Hypertension in older adults in Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis

YesBackground: Hypertension is the leading driver of cardiovascular disease deaths in Africa. Its prevalence is highest in older populations. Yet, this group has received little attention in many African countries. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration: CRD42017056474) to estimate the prevalence of hypertension in older adults living in Africa. Methods: We searched grey literature and major electronic databases including PubMed and Embase for population-based studies and published between 1 January 1980 to 28 May 2018 reporting the prevalence of hypertension for adults aged ≥50 years living in Africa. We employed a random effects model to estimate the pooled prevalence across included studies. Findings: We screened 10,719 articles and retrieved 103 full-text articles to evaluate for inclusion in the review. Thirty-four unique studies providing 37 data points on 43,025 individuals in 15 African countries were analyzed. The prevalence of hypertension ranged from 22.3% to 90.0% from the individual studies while the overall pooled prevalence was 57.0% (95% CI 52%-61%). The prevalence was not statistically significantly different by sex, residence, or African sub-region. In individual studies, older age and overweight/obesity were independently associated with hypertension. Twenty-nine (78%) data points were deemed to be of low- or moderate-risk of bias. Eliminating high-risk bias studies made little difference to the pooled estimate of hypertension. Sensitivity analyses, omitting one study at a time, identified three studies with significant but relatively small impact on the pooled estimate. We observed substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 98.9%) across the studies which was further explored by meta-regression analyses. Overall, the GRADE assessment suggested moderate quality evidence in the results. Conclusion: The persistent high prevalence of hypertension among older adults in Africa, even in rural populations warrants more attention to the cardiovascular health of this group by public health authoritie

Developing a Management Guide (the DemPower App) for Couples Where One Partner Has Dementia: Nonrandomized Feasibility Study

YesPromoting the health and well-being of couples where one partner has dementia is an overlooked area of care practice. Most postdiagnostic services currently lack a couple-centered approach and have a limited focus on the couple relationship. To help address this situation, we developed a tablet-based self-management guide (DemPower) focused on helping couples enhance their well-being and relationship quality. The aim of this study is to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the DemPower app. A nonrandomized feasibility design was used to evaluate the DemPower intervention over 3 months among couples where a partner had a diagnosis of dementia. The study recruited 25 couples in the United Kingdom and 19 couples in Sweden. Outcome measures were obtained at baseline and postintervention. The study process and interventions were evaluated at various stages. The study was completed by 48% (21/44) of couples where one partner had dementia, of whom 86% (18/21) of couples accessed all parts of the DemPower app. Each couple spent an average of 8 hours (SD 3.35 hours) using the app during the study period. In total, 90% (19/21) of couples reported that all sections of DemPower were useful in addressing various aspects of daily life and helped to focus on how they interacted in their relationship. Of the 4 core subjects on which the DemPower app was structured, home and neighborhood received the highest number of visits. Couples used activity sections more often than the core subject pages. The perception of DemPower's utility varied with each couple's lived experience of dementia, geographic location, relationship dynamics, and opportunities for social interaction. A 5.2-point increase in the dementia quality of life score for people with dementia and a marginal increase in the Mutuality scale (+1.23 points) for caregiver spouses were found. Design and navigational challenges were reported in the DemPower app. The findings suggest that the DemPower app is a useful resource for couples where one partner has dementia and that the implementation of the app requires the support of memory clinics to reach couples at early diagnosis. ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN10122979; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN10122979.Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This research is part of Work Programme 6 of the ESRC/NIHR Neighborhoods and Dementia mixed methods study (reference ES/L001772/1

A core outcome set for nonpharmacological community-based interventions for people living with dementia at home: A systematic review of outcome measurement instruments

YesIt is questionable whether existing outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) in dementia research reflect what key stakeholders' value. We attained consensus from over 300 key stakeholders, including people living with dementia, and identified 13 core outcome items for use in nonpharmacological and community-based interventions for people with dementia living at home. In this systematic review we review OMIs that have previously been used in dementia care research to determine how, or even if, the 13 core outcome items can be measured. We extracted self-reported OMIs from trials, reviews and reports of instrument development. Searches were undertaken in the ALOIS database, Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, socINDEX and COSMIN database. We aimed to assess the psychometric properties of OMI items for face validity with the core outcome items, content validity, internal consistency and responsiveness. We held a co-research workshop involving people living with dementia and care partners in order to ratify the findings. In total 347 OMIs were located from 354 sources. Of these 76 OMIs met the inclusion criteria. No OMIs were deemed to have sufficient face validity for the COS items, and no OMIs proceeded to further assessment. The 'best' available OMI is the Engagement and Independence in Dementia Questionnaire (EID-Q). This study provides a practical resource for those designing dementia research trials. Being able to measure the COS items would herald a paradigm shift for dementia research, be responsive to what key stakeholders value and enhance the ability to make comparisons.This study was funded jointly by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). ESRC is part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI)

Modelling Conditions and Health Care Processes in Electronic Health Records : An Application to Severe Mental Illness with the Clinical Practice Research Datalink

BACKGROUND: The use of Electronic Health Records databases for medical research has become mainstream. In the UK, increasing use of Primary Care Databases is largely driven by almost complete computerisation and uniform standards within the National Health Service. Electronic Health Records research often begins with the development of a list of clinical codes with which to identify cases with a specific condition. We present a methodology and accompanying Stata and R commands (pcdsearch/Rpcdsearch) to help researchers in this task. We present severe mental illness as an example. METHODS: We used the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, a UK Primary Care Database in which clinical information is largely organised using Read codes, a hierarchical clinical coding system. Pcdsearch is used to identify potentially relevant clinical codes and/or product codes from word-stubs and code-stubs suggested by clinicians. The returned code-lists are reviewed and codes relevant to the condition of interest are selected. The final code-list is then used to identify patients. RESULTS: We identified 270 Read codes linked to SMI and used them to identify cases in the database. We observed that our approach identified cases that would have been missed with a simpler approach using SMI registers defined within the UK Quality and Outcomes Framework. CONCLUSION: We described a framework for researchers of Electronic Health Records databases, for identifying patients with a particular condition or matching certain clinical criteria. The method is invariant to coding system or database and can be used with SNOMED CT, ICD or other medical classification code-lists

The Role of Primary Care in Service Provision for People with Severe Mental Illness in the United Kingdom

Severe mental illness is a serious and potentially life changing set of conditions. This paper describes and analyses patient characteristics and service usage over one year of a representative cohort of people with a diagnosis of severe mental illness across England, including contacts with primary and secondary care and continuity of care

What is important to people with dementia living at home? A set of core outcome items for use in the evaluation of non-pharmacological community-based health and social care interventions

YesObjectives: Inconsistency in outcome measurement in dementia care trials impedes the comparisons of effectiveness between trials. The key aim of this study is to establish an agreed standardised core outcome set (COS) for use when evaluating non-pharmacological health and social care interventions for people with dementia living at home. Method: We used a mixed-methods research design, including substantive qualitative research with five key stakeholders groups. We consulted with people living with dementia for many aspects of this research. We applied a modified two-round 54 item Delphi approach to attain consensus on core outcomes. The COS was finalised in a face-to-face consensus meeting in 2018. Results: Of the 288 who completed round 1 (21 people living with dementia, 58 care partners, 137 relevant health and social care professionals, 60 researchers, 12 policy makers), 246 completed round 2 (85% response rate). Twenty participants attended the consensus meeting. We reached consensus for the inclusion of 13 outcome items. Conclusion: We identified 13 outcome items which are considered core; many relate to social health. Providing there are adequate measures, measuring these core outcome items will enhance comparisons for effectiveness making trial evidence more useful. The items will provide commissioners and service planners with information on what types of interventions are most likely to be valued highly by people living with dementia.This study was funded jointly by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). ESRC is part of UK Research and Innovation

A worked example of initial theory-building: PARTNERS2 collaborative care for people who have experienced psychosis in England

YesIn this article, we present an exemplar of the initial theory-building phase of theory-driven evaluation for the PARTNERS2 project, a collaborative care intervention for people with experience of psychosis in England. Initial theory-building involved analysis of the literature, interviews with key leaders and focus groups with service users. The initial programme theory was developed from these sources in an iterative process between researchers and stakeholders (service users, practitioners, commissioners) involving four activities: articulation of 442 explanatory statements systematically developed using realist methods; debate and consensus; communication; and interrogation. We refute two criticisms of theory-driven evaluation of complex interventions. We demonstrate how the process of initial theory-building made a meaningful contribution to our complex intervention in five ways. Although time-consuming, it allowed us to develop an internally coherent and well-documented intervention. This study and the lessons learnt provide a detailed resource for other researchers wishing to build theory for theory-driven evaluation.This research was funded by a UK NIHR Programme Grant (RP-PG-0611- 20004) and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula (NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula)

Evaluation of a primary care-based collaborative care model (PARTNERS2) for people with diagnoses of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other psychoses: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

YesCurrent NHS policy encourages an integrated approach to provision of mental and physical care for individuals with long term mental health problems. The 'PARTNERS2' complex intervention is designed to support individuals with psychosis in a primary care setting. The trial will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PARTNERS2 intervention. This is a cluster randomised controlled superiority trial comparing collaborative care (PARTNERS2) with usual care, with an internal pilot to assess feasibility. The setting will be primary care within four trial recruitment areas: Birmingham & Solihull, Cornwall, Plymouth, and Somerset. GP practices are randomised 1:1 to either (a) the PARTNERS2 intervention plus modified standard care ('intervention'); or (b) standard care only ('control'). PARTNERS2 is a flexible, general practice-based, person-centred, coaching-based intervention aimed at addressing mental health, physical health, and social care needs. Two hundred eligible individuals from 39 GP practices are taking part. They were recruited through identification from secondary and primary care databases. The primary hypothesis is quality of life (QOL). Secondary outcomes include: mental wellbeing, time use, recovery, and process of physical care. A process evaluation will assess fidelity of intervention delivery, test hypothesised mechanisms of action, and look for unintended consequences. An economic evaluation will estimate its cost-effectiveness. Intervention delivery and follow-up have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. The overarching aim is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the model for adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar, or other types of psychoses.PARTNERS2 is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grant for Applied Research Programme (grant number: RP-PG- 200625). This research was also supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula at the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust

Influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients: systematic review and meta-analysis from a public health policy perspective.

Immunocompromised patients are vulnerable to severe or complicated influenza infection. Vaccination is widely recommended for this group. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses influenza vaccination for immunocompromised patients in terms of preventing influenza-like illness and laboratory confirmed influenza, serological response and adverse events

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