Current therapy for the upper limb after stroke: a cross-sectional survey of UK therapists

Objectives To survey the reported content, frequency and duration of upper limb treatment provided by occupational and physiotherapists for people after stroke in the UK.Design A cross-sectional online survey was used. Description and analysis of the data were based on items from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (Who, Where, What and How much).Setting The online survey was distributed via professional and social networks to UK-based therapists.Participants Respondents were occupational or physiotherapists currently working clinically in the UK with people after stroke. Over the 6week data collection period, 156 respondents opened the survey, and 154 completed it. Respondents comprised 85 physiotherapists and 69 occupational therapists.results Respondents reported treating the upper limb a median of three times a week (range: 1 to 7) for a mean of 29min (SD: 18). Most (n=110) stated this was supplemented by rehabilitation assistants, family and/or carers providing additional therapy a median of three times a week (range 1 to 7). Functional training was the most commonly reported treatment for people with mild and moderate upper limb deficits (>40%). There was much less consistency in treatments reported for people with severe upper limb deficits with less than 20% (n=28) reporting the same treatments.Conclusions This study provides a contemporaneous description of reported therapy in the UK for people with upper limb deficits after stroke and a detailed template to inform standard therapy interventions in future research. Several evidence-based therapies were reported to be used by respondents (eg, constraint induced movement therapy), but others were not (eg, mental imagery). The findings also highlight that the current reported provision of upper limb therapy is markedly less than what is likely to be effective. This underlines an urgent need to configure and fund services to empower therapists to deliver greater amounts of evidence-based treatment for people with upper limb deficits after stroke

How COVID-19 changed clinical research strategies: a global survey

Objective Clinical research has faced new challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to excessive operational demands affecting all stakeholders. We evaluated the impact of COVID-19 on clinical research strategies and compared different adaptations by regulatory bodies and academic research institutions in a global context, exploring what can be learned for possible future pandemics. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional online survey and identified and assessed different COVID-19-specific adaptation strategies used by academic research institutions and regulatory bodies. Results All 19 participating academic research institutions developed and followed similar strategies, including preventive measures, manpower recruitment, and prioritisation of COVID-19 projects. In contrast, measures for centralised management or coordination of COVID-19 projects, project preselection, and funding were handled differently amongst institutions. Regulatory bodies responded similarly to the pandemic by implementing fast-track authorisation procedures for COVID-19 projects and developing guidance documents. Quality and consistency of the information and advice provided was rated differently amongst institutions. Conclusion Both academic research institutions and regulatory bodies worldwide were able to cope with challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic by developing similar strategies. We identified some unique approaches to ensure fast and efficient responses to a pandemic. Ethical concerns should be addressed in any new decision-making process

Legal and ethical framework for global health information and biospecimen exchange - an international perspective.

BACKGROUND: The progress of electronic health technologies and biobanks holds enormous promise for efficient research. Evidence shows that studies based on sharing and secondary use of data/samples have the potential to significantly advance medical knowledge. However, sharing of such resources for international collaboration is hampered by the lack of clarity about ethical and legal requirements for transfer of data and samples across international borders. MAIN TEXT: Here, the International Clinical Trial Center Network (ICN) reports the legal and ethical requirements governing data and sample exchange (DSE) across four continents. The most recurring requirement is ethical approval, whereas only in specific conditions approval of national health authorities is required. Informed consent is not required in all sharing situations. However, waiver of informed consent is only allowed in certain countries/regions and under certain circumstances. The current legal and ethical landscape appears to be very complex and under constant evolution. Regulations differ between countries/regions and are often incomplete, leading to uncertainty. CONCLUSION: With this work, ICN illuminates the unmet need for a single international collaborative framework to facilitate DSE. Harmonising requirements for global DSE will reduce inefficiency and waste in research. There are many challenges to realising this ambitious vision, including inconsistent terminology and definitions, and heterogeneous and dynamic legal constraints. Here, we identify areas of agreement and significant difference as a necessary first step towards facilitating international collaboration. We propose the establishment of a working group to continue the comparison across jurisdictions, create a standardised glossary and define a set of basic principles and fundamental requirements for DSE

A novel formulation of inhaled sodium cromoglicate (PA101) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and chronic cough: a randomised, double-blind, proof-of-concept, phase 2 trial

Background Cough can be a debilitating symptom of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and is difficult to treat. PA101 is a novel formulation of sodium cromoglicate delivered via a high-efficiency eFlow nebuliser that achieves significantly higher drug deposition in the lung compared with the existing formulations. We aimed to test the efficacy and safety of inhaled PA101 in patients with IPF and chronic cough and, to explore the antitussive mechanism of PA101, patients with chronic idiopathic cough (CIC) were also studied. Methods This pilot, proof-of-concept study consisted of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients with IPF and chronic cough and a parallel study of similar design in patients with CIC. Participants with IPF and chronic cough recruited from seven centres in the UK and the Netherlands were randomly assigned (1:1, using a computer-generated randomisation schedule) by site staff to receive PA101 (40 mg) or matching placebo three times a day via oral inhalation for 2 weeks, followed by a 2 week washout, and then crossed over to the other arm. Study participants, investigators, study staff, and the sponsor were masked to group assignment until all participants had completed the study. The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline in objective daytime cough frequency (from 24 h acoustic recording, Leicester Cough Monitor). The primary efficacy analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one post-baseline efficacy measurement. Safety analysis included all those who took at least one dose of study drug. In the second cohort, participants with CIC were randomly assigned in a study across four centres with similar design and endpoints. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02412020) and the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT Number 2014-004025-40) and both cohorts are closed to new participants. Findings Between Feb 13, 2015, and Feb 2, 2016, 24 participants with IPF were randomly assigned to treatment groups. 28 participants with CIC were enrolled during the same period and 27 received study treatment. In patients with IPF, PA101 reduced daytime cough frequency by 31·1% at day 14 compared with placebo; daytime cough frequency decreased from a mean 55 (SD 55) coughs per h at baseline to 39 (29) coughs per h at day 14 following treatment with PA101, versus 51 (37) coughs per h at baseline to 52 (40) cough per h following placebo treatment (ratio of least-squares [LS] means 0·67, 95% CI 0·48–0·94, p=0·0241). By contrast, no treatment benefit for PA101 was observed in the CIC cohort; mean reduction of daytime cough frequency at day 14 for PA101 adjusted for placebo was 6·2% (ratio of LS means 1·27, 0·78–2·06, p=0·31). PA101 was well tolerated in both cohorts. The incidence of adverse events was similar between PA101 and placebo treatments, most adverse events were mild in severity, and no severe adverse events or serious adverse events were reported. Interpretation This study suggests that the mechanism of cough in IPF might be disease specific. Inhaled PA101 could be a treatment option for chronic cough in patients with IPF and warrants further investigation

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib or ravulizumab in adult patients with severe COVID-19 (TACTIC-R): a randomised, parallel-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial

Background From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence suggested a role for cytokine dysregulation and complement activation in severe disease. In the TACTIC-R trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2, and ravulizumab, a monoclonal inhibitor of complement C5 activation, as an adjunct to standard of care for the treatment of adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods TACTIC-R was a phase 4, randomised, parallel-arm, open-label platform trial that was undertaken in the UK with urgent public health designation to assess the potential of repurposing immunosuppressants for the treatment of severe COVID-19, stratified by a risk score. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 22 hospitals across the UK. Patients with a risk score indicating a 40% risk of admission to an intensive care unit or death were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to standard of care alone, standard of care with baricitinib, or standard of care with ravulizumab. The composite primary outcome was the time from randomisation to incidence (up to and including day 14) of the first event of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiovascular organ support, or renal failure. The primary interim analysis was triggered when 125 patient datasets were available up to day 14 in each study group and we included in the analysis all participants who were randomly assigned. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04390464). Findings Between May 8, 2020, and May 7, 2021, 417 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to standard of care alone (145 patients), baricitinib (137 patients), or ravulizumab (135 patients). Only 54 (39%) of 137 patients in the baricitinib group received the maximum 14-day course, whereas 132 (98%) of 135 patients in the ravulizumab group received the intended dose. The trial was stopped after the primary interim analysis on grounds of futility. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for reaching the composite primary endpoint was 1·11 (95% CI 0·62–1·99) for patients on baricitinib compared with standard of care alone, and 1·53 (0·88–2·67) for ravulizumab compared with standard of care alone. 45 serious adverse events (21 deaths) were reported in the standard-of-care group, 57 (24 deaths) in the baricitinib group, and 60 (18 deaths) in the ravulizumab group. Interpretation Neither baricitinib nor ravulizumab, as administered in this study, was effective in reducing disease severity in patients selected for severe COVID-19. Safety was similar between treatments and standard of care. The short period of dosing with baricitinib might explain the discrepancy between our findings and those of other trials. The therapeutic potential of targeting complement C5 activation product C5a, rather than the cleavage of C5, warrants further evaluation

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p<0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p<0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p<0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP >5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study

Background The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. Methods The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). Findings We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9–6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40–59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. Interpretation We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. Funding UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research

Supporting older people to make informed cancer screening decisions

Decisions about whether older adults should screen for cancer or not are complex due to the uncertain benefit-harm trade-off. Compared to younger, healthier adults, older adults with limited life expectancy, frailty and/or comorbidity are less likely to benefit from early detection through reduced morbidity and mortality. They are more likely to be overdiagnosed with a screen-detected cancer that my never cause symptoms or death, which can lead to overtreatment. Guidelines recommend an age after which cancer screening should stop in countries with national screening programs, or individualized screening decisions based on life expectancy and health status. However, people 75+ years continue to be screened, including those with limited life expectancy. Supporting informed choice is a key element of individualising screening decisions for older adults. Further research is needed to understand how interventions can be developed and implemented internationally to support informed screening decisions for older adults. Aims: This thesis examines how to support older adults to make informed cancer screening decisions using a mixed-methods approach, with a focus on breast, cervical, prostate and bowel screening. More specifically, this thesis aimed to: 1) Summarise the existing evidence on the factors associated with older adults’ cancer screening decisions, 2) Summarise the existing evidence on the factors associated with clinicians’ cancer screening recommendations for older adults, 3) Explore GPs’ experiences of discussions and perceived roles in older adults’ decision-making about cancer screening, 4) Explore older adult (70 years) perspectives and views on continuing or stopping cancer screening beyond the upper age of guideline recommendations in Australia, 5) Conduct a randomise controlled trial to develop and test an intervention to support informed choice about cancer screening for older adults