A quantitative PCR (TaqMan) assay for pathogenic Leptospira spp

BACKGROUND: Leptospirosis is an emerging infectious disease. The differential diagnosis of leptospirosis is difficult due to the varied and often "flu like" symptoms which may result in a missed or delayed diagnosis. There are over 230 known serovars in the genus Leptospira. Confirmatory serological diagnosis of leptospirosis is usually made using the microscopic agglutination test (MAT) which relies on the use of live cultures as the source of antigen, often performed using a panel of antigens representative of local serovars. Other techniques, such as the enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and slide agglutination test (SAT), can detect different classes of antibody but may be subject to false positive reactions and require confirmation of these results by the MAT. METHODS: The polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has been used to detect a large number of microorganisms, including those of clinical significance. The sensitivity of PCR often precludes the need for isolation and culture, thus making it ideal for the rapid detection of organisms involved in acute infections. We employed real-time (quantitative) PCR using TaqMan chemistry to detect leptospires in clinical and environmental samples. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The PCR assay can be applied to either blood or urine samples and does not rely on the isolation and culture of the organism. Capability exists for automation and high throughput testing in a clinical laboratory. It is specific for Leptospira and may discriminate pathogenic and non-pathogenic species. The limit of detection is as low as two cells

Nurse delivered Sleep Restriction Therapy for adults with Insomnia Disorder: process evaluation

Background: Sleep Restriction Therapy (SRT) is a behavioural therapy for insomnia. Aim: To conduct a process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial comparing SRT delivered by primary care nurses plus sleep hygiene booklet with sleep hygiene booklet only for adults with Insomnia Disorder. Design and setting: Mixed methods process evaluation. Methods: We used semi-structured interviews of a purposive sample of patients receiving SRT, practice nurses delivering it, and general practitioners (GPs) or practice managers. Qualitative data were explored using Framework Analysis, and integrated with nurse comments and quantitative data, including baseline Insomnia Severity Index score and serial sleep efficiency outcomes to investigate relationships between these. Results: We interviewed 16 patients, 13 nurses, 6 practice managers and 1 GP. Patients had no previous experience of behavioural therapy, needed flexible appointment times, and preferred face-to-face consultations; nurses felt prepared to deliver SRT, accommodating patient concerns, tailoring therapy, and negotiating sleep timings, despite treatment complexity and delays between training and intervention delivery. We explored how the intervention produced change, including patient and nurse interactions and patient responses to SRT. Difficulties maintaining SRT, negative attitudes towards treatment, and low self-efficacy were highlighted. Contextual factors, including freeing GP time, time constraints and conflicting priorities for nurses, with suggestions for alternative delivery options. Participants who found SRT a positive process showed improvements in sleep efficiency, whilst those that struggled did not. Conclusion: SRT was successfully delivered by practice nurses and was generally well received by patients, despite some difficulties delivering and applying the intervention in practice

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy for insomnia in primary care (HABIT): a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

Background Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented. Methods We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563). Findings Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19–88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference –3·05, 95% CI –3·83 to –2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d –0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention. Interpretation Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy for insomnia in primary care (HABIT): a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented. Methods We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563). Findings Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19–88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference –3·05, 95% CI –3·83 to –2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d –0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention. Interpretation Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder. Funding The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme