Comparing accuracy of lipoarabinomannan urine tests for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children from four African countries: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A sensitive and specific non-sputum-based test would be groundbreaking for the diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis. We assessed side by side the diagnostic accuracy of the urine-based lipoarabinomannan assays Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) and Alere Determine TB LAM Ag (AlereLAM) for detection of childhood tuberculosis. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we tested urine samples from children younger than 15 years with presumed pulmonary tuberculosis. Children were consecutively recruited from four dedicated outpatient childhood tuberculosis clinics in The Gambia, Mali, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Biobanked urine samples were thawed and tested using FujiLAM and AlereLAM assays. We measured diagnostic performance against a microbiological reference standard (confirmed tuberculosis) and a composite reference standard (confirmed and unconfirmed tuberculosis). Sensitivity and specificity were estimated with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2017, and Dec 1, 2018, we obtained and stored urine samples from 415 children. 63 (15%) children had confirmed tuberculosis, 113 (27%) had unconfirmed tuberculosis, and 239 (58%) were unlikely to have tuberculosis. 61 children were HIV-positive (prevalence 15%). Using the microbiological reference standard, the sensitivity of FujiLAM was 64·9% (95% CI 43·7-85·2; positive in 40 of 63 confirmed samples) and the sensitivity of AlereLAM was 30·7% (8·6-61·6; 19 of 63). The specificity of FujiLAM was 83·8% (95% CI 76·5-89·4; negative in 297 of 352 unconfirmed and unlikely samples) and the specificity of AlereLAM was 87·8% (79·0-93·7; 312 of 352). Against the composite reference standard, both assays had decreased sensitivity; the sensitivity of FujiLAM was 32·9% (95% CI 24·6-41·9; positive in 58 of 176 confirmed and unconfirmed samples) and the sensitivity of AlereLAM was 20·2% (12·3-29·4; 36 of 176). The specificity of FujiLAM was 83·3% (95% CI 71·8-91·7; negative in 202 of 239 unlikely samples) and the specificity of AlereLAM was 90·0% (81·6-95·6; 216 of 239). INTERPRETATION: By comparison with AlereLAM, FujiLAM showed higher sensitivity and similar specificity. FujiLAM could potentially add value to the rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis in children. FUNDING: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the Global Health Innovative Technology Fund, the UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund, and the UK Medical Research Council

Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to understand adherence to multiple evidence-based indicators in primary care : a qualitative study

BACKGROUND: There are recognised gaps between evidence and practice in general practice, a setting posing particular implementation challenges. We earlier screened clinical guideline recommendations to derive a set of 'high-impact' indicators based upon criteria including potential for significant patient benefit, scope for improved practice and amenability to measurement using routinely collected data. Here, we explore health professionals' perceived determinants of adherence to these indicators, examining the degree to which determinants were indicator-specific or potentially generalisable across indicators. METHODS: We interviewed 60 general practitioners, practice nurses and practice managers in West Yorkshire, the UK, about adherence to four indicators: avoidance of risky prescribing; treatment targets in type 2 diabetes; blood pressure targets in treated hypertension; and anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Interview questions drew upon the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Data were analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Professional role and identity and environmental context and resources featured prominently across all indicators whilst the importance of other domains, for example, beliefs about consequences, social influences and knowledge varied across indicators. We identified five meta-themes representing more general organisational and contextual factors common to all indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The TDF helped elicit a wide range of reported determinants of adherence to 'high-impact' indicators in primary care. It was more difficult to pinpoint which determinants, if targeted by an implementation strategy, would maximise change. The meta-themes broadly underline the need to align the design of interventions targeting general practices with higher level supports and broader contextual considerations. However, our findings suggest that it is feasible to develop interventions to promote the uptake of different evidence-based indicators which share common features whilst also including content-specific adaptations

Variations in achievement of evidence-based, high-impact quality indicators in general practice : An observational study

BACKGROUND: There are widely recognised variations in the delivery and outcomes of healthcare but an incomplete understanding of their causes. There is a growing interest in using routinely collected 'big data' in the evaluation of healthcare. We developed a set of evidence-based 'high impact' quality indicators (QIs) for primary care and examined variations in achievement of these indicators using routinely collected data in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of routinely collected, electronic primary care data from a sample of general practices in West Yorkshire, UK (n = 89). The QIs covered aspects of care (including processes and intermediate clinical outcomes) in relation to diabetes, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease (CKD) and 'risky' prescribing combinations. Regression models explored the impact of practice and patient characteristics. Clustering within practice was accounted for by including a random intercept for practice. RESULTS: Median practice achievement of the QIs ranged from 43.2% (diabetes control) to 72.2% (blood pressure control in CKD). Considerable between-practice variation existed for all indicators: the difference between the highest and lowest performing practices was 26.3 percentage points for risky prescribing and 100 percentage points for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation. Odds ratios associated with the random effects for practices emphasised this; there was a greater than ten-fold difference in the likelihood of achieving the hypertension indicator between the lowest and highest performing practices. Patient characteristics, in particular age, gender and comorbidity, were consistently but modestly associated with indicator achievement. Statistically significant practice characteristics were identified less frequently in adjusted models. CONCLUSIONS: Despite various policy and improvement initiatives, there are enduring inappropriate variations in the delivery of evidence-based care. Much of this variation is not explained by routinely collected patient or practice variables, and is likely to be attributable to differences in clinical and organisational behaviour

Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Public priorities for improvement often differ from those of clinicians and managers. Public involvement has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between professional and public clinical care priorities but has not been studied in the context of quality-indicator choice. Our objective is to assess the feasibility and impact of public involvement on quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing quality-indicator prioritisation with and without public involvement. In preparation for the trial, we developed a 'menu' of quality indicators, based on a systematic review of existing validated indicator sets. Participants (public representatives, clinicians, and managers) will be recruited from six participating sites. In intervention sites, public representatives will be involved through direct participation (public representatives, clinicians, and managers will deliberate together to agree on quality-indicator choice and use) and consultation (individual public recommendations for improvement will be collected and presented to decision makers). In control sites, only clinicians and managers will take part in the prioritisation process. Data on quality-indicator choice and intended use will be collected. Our primary outcome will compare quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities between intervention and control groups. A process evaluation based on direct observation, videorecording, and participants' assessment will be conducted to help explain the study's results. The marginal cost of public involvement will also be assessed.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We identified 801 quality indicators that met our inclusion criteria. An expert panel agreed on a final set of 37 items containing validated quality indicators relevant for chronic disease prevention and management in primary care. We pilot tested our public-involvement intervention with 27 participants (11 public representatives and 16 clinicians and managers) and our study instruments with an additional 21 participants, which demonstrated the feasibility of the intervention and generated important insights and adaptations to engage public representatives more effectively. To our knowledge, this study is the first trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation, and its results could foster more effective upstream engagement of patients and the public in clinical practice improvement.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p><a href="http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2496">NTR2496</a> (Netherlands National Trial Register, <url>http://www.trialregister.nl</url>).</p

GM-CSF drives dysregulated hematopoietic stem cell activity and pathogenic extramedullary myelopoiesis in experimental spondyloarthritis

Dysregulated hematopoiesis occurs in several chronic inflammatory diseases, but it remains unclear how hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) in the bone marrow (BM) sense peripheral inflammation and contribute to tissue damage in arthritis. Here, we show the HSC gene expression program is biased toward myelopoiesis and differentiation skewed toward granulocyte-monocyte progenitors (GMP) during joint and intestinal inflammation in experimental spondyloarthritis (SpA). GM-CSF-receptor is increased on HSCs and multipotent progenitors, favoring a striking increase in myelopoiesis at the earliest hematopoietic stages. GMP accumulate in the BM in SpA and, unexpectedly, at extramedullary sites: in the inflamed joints and spleen. Furthermore, we show that GM-CSF promotes extramedullary myelopoiesis, tissue-toxic neutrophil accumulation in target organs, and GM-CSF prophylactic or therapeutic blockade substantially decreases SpA severity. Surprisingly, besides CD4+ T cells and innate lymphoid cells, mast cells are a source of GM-CSF in this model, and its pathogenic production is promoted by the alarmin IL-33

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

Developing 'high impact' guideline-based quality indicators for UK primary care: a multi-stage consensus process

Background Quality indicators (QIs) are an important tool for improving clinical practice and are increasingly being developed from evidence-based guideline recommendations. We aimed to identify, select and apply guideline recommendations to develop a set of QIs to measure the implementation of evidence-based practice using routinely recorded clinical data in United Kingdom (UK) primary care. Methods We reviewed existing national clinical guidelines and QIs and used a four-stage consensus development process to derive a set of ‘high impact’ QIs relevant to primary care based upon explicit prioritisation criteria. We then field tested the QIs using remotely extracted, anonymised patient records from 89 randomly sampled primary care practices in the Yorkshire region of England. Results Out of 2365 recommendations and QIs originally reviewed, we derived a set of 18 QIs (5 single, 13 composites – comprising 2-9 individual recommendations) for field testing. QIs predominantly addressed chronic disease management, in particular diabetes, cardiovascular and renal disease, and included both processes and outcomes of care. Field testing proved to be critical for further refinement and final selection. Conclusions We have demonstrated a rigorous and transparent methodology to develop a set of high impact, evidence-based QIs for primary care from clinical guideline recommendations. While the development process was successful in developing a limited set of QIs, it remains challenging to derive robust new QIs from clinical guidelines in the absence of established systems for routine, structured recording of clinical care

Community cardiovascular disease risk from cross-sectional general practice clinical data: a spatial analysis

Contains fulltext : 154830.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to be a leading cause of illness and death among adults worldwide. The objective of this study was to calculate a CVD risk score from general practice (GP) clinical records and assess spatial variations of CVD risk in communities. METHODS: We used GP clinical data for 4,740 men and women aged 30 to 74 years with no history of CVD. A 10-year absolute CVD risk score was calculated based on the Framingham risk equation. The individual risk scores were aggregated within each Statistical Area Level One (SA1) to predict the level of CVD risk in that area. Finally, the pattern of CVD risk was visualized to highlight communities with high and low risk of CVD. RESULTS: The overall 10-year risk of CVD in our sample population was 14.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 14.3%-14.9%). Of the 4,740 patients in our study, 26.7% were at high risk, 29.8% were at moderate risk, and 43.5% were at low risk for CVD over 10 years. The proportion of patients at high risk for CVD was significantly higher in the communities of low socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates methods to further explore prevalence, location, and correlates of CVD to identify communities of high levels of unmet need for cardiovascular care and to enable geographic targeting of effective interventions for enhancing early and timely detection and management of CVD in those communities