PROJECTING THE IMPACT OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE ON THE DEMAND FOR AND DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE IN IRELAND. RESEARCH SERIES NUMBER 13 OCTOBER 2009

Primary care is often the first point of contact with the health care system for people requiring care. Primary care is often thought synonymous with general practitioners, but actually encompasses a large range of different professionals and services including nurses/midwives; physiotherapists; occupational therapists; dentists; opticians; chiropodists; psychologists and pharmacists. The list is not exhaustive, but still gives an indication of the wide range of services that can be grouped under the general heading of primary care. Nonetheless, GPs do have a core part to play in primary care as well as performing the role of ‘gate keeper’ to other health services such as accident and emergency or outpatient care in hospitals. The balance of treatment and referral between general practice and secondary care is, therefore, a very important issue and it has been argued that the under development of primary care services in Ireland in recent decades has contributed, and indeed, may be the most important reason, for the over-crowding of accident and emergency services and long waiting lists for elective procedures in Irish health care (Layte et al., 2007b; Tussing and Wren, 2006)

Ethnicity-specific epigenetic variation in naïve CD4+ T cells and the susceptibility to autoimmunity

Abstract Background Genetic and epigenetic variability contributes to the susceptibility and pathogenesis of autoimmune diseases. T cells play an important role in several autoimmune conditions, including lupus, which is more common and more severe in people of African descent. To investigate inherent epigenetic differences in T cells between ethnicities, we characterized genome-wide DNA methylation patterns in naïve CD4+ T cells in healthy African-Americans and European-Americans, and then confirmed our findings in lupus patients. Results Impressive ethnicity-specific clustering of DNA methylation profiling in naïve CD4+ T cells was revealed. Hypomethylated loci in healthy African-Americans were significantly enriched in pro-apoptotic and pro-inflammatory genes. We also found hypomethylated genes in African-Americans to be disproportionately related to autoimmune diseases including lupus. We then confirmed that these genes, such as IL32, CD226, CDKN1A, and PTPRN2 were similarly hypomethylated in lupus patients of African-American compared to European-American descent. Using patch DNA methylation and luciferase reporter constructs, we showed that methylation of the IL32 promoter region reduces gene expression in vitro. Importantly, bisulfite DNA sequencing demonstrated that cis-acting genetic variants within and directly disrupting CpG sites account for some ethnicity-specific variability in DNA methylation. Conclusion Ethnicity-specific inherited epigenetic susceptibility loci in CD4+ T cells provide clues to explain differences in the susceptibility to autoimmunity and possibly other T cell-related diseases between populations.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/116042/1/13072_2015_Article_37.pd

StrokeCog Markov Model Projected Prevalent and Incident Cases of Stroke and Poststroke Cognitive Impairment to 2035 in Ireland

Background and Purpose: Cognitive impairment no dementia (CIND) and dementia are common stroke outcomes, with significant health and societal implications for aging populations. These outcomes are not included in current epidemiological models. We aimed to develop an epidemiological model to project incidence and prevalence of stroke, poststroke CIND and dementia, and life expectancy, in Ireland to 2035, informing policy and service planning. Methods: We developed a probabilistic Markov model (the StrokeCog model) applied to the Irish population aged 40 to 89 years to 2035. Data sources included official population and hospital-episode statistics, longitudinal cohort studies, and published estimates. Key assumptions were varied in sensitivity analysis. Results were externally validated against independent sources. The model tracks poststroke progression into health states characterized by no cognitive impairment, CIND, dementia, disability, stroke recurrence, and death. Results: We projected 69 051 people with prevalent stroke in Ireland in 2035 (22.0 per 1000 population [95% CI, 20.8-23.1]), with 25 274 (8.0 per 1000 population [95% CI, 7.1-9.0]) of those projected to have poststroke CIND, and 12 442 having poststroke dementia (4.0 per 1000 population [95% CI, 3.2-4.8]). We projected 8725 annual incident strokes in 2035 (2.8 per 1000 population [95% CI, 2.7-2.9]), with 3832 of these having CIND (1.2 per 1000 population [95% CI, 1.1-1.3]), and 1715 with dementia (0.5 per 1000 population [95% CI, 0.5-0.6]). Life expectancy for stroke survivors at age 50 was 23.4 years (95% CI, 22.3-24.5) for women and 20.7 (95% CI, 19.5-21.9) for men. Conclusions: This novel epidemiological model of stroke, poststroke CIND, and dementia draws on the best available evidence. Sensitivity analysis indicated that findings were robust to assumptions, and where there was uncertainty a conservative approach was taken. The StrokeCog model is a useful tool for service planning and cost-effectiveness analysis and is available for adaptation to other national contexts.Peer reviewe

Genetic Variation in the Platelet Endothelial Aggregation Receptor 1 Gene Results in Endothelial Dysfunction

We gratefully acknowledge our Amish liaisons and field workers and the extraordinary cooperation and support of the Amish community, without which these studies would not have been possible. We also acknowledge Dr. Alan Shuldiner for his impactful insights and guidance.Platelet Endothelial Aggregation Receptor 1 (PEAR1) is a newly identified membrane protein reported to be involved in multiple vascular and thrombotic processes. While most studies to date have focused on the effects of this receptor in platelets, PEAR1 is located in multiple tissues including the endothelium, where it is most highly expressed. Our first objective was to evaluate the role of PEAR1 in endothelial function by examining flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery in 641 participants from the Heredity and Phenotype Intervention Heart Study. Our second objective was to further define the impact of PEAR1 on cardiovascular disease computationally through meta-analysis of 75,000 microarrays, yielding insights regarding PEAR1 function, and predictions of phenotypes and diseases affected by PEAR1 dysregulation. Based on the results of this meta-analysis we examined whether genetic variation in PEAR1 influences endothelial function using an ex vivo assay of endothelial cell migration. We observed a significant association between rs12041331 and flow-mediated dilation in participants of the Heredity and Phenotype Intervention Heart Study (P = 0.02). Meta-analysis results revealed that PEAR1 expression is highly correlated with several genes (e.g. ANG2, ACVRL1, ENG) and phenotypes (e.g. endothelial cell migration, angiogenesis) that are integral to endothelial function. Functional validation of these results revealed that PEAR1 rs12041331 is significantly associated with endothelial migration (P = 0.04). Our results suggest for the first time that genetic variation of PEAR1 is a significant determinant of endothelial function through pathways implicated in cardiovascular disease.Yeshttp://www.plosone.org/static/editorial#pee

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

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme