Predicting 30-day mortality in patients with sepsis: an exploratory analysis of process of care and patient characteristics

Background Sepsis represents a significant public health burden, costing the NHS £2.5 billion annually, with 35% mortality in 2006. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate risk factors predictive of 30-day mortality amongst patients with sepsis in Nottingham. Methods Data were collected prospectively from adult patients with sepsis in Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust as part of an on-going quality improvement project between November 2011 and March 2014. Patients admitted to critical care with the diagnosis of sepsis were included in the study. In all, 97 separate variables were investigated for their association with 30-day mortality. Variables included patient demographics, symptoms of systemic inflammatory response syndrome, organ dysfunction or tissue hypoperfusion, locations of early care, source of sepsis and time to interventions. Results A total of 455 patients were included in the study. Increased age (adjOR = 1.05 95%CI = 1.03–1.07 p < 0.001), thrombocytopenia (adjOR = 3.10 95%CI = 1.23–7.82 p = 0.016), hospital-acquired sepsis (adjOR = 3.34 95%CI = 1.78–6.27 p < 0.001), increased lactate concentration (adjOR = 1.16 95%CI = 1.06–1.27 p = 0.001), remaining hypotensive after vasopressors (adjOR = 3.89 95%CI = 1.26–11.95 p = 0.02) and mottling (adjOR = 3.80 95%CI = 1.06–13.55 p = 0.04) increased 30-day mortality odds. Conversely, fever (adjOR = 0.46 95%CI = 0.28-0.75 p = 0.002), fluid refractory hypotension (adjOR = 0.29 95%CI = 0.10–0.87 p = 0.027) and being diagnosed in surgical wards (adjOR = 0.35 95%CI = 0.15–0.81 p = 0.015) were protective. Treatment timeliness were not significant factors. Conclusion Several important predictors of 30-day mortality were found by this research. Retrospective analysis of our sepsis data has revealed mortality predictors that appear to be more patient-related than intervention-specific. With this information, care can be improved for those identified most at risk of death

Organic Solvent Exposure and Depressive Symptoms Among Licensed Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural Health Study

Purpose Although organic solvents are often used in agricultural operations, neurotoxic effects of solvent exposure have not been extensively studied among farmers. The current analysis examined associations between questionnaire-based metrics of organic solvent exposure and depressive symptoms among farmers. Methods Results from 692 male Agricultural Health Study participants were analyzed. Solvent type and exposure duration were assessed by questionnaire. An “ever-use” variable and years of use categories were constructed for exposure to gasoline, paint/lacquer thinner, petroleum distillates, and any solvent. Depressive symptoms were ascertained with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D); scores were analyzed separately as continuous (0–60) and dichotomous (≥16) variables. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used to estimate crude and adjusted associations between measures of solvent exposure and CES-D score. Results Forty-one percent of the sample reported some solvent exposure. The mean CES-D score was 6.5 (SD 6.4; median 5; range 0–44); 92% of the sample had a score below 16. After adjusting for covariates, statistically significant associations were observed between ever-use of any solvent, long duration of any solvent exposure, ever-use of gasoline, ever-use of petroleum distillates, and short duration of petroleum distillate exposure and continuous CES-D score (p \u3c 0.05). Although nearly all associations were positive, fewer statistically significant associations were observed between metrics of solvent exposure and the dichotomized CES-D variable. Conclusions Solvent exposures were associated with depressive symptoms among farmers. Efforts to limit exposure to organic solvents may reduce the risk of depressive symptoms among farmers

Best emollients for eczema (BEE) – comparing four types of emollients in children with eczema: protocol for randomised trial and nested qualitative study

Introduction Atopic dermatitis/eczema affects around 20% of children and is characterised by inflamed, dry, itchy skin. Guidelines recommend ‘leave-on’ emollients that are applied directly to the skin to add or trap moisture and used regularly, they can soothe, enhance the skin barrier and may prevent disease ‘flares’. However, the suitability of the many different emollients varies between people and there is little evidence to help prescribers and parents and carers decide which type to try first.Methods and analysis Design: pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised, parallel group superiority trial of four types of emollient (lotions, creams, gel or ointments).Setting: general practitioner surgeries in England.Participants: children aged over 6 months and less than 12 years with mild-to-severe eczema and no known sensitivity to study emollients.Interventions: study-approved lotion, cream, gel or ointment as the only leave-on emollient for 16 weeks, with directions to apply twice daily and as required. Other treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, used as standard care.Follow-up: 52 weeks.Primary outcome: validated patient-orientated eczema measure measured weekly for 16 weeks.Secondary outcomes: eczema signs (Eczema Area Severity Index) by masked researcher, treatment use, parent satisfaction, adverse events, child and family quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility 9D and Dermatitis Family Impact).Sample size: 520 participants (130 per group).Analysis: intention-to-treat using linear mixed models for repeated measures.Nested qualitative study: audio-recording of sample of baseline appointments and up to 60 interviews with participants at 4 and 16 weeks, interviews to be transcribed and analysed thematically.Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval granted by the NHS REC (South West - Central Bristol Research Ethics Committee 17/SW/0089). Findings will be presented at conferences, published in open-access peer-reviewed journals and the study website; and summaries shared with key stakeholders

Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: The TRIUMPH cluster RCT

Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm ( = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm ( = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Effectiveness and safety of lotion, cream, gel, and ointment emollients for childhood eczema: a pragmatic, randomised, phase 4, superiority trial

Background: To our knowledge, there are no trials comparing emollients commonly used for childhood eczema. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of the four main emollient types: lotions, creams, gels, and ointments. Methods: We did a pragmatic, individually randomised, parallel group, phase 4 superiority trial in 77 general practice surgeries in England. Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema (Patient Orientated Eczema Measure [POEM] score >2) were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1; stratified by centre and minimised by baseline POEM score and age, using a web-based system) to lotions, creams, gels, or ointments. Clinicians and parents were unmasked. The initial emollient prescription was for 500 g or 500 mL, to be applied twice daily and as required. Subsequent prescriptions were determined by the family. The primary outcome was parent-reported eczema severity over 16 weeks (weekly POEM), with analysis as randomly assigned regardless of adherence, adjusting for baseline and stratification variables. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned participants. This trial was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN84540529. Findings: Between Jan 19, 2018, and Oct 31, 2019, 12 417 children were assessed for eligibility, 550 of whom were randomly assigned to a treatment group (137 to lotion, 140 to cream, 135 to gel, and 138 to ointment). The numbers of participants who contributed at least two POEM scores and were included in the primary analysis were 131 in the lotion group, 137 in the cream group, 130 in the gel group, and 126 in the ointment group. Baseline median age was 4 years (IQR 2–8); 255 (46%) participants were girls, 295 (54%) were boys; 473 (86%) participants were White; and the mean POEM score was 9·3 (SD 5·5). There was no difference in eczema severity between emollient types over 16 weeks (global p value=0·77), with adjusted POEM pairwise differences of: cream versus lotion 0·42 (95% CI −0·48 to 1·32), gel versus lotion 0·17 (−0·75 to 1·09), ointment versus lotion −0·01 (−0·93 to 0·91), gel versus cream −0·25 (−1·15 to 0·65), ointment versus cream −0·43 (−1·34 to 0·48), and ointment versus gel −0·18 (−1·11 to 0·75). This result remained unchanged following multiple imputation, sensitivity, and subgroup analyses. The total number of adverse events did not significantly differ between the treatment groups (lotions 49 [36%], creams 54 [39%], gels 54 [40%], and ointments 48 [35%]; p=0·79), although stinging was less common with ointments (12 [9%] of 138 participants) than lotions (28 [20%] of 137), creams (24 [17%] of 140), or gels (25 [19%] of 135). Interpretation: We found no difference in effectiveness between the four main types of emollients for childhood eczema. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollients to find one that they are more likely to use effectively. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

We’ve Reddit, have you?: What librarians can learn from a site full of memes

Also online at: http://crln.acrl.org/content/74/10/518.full.pdf+htm