Community resilience : a policy tool for local government?

In many countries, local government has been a prime target of austerity measures. In response, local authorities are exploring a new repertoire of policy approaches in a bid to provide more with less. In England, local authorities have been drawn to community resilience as a pragmatic response to the challenge of deploying shrinking resources to support communities exposed to social and economic disruption. This application of resilience thinking is not without its challenges. It demands a working definition of community resilience that recognises the potential for communities to prove resilient to shocks and disruptions, but avoids blaming them for their predicament. There is also the practical challenge of developing and targeting interventions to promote and protect resilience. This paper sets out to explore these issues and establish the potential utility of community resilience as a policy tool through case study analysis in the city of Sheffield

Promotion of rapid testing for HIV in primary care (RHIVA2): a cluster-randomised controlled trial

Department of Health, NHS City and Hackney; (ClinicalTrials.gov: ISRCTN63473710)

Heatwave planning: the role of the community in co-producing resilience

Drawing on a thematic analysis of relevant policy documents, the aim of this paper is to comment on an apparent disconnect between two associated contemporary UK policy areas: planning for heatwaves and community resilience. Regional and national policy documents that plan for heatwaves in the UK tend to focus on institutional emergency responses and infrastructure development. In these documents, although communities are mentioned, they are understood as passive recipients of resilience that is provided by active institutions. Meanwhile, contemporary discussion about community resilience highlights the potential for involving communities in planning for and responding to emergencies (although the concept is also the subject of critique). Within this context, the paper proposes that – through engagement with the ‘community resilience’ policy agenda and its critique – effort should be made to articulate and realise greater participation by individuals, and voluntary and community sector groups in heatwave preparation, planning and response

Validation of a Novel Multivariate Method of Defining HIV-Associated Cognitive Impairment

Background. The optimum method of defining cognitive impairment in virally suppressed people living with HIV is unknown. We evaluated the relationships between cognitive impairment, including using a novel multivariate method (NMM), patientreported outcome measures (PROMs), and neuroimaging markers of brain structure across 3 cohorts.Methods. Differences in the prevalence of cognitive impairment, PROMs, and neuroimaging data from the COBRA, CHARTER, and POPPY cohorts (total n = 908) were determined between HIV-positive participants with and without cognitive impairment defined using the HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), global deficit score (GDS), and NMM criteria.Results. The prevalence of cognitive impairment varied by up to 27% between methods used to define impairment (eg, 48% for HAND vs 21% for NMM in the CHARTER study). Associations between objective cognitive impairment and subjective cognitive complaints generally were weak. Physical and mental health summary scores (SF-36) were lowest for NMM-defined impairment (P<.05). There were no differences in brain volumes or cortical thickness between participants with and without cognitive impairment defined using the HAND and GDS measures. In contrast, those identified with cognitive impairment by the NMM had reduced mean cortical thickness in both hemispheres (P<.05), as well as smaller brain volumes (P<.01). The associations with measures of white matter microstructure and brain-predicted age generally were weaker.Conclusion. Different methods of defining cognitive impairment identify different people with varying symptomatology and measures of brain injury. Overall, NMM-defined impairment was associated with most neuroimaging abnormalities and poorer selfreported health status. This may be due to the statistical advantage of using a multivariate approach

Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700

Level of agreement between frequently used cardiovascular risk calculators in people living with HIV

Objectives The aim of the study was to describe agreement between the QRISK2, Framingham and Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti‐HIV Drugs (D:A:D) cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculators in a large UK study of people living with HIV (PLWH). Methods PLWH enrolled in the Pharmacokinetic and Clinical Observations in People over Fifty (POPPY) study without a prior CVD event were included in this study. QRISK2, Framingham CVD and the full and reduced D:A:D CVD scores were calculated; participants were stratified into ‘low’ ( 20%) categories for each. Agreement between scores was assessed using weighted kappas and Bland–Altman plots. Results The 730 included participants were predominantly male (636; 87.1%) and of white ethnicity (645; 88.5%), with a median age of 53 [interquartile range (IQR) 49–59] years. The median calculated 10‐year CVD risk was 11.9% (IQR 6.8–18.4%), 8.9% (IQR 4.6–15.0%), 8.5% (IQR 4.8–14.6%) and 6.9% (IQR 4.1–11.1%) when using the Framingham, QRISK2, and full and reduced D:A:D scores, respectively. Agreement between the different scores was generally moderate, with the highest level of agreement being between the Framingham and QRISK2 scores (weighted kappa = 0.65) but with most other kappa coefficients in the 0.50–0.60 range. Conclusions Estimates of predicted 10‐year CVD risk obtained with commonly used CVD risk prediction tools demonstrate, in general, only moderate agreement among PLWH in the UK. While further validation with clinical endpoints is required, our findings suggest that care should be taken when interpreting any score alone

Clinical outcomes and response to treatment of patients receiving topical treatments for pyoderma gangrenosum: a prospective cohort study

Background: pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is an uncommon dermatosis with a limited evidence base for treatment. Objective: to estimate the effectiveness of topical therapies in the treatment of PG. Methods: prospective cohort study of UK secondary care patients with a clinical diagnosis of PG suitable for topical treatment (recruited July 2009 to June 2012). Participants received topical therapy following normal clinical practice (mainly Class I-III topical corticosteroids, tacrolimus 0.03% or 0.1%). Primary outcome: speed of healing at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes: proportion healed by 6 months; time to healing; global assessment; inflammation; pain; quality-of-life; treatment failure and recurrence. Results: Sixty-six patients (22 to 85 years) were enrolled. Clobetasol propionate 0.05% was the most commonly prescribed therapy. Overall, 28/66 (43.8%) of ulcers healed by 6 months. Median time-to-healing was 145 days (95% CI: 96 days, ∞). Initial ulcer size was a significant predictor of time-to-healing (hazard ratio 0.94 (0.88;80 1.00); p = 0.043). Four patients (15%) had a recurrence. Limitations: No randomised comparator Conclusion: Topical therapy is potentially an effective first-line treatment for PG that avoids possible side effects associated with systemic therapy. It remains unclear whether more severe disease will respond adequately to topical therapy alone

Validation of a novel multivariate method of defining HIV-associated cognitive impairment

Background. The optimum method of defining cognitive impairment in virally suppressed people living with HIV is unknown. We evaluated the relationships between cognitive impairment, including using a novel multivariate method (NMM), patient– reported outcome measures (PROMs), and neuroimaging markers of brain structure across 3 cohorts. Methods. Differences in the prevalence of cognitive impairment, PROMs, and neuroimaging data from the COBRA, CHARTER, and POPPY cohorts (total n = 908) were determined between HIV-positive participants with and without cognitive impairment defined using the HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND), global deficit score (GDS), and NMM criteria. Results. The prevalence of cognitive impairment varied by up to 27% between methods used to define impairment (eg, 48% for HAND vs 21% for NMM in the CHARTER study). Associations between objective cognitive impairment and subjective cognitive complaints generally were weak. Physical and mental health summary scores (SF-36) were lowest for NMM-defined impairment (P < .05). There were no differences in brain volumes or cortical thickness between participants with and without cognitive impairment defined using the HAND and GDS measures. In contrast, those identified with cognitive impairment by the NMM had reduced mean cortical thickness in both hemispheres (P < .05), as well as smaller brain volumes (P < .01). The associations with measures of white matter microstructure and brain-predicted age generally were weaker. Conclusion. Different methods of defining cognitive impairment identify different people with varying symptomatology and measures of brain injury. Overall, NMM-defined impairment was associated with most neuroimaging abnormalities and poorer selfreported health status. This may be due to the statistical advantage of using a multivariate approac

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707