Infected deep vein thrombophlebitis in people who inject drugs: missed opportunities and potential for alternative antimicrobial approaches.

Infected deep vein thrombophlebitis (i-DVT) in people who inject drugs (PWID) is a clinically challenging but poorly characterised disease. We undertook a retrospective observational study of 70 PWID presenting acutely with i-DVT to improve the clinical and microbiological characterisation of this disease. i-DVT was frequently associated with bacteraemia (59.1% patients with blood cultures obtained), groin abscesses (in 34.3%; of which 54.2% required surgical drainage), and septic pulmonary emboli (38.6%) requiring anticoagulation. Network analysis identified a cluster of patients presenting with respiratory symptoms but lacking typical DVT symptoms, more likely to have septic pulmonary emboli. A microbiologic diagnosis was frequently achieved (70%). Causative pathogens were predominantly gram-positive (S. aureus and streptococci, especially anginosus group), whereas gram-negative pathogens were identified very infrequently (in 6.1% of microbiological diagnoses). This suggests routine empiric therapy against gram-negative bacteria, though commonly administered, is not required. High rates of clinical cure (88.6%) were observed despite the complex nature of infections and independently of the highly variable intravenous and total antimicrobial durations received. There exists a rationale to devise pragmatic approaches to implement novel individualised treatment plans utilising oral antimicrobial therapy for i-DVT. Despite frequent healthcare interactions, opportunities to address HCV treatment and opioid substitution therapy were frequently missed during these acute admissions. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s15010-021-01725-3

Longitudinal study of local authority child and family social workers (Wave 3) Research Report

In 2018, the Department for Education (DfE) commissioned a consortium led by IFF Research, working with social work academics at Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Salford, to conduct a longitudinal study tracking the careers of local authority child and family social workers in England. This landmark study aimed to collect robust evidence on recruitment, retention and progression in child and family social work by tracking individuals over a five-year period. In Wave 3, new questions were added about the impacts of Covid-19 on child and family social workers’ workplace wellbeing, access to learning and development, flexible working, relationships with colleagues, and relationships with children, families and carers

Longitudinal study of local authority child and family social workers (Wave 2) Research report July 2020

The landmark new study aimed to collect robust evidence on recruitment, retention and progression in child and family social work by tracking individuals over a five-year period. In Wave 1, 5,621 local authority child and family social workers took part in the survey, comprising almost one in six of the population.1 This report covers the second year of the research project

Longitudinal study of local authority child and family social workers (Wave 1) Research report August 2019

In 2018, the Department for Education (DfE) commissioned a consortium led by IFF Research, working with social work academics at Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Salford, to conduct a major new longitudinal study tracking the careers of local authority child and family social workers in England over five years. The aim of this landmark new study is to collect robust evidence on recruitment, retention and progression in child and family social work. In particular it aims to establish a much stronger understanding of child and family social work recruitment issues, career pathways, choices and decisions and how these differ across different individual, job and employer characteristics

Quality of life in men living with advanced and localised prostate cancer: A United Kingdom population-wide patient-reported outcome study of 30,000 men

Background. Little is known about the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of men living with advanced prostate cancer. We report population-wide functional outcomes and HRQL in men with all stages of prostate cancer, and identify implications for healthcare delivery. Methods. Men alive 18-42 months after diagnosis of prostate cancer were identified through cancer registration data. A postal survey was administered which contained validated measures to assess a) functional outcomes (EPIC-26 plus use of interventions for sexual dysfunction) and b) generic HRQL (EQ-5D-5L & self-assessed health). Log-linear and binary logistic regression models were used to compare functional outcomes and HRQL across diagnostic stage and self-reported treatment groups. Findings. 35,823 (60.8%) men responded. Stage was known for 85.8%; 19,599 (63.8%) stage I/II, 7,209 (23.4%) stage III, 3,925 (12.8%) stage IV. Functional outcomes: Poor sexual function was common (81.0%), regardless of stage, and over half of men (55.8%) received no intervention for this. Differences in urinary and bowel morbidity were greater with respect to treatment than stage. In men treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), 30.7% reported moderate/big problems with hot flushes, 29.4% with lack of energy and 22.5% with weight gain. HRQL: Overall self-assessed health was similar in men with stage I-III disease, and whilst reduced in those with stage IV cancer, 23.5% with metastatic disease reported no problems on any EQ-5D dimension. Interpretation. Men diagnosed with advanced disease do not report markedly different HRQL outcomes to those diagnosed with localised disease, although substantial problems with hormonal function and fatigue are reported amongst men treated with ADT. Sexual dysfunction is common and the majority of men are not offered helpful intervention or support. Service improvements around sexual rehabilitation and measures to reduce the impact of ADT are required

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

‘Should I Stay or Should I Go’? The Experiences of Forty Social Workers in England Who Had Previously Indicated They Would Stay In or Leave Children and Families Social Work

This article is focused on the concern about the retention of child and family social workers in England. Retention of workers is seen as a major issue for the delivery of quality services for service users, stability of workforces and development of social work. The article reviews international studies in relation to retention identifying a gap in relation to studies that have followed up those who indicated they were going to leave child and family social work but were unable to say whether they acted on this intention or not. This study focuses on forty semi-structured interviews with child and family social workers in year 2 of a five-year longitudinal study half of whom had indicated they would remain or leave social work practice and followed them up to as whether they did so or not. The findings indicated that there were major similarities between those who left and those who stayed. However, the importance of the interaction of organisational, job role and individual factors provides organisations with opportunities to mitigate such challenging aspects of children and families social work so that their workers feel supported, and able to respond to these challenges positively