Review of the utilization of HEEPF – competitive projects for educational enhancement in the Egyptian medical sector

In Egypt, the medical sector has been facing the same problems that challenged the system of higher education in the past decades, mainly an increasing student enrollment, limited resources, and old governance and bylaws. These constraints and the escalating paucity of resources have had a major negative influence on quality of education. Consequently, thoughts of educational reform came forward in the form of competitive projects, which have attracted several institutes from the health sector to improve their educational performance. The aim of this paper is to review the share of the medical sector in the higher education enhancement project fund (HEEPF), its outcomes, sustainability, and to provide recommendations for keeping the momentum of reform pursuit in the future. The methodology included obtaining statistics pertaining to the medical sector in Egypt as regards colleges, students, and staff. We also reviewed the self-studies of the medical sector colleges, HEEPF projects reports, performance appraisal reports, and World Bank reports on HEEPF achievements in order to retrieve the required data. Results showed that medical sector had a large share of the HEEPF (28.5% of projects) as compared to its size (8% of student population). The projects covered 10 areas; the frequency distribution of which ranged between 4.4% (creation of new programs) to 97.8% (human resource development). In conclusion, educational enhancement in the medical sector in Egypt could be apparently achieved through the HEEPF competitive projects. A study of the long-term impact of these projects on the quality of education is recommende

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

This is the final version. Available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordData sharing: Qualifying researchers who wish to access our data should submit a proposal with a valuable research question. Proposals will be assessed by a committee formed from the trial management group, including senior statistical and clinical representation. Data will be shared in accordance with the data sharing policy of Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences.BACKGROUND: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. METHODS: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. INTERPRETATION: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Testing the short-term effectiveness of primary care referral to online weight loss programmes: A randomised controlled trial

Guidelines ask health professionals to offer brief advice to encourage weight loss for people living with obesity. We tested whether referral to one of three online programmes could lead to successful weight loss. A total of 528 participants aged ≥18 years with a body mass index of ≥30 kg/m2 were invited via a letter from their GP. Participants were randomised to one of three online weight loss programmes (NHS Weight Loss Plan, Rosemary Online or Slimming World Online) or to a control group receiving no intervention. Participants self-reported weight at baseline and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was weight change in each of the active intervention groups compared with control. We also compared the proportion of participants losing ≥5% or ≥10% of body weight. For Rosemary, Online mean weight loss was modestly greater than control (−1.5 kg [95% confidence interval (CI) −2.3 to −0.6]) and more than three times as many participants in this group lost ≥5% (relative risk [RR] = 3.64, 95% CI: 1.63–8.1). For Slimming World, mean weight loss was not significantly different from control (−0.8 kg [95%CI −1.7 to 0.1]), twice as many participants lost ≥5% (RR = 2.70, 1.17–6.23). There was no significant difference in weight loss for participants using the NHS Weight Loss Plan (−0.4 kg, [95% CI −1.3 to 0.5]), or the proportion losing ≥5% (RR = 2.09, 0.87–5.01). Only one of three online weight loss programmes was superior to no intervention and the effect size modest among participants living with obesity