Technologies for the diagnosis of angle closure glaucoma (ACE): protocol of a prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional diagnostic study

INTRODUCTION: Angle-closure is responsible for half of all glaucoma blindness globally. Patients with suspected glaucoma require assessment of the drainage angle by an experienced clinician. The goal of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of two non-contact tests, anterior segment OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography) (AS-OCT) and limbal anterior chamber depth for patients referred to hospital with suspected angle closure compared with gonioscopy by ophthalmologist. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Study design: prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study. INCLUSION CRITERIA: adults referred from community optometry to hospital with suspected angle closure. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Sensitivity and specificity. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Positive/negative likelihood ratios, concordance, cost-effectiveness, proportion of patients requiring subsequent clinical assessment by ophthalmologist. SAMPLE SIZE: 600 individuals who have been referred with suspected angle closure from primary care (community optometry). We will have a 95% probability of detecting the true sensitivity of either test to within ±3.5% based on a sensitivity of 90%. The study would also have a 95% probability of detecting the true specificity of either test to within ±5%, assuming a specificity of 75%. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical Review Board approval was obtained. REC reference: 22/LO/0885. Our findings will be disseminated to those involved in eye care services. We will have a knowledge exchange event at the end of the study, published via the Health Technology Assessment web page and in specialist journals. The results will be presented at professional conferences and directly to patients via patient group meetings and the Glaucoma UK charity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15115867

You know that I love you no other will do

The song or recitation narrates the event of the composer's fight with a close friend Michael Jim of Renews and its quick resolutio

PAlliative Care in chronic Kidney diSease: the PACKS study—quality of life, decision making, costs and impact on carers in people managed without dialysis

BACKGROUND: The number of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease opting for conservative management rather than dialysis is unknown but likely to be growing as increasingly frail patients with advanced renal disease present to renal services. Conservative kidney management includes ongoing medical input and support from a multidisciplinary team. There is limited evidence concerning patient and carer experience of this choice. This study will explore quality of life, symptoms, cognition, frailty, performance decision making, costs and impact on carers in people with advanced chronic kidney disease managed without dialysis and is funded by the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, longitudinal study, patients will be recruited in the UK, by renal research nurses, once they have made the decision not to embark on dialysis. Carers will be asked to ‘opt-in’ with consent from patients. The approach includes longitudinal quantitative surveys of quality of life, symptoms, decision making and costs for patients and quality of life and costs for carers, with questionnaires administered quarterly over 12 months. Additionally, the decision making process will be explored via qualitative interviews with renal physicians/clinical nurse specialists. DISCUSSION: The study is designed to capture patient and carer profiles when conservative kidney management is implemented, and understand trajectories of care-receiving and care-giving with the aim of optimising palliative care for this population. It will explore the interactions that lead to clinical care decisions and the impact of these decisions on informal carers with the intention of improving clinical outcomes for patients and the experiences of care givers

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health