Biomarker-guided duration of antibiotic treatment in children hospitalised with confirmed or suspected bacterial infection: statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study.

INTRODUCTION: The BATCH trial is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to compare procalcitonin-guided management of severe bacterial infection in children with current management. PRECISE is a mechanistic sub-study embedded into the BATCH trial. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study. METHODS: The BATCH trial will assess the effectiveness of an additional procalcitonin test in children (aged 72 h to 18 years) hospitalised with suspected or confirmed bacterial infection to guide antimicrobial prescribing decisions. Participants will be enrolled in the trial from randomisation until day 28 follow-up. The co-primary outcomes are duration of intravenous antibiotic use and a composite safety outcome. Target sample size is 1942 patients, based on detecting a 1-day reduction in intravenous antibiotic use (90% power, two-sided) and on a non-inferiority margin of 5% risk difference in the composite safety outcome (90% power, one-sided), while allowing for up to 10% loss to follow-up. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics will be summarised overall, by trial arm, and by whether patients were recruited before or after the pause in recruitment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the primary analysis, duration of intravenous antibiotic use will be tested for superiority using Cox regression, and the composite safety outcome will be tested for non-inferiority using logistic regression. The intervention will be judged successful if it reduces the duration of intravenous antibiotic use without compromising safety. Secondary analyses will include sensitivity analyses, pre-specified subgroup analyses, and analysis of secondary outcomes. Two sub-studies, including PRECISE, involve additional pre-specified subgroup analyses. All analyses will be adjusted for the balancing factors used in the randomisation, namely centre and patient age. CONCLUSION: We describe the statistical analysis plan for the BATCH trial and PRECISE sub-study, including definitions of clinical outcomes, reporting guidelines, statistical principles, and analysis methods. The trial uses a design with co-primary superiority and non-inferiority endpoints. The analysis plan has been written prior to the completion of follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION: BATCH: ISRCTN11369832, registered 20 September 2017, doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN11369832. PRECISE: ISRCTN14945050, registered 17 December 2020, doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN14945050.

Short-term risk prediction after major lower limb amputation: PERCEIVE study.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy with which healthcare professionals (HCPs) and risk prediction tools predict outcomes after major lower limb amputation (MLLA) is uncertain. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of predicting short-term (30 days after MLLA) mortality, morbidity, and revisional surgery. METHODS: The PERCEIVE (PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE following major lower limb amputation: a collaboratIVE) study was launched on 1 October 2020. It was an international multicentre study, including adults undergoing MLLA for complications of peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes. Preoperative predictions of 30-day mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision by surgeons and anaesthetists were recorded. Probabilities from relevant risk prediction tools were calculated. Evaluation of accuracy included measures of discrimination, calibration, and overall performance. RESULTS: Some 537 patients were included. HCPs had acceptable discrimination in predicting mortality (931 predictions; C-statistic 0.758) and MLLA revision (565 predictions; C-statistic 0.756), but were poor at predicting morbidity (980 predictions; C-statistic 0.616). They overpredicted the risk of all outcomes. All except three risk prediction tools had worse discrimination than HCPs for predicting mortality (C-statistics 0.789, 0.774, and 0.773); two of these significantly overestimated the risk compared with HCPs. SORT version 2 (the only tool incorporating HCP predictions) demonstrated better calibration and overall performance (Brier score 0.082) than HCPs. Tools predicting morbidity and MLLA revision had poor discrimination (C-statistics 0.520 and 0.679). CONCLUSION: Clinicians predicted mortality and MLLA revision well, but predicted morbidity poorly. They overestimated the risk of mortality, morbidity, and MLLA revision. Most short-term risk prediction tools had poorer discrimination or calibration than HCPs. The best method of predicting mortality was a statistical tool that incorporated HCP estimation.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised self-management intervention for living with long COVID: protocol for the LISTEN randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Individuals living with long COVID experience multiple, interacting and fluctuating symptoms which can have a dramatic impact on daily living. The aim of the Long Covid Personalised Self-managemenT support EvaluatioN (LISTEN) trial is to evaluate effects of the LISTEN co-designed self-management support intervention for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID on participation in routine activities, social participation, emotional well-being, quality of life, fatigue, and self-efficacy. Cost-effectiveness will also be evaluated, and a detailed process evaluation carried out to understand how LISTEN is implemented. METHODS: The study is a pragmatic randomised effectiveness and cost-effectiveness trial in which a total of 558 non-hospitalised people with long COVID will be randomised to either the LISTEN intervention or usual care. Recruitment strategies have been developed with input from the LISTEN Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) advisory group and a social enterprise, Diversity and Ability, to ensure inclusivity. Eligible participants can self-refer into the trial via a website or be referred by long COVID services. All participants complete a range of self-reported outcome measures, online, at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post randomisation (the trial primary end point). Those randomised to the LISTEN intervention are offered up to six one-to-one sessions with LISTEN-trained intervention practitioners and given a co-designed digital resource and paper-based book. A detailed process evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial to inform implementation approaches should the LISTEN intervention be found effective and cost-effective. DISCUSSION: The LISTEN trial is evaluating a co-designed, personalised self-management support intervention (the LISTEN intervention) for non-hospitalised people living with long COVID. The design has incorporated extensive strategies to minimise participant burden and maximise access. Whilst the duration of follow-up is limited, all participants are approached to consent for long-term follow-up (subject to additional funding being secured). TRIAL REGISTRATION: LISTEN ISRCTN36407216. Registered on 27/01/2022.

Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic Use in COVID-19 Hospitalised Patients (PEACH): Protocol for a Retrospective Observational Study.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Although COVID-19 is a viral illness, many patients admitted to hospital are prescribed antibiotics, based on concerns that COVID-19 patients may experience secondary bacterial infections, and the assumption that they may respond well to antibiotic therapy. This has led to an increase in antibiotic use for some hospitalised patients at a time when accumulating antibiotic resistance is a major global threat to health. Procalcitonin (PCT) is an inflammatory marker measured in blood samples and widely recommended to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. The PEACH study will compare patient outcomes from English and Welsh hospitals that used PCT testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with those from hospitals not using PCT. It will help to determine whether, and how, PCT testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. PEACH is a retrospective observational cohort study using patient-level clinical data from acute hospital Trusts and Health Boards in England and Wales. The primary objective is to measure the difference in antibiotic use between COVID-19 patients who did or did not have PCT testing at the time of diagnosis. Secondary objectives include measuring differences in length of stay, mortality, intensive care unit admission, and resistant bacterial infections between these groups.

The SWIS trial: Protocol of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial of school based social work.

BACKGROUND: Child and family social workers in the UK work closely with other agencies including schools and the police, and typically they are based in local authority offices. This study will evaluate the effectiveness of placing social workers in schools (SWIS) on the need for social care interventions. SWIS was piloted in three local authorities in 2018-2020, and findings from a feasibility study of the pilots suggests SWIS may operate through three key pathways: (1) by enhancing schools' response to safeguarding issues, (2) through increased collaboration between social workers, school staff, and parents, and (3) by improving relationships between social workers and young people. METHODS: The study is a two-arm pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial building on three feasibility studies which found SWIS to be promising. Social workers will work within secondary schools across local authorities in England. 280 mainstream secondary schools will be randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to SWIS or a comparison arm, which will be schools that continue as normal, without a social worker. The primary outcome will be the rate of Child Protection (Section 47) enquiries. Secondary outcomes will comprise rate of referrals to children's social care, rate of Child in Need (Section 17) assessments, days spent in care, and educational attendance and attainment. The study also includes an economic evaluation, and an implementation and process evaluation. Social care outcomes will be measured in July 2022, and educational outcomes will be measured in July 2023. Days in care will be measured at both time points. DISCUSSION: Findings will explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SWIS on the need for social care interventions. A final report will be published in January 2024. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered retrospectively with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry on 13.11.2020 (ISRCTN90922032).

Antibiotic prescribing in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 as a function of inflammatory markers in Wave 1 versus Wave 2: a systematic review

Background Less than 10% of hospitalized cases in the United Kingdom during the first wave of the pandemic had bacterial coinfection, but approximately 75% were prescribed antibiotics contrary to NICE guidelines. We have evaluated the relationship between antibiotic prescribing and biomarker use, in hospitalized adult patients with COVID-19 in the UK, as synthesis defined by the pandemic timeline, particularly during ‘Wave 2’ is lacking. Clinical outcomes were compared in the context of antimicrobial stewardship. C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), procalcitonin (PCT) and white cell count (WCC) were selected based on clinical relevance. Methods Studies (n = 300) dated 2019–22 were identified via EMBASE and Web of Science databases, using relevant search terms. Wave 1 and Wave 2 parameters were defined by the Office for National Statistics. Literature selection was organized by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). PROSPERO registration was commenced mitigating unplanned duplication. Diagnostics, prescribing, clinical outcomes and demographics were tabulated. Ten percent of studies were cross-checked. Results Final selection criteria yielded 29 papers, of which only 4 were from Wave 2. Cohort and retrospective studies accounted for 69% and 80%, respectively. Heterogeneity of studies prevented a meta-analysis. Determining disease severity or coinfection was the focus of ( n= 6) studies. The papers referencing WCC (n = 12) established that leucocytosis, like elevated CRP, was an efficient marker for bacterial infections. Additionally, CRP >100 mg/L was associated with increased prescribing. Another common theme was cut-off values to escalate (n = 9) or de-escalate (n = 12) prescribing. In PCT papers (n = 14), common de-escalation cut-offs were 0.25 ng/mL and 0.50 ng/mL. Lower admission PCT was associated with decreased mortality, admission duration and ICU admission rate. ESR use was unevaluable as it was only mentioned in one case study. During Wave 2, the use of immunomodulatory therapy may have contributed towards lower inflammatory markers. Hospital stays decreased while ICU duration increased. In ICU patient studies (n = 4) biomarker testing was more frequent. The higher 0.50 ng/mL PCT cut-off was employed but with higher mortality and ventilation rate. Conclusions More studies of Wave 2 cohorts are required. A weakness of the evidence base is that cohort study outcomes were reported in varying detail, a potential consequence of the need for rapidly published evidence. Nonetheless, PCT and CRP were demonstrated to be useful as prognosis indicators on hospital admission, and in timely antibiotic prescribing. Updated national guidelines should include standardized biomarker thresholds to improve antimicrobial stewardship.

Procalcitonin evaluation of antibiotic use in COVID-19 hospitalized patients during the first wave of COVID-19: the PEACH study

Background A minority of patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 have bacterial coinfection. Procalcitonin testing may help identify patients for whom antibiotics should be prescribed or withheld. The PEACH study describes the use of procalcitonin in English and Welsh hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic to help diagnose bacterial infections and guide antibiotic treatment. There is a lack of clear evidence to support its use in lung infections, which means in some hospitals, clinicians have used the procalcitonin test to guide antibiotic decisions in COVID-19, whilst in other hospitals, they have not. Our study is analysing data from hospitals that did and did not use procalcitonin testing during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It will determine whether and how procalcitonin testing should be used in the NHS in future waves of COVID-19 to protect patients from antibiotic overuse. Methods To assess whether the use of PCT testing, to guide antibiotic prescribing, safely reduced antibiotic use among patients who were hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic, we are answering this question through three different, and complimentary, work streams (WS), each with discrete work packages (WP): (i) Work Stream 1: utilization of PCT testing to guide antibiotic prescribing during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic;(ii) Work Stream 2: patient-level impact of PCT testing on antibiotic exposure and clinical outcome (main work stream currently in analysis);and (iii) Work Stream 3: health economics analysis of PCT testing to guide antibiotics in COVID-19. Results Our first publication from Work Stream 1 (Antibiotics 2021, 10: 516) used a web-based survey to gather data from antimicrobial leads about the use of procalcitonin testing. Responses were received from 148/151 (98%) eligible hospitals. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was widespread introduction and expansion of PCT use in NHS hospitals. The number of hospitals using PCT in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%) and use in ICU increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). This increase happened predominantly in March and April 2020, preceding NICE guidance. Approximately half of hospitals used PCT as a single test to guide decisions to discontinue antibiotics and half used repeated measurements. There was marked variation in the thresholds used for empirical antibiotic cessation and guidance about interpretation of values. Conclusions Procalcitonin testing has been widely adopted in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic in an unevidenced, heterogeneous way and in conflict with relevant NICE guidance. Further research is needed urgently that assesses the impact of this change on antibiotic prescribing and patient safety. Work Stream 2 is ongoing, and results will be published once available.

Impact of introducing procalcitonin testing on antibiotic usage in acute NHS hospitals during the first wave of COVID-19 in the UK: a controlled interrupted time series analysis of organization-level data.

BACKGROUND: Blood biomarkers have the potential to help identify COVID-19 patients with bacterial coinfection in whom antibiotics are indicated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, procalcitonin testing was widely introduced at hospitals in the UK to guide antibiotic prescribing. We have determined the impact of this on hospital-level antibiotic consumption. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, controlled interrupted time series analysis of organization-level data describing antibiotic dispensing, hospital activity and procalcitonin testing for acute hospitals/hospital trusts in England and Wales during the first wave of COVID-19 (24 February to 5 July 2020). RESULTS: In the main analysis of 105 hospitals in England, introduction of procalcitonin testing in emergency departments/acute medical admission units was associated with a statistically significant decrease in total antibiotic use of -1.08 (95% CI: -1.81 to -0.36) DDDs of antibiotic per admission per week per trust. This effect was then lost at a rate of 0.05 (95% CI: 0.02-0.08) DDDs per admission per week. Similar results were found specifically for first-line antibiotics for community-acquired pneumonia and for COVID-19 admissions rather than all admissions. Introduction of procalcitonin in the ICU setting was not associated with any significant change in antibiotic use. CONCLUSIONS: At hospitals where procalcitonin testing was introduced in emergency departments/acute medical units this was associated with an initial, but unsustained, reduction in antibiotic use. Further research should establish the patient-level impact of procalcitonin testing in this population and understand its potential for clinical effectiveness.

Procalcitonin Increase Is Associated with the Development of Critical Care-Acquired Infections in COVID-19 ARDS.

Secondary bacterial infection in COVID-19 patients is associated with increased mortality and disproportionately affects critically ill patients. This single-centre retrospective observational study investigates the comparative efficacy of change in procalcitonin (PCT) and other commonly available biomarkers in revealing or predicting microbiologically proven secondary infection in critical COVID-19 patients. Adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between 9 March 2020 and 5 June 2020 were recruited to the study. For daily biomarker and secondary infection, laboratory-confirmed bloodstream infection (LCBI) and ventilator-associated pneumonia/tracheobronchitis (VAP/VAT) data were collected. We observed a PCT rise in 53 (81.5%) of the patients, a C-reactive protein (CRP) rise in 55 (84.6%) and a white blood cell count (WBC) rise in 61 (93.8%). Secondary infection was confirmed in 33 (50.8%) of the patients. A PCT rise was present in 97.0% of patients with at least one confirmed VAP/VAT and/or LCBI event. CRP and WBC rises occurred in 93.9% and 97.0% of patients with confirmed VAP/VAT and/or LCBI, respectively. Logistic regression analysis found that, when including all biomarkers in the same model, there was a significant association between PCT rise and the occurrence of LCBI and/or VAP/VAT (OR = 14.86 95%CI: 2.20, 342.53; p = 0.021). Conversely, no statistically significant relationship was found between either a CRP rise (p = 0.167) or a WBC rise (p = 0.855) and the occurrence of VAP/VAT and/or LCBI. These findings provide a promising insight into the usefulness of PCT measurement in predicting the emergence of secondary bacterial infection in ICU.

DOMINO-HD: A 12-month observational cohort study of lifestyle factors in people with huntington’s disease

BackgroundThe course of Huntington’s disease (HD) is believed to be modulated by lifestyle and genetic factors. However, we do not understand how the interplay of these affects disease progression. An efficient method of measuring lifestyle factors involves the use of digital monitoring devices, but their long-term use in clinical HD populations has not yet been explored.AimInvestigate the use of digital technologies in a longitudinal observational study to inform our understanding of the contribution of multi-domain lifestyle and genetic factors in the progression of HD.MethodsWe plan to recruit 300-450 people with early to mid-stage HD to a 12-month observational study measuring aspects of physical activity, nutrition and sleep. Participants with existing genome wide association study (GWAS) data will be preferentially recruited. Assessment of dietary, sleep and physical activity habits will be performed at baseline and 12-month follow-up Clinical measures will be obtained from the corresponding annual Enroll-HD assessment (within 8 weeks of the DOMINO-HD assessment). Each participant will wear a Fitbit for the duration of the study. Lifestyle, genetic and clinical data will be linked and propensity score weighting methodology will be applied to examine the causal effect of the multi-domain lifestyle and genetic measures on HD progression.ResultsThe start of recruitment was delayed by 10 months due to Covid-19. As of 1st July 2021, we have recruited 36 participants across 5 clinical sites, with recruitment planned to continue until March 2022.ConclusionSuccessful collection of longitudinal lifestyle data, combined with functional clinical measures and genetic factors will allow, for the first time, the investigation of causal relationships between environmental and genetic modifiers with HD progression. We can then use the information generated to design lifestyle interventions aimed at improving quality of life and prognosis in HD.

Use of Procalcitonin during the First Wave of COVID-19 in the Acute NHS Hospitals: A Retrospective Observational Study.

A minority of patients presenting to hospital with COVID-19 have bacterial co-infection. Procalcitonin testing may help identify patients for whom antibiotics should be prescribed or withheld. This study describes the use of procalcitonin in English and Welsh hospitals during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A web-based survey of antimicrobial leads gathered data about the use of procalcitonin testing. Responses were received from 148/151 (98%) eligible hospitals. During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was widespread introduction and expansion of PCT use in NHS hospitals. The number of hospitals using PCT in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%) and use in Intensive Care Units (ICU) increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). This increase happened predominantly in March and April 2020, preceding NICE guidance. Approximately half of hospitals used PCT as a single test to guide decisions to discontinue antibiotics and half used repeated measurements. There was marked variation in the thresholds used for empiric antibiotic cessation and guidance about interpretation of values. Procalcitonin testing has been widely adopted in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic in an unevidenced, heterogeneous way and in conflict with relevant NICE guidance. Further research is needed urgently that assesses the impact of this change on antibiotic prescribing and patient safety.