Incidence, aetiology, and sequelae of viral meningitis in UK adults: a multicentre prospective observational cohort study

© 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license Background: Viral meningitis is increasingly recognised, but little is known about the frequency with which it occurs, or the causes and outcomes in the UK. We aimed to determine the incidence, causes, and sequelae in UK adults to improve the management of patients and assist in health service planning. Methods: We did a multicentre prospective observational cohort study of adults with suspected meningitis at 42 hospitals across England. Nested within this study, in the National Health Service (NHS) northwest region (now part of NHS England North), was an epidemiological study. Patients were eligible if they were aged 16 years or older, had clinically suspected meningitis, and either underwent a lumbar puncture or, if lumbar puncture was contraindicated, had clinically suspected meningitis and an appropriate pathogen identified either in blood culture or on blood PCR. Individuals with ventricular devices were excluded. We calculated the incidence of viral meningitis using data from patients from the northwest region only and used these data to estimate the population-standardised number of cases in the UK. Patients self-reported quality-of-life and neuropsychological outcomes, using the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L, the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and the Aldenkamp and Baker neuropsychological assessment schedule, for 1 year after admission. Findings: 1126 patients were enrolled between Sept 30, 2011, and Sept 30, 2014. 638 (57%) patients had meningitis: 231 (36%) cases were viral, 99 (16%) were bacterial, and 267 (42%) had an unknown cause. 41 (6%) cases had other causes. The estimated annual incidence of viral meningitis was 2·73 per 100 000 and that of bacterial meningitis was 1·24 per 100 000. The median length of hospital stay for patients with viral meningitis was 4 days (IQR 3–7), increasing to 9 days (6–12) in those treated with antivirals. Earlier lumbar puncture resulted in more patients having a specific cause identified than did those who had a delayed lumbar puncture. Compared with the age-matched UK population, patients with viral meningitis had a mean loss of 0·2 quality-adjusted life-years (SD 0·04) in that first year. Interpretation: Viruses are the most commonly identified cause of meningitis in UK adults, and lead to substantial long-term morbidity. Delays in getting a lumbar puncture and unnecessary treatment with antivirals were associated with longer hospital stays. Rapid diagnostics and rationalising treatments might reduce the burden of meningitis on health services. Funding: Meningitis Research Foundation and UK National Institute for Health Research

BSACI guideline for the set-up of penicillin allergy de-labelling services by non-allergists working in a hospital setting

The Standards of Care Committee of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI) and a committee of experts and key stakeholders have developed this guideline for the evaluation and testing of patients with an unsubstantiated label of penicillin allergy. The guideline is intended for UK clinicians who are not trained in allergy or immunology, but who wish to develop a penicillin allergy de-labelling service for their patients. It is intended to supplement the BSACI 2015 guideline “Management of allergy to penicillin and other beta-lactams” and therefore does not detail the epidemiology or aetiology of penicillin allergy, as this is covered extensively in the 2015 guideline (1). The guideline is intended for use only in patients with a label of penicillin allergy and does not apply to other beta-lactam allergies. The recommendations include a checklist to identify patients at low risk of allergy and a framework for the conduct of drug provocation testing by non-allergists. There are separate sections for adults and paediatrics within the guideline, in recognition of the common differences in reported allergy history and likelihood of true allergy

Effects of delayed radical prostatectomy and active surveillance on localised prostate cancer - A systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)External factors, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), can lead to cancellations and backlogs of cancer surgeries. The effects of these delays are unclear. This study summarised the evidence surrounding expectant management, delay radical prostatectomy (RP), and neoadjuvant hormone therapy (NHT) compared to immediate RP. MEDLINE and EMBASE was searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies pertaining to the review question. Risks of biases (RoB) were evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. A total of 57 studies were included. Meta-analysis of four RCTs found overall survival and cancer-specific survival were significantly worsened amongst intermediate-risk patients undergoing active monitoring, observation, or watchful waiting but not in low- and high-risk patients. Evidence from 33 observational studies comparing delayed RP and immediate RP is contradictory. However, conservative estimates of delays over 5 months, 4 months, and 30 days for low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk patients, respectively, have been associated with significantly worse pathological and oncological outcomes in individual studies. In 11 RCTs, a 3-month course of NHT has been shown to improve pathological outcomes in most patients, but its effect on oncological outcomes is apparently limitedPeer reviewe