitioners preferred providing support face-to-face, which they enjoyed more than remote support. A small number of nurses found providing non-directive support using the CARe approach (Congratulate, Ask, Remind) challenging, feeling it was the opposite of their normal approach. POWeR+ enabled practitioners to raise the topic of weight loss with patients, and POWeR+ was viewed as a superior alternative to existing weight management support which was limited in most practices. Still some practitioners found it difficult to fit providing support into their busy schedules. ConclusionsOverall, practitioners engaged well with POWeR+ and perceived providing patients with support whilst using POWeR+ as acceptable and feasible. CARe provides a potentially useful model for how practitioners can combine human and digital support in a cost-effective way, which could be useful for the management of other conditions. Some potential barriers to implementation were identified, which allowed modification of POWeR+. The findings suggest that implementing this cost-effective online weight management intervention in Primary Care would be feasible and acceptable to practitioners.</p

Exploring weight loss services in primary care and staff views on using a web-based programme

Although primary care staff felt they should deliver weight loss services, low levels of faith in the efficacy of current treatments resulted in provision of under-resourced and 'ad hoc' services. Integration of a web-based weight loss programme that promotes service evaluation and provides a cost-effective option for supporting patients may encourage practices to invest more in weight management service

Randomised controlled feasibility trial of a web-based weight management intervention with nurse support for obese patients in primary care

&lt;b&gt;Background&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; There is a need for cost-effective weight management interventions that primary care can deliver to reduce the morbidity caused by obesity. Automated web-based interventions might provide a solution, but evidence suggests that they may be ineffective without additional human support. The main aim of this study was to carry out a feasibility trial of a web-based weight management intervention in primary care, comparing different levels of nurse support, to determine the optimal combination of web-based and personal support to be tested in a full trial.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Methods&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; This was an individually randomised four arm parallel non-blinded trial, recruiting obese patients in primary care. Following online registration, patients were randomly allocated by the automated intervention to either usual care, the web-based intervention only, or the web-based intervention with either basic nurse support (3 sessions in 3 months) or regular nurse support (7 sessions in 6 months). The main outcome measure (intended as the primary outcome for the main trial) was weight loss in kg at 12 months. As this was a feasibility trial no statistical analyses were carried out, but we present means, confidence intervals and effect sizes for weight loss in each group, uptake and retention, and completion of intervention components and outcome measures.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Results&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; All randomised patients were included in the weight loss analyses (using Last Observation Carried Forward). At 12 months mean weight loss was: usual care group (n = 43) 2.44 kg; web-based only group (n = 45) 2.30 kg; basic nurse support group (n = 44) 4.31 kg; regular nurse support group (n = 47) 2.50 kg. Intervention effect sizes compared with usual care were: d = 0.01 web-based; d = 0.34 basic nurse support; d = 0.02 regular nurse support. Two practices deviated from protocol by providing considerable weight management support to their usual care patients.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;b&gt;Conclusions&lt;/b&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; This study demonstrated the feasibility of delivering a web-based weight management intervention supported by practice nurses in primary care, and suggests that the combination of the web-based intervention with basic nurse support could provide an effective solution to weight management support in a primary care context

Editor's Choice - Bypass versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Prospective Cohort Study and the Generalisability of the BASIL-2 Randomised Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE: The Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg-2 (BASIL-2) randomised controlled trial has shown that, for patients with chronic limb threatening ischaemia (CLTI) who require an infrapopliteal (IP) revascularisation a vein bypass (VB) first revascularisation strategy led to a 35% increased risk of major amputation or death when compared with a best endovascular treatment (BET) first revascularisation strategy. The study aims are to place the BASIL-2 trial within the context of the CLTI patient population as a whole and to investigate the generalisability of the BASIL-2 outcome data.METHODS: This was an observational, single centre prospective cohort study. Between 24 June 2014 and 31 July 2018, the BASIL Prospective Cohort Study (PCS) was performed which used BASIL-2 trial case record forms to document the characteristics, initial and subsequent management, and outcomes of 471 consecutive CLTI patients admitted to an academic vascular centre. Ethical approval was obtained, and all patients provided fully informed written consent. Follow up data were censored on 14 December 2022.RESULTS: Of the 238 patients who required an infrainguinal revascularisation, 75 (32%) had either IP bypass (39 patients) or IP BET (36 patients) outside BASIL-2. Seventeen patients were initially randomised to BASIL-2. A further three patients who did not have an IP revascularisation as their initial management were later randomised in BASIL-2. Therefore, 95/471 (20%) of patients had IP revascularisation (16% outside, 4% inside BASIL-2). Differences in amputation free survival, overall survival, and limb salvage between IP bypass and IP BET performed outside BASIL-2 were not subject to hypothesis testing due to the small sample size. Reasons for non-randomisation into the trial were numerous, but often due to anatomical and technical considerations.CONCLUSION: CLTI patients who required an IP revascularisation procedure and were subsequently randomised into BASIL-2 accounted for a small subset of the CLTI population as a whole. For a wide range of patient, limb, anatomical and operational reasons, most patients in this cohort were deemed unsuitable for randomisation in BASIL-2. The results of BASIL-2 should be interpreted in this context.</p

Scoping reviews: the PAGER framework for improving the quality of reporting

Literature reviews generally analyse and synthesis the evidence (or lack thereof) in a particular topic area and they are an increasingly popular form of scholarly activity. The scoping review is a popular literature review approach that has been adopted across the social and health sciences over the last fifteen years. With this upsurge in use, differences of opinion about how to analyse and report scoping reviews has also grown. Drawing on work carrying out a scoping review on oral health and child maltreatment, we put forward a structured approach to analysis and reporting of such reviews: the PAGER (Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations) framework. In this article, we reflect on the strengths and limitations of the framework, drawing on examples, laying out the methodological processes, and making suggestions as to how it might improve reporting. The article makes a contribution to efforts that seek to improve the reporting and utility of scoping reviews in health and social research

Parasitic Disease Surveillance, Mississippi, USA

Surveillance for soil-transmitted helminths, strongyloidiasis, cryptosporidiosis, and giardiasis was conducted in Mississippi, USA. PCR performed on 224 fecal samples for all soil-transmitted helminths and on 370 samples for only Necator americanus and Strongyloides stercoralis identified 1 S. stercoralis infection. Seroprevalences were 8.8% for Toxocara, 27.4% for Cryptosporidium, 5.7% for Giardia, and 0.2% for Strongyloides parasites

Parasitic Infection Surveillance in Mississippi Delta Children

Some recent studies suggest ongoing transmission of parasitic diseases in the American South; however, surveys in Mississippi children are lacking. We enrolled 166 children (median age 8 years, range 4–13 years) from the Mississippi Delta region and carried out multi-parallel real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for Necator americanus, Ascaris lumbricoides, and Strongyloides stercoralis on their stool samples. Dried blood spots were obtained for multiplex serology antibody detection. Of 166 children, all reported having flushable toilets, 11% had soil exposure, and 34% had a pet dog or cat. None had prior diagnosis or treatment of parasitic disease. Multi-parallel real-time PCRs were negative on the 89 stool DNA extracts available for testing. Dried blood spot testing of all 166 children determined the seroprevalence of IgG antibodies to Toxocara spp. (3.6%), Cryptosporidium (2.4%), S. stercoralis, Fasciola hepatica, and Giardia duodenalis (all 0%). In conclusion, parasitic infections and exposure were scarce in this population. Larger studies of at-risk populations are needed

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations