Patient factors influencing the prescribing of lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in UK general practice: a national retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Guidelines indicate eligibility for lipid lowering drugs, but it is not known to what extent GPs' follow guidelines in routine clinical practice or whether additional clinical factors systematically influence their prescribing decisions. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was undertaken using electronic primary care records from 421 UK general practices. At baseline (May 2008) patients were aged 30 to 74 years, free from cardiovascular disease and not taking lipid lowering drugs. The outcome was prescription of a lipid lowering drug within the next two years. The proportions of eligible and ineligible patients prescribed lipid lowering drugs were reported and multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate associations between age, sex, cardiovascular risk factors and prescribing. RESULTS: Of 365,718 patients with complete data, 13.8% (50,558) were prescribed lipid lowering drugs: 28.5% (21,101/74,137) of those eligible and 10.1% (29,457/291,581) of those ineligible. Only 41.7% (21,101/50,558) of those prescribed lipid lowering drugs were eligible. In multivariable analysis prescribing was most strongly associated with increasing age (OR for age ≥65 years 4.21; 95% CI 4.05–4.39); diabetes (OR 4.49; 95% CI 4.35–4.64); total cholesterol level ≥7 mmol/L (OR 2.20; 95% CI 2.12–2.29); and ≥4 blood pressure measurements in the past year (OR 4.24; 95% CI 4.06–4.42). The predictors were similar in eligible and ineligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Most lipid lowering drugs for primary prevention are prescribed to ineligible patients. There is underuse of lipid lowering drugs in eligible patients

Antimicrobial Use in COVID-19 Patients in the First Phase of the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic:A Scoping Review

This scoping review provides new evidence on the prevalence and patterns of global antimicrobial use in the treatment of COVID-19 patients; identifies the most commonly used antibiotics and clinical scenarios associated with antibiotic prescribing in the first phase of the pandemic; and explores the impact of documented antibiotic prescribing on treatment outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The review complies with PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews and the protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework. In the first six months of the pandemic, there was a similar mean antibiotic prescribing rate between patients with severe or critical illness (75.4%) and patients with mild or moderate illness (75.1%). The proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics without clinical justification was 51.5% vs. 41.9% for patients with mild or moderate illness and those with severe or critical illness. Comparison of patients who were provided antibiotics with a clinical justification with those who were given antibiotics without clinical justification showed lower mortality rates (9.5% vs. 13.1%), higher discharge rates (80.9% vs. 69.3%), and shorter length of hospital stay (9.3 days vs. 12.2 days). In the first 6 months of the pandemic, antibiotics were prescribed for COVID-19 patients regardless of severity of illness. A large proportion of antibiotic prescribing for mild and moderate COVID-19 patients did not have clinical evidence of a bacterial co-infection. Antibiotics may not be beneficial to COVID-19 patients without clinical evidence of a bacterial co-infection

The Efficacy of Whole Course Management in Patients with Schizophrenia

BackgroundSchizophrenia is a common mental disease with high rates of recurrence and disability. The therapeutic effects of antipsychotic drugs monotherapy are insufficient on improving patients' ability to daily life and social functioning, with possible adverse reactions. Therefore, early, comprehensive and whole course management is necessary for the improvement of patients' symptoms, ability to daily life and social functioning, to help them back to society as soon as possible.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of whole course management in patients with schizophrenia.MethodsFrom January 2019 to Febuary 2020, one hundred and twenty-nine schizophrenia patients were recruited from Shihezi Oasis Hospital and divided into the study group (n=64) and control group (n=65) . Demographic data including gender, age, marital status and education level of all patients were recorded by researchers. Patients in the control group received the standard therapy. While, patients in the study group received the whole course management base on the standard therapy, and both of them were followed up for one year. Treatment efficacy in the two groups was assessed by Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS, including positive, negative syndrome and the general psychopathological symptom score, used to assess the patient's psychiatric symptoms) , Social Functional Defect Screening Scale (SDSS, used to assess the degree of social functional defect) , and Activity of Daily Living Scale (ADL, used to assess the patient's ability of daily living) . And 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8, used to assess patient medication adherence) was used to assess medication compliance of discharged patients. And recurrence rates (used to evaluate clinical efficacy) were calculated in discharging patients only. All assessments were conducted before and 3, 6, 12 months after the study.ResultsThere were no significant differences between two groups in demographic factors including gender、age、marital status and education level and PANSS, ADL, SDSS, MMAS-8 scores (P>0.05) . Compared to the control group, there were lower scores of PANSS, SDSS and General Psychopathological Symptom Score at 6 and 12 month (P<0.05) . And in study group there also showed significantly lower scores of negative symptoms and ADL at 12 month (P<0.05) . Meanwhile, the post-intervention medication adherence was better in the study group (P<0.05) . However, there was no significant difference between the two groups about the recurrence rate (P>0.05) .ConclusionThe whole course management could effectively alleviate the severity of schizophrenic, and could improve the ability to daily life, social functioning, as well as medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia

An internet-based intervention with brief nurse support to manage obesity in primary care (POWeR+): a pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial

Background The obesity epidemic has major public health consequences. Expert dietetic and behavioural counselling with intensive follow-up is effective, but resource requirements severely restrict widespread implementation in primary care, where most patients are managed. We aimed to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an internet-based behavioural intervention (POWeR+) combined with brief practice nurse support in primary care. Methods We did this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at 56 primary care practices in central and south England. Eligible adults aged 18 years or older with a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or more (or ≥28 kg/m2 with hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, or diabetes) registered online with POWeR+—a 24 session, web-based, weight management intervention lasting 6 months. After registration, the website automatically randomly assigned patients (1:1:1), via computer-generated random numbers, to receive evidence-based dietetic advice to swap foods for similar, but healthier, choices and increase fruit and vegetable intake, in addition to 6 monthly nurse follow-up (control group); web-based intervention and face-to-face nurse support (POWeR+Face-to-face [POWeR+F]; up to seven nurse contacts over 6 months); or web-based intervention and remote nurse support (POWeR+Remote [POWeR+R]; up to five emails or brief phone calls over 6 months). Participants and investigators were masked to group allocation at the point of randomisation; masking of participants was not possible after randomisation. The primary outcome was weight loss averaged over 12 months. We did a secondary analysis of weight to measure maintenance of 5% weight loss at months 6 and 12. We modelled the cost-effectiveness of each intervention. We did analysis by intention to treat, with multiple imputation for missing data. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN21244703. Findings Between Jan 30, 2013, and March 20, 2014, 818 participants were randomly assigned to the control group (n=279), the POWeR+F group (n=269), or the POWeR+R group (n=270). Weight loss averaged over 12 months was recorded in 666 (81%) participants. The control group lost almost 3 kg over 12 months (crude mean weight: baseline 104·38 kg [SD 21·11; n=279], 6 months 101·91 kg [19·35; n=136], 12 months 101·74 kg [19·57; n=227]). The primary imputed analysis showed that compared with the control group, patients in the POWeR+F group achieved an additional weight reduction of 1·5 kg (95% CI 0·6–2·4; p=0·001) averaged over 12 months, and patients in the POWeR+R group achieved an additional 1·3 kg (0·34–2·2; p=0·007). 21% of patients in the control group had maintained a clinically important 5% weight reduction at month 12, compared with 29% of patients in the POWeR+F group (risk ratio 1·56, 0·96–2·51; p=0·070) and 32% of patients in the POWeR+R group (1·82, 1·31–2·74; p=0·004). The incremental overall cost to the health service per kg weight lost with the POWeR+ interventions versus the control strategy was £18 (95% CI −129 to 195) for POWeR+F and –£25 (−268 to 157) for POWeR+R; the probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £100 per kg lost was 88% and 98%, respectively. No adverse events were reported. Interpretation Weight loss can be maintained in some individuals by use of novel written material with occasional brief nurse follow-up. However, more people can maintain clinically important weight reductions with a web-based behavioural program and brief remote follow-up, with no increase in health service costs. Future research should assess the extent to which clinically important weight loss can be maintained beyond 1 year

Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment

Objectives: CT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity. Design: Discrete choice experiment. Setting: Online, web-based survey. Participants: 2819 adults (45–54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants. Interventions: After receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3–4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps. Primary outcome measures: Participants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither). Results: Preparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: −3.834 to −6.346 for preparation, 0.207–0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (−0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362–0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584–0.837). Conclusions: Uptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.JRC.I.2-Public Health Policy Suppor

Cluster randomised controlled trial to assess a tailored intervention to reduce antibiotic prescribing in rural China:study protocol

INTRODUCTION: Up to 80% of patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) attending healthcare facilities in rural areas of China are prescribed antibiotics, many of which are unnecessary. Since 2009, China has implemented several policies to try to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use; however, antibiotic prescribing remains high in rural health facilities. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised controlled trial will be carried out to estimate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention in reducing antibiotic prescribing at township health centres in Anhui Province, China. 40 Township health centres will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or usual care arms. In the intervention group, practitioners will receive an intervention comprising: (1) training to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing for RTI, (2) a computer-based treatment decision support system, (3) virtual peer support, (4) a leaflet for patients and (5) a letter of commitment to optimise antibiotic use to display in their clinic. The primary outcome is the percentage of antibiotics (intravenous and oral) prescribed for RTI patients. Secondary outcomes include patient symptom severity and duration, recovery status, satisfaction, antibiotic consumption. A full economic evaluation will be conducted within the trial period. Costs and savings for both clinics and patients will be considered and quality of life will be measured by EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L). A qualitative process evaluation will explore practitioner and patient views and experiences of trial processes, intervention fidelity and acceptability, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Anhui Medical University (Ref: 20180259); the study has undergone due diligence checks and is registered at the University of Bristol (Ref: 2020-3137). Research findings will be disseminated to stakeholders through conferences and peer-reviewed journals in China, the UK and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30652037

Pelargonium sidoides root extract for the treatment of acute cough due to lower respiratory tract infection in adults::a feasibility double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Pelargonium sidoides DC (Geraniaceae) root extract, EPs®7630 or "Kaloba®", is a widely used herbal remedy for respiratory infections, with some evidence of effectiveness for acute bronchitis. However, it is not yet widely recommended by medical professionals in the UK. There is a need to undertake appropriately designed randomised trials to test its use as an alternative to antibiotics. The aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a double-blind randomised controlled trial of Pelargonium sidoides root extract for treatment of acute bronchitis in UK primary care, investigating intervention compliance, patient preference for dosage form and acceptability of patient diaries.STUDY DESIGN: Feasibility double-blind randomised placebo-controlled clinical trial.METHODS: We aimed to recruit 160 patients with cough (≤ 21 days) caused by acute bronchitis from UK general practices. Practices were cluster-randomised to liquid or tablet preparations and patients were individually randomised to Kaloba® or placebo. We followed participants up for 28 days through self-reported patient diaries with telephone support and reviewed medical records at one month. Outcomes included recruitment, withdrawal, safety, reconsultation and symptom diary completion rates. We also assessed treatment adherence, antibiotic prescribing and consumption, mean symptom severity (at days 2-4 after randomisation) and time to symptom resolution. We interviewed 29 patients and 11 health professionals to identify barriers and facilitators to running such a randomised trial.RESULTS: Of 543 patients screened, 261 were eligible, of whom 134 (51%) were recruited and 103 (77%) returned a completed diary. Overall, 41% (41/100) of patients took antibiotics (Kaloba® liquid group: 48% [15/31]; placebo liquid group: 23% [6/26]; Kaloba® tablet group: 48% [9/21]; placebo tablet group: 50% [11/22]). Most patients adhered to the study medication (median 19 out of 21 doses taken in week 1, IQR 18-21 - all arms combined). There were no serious adverse events relating to treatment. Most patients interviewed found study recruitment to be straightforward, but some found the diary too complex.CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible and acceptable to recruit patients from UK primary care to a double-blind placebo-controlled trial of herbal medicine (Kaloba®) for the treatment of acute bronchitis, with good retention and low data attrition.TRIAL REGISTRATION: HATRIC was registered on the ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN17672884 ) on 16 August 2018, retrospectively registered. The record can be found at http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17672884 .</p

A cluster randomised controlled trial of an occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke living in UK care homes (OTCH): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The occupational therapy (OT) in care homes study (OTCH) aims to investigate the effect of a targeted course of individual OT (with task training, provision of adaptive equipment, minor environmental adaptations and staff education) for stroke survivors living in care homes, compared to usual care. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomised controlled trial of United Kingdom (UK) care homes (n = 90) with residents (n = 900) who have suffered a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA), and who are not receiving end-of-life care. Homes will be stratified by centre and by type of care provided and randomised (50:50) using computer generated blocked randomisation within strata to receive either the OT intervention (3 months intervention from an occupational therapist) or control (usual care). Staff training on facilitating independence and mobility and the use of adaptive equipment, will be delivered to every home, with control homes receiving this after the 12 month follow-up.Allocation will be concealed from the independent assessors, but the treating therapists, and residents will not be masked to the intervention. Measurements are taken at baseline prior to randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. The primary outcome measure is independence in self-care activities of daily living (Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index). Secondary outcome measures are mobility (Rivermead Mobility Index), mood (Geriatric Depression Scale), preference based quality of life measured from EQ-5D and costs associated with each intervention group. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) will be derived based on the EQ-5D scores. Cost effectiveness analysis will be estimated and measured by incremental cost effectiveness ratio. Adverse events will be recorded. DISCUSSION: This study will be the largest cluster randomised controlled trial of OT in care homes to date and will clarify the currently inconclusive literature on the efficacy of OT for stroke and TIA survivors residing in care homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN00757750.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Patient-reported outcome measures for monitoring primary care patients with depression: the PROMDEP cluster RCT and economic evaluation

Background: Guidelines on the management of depression recommend that practitioners use patient-reported outcome measures for the follow-up monitoring of symptoms, but there is a lack of evidence of benefit in terms of patient outcomes.// Objective: To test using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire as a patient-reported outcome measure for monitoring depression, training practitioners in interpreting scores and giving patients feedback.// Design: Parallel-group, cluster-randomised superiority trial; 1 : 1 allocation to intervention and control.// Setting: UK primary care (141 group general practices in England and Wales).// Inclusion criteria: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of depressive disorder or symptoms, recruited mainly through medical record searches, plus opportunistically in consultations.// Exclusions: Current depression treatment, dementia, psychosis, substance misuse and risk of suicide.// Intervention: Administration of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 questionnaire with patient feedback soon after diagnosis, and at follow-up 10–35 days later, compared with usual care.// Primary outcome: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, symptom scores at 12 weeks.// Secondary outcomes: Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, scores at 26 weeks; antidepressant drug treatment and mental health service contacts; social functioning (Work and Social Adjustment Scale) and quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension, five-level) at 12 and 26 weeks; service use over 26 weeks to calculate NHS costs; patient satisfaction at 26 weeks (Medical Informant Satisfaction Scale); and adverse events.// Sample size: The original target sample of 676 patients recruited was reduced to 554 due to finding a significant correlation between baseline and follow-up values for the primary outcome measure.// Randomisation: Remote computerised randomisation with minimisation by recruiting university, small/large practice and urban/rural location.// Blinding: Blinding of participants was impossible given the open cluster design, but self-report outcome measures prevented observer bias. Analysis was blind to allocation.// Analysis: Linear mixed models were used, adjusted for baseline depression, baseline anxiety, sociodemographic factors, and clustering including practice as random effect. Quality of life and costs were analysed over 26 weeks.// Qualitative interviews: Practitioner and patient interviews were conducted to reflect on trial processes and use of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 using the Normalization Process Theory framework.// Results: Three hundred and two patients were recruited in intervention arm practices and 227 patients were recruited in control practices. Primary outcome data were collected for 252 (83.4%) and 195 (85.9%), respectively. No significant difference in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd edition, score was found at 12 weeks (adjusted mean difference –0.46, 95% confidence interval –2.16 to 1.26). Nor were significant differences found in Beck Depression Inventory, 2nd Edition, score at 26 weeks, social functioning, patient satisfaction or adverse events. EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, quality-of-life scores favoured the intervention arm at 26 weeks (adjusted mean difference 0.053, 95% confidence interval 0.013 to 0.093). However, quality-adjusted life-years over 26 weeks were not significantly greater (difference 0.0013, 95% confidence interval –0.0157 to 0.0182). Costs were lower in the intervention arm but, again, not significantly (–£163, 95% confidence interval –£349 to £28). Cost-effectiveness and cost–utility analyses, therefore, suggested that the intervention was dominant over usual care, but with considerable uncertainty around the point estimates. Patients valued using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to compare scores at baseline and follow-up, whereas practitioner views were more mixed, with some considering it too time-consuming.// Conclusions: We found no evidence of improved depression management or outcome at 12 weeks from using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, but patients’ quality of life was better at 26 weeks, perhaps because feedback of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scores increased their awareness of improvement in their depression and reduced their anxiety. Further research in primary care should evaluate patient-reported outcome measures including anxiety symptoms, administered remotely, with algorithms delivering clear recommendations for changes in treatment

The Active Brains Digital Intervention to Reduce Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: Protocol for a Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Increasing physical activity, improving diet, and performing brain training exercises are associated with reduced cognitive decline in older adults. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we describe a feasibility trial of the Active Brains intervention, a web-based digital intervention developed to support older adults to make these 3 healthy behavior changes associated with improved cognitive health. The Active Brains trial is a randomized feasibility trial that will test how accessible, acceptable, and feasible the Active Brains intervention is and the effectiveness of the study procedures that we intend to use in the larger, main trial. METHODS: In the randomized controlled trial (RCT), we use a parallel design. We will be conducting the intervention with 2 populations recruited through GP practices (family practices) in England from 2018 to 2019: older adults with signs of cognitive decline and older adults without any cognitive decline. Trial participants were randomly allocated to 1 of 3 study groups: usual care, the Active Brains intervention, or the Active Brains website plus brief support from a trained coach (over the phone or by email). The main outcomes are performance on cognitive tasks, quality of life (using EuroQol-5D 5 level), Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, and diagnoses of dementia. Secondary outcomes (including depression, enablement, and health care costs) and process measures (including qualitative interviews with participants and supporters) will also be collected. The trial has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (reference 17/SC/0463). RESULTS: Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at conferences, and shared at public engagement events. Data collection was completed in May 2020, and the results will be reported in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study will help us to identify and make important changes to the website, the support received, or the study procedures before we progress to our main randomized phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 23758980; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN23758980. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/18929