6 research outputs found
Low-dose vitamin D3 supplementation does not affect natural regulatory T cell population but attenuates seasonal changes in T cell-produced IFN-Ī³: Results from the D-SIRe2 randomised controlled trial
Background: Seasonal variations have been reported for immune markers. However, the relative contributions of sunlight and vitamin D variability on such seasonal changes are unknown. Objective: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial tested whether daily 400 IU vitamin D3 supplementation affected short-term (12 weeks) and long-term (43 weeks) natural regulatory T cell (nTreg) populations in healthy participants. Design: 62 subjects were randomized equally to vitamin D versus placebo in March and assessed at baseline, April (4w), June (12w), September (25w) and January (43w). Circulating nTregs, ex vivo proliferation, IL-10 and IFN-Ī³ productions were measured. Vitamin D metabolites and sunlight exposure were also assessed. Results: Mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) increased from 35.8(SD 3.0) to 65.3(2.6) nmol/L in April and remained above 70 nmol/L with vitamin D supplementation, whereas it increased from 36.4(3.2) to 49.8(3.5) nmol/L in June to fall back to 39.6(3.5) nmol/L in January with placebo. Immune markers varied similarly between groups according to the season, but independently of 25(OH)D. For nTregs, the mean (%CD3+CD4+CD127lo cells (SEM)) nadir observed in March (2.9(0.1)%) peaked in September at 4.0(0.2)%. Mean T cell proliferation peaked in June (33156(1813) CPM) returning to the nadir in January (17965 (978) CPM), while IL-10 peaked in June and reached its nadir in September (median (IQR) of 262(283) to (121(194) pg/ml, respectively). Vitamin D attenuated the seasonal increase in IFN-Ī³ by ~28% with mean ng/ml (SEM) for placebo vs vitamin D, respectively, for April 12.5(1.4) vs 10.0(1.2) (p=0.02); June 13.9(1.3) vs 10.2(1.7) (p=0.02) and January 7.4(1.1) vs 6.0(1.1) (p=0.04). Conclusions: Daily low dose Vitamin D intake did not affect the nTregs population. There were seasonal variation in nTregs, proliferative response and cytokines, suggesting that environmental changes influence immune response, but the mechanism seems independent of vitamin D status. Vitamin D attenuated the seasonal change in T cell-produced IFN-Ī³, suggesting a decrease in effector response which could be associated with inflammation. Clinical trial identifier: ISRCTN 73114576 (https://www.isrctn.com
Exploring critical intervention features and trial processes in the evaluation of sensory integration therapy for autistic children
Background: We evaluated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of manualised sensory integration therapy (SIT) for autistic children with sensory processing difficulties in a two-arm randomised controlled trial. Trial processes and contextual factors which may have affected intervention outcomes were explored within a nested process evaluation. This paper details the process evaluation methods and results. We also discuss implications for evaluation of individual level, tailored interventions in similar populations. Methods: The process evaluation was conducted in line with Medical Research Council guidance. Recruitment, demographics, retention, adherence, and adverse effects are reported using descriptive statistics. Fidelity of intervention delivery is reported according to the intervention scoring manual. Qualitative interviews with therapists and carers were undertaken to explore the acceptability of the intervention and trial processes. Qualitative interviews with carers explored potential contamination. Results: Recruitment, reach and retention within the trial met expected thresholds. One hundred thirty-eight children and carers were recruited (92% of those screened and 53.5% of those who expressed an interest) with 77.5% retained at 6 months and 69.9% at 12 months post-randomisation. The intervention was delivered with structural and process fidelity with the majority (78.3%) receiving a āsufficient doseā of intervention. However, there was considerable individual variability in the receipt of sessions. Carers and therapists reported that trial processes were generally acceptable though logistical challenges such as appointment times, travel and COVID restrictions were frequent barriers to receiving the intervention. No adverse effects were reported. Conclusions: The process evaluation was highly valuable in identifying contextual factors that could impact the effectiveness of this individualised intervention. Rigorous evaluations of interventions for autistic children are important, especially given the limitations such as limited sample sizes and short-term follow-up as faced by previous research. One of the challenges lies in the variability of outcomes considered important by caregivers, as each autistic child faces unique challenges. It is crucial to consider the role of parents or other caregivers in facilitating access to these interventions and how this may impact effectiveness. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. August 11, 2016
Developing a model for decision-making around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic: Qualitative results from the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients (PEACH Study)
Objective: To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic.
Design: Semistructured qualitative interview study.
Setting: National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales.
Participants: Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales.
Method: Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions.
Results: During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed.
Conclusion: This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic
Procalcitonin evaluation of antibiotic use in COVID-19 hospitalised patients (PEACH): protocol for a retrospective observational study
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although COVID-19 is a viral illness, many patients admitted to hospital are prescribed antibiotics, based on concerns that COVID-19 patients may experience secondary bacterial infections, and the assumption that they may respond well to antibiotic therapy. This has led to an increase in antibiotic use for some hospitalised patients at a time when accumulating antibiotic resistance is a major global threat to health. Procalcitonin (PCT) is an inflammatory marker measured in blood samples and widely recommended to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. The PEACH study will compare patient outcomes from English and Welsh hospitals that used PCT testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with those from hospitals not using PCT. It will help to determine whether, and how, PCT testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. PEACH is a retrospective observational cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards in England and Wales. The primary objective is to measure the difference in antibiotic use between COVID-19 patients who did or did not have PCT testing at the time of diagnosis. Secondary objectives include measuring differences in length of stay, mortality, intensive care unit admission, and resistant bacterial infections between these groups
Sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory processing difficulties : the SenITA RCT
Background: Carers report unmet need for occupational therapy services addressing sensory difficulties in autism, yet insufficient evidence exists to recommend a therapeutic approach.
Objectives: Our aim was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory difficulties across behavioural, functional and quality-of-life outcomes.
Design: We carried out a parallel-group randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and a process evaluation. Randomisation utilised random permuted blocks.
Setting and participants: Children were recruited via services and self-referral in Wales and England. Inclusion criteria were having an autism diagnosis, being in mainstream primary education and having definite/probable sensory processing difficulties. Exclusion criteria were having current/previous sensory integration therapy and current applied behaviour analysis therapy.
Intervention: The intervention was manualised sensory integration therapy delivered over 26 weeks and the comparator was usual care. Outcomes: The primary outcome was problem behaviours (determined using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist), including irritability/agitation, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were adaptive behaviour, functioning and socialisation (using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales); carer stress (measured using the Autism Parenting Stress Index); quality of life (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and Carer Quality of Life); functional change (according to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure); sensory processing (determined using the Sensory Processing Measureā¢ at screening and at 6 months to examine mediation effects); and cost-effectiveness (assessed using the Client Service Receipt Inventory). Every effort was made to ensure that outcome assessors were blind to allocation.
Results: A total of 138 participants were randomised (n = 69 per group). Usual care was significantly different from the intervention, which was delivered with good fidelity and adherence and minimal contamination, and was associated with no adverse effects. Trial procedures and outcome measures were acceptable. Carers and therapists reported improvement in daily functioning. The primary analysis included 106 participants. There were no significant main effects of the intervention at 6 or 12 months. The adjusted mean difference between groups on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist ā irritability at 6 months post randomisation was 0.40 (95% confidence interval ā2.33 to 3.14; p = 0.77). Subgroup differences in irritability/agitation at 6 months were observed for sex of child (intervention Ć female = 6.42, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 12.85; p = 0.050) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (intervention Ć attention deficit hyperactivity disorder = ā6.77, 95% confidence interval ā13.55 to ā0.01; p = 0.050). There was an effect on carer stress at 6 months by region (intervention Ć South England = 7.01, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 13.56; p = 0.04) and other neurodevelopmental/genetic conditions (intervention Ć neurodevelopmental/genetic condition = ā9.53, 95% confidence interval ā18.08 to ā0.98; p = 0.030). Carer-rated goal performance and satisfaction increased across sessions (p < 0.001), with a mean change of 2.75 (95% confidence interval 2.14 to 3.37) for performance and a mean change of 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.63 to 4.40) for satisfaction. Health economic evaluation suggests that sensory integration therapy is not cost-effective compared with usual care alone. Limitations: Limitations included variability of the intervention setting (i.e. NHS vs. private), delay for some receiving therapy, an error in administration of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and no measurement of comparator arm goal performance.
Conclusions: The intervention did not demonstrate clinical benefit above standard care. Subgroup effects are hypothesis-generating only. The intervention is likely to be effective for individualised performance goals, although it is unclear whether effects were in addition to standard care or were maintained.
Future work: Further investigation of subgroup effects is needed.
Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440.
Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information
Additional file 1 of Exploring critical intervention features and trial processes in the evaluation of sensory integration therapy for autistic children
Additional file 1. Ayres Sensory Integrationā¢ Fidelity Measurec