Dementia priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance: using patient and public involvement and the evidence base to inform the research agenda.

BACKGROUND: The James Lind Alliance (JLA) created an approach to elicit the views of those under-represented in research priority exercises. Building on this, the JLA Dementia Priority Setting Partnership was set up as an independent and evidence-based project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions ('uncertainties') about prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care relating to dementia. METHODS: A survey was widely disseminated to stakeholders with an interest in the needs of the older population. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the large amount of questions collected from which research questions were developed using PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome). Each question was checked against an extensive evidence base of high-quality systematic reviews to verify whether they were true uncertainties. FINDINGS: One thousand five hundred and sixty-three questionnaires were received, from people with dementia, carers/relatives, and health and care professionals; 85 uncertainties were identified from other sources. Questions were refined and formatted iteratively into 146 unique uncertainties. An interim prioritisation process involving diverse organisations identified the top 25 ranked questions. At a final face-to-face prioritisation workshop, 18 people representing the above constituencies arrived by consensus at the top 10 priority questions. The impact of patient and public involvement on the priorities is discussed. INTERPRETATION: The long (146 questions) and top 10 lists of dementia research priorities provide a focus for researchers, funders and commissioners. They highlight a need for more research into care for people with dementia and carers, and a need for high-quality effectiveness trials in all aspects of dementia research.This work was funded by the Alzheimer’s Society, UK (grant number RG66301) and supported by the National Institute for Health Research Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. No funding source had a role in the preparation of this paper, or the decision to submit it for publication.This is the final published version of the article. It was originally published in Age and Ageing (Age and Ageing 2015; 44: 985–993 doi: 10.1093/ageing/afv143). The final version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afv14

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

What works in 'real life' to facilitate home deaths and fewer hospital admissions for those at end of life? Results from a realistic evaluation of new palliative care services in two English counties

BACKGROUND: We evaluated end of life care services in two English counties including: coordination centres, telephone advice line, ‘Discharge in Reach’ nurses, a specialist community personal care team and community nurse educators. Elsewhere, we published findings detailing high family carer satisfaction and fewer hospital admissions, Accident and Emergency attendances and hospital deaths for service users compared to controls. The aim of this paper is to discuss what contributed to those outcomes. METHODS: Using realist evaluation, data collection included documentation (e.g. referral databases), 15 observations of services and interviews with 43 family carers and 105 professionals. Data were analysed using framework analysis, applying realist evaluation concepts. Findings were discussed at successive team meetings and further data was collected until team consensus was reached. RESULTS: Services ‘worked’ primarily for those with cancer with ‘fast track’ funding who were close to death. Factors contributing to success included services staffed with experienced palliative care professionals with dedicated (and sufficient) time for difficult conversations with family carers, patients and/or clinical colleagues about death and the practicalities of caring for the dying. Using their formal and informal knowledge of the local healthcare system, they accessed community resources to support homecare and delivered excellent services. This engendered confidence and reassurance for staff, family carers and patients, possibly contributing to less hospital admissions and A&E attendances and more home deaths. CONCLUSIONS: With demand for 24-hour end of life care growing and care provision fragmented across health and social care boundaries, services like these that cut across organisational sectors may become more important. They offer an overview to help navigate those desiring a home death through the system

Diagnoses and treatments for participants with interstitial lung abnormalities detected in the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial

Introduction Interstitial lung abnormalities (ILA) are relatively common incidental findings in participants undergoing low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Some ILA are transient and inconsequential, but others represent interstitial lung disease (ILD). Lung cancer screening therefore offers the opportunity of earlier diagnosis and treatment of ILD for some screening participants.Methods The prevalence of ILA in participants in the baseline screening round of the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial is reported, along with the proportion referred to a regional ILD service, eventual diagnoses, outcomes and treatments.Results Of 6650 participants undergoing screening, ILA were reported in 169 (2.5%) participants. Following review in a screening review meeting, 56 participants were referred to the ILD service for further evaluation (0.8% of all screening participants). 2 participants declined referral, 1 is currently awaiting review and the remaining 53 were confirmed as having ILD. Eventual diagnoses were idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (n=14), respiratory bronchiolitis ILD (n=4), chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (n=2), connective tissue disease/rheumatoid arthritis-related ILD (n=4), asbestosis (n=1), idiopathic non-specific interstitial pneumonia (n=1), sarcoidosis (n=1) and pleuroparenchymal fibroelastosis (n=1). Twenty five patients had unclassifiable idiopathic interstitial pneumonia. Overall, 10 people received pharmacotherapy (7 antifibrotics and 3 prednisolone) representing 18% of those referred to the ILD service and 0.15% of those undergoing screening. 32 people remain under surveillance in the ILD service, some of whom may require treatment in future.Discussion Lung cancer screening detects clinically significant cases of ILD allowing early commencement of disease-modifying treatment in a proportion of participants. This is the largest screening cohort to report eventual diagnoses and treatments and provides an estimate of the level of clinical activity to be expected by ILD services as lung cancer screening is implemented. Further research is needed to clarify the optimal management of screen-detected ILD.Trial registration number ISRCTN42704678