Fast synthesis of platinum nanopetals and nanospheres for highly-sensitive non-enzymatic detection of glucose and selective sensing of ions

Novel methods to obtain Pt nanostructured electrodes have raised particular interest due to their high performance in electrochemistry. Several nanostructuration methods proposed in the literature use costly and bulky equipment or are time-consuming due to the numerous steps they involve. Here, Pt nanostructures were produced for the first time by one-step template-free electrodeposition on Pt bare electrodes. The change in size and shape of the nanostructures is proven to be dependent on the deposition parameters and on the ratio between sulphuric acid and chloride-complexes (i.e., hexachloroplatinate or tetrachloroplatinate). To further improve the electrochemical properties of electrodes, depositions of Pt nanostructures on previously synthesised Pt nanostructures are also performed. The electroactive surface areas exhibit a two order of magnitude improvement when Pt nanostructures with the smallest size are used. All the biosensors based on Pt nanostructures and immobilised glucose oxidase display higher sensitivity as compared to bare Pt electrodes. Pt nanostructures retained an excellent electrocatalytic activity towards the direct oxidation of glucose. Finally, the nanodeposits were proven to be an excellent solid contact for ion measurements, significantly improving the time-stability of the potential. The use of these new nanostructured coatings in electrochemical sensors opens new perspectives for multipanel monitoring of human metabolism

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER) 2: a cluster randomised trial and systematic review of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of new protocols for emergency ambulance paramedics to assess older people following a fall with referral to community-based care when appropriate.

BACKGROUND: Emergency calls are frequently made to ambulance services for older people who have fallen, but ambulance crews often leave patients at the scene without any ongoing care. We evaluated a new clinical protocol which allowed paramedics to assess older people who had fallen and, if appropriate, refer them to community-based falls services. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes, processes and costs of care between intervention and control groups; and to understand factors which facilitate or hinder use. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Participating paramedics at three ambulance services in England and Wales were based at stations randomised to intervention or control arms. Participants were aged 65 years and over, attended by a study paramedic for a fall-related emergency service call, and resident in the trial catchment areas. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention paramedics received a clinical protocol with referral pathway, training and support to change practice. Control paramedics continued practice as normal. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome comprised subsequent emergency health-care contacts (emergency admissions, emergency department attendances, emergency service calls) or death at 1 month and 6 months. Secondary outcomes included pathway of care, ambulance service operational indicators, self-reported outcomes and costs of care. Those assessing outcomes remained blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Across sites, 3073 eligible patients attended by 105 paramedics from 14 ambulance stations were randomly allocated to the intervention group, and 2841 eligible patients attended by 110 paramedics from 11 stations were randomly allocated to the control group. After excluding dissenting and unmatched patients, 2391 intervention group patients and 2264 control group patients were included in primary outcome analyses. We did not find an effect on our overall primary outcome at 1 month or 6 months. However, further emergency service calls were reduced at both 1 month and 6 months; a smaller proportion of patients had made further emergency service calls at 1 month (18.5% vs. 21.8%) and the rate per patient-day at risk at 6 months was lower in the intervention group (0.013 vs. 0.017). Rate of conveyance to emergency department at index incident was similar between groups. Eight per cent of trial eligible patients in the intervention arm were referred to falls services by attending paramedics, compared with 1% in the control arm. The proportion of patients left at scene without further care was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (22.6% vs. 30.3%). We found no differences in duration of episode of care or job cycle. No adverse events were reported. Mean cost of the intervention was £17.30 per patient. There were no significant differences in mean resource utilisation, utilities at 1 month or 6 months or quality-adjusted life-years. In total, 58 patients, 25 paramedics and 31 stakeholders participated in focus groups or interviews. Patients were very satisfied with assessments carried out by paramedics. Paramedics reported that the intervention had increased their confidence to leave patients at home, but barriers to referral included patients' social situations and autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that this new pathway may be introduced by ambulance services at modest cost, without risk of harm and with some reductions in further emergency calls. However, we did not find evidence of improved health outcomes or reductions in overall NHS emergency workload. Further research is necessary to understand issues in implementation, the costs and benefits of e-trials and the performance of the modified Falls Efficacy Scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756 and PROSPERO CRD42013006418. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Involving older people in a multi-centre randomised trial of a complex intervention in pre-hospital emergency care: implementation of a collaborative model

Background Health services research is expected to involve service users as active partners in the research process, but few examples report how this has been achieved in practice in trials. We implemented a model to involve service users in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in pre-hospital emergency care. We used the generic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from our Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) as the basis for creating a model to fit the context and population of the SAFER 2 trial. Methods In our model, we planned to involve service users at all stages in the trial through decision-making forums at 3 levels: 1) strategic; 2) site (e.g. Wales; London; East Midlands); 3) local. We linked with charities and community groups to recruit people with experience of our study population. We collected notes of meetings alongside other documentary evidence such as attendance records and study documentation to track how we implemented our model. Results We involved service users at strategic, site and local level. We also added additional strategic level forums (Task and Finish Groups and Writing Days) where we included service users. Service user involvement varied in frequency and type across meetings, research stages and locations but stabilised and increased as the trial progressed. Conclusion Involving service users in the SAFER 2 trial showed how it is feasible and achievable for patients, carers and potential patients sharing the demographic characteristics of our study population to collaborate in a multi-centre trial at the level which suited their health, location, skills and expertise. A standard model of involvement can be tailored by adopting a flexible approach to take account of the context and complexities of a multi-site trial

Early exercise in blunt chest wall trauma: protocol for a mixed-methods, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial (ELECT2 trial)

Introduction: Chronic pain and disability are now well-recognised long-term complications of blunt chest wall trauma. Limited research exists regarding therapeutic interventions that can be used to address these complications. A recent feasibility study was completed testing the methods of a definitive trial. This protocol describes the proposed definitive trial, the aim of which is to investigate the impact of an early exercise programme on chronic pain and disability in patients with blunt chest wall trauma. Methods/analysis: This mixed-methods, multicentre, parallel randomised controlled trial will run in four hospitals in Wales and one in England over 12-month recruitment period. Patients will be randomised to either the control group (routine physiotherapy input) or the intervention group (routine physiotherapy input plus a simple exercise programme completed individually by the patient). Baseline measurements including completion of two surveys (Brief Pain Inventory and EuroQol 5-dimensions, 5-Levels) will be obtained on initial assessment. These measures and a client services receipt inventory will be repeated at 3-month postinjury. Analysis of outcomes will focus on rate and severity of chronic pain and disability, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of the programme by patients and clinicians. Qualitative feedback regarding acceptability will be obtained through patient and clinician focus groups. Ethics/dissemination: London Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 21/LO/0782) and the Health Research Authority granted approval for the trial in December 2021. Patient recruitment will commence in February 2022. Planned dissemination is through publication in a peer-reviewed Emergency Medicine Journal, presentation at appropriate conferences and to stakeholders at professional meetings. Trial registration number: ISRCTN65829737; Pre-results

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)