Long-term consequences of urinary tract infection in childhood: an electronic population-based cohort study in Welsh primary and secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Childhood urinary tract infection (UTI) can cause renal scarring, and possibly hypertension, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Previous studies have focused on selected populations, with severe illness or underlying risk factors. The risk for most children with UTI is unclear. AIM: To examine the association between childhood UTI and outcomes in an unselected population of children. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective population-based cohort study using linked GP, hospital, and microbiology records in Wales, UK. METHOD: Participants were all children born in 2005-2009, with follow-up until 31 December 2017. The exposure was microbiologically confirmed UTI before the age of 5 years. The key outcome measures were renal scarring, hypertension, CKD, and ESRF. RESULTS: In total, 159 201 children were included; 77 524 (48.7%) were female and 7% (n = 11 099) had UTI before the age of 5 years. A total of 0.16% (n = 245) were diagnosed with renal scarring by the age of 7 years. Odds of renal scarring were higher in children by age 7 years with UTI (1.24%; adjusted odds ratio 4.60 [95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.33 to 6.35]). Mean follow-up was 9.53 years. Adjusted hazard ratios were: 1.44 (95% CI = 0.84 to 2.46) for hypertension; 1.67 (95% CI = 0.85 to 3.31) for CKD; and 1.16 (95% CI = 0.56 to 2.37) for ESRF. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of renal scarring in an unselected population of children with UTI is low. Without underlying risk factors, UTI is not associated with CKD, hypertension, or ESRF by the age of 10 years. Further research with systematic scanning of children's kidneys, including those with less severe UTI and without UTI, is needed to increase the certainty of these results, as most children are not scanned. Longer follow-up is needed to establish if UTI, without additional risk factors, is associated with hypertension, CKD, or ESRF later in life.

Azithromycin therapy for prevention of chronic lung disease of prematurity (AZTEC): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have reported conflicting evidence on whether macrolide antibiotics reduce rates of chronic lung disease of prematurity (CLD) in at-risk preterm infants born at less than 30 weeks' gestation, including in those colonised with pulmonary Ureaplasma spp. Since an adequately powered trial has been lacking, we aimed to assess if the macrolide azithromycin improved survival without the development of physiologically defined moderate or severe CLD in preterm infants. METHODS: AZTEC was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 28 tertiary neonatal intensive care units in the UK. Infants were eligible if they were born at less than 30 weeks' gestation and had received at least 2 h of either non-invasive (continuous positive airway pressure or humidified high flow nasal cannula therapy) or invasive respiratory support (via endotracheal tube) within 72 h of birth. Eligible infants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio using random permuted blocks of four to receive either intravenous azithromycin at 20 mg/kg per day for 3 days followed by 10 mg/kg for 7 days, or to placebo. Allocation was stratified by centre and gestational age at birth (<28 weeks vs ≥28 weeks). Azithromycin and placebo vials were encased in tamper-evident custom cardboard cartons to ensure masking for clinicians, parents, and the research team. The primary outcome was survival without development of physiologically defined moderate or severe CLD at 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. Outcomes and safety were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (all randomly allocated infants, regardless of any post-randomisation events). The study was registered with ISRCRN (11650227) and is closed. FINDINGS: Infants were recruited between Oct 9, 2019, and March 22, 2022. 799 (53·1%) of 1505 eligible infants underwent random allocation; three infants were withdrawn, including consent to use their data, leaving 796 infants for analysis. Survival without moderate or severe CLD occurred in 166 (42%) of 394 infants in the intervention group and 179 (45%) of 402 in the placebo group (three-level adjusted OR [aOR] 0·84, 95% CI 0·55-1·29, p=0·43). Pulmonary Ureaplasma spp colonisation did not influence treatment effect. Overall, seven serious adverse events were reported for the azithromycin group (five graded as severe, two as moderate), and six serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group (two severe, two moderate, and two mild), as assessed by the local principal investigators. INTERPRETATION: Since prophylactic use of azithromycin did not improve survival without development of physiologically-defined CLD, regardless of Ureaplasma spp colonisation, it cannot be recommended in clinical practice. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Randomized controlled trial of molnupiravir SARS-CoV-2 viral and antibody response in at-risk adult outpatients.

Viral clearance, antibody response and the mutagenic effect of molnupiravir has not been elucidated in at-risk populations. Non-hospitalised participants within 5 days of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms randomised to receive molnupiravir (n = 253) or Usual Care (n = 324) were recruited to study viral and antibody dynamics and the effect of molnupiravir on viral whole genome sequence from 1437 viral genomes. Molnupiravir accelerates viral load decline, but virus is detectable by Day 5 in most cases. At Day 14 (9 days post-treatment), molnupiravir is associated with significantly higher viral persistence and significantly lower anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titres compared to Usual Care. Serial sequencing reveals increased mutagenesis with molnupiravir treatment. Persistence of detectable viral RNA at Day 14 in the molnupiravir group is associated with higher transition mutations following treatment cessation. Viral viability at Day 14 is similar in both groups with post-molnupiravir treated samples cultured up to 9 days post cessation of treatment. The current 5-day molnupiravir course is too short. Longer courses should be tested to reduce the risk of potentially transmissible molnupiravir-mutated variants being generated. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031.

Cost-utility analysis of molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for community-based adults with COVID-19 and increased risk of adverse outcomes in the UK PANORAMIC trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral for early treatment of SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated populations. AIM: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir relative to usual care alone among mainly vaccinated community-based people at higher risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19 over six months. DESIGN AND SETTING: Economic evaluation of the PANORAMIC trial in the UK. METHOD: A cost-utility analysis that adopted a UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and a six-month time horizon was performed using PANORAMIC trial data. Cost-effectiveness was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses assessed the impacts of uncertainty and heterogeneity. Threshold analysis explored the price for molnupiravir consistent with likely reimbursement. RESULTS: In the base case analysis, molnupiravir had higher mean costs of £449 (95% confidence interval [CI] 445 to 453) and higher mean QALYs of 0.0055 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.007) than usual care (mean incremental cost per QALY of £81190). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses showed similar results, except those aged ≥75 years with a 55% probability of being cost-effective at a £30000 per QALY threshold. Molnupiravir would have to be priced around £147 per course to be cost-effective at a £15000 per QALY threshold. CONCLUSION: Molnupiravir at the current cost of £513 per course is unlikely to be cost-effective relative to usual care over a six-month time horizon among mainly vaccinated COVID-19 patients at increased risk of adverse outcomes, except those aged ≥75 years.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study (THESEUS): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, painful disease affecting flexures and other skin regions, producing nodules, abscesses and skin tunnels. Laser treatment targeting hair follicles and deroofing of skin tunnels are standard HS interventions in some countries but are rarely offered in the UK. OBJECTIVES: To describe current UK HS management pathways and influencing factors to inform the design of future randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: THESEUS was a nonrandomized 12-month prospective cohort study set in 10 UK hospitals offering five interventions: oral doxycycline 200 mg daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks, extended for longer in some cases; laser treatment targeting hair follicles; deroofing; and conventional surgery. The primary outcome was the combination of clinician-assessed eligibility and participant hypothetical willingness to receive each intervention. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of participants selecting each intervention as their final treatment option; the proportion who switch treatments; treatment fidelity; and attrition rates. THESEUS was prospectively registered on the ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN69985145. RESULTS: The recruitment target of 150 participants was met after 18 months, in July 2021, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline demographics reflected the HS secondary care population: average age 36 years, 81% female, 20% non-White, 64% current or ex-smokers, 86% body mass index ≥ 25, 68% with moderate disease, 19% with severe disease and 13% with mild disease. Laser was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants eligible and willing to receive treatment, then deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), clindamycin and rifampicin (44%), and doxycycline (37%). Laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion of participants (41%). Attrition rates were 11% and 17% after 3 and 6 months, respectively. Concordance with doxycycline was 52% after 3 months due to lack of efficacy, participant choice and adverse effects. Delays with procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants starting laser and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Uptake of conventional surgery was too small to characterize the intervention. Switching treatment was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: THESEUS has established laser treatment and deroofing for HS in the UK and demonstrated their popularity with patients and clinicians for future RCTs.

Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study: the THESEUS prospective cohort study.

Background: Hidradenitis suppurativa is a chronic inflammatory skin disease characterised by recurrent inflammatory lesions and skin tunnels in flexural sites such as the axilla. Deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment are standard hidradenitis suppurativa interventions in some countries but not yet introduced in the United Kingdom. Objective: To understand current hidradenitis suppurativa management pathways and what influences treatment choices to inform the design of future randomised controlled trials. Design: Prospective 12-month observational cohort study, including five treatment options, with nested qualitative interviews and an end-of-study consensus workshop. Setting: Ten United Kingdom hospitals with recruitment led by dermatology and plastic surgery departments. Participants: Adults with active hidradenitis suppurativa of any severity not adequately controlled by current treatment. Interventions: Oral doxycycline 200 mg once daily; oral clindamycin and rifampicin, both 300 mg twice daily for 10 weeks initially; laser treatment targeting the hair follicle (neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet or alexandrite); deroofing; and conventional surgery. Main outcome measures: Primary outcome was the proportion of participants who are eligible, and hypothetically willing, to use the different treatment options. Secondary outcomes included proportion of participants choosing each of the study interventions, with reasons for their choices; proportion of participants who switched treatments; treatment fidelity; loss to follow-up rates over 12 months; and efficacy outcome estimates to inform outcome measure instrument responsiveness. Results: Between February 2020 and July 2021, 151 participants were recruited, with two pauses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Follow-up rates were 89% and 83% after 3 and 6 months, decreasing to 70% and 44% at 9 and 12 months, respectively, because pandemic recruitment delays prevented all participants reaching their final review. Baseline demographics included an average age of 36 years, 81% female, 20% black, Asian or Caribbean, 64% current or ex-smokers and 86% with a raised body mass index. Some 69% had moderate disease, 19% severe disease and 13% mild disease. Regarding the study's primary outcome, laser treatment was the intervention with the highest proportion (69%) of participants who were eligible and hypothetically willing to receive treatment, followed by deroofing (58%), conventional surgery (54%), the combination of oral clindamycin and rifampicin (44%) and doxycycline (37%). Considering participant willingness in isolation, laser was ranked first choice by the greatest proportion (41%) of participants. The cohort study and qualitative study demonstrated that participant willingness to receive treatment was strongly influenced by their clinician. Fidelity to oral doxycycline was only 52% after 3 months due to lack of effectiveness, participant preference and adverse effects. Delays receiving procedural interventions were common, with only 43% and 26% of participants commencing laser therapy and deroofing, respectively, after 3 months. Treatment switching was uncommon and there were no serious adverse events. Daily pain score text messages were initiated in 110 participants. Daily responses reduced over time with greatest concordance during the first 14 days. Limitations: It was not possible to characterise conventional surgery due to a low number of participants. Conclusion: The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study established deroofing and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa in the United Kingdom and developed a network of 10 sites for subsequent hidradenitis suppurativa randomised controlled trials. Future work: The consensus workshop prioritised laser treatment and deroofing as interventions for future randomised controlled trials, in some cases combined with drug treatment. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN69985145. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 12/35/64) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 30. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

The Treatment of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Evaluation Study introduced deroofing of skin tunnels and laser treatment for hidradenitis suppurativa and found that these are preferred interventions for future trials compared with oral antibiotics or conventional surgery.

Predicting illness progression for children with lower respiratory infections in primary care: a prospective cohort and observational study.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs), fuelling antibiotic resistance, and there are few prognostic tools available to inform management. AIM: To externally validate an existing prognostic model (STARWAVe) to identify children at low risk of illness progression, and if model performance was limited to develop a new internally validated prognostic model. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study with a nested trial in a primary care setting. METHOD: Children aged 6 months to 12 years presenting with uncomplicated LRTI were included in the cohort. Children were randomised to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day for 7 days or placebo, or if not randomised they participated in a parallel observational study to maximise generalisability. Baseline clinical data were used to predict adverse outcome (illness progression requiring hospital assessment). RESULTS: A total of 758 children participated (n = 432 trial, n = 326 observational). For predicting illness progression the STARWAVe prognostic model had moderate performance (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50 to 0.77), but a new, internally validated model (seven items: baseline severity; respiratory rate; duration of prior illness; oxygen saturation; sputum or a rattly chest; passing urine less often; and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped AUROC 0.83, 95% CI = 0.74 to 0.92) and calibration. A three-item model (respiratory rate; oxygen saturation; and sputum or a rattly chest) also performed well (AUROC 0.81, 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.91), as did a score (ranging from 19 to 102) derived from coefficients of the model (AUROC 0.78, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88): a score of <70 classified 89% (n = 600/674) of children having a low risk (<5%) of progression of illness. CONCLUSION: A simple three-item prognostic score could be useful as a tool to identify children with LRTI who are at low risk of an adverse outcome and to guide clinical management.

Using microbiological data to improve the use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: A protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to antibiotics is rising and threatens future antibiotic effectiveness. 'Antibiotic targeting' ensures patients who may benefit from antibiotics receive them, while being safely withheld from those who may not. Point-of-care tests may assist with antibiotic targeting by allowing primary care clinicians to establish if symptomatic patients have a viral, bacterial, combined, or no infection. However, because organisms can be harmlessly carried, it is important to know if the presence of the virus/bacteria is related to the illness for which the patient is being assessed. One way to do this is to look for associations with more severe/prolonged symptoms and test results. Previous research to answer this question for acute respiratory tract infections has given conflicting results with studies has not having enough participants to provide statistical confidence. AIM: To undertake a synthesis of IPD from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies of respiratory tract infections (RTI) in order to investigate the prognostic value of microbiological data in addition to, or instead of, clinical symptoms and signs. METHODS: A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase will be carried out for studies of acute respiratory infection in primary care settings. The outcomes of interest are duration of disease, severity of disease, repeated consultation with new/worsening illness and complications requiring hospitalisation. Authors of eligible studies will be contacted to provide anonymised individual participant data. The data will be harmonised and aggregated. Multilevel regression analysis will be conducted to determine key outcome measures for different potential pathogens and whether these offer any additional information on prognosis beyond clinical symptoms and signs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023376769.

Planning ahead for research participation: survey of public and professional stakeholders' views about the acceptability and feasibility of advance research planning.

BACKGROUND: Anticipatory planning in the UK focuses on supporting people who anticipate periods of impaired capacity to express their wishes about future care through processes such as advance care planning. Other countries have extended anticipatory planning to include processes for people to prospectively express their preferences about research participation. Advance research planning (ARP) is thought to extend autonomy and ensure that 'proxy' decisions about research are based on their wishes and preferences. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with two stakeholder groups (members of the public including people living with capacity-affecting conditions and family members; researchers and other professionals) who were recruited via research registries and other routes. Online questionnaires were used to capture the perspectives of the two groups. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: A total of 327 participants (members of the public n = 277, professionals n = 50) completed the survey (November 2022 - March 2023). ARP was supported by 97% of public contributors and 94% of professionals. Participants thought that ARP should include the person's general wishes about research, specific types of studies, and who should make decisions on their behalf. They identified a number of challenges, including how ARP could take account of changes in individuals' preferences or circumstances whilst protecting their rights and interests. Implementation barriers included the potential time, complexity, and cost involved. These could be addressed by embedding ARP in existing anticipatory planning pathways and aligning it with other research enrolment activities. Relationships and trust played a key role, including underpinning who should support the delivery of ARP, how they are trained, and when it is undertaken. CONCLUSIONS: There were high levels of support for introducing ARP in the UK. Further research should explore practical barriers and stakeholder concerns and identify any unintended consequences. Future activities should include developing ARP interventions alongside training and other resources, and also focus on public awareness campaigns, and engaging policymakers and other stakeholders.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease.

INTRODUCTION: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Gut microbiology of UK care home residents: a cross-sectional analysis from a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of potentially clinically relevant gut pathogens and associations with the carriage of resistant organisms in UK care home residents. METHODS: Stool samples were collected pre-randomisation from care home residents participating in a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Cultivable clinically relevant bacteria were analysed. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by agar dilution (amoxicillin, co-amoxiclav, gentamicin, trimethoprim, nitrofurantoin, and ciprofloxacin). We also aimed to detect resistance to third-generation cephalosporins, carbapenems, and vancomycin. RESULTS: Stool samples were available for 159/310 residents participating in the trial (51%) from 23 care homes between 2016 and 2018. In total, 402 bacterial isolates were cultured from 158 stool samples and 29 different species were cultured. The five most common species were Escherichia coli (155/158, 98%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (40/158, 25%), Enterococcus faecalis (35/158, 22%), Enterococcus faecium (30/158, 19%), and Proteus mirabilis (25/158, 16%). Enterobacterales isolates were cultured from 157 samples (99%), and resistance to at least one of the tested antimicrobials was found in 119 of these (76%). There were high levels of variation in outcomes by care home. DISCUSSION: We demonstrated that care home residents harbour significant levels of antimicrobial-resistant organisms in their stool. This work emphasises the importance of both enhanced infection control practices and antimicrobial stewardship programmes to support the appropriate use of antimicrobials in this setting.

Antibiotics for lower respiratory tract infection in children presenting in primary care: ARTIC-PC RCT.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance is a global health threat. Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections, but there is little randomised evidence to support the effectiveness of antibiotics in treating these infections, either overall or relating to key clinical subgroups in which antibiotic prescribing is common (chest signs; fever; physician rating of unwell; sputum/rattly chest; shortness of breath). Objectives: To estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children both overall and in clinical subgroups. Design: Placebo-controlled trial with qualitative, observational and cost-effectiveness studies. Setting: UK general practices. Participants: Children aged 1-12 years with acute uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections. Outcomes: The primary outcome was the duration in days of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (measured using a validated diary). Secondary outcomes were symptom severity on days 2-4 (0 = no problem to 6 = as bad as it could be); symptom duration until very little/no problem; reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms; complications; side effects; and resource use. Methods: Children were randomised to receive 50 mg/kg/day of oral amoxicillin in divided doses for 7 days, or placebo using pre-prepared packs, using computer-generated random numbers by an independent statistician. Children who were not randomised could participate in a parallel observational study. Semistructured telephone interviews explored the views of 16 parents and 14 clinicians, and the data were analysed using thematic analysis. Throat swabs were analysed using multiplex polymerase chain reaction. Results: A total of 432 children were randomised (antibiotics, n = 221; placebo, n = 211). The primary analysis imputed missing data for 115 children. The duration of moderately bad symptoms was similar in the antibiotic and placebo groups overall (median of 5 and 6 days, respectively; hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.42), with similar results for subgroups, and when including antibiotic prescription data from the 326 children in the observational study. Reconsultations for new or worsening symptoms (29.7% and 38.2%, respectively; risk ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.05), illness progression requiring hospital assessment or admission (2.4% vs. 2.0%) and side effects (38% vs. 34%) were similar in the two groups. Complete-case (n = 317) and per-protocol (n = 185) analyses were similar, and the presence of bacteria did not mediate antibiotic effectiveness. NHS costs per child were slightly higher (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), with no difference in non-NHS costs (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). A model predicting complications (with seven variables: baseline severity, difference in respiratory rate from normal for age, duration of prior illness, oxygen saturation, sputum/rattly chest, passing urine less often, and diarrhoea) had good discrimination (bootstrapped area under the receiver operator curve 0.83) and calibration. Parents found it difficult to interpret symptoms and signs, used the sounds of the child's cough to judge the severity of illness, and commonly consulted to receive a clinical examination and reassurance. Parents acknowledged that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary', and clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Limitations: The study was underpowered to detect small benefits in key subgroups. Conclusion: Amoxicillin for uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections in children is unlikely to be clinically effective or to reduce health or societal costs. Parents need better access to information, as well as clear communication about the self-management of their child's illness and safety-netting. Future work: The data can be incorporated in the Cochrane review and individual patient data meta-analysis. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN79914298. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Children are commonly prescribed antibiotics for chest infections, but such infections are becoming resistant to antibiotics, and it is not clear if antibiotics work in treating them. A total of 432 children who saw their general practitioner with a chest infection were given either an antibiotic (amoxicillin) or a placebo (no antibiotic) for 7 days. Symptom diaries documented the infection's duration and its side effects. Children not in the placebo study were able to participate in another study that documented the same outcomes (an 'observational study'). We interviewed parents, doctors and nurses about their observations and concerns. Our patient and public involvement and engagement work with parents indicated that a 3-day symptom reduction was required to justify giving antibiotics. After seeing the doctor, parents whose children received antibiotics rated infective symptoms as moderately bad or worse for 5 days, and parents whose children received the placebo rated these for 6 days. Side effects and complications were similar in the two groups. Findings were similar when including the results of the observational study, and for children in whose chest the doctor could hear wheeze or rattles; who had fever; who were rated by the doctor as more unwell, who were short of breath, or who had had bacteria detected in the throat. The costs to the NHS per child were similar (antibiotics, £29; placebo, £26), and the wider costs to society were the same (antibiotics, £33; placebo, £33). Parents found it difficult to interpret their child's symptoms, and commonly used the sound of the cough to judge severity. Parents commonly consulted to receive an examination and reassurance, and accepted that antibiotics should be used only when 'necessary'. Clinicians noted a reduction in parents' expectations for antibiotics. Amoxicillin for chest infections in children is unlikely to be effective. General practitioners should support parents to self-manage at home and give clear communication about when and how to seek medical help if they continue to be concerned.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to the inclusion of older adults living in UK care homes in research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: With an ageing population, older adults will have more complex health and social care needs and many of these older adults will be living in care homes. Despite the growth in care home populations, care home residents are often excluded from research that could potentially benefit their care. The purpose of this scoping review is to explore resident-related barriers and facilitators to including older people living in UK care homes in research and to identify potential approaches to modify such barriers. METHOD: The 6-stage scoping review methodology framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley guided this review. Five electronic databases (MedLine, PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL) and grey literature were searched. Identified articles went through two levels of screening, and those deemed relevant were collated, summarised and reported using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: 90 reports were eligible for inclusion and were synthesised into 7 themes and related subthemes: (1) research design; (2) understanding and beliefs about research (resident and care home staff); (3) communication; (4) relationships; (5) eligibility criteria (resident and care home); (6) preference-based decisions; and (7) care home staff and environment. Given the complex interplay of the factors identified, both direct and indirect factors were included. CONCLUSIONS: A number of recurring barriers and facilitators to the inclusion of care home residents in research are reported. However, isolating resident-related barriers was complex as both direct and indirect factors must be considered as influential. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to inclusion will enable these factors to be addressed and increase the evidence-base for care provided to older people living in care homes.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on domiciliary care workers in Wales, UK: a data linkage cohort study using the SAIL Databank.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify population health risks for domiciliary care workers (DCWs) in Wales, UK, working during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: A population-level retrospective study linking occupational registration data to anonymised electronic health records maintained by the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in a privacy-protecting trusted research environment. SETTING: Registered DCW population in Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Records for all linked DCWs from 1 March 2020 to 30 November 2021. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome was confirmed COVID-19 infection; secondary outcomes included contacts for suspected COVID-19, mental health including self-harm, fit notes, respiratory infections not necessarily recorded as COVID-19, deaths involving COVID-19 and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Confirmed and suspected COVID-19 infection rates increased over the study period to 24% by 30 November 2021. Confirmed COVID-19 varied by sex (males: 19% vs females: 24%) and age (>55 years: 19% vs <35 years: 26%) and were higher for care workers employed by local authority social services departments compared with the private sector (27% and 23%, respectively). 34% of DCWs required support for a mental health condition, with mental health-related prescribing increasing in frequency when compared with the prepandemic period. Events for self-harm increased from 0.2% to 0.4% over the study period as did the issuing of fit notes. There was no evidence to suggest a miscoding of COVID-19 infection with non-COVID-19 respiratory conditions. COVID-19-related and all-cause mortality were no greater than for the general population aged 15-64 years in Wales (0.1% and 0.034%, respectively). A comparable DCW workforce in Scotland and England would result in a comparable rate of COVID-19 infection, while the younger workforce in Northern Ireland may result in a greater infection rate. CONCLUSIONS: While initial concerns about excess mortality are alleviated, the substantial pre-existing and increased mental health burden for DCWs will require investment to provide long-term support to the sector's workforce.

Gaining an Understanding of Pneumocystosis in Wales.

Pneumocystis pneumonia (PcP) is a serious complication of many significant immunocompromising conditions. Prior incidence estimates in Wales are based on PcP's presentation in the HIV and transplant populations. The objectives were to describe the incidence of PcP in Wales using laboratory reporting measures and assess the impact of underlying immunosuppression cause on mortality. All positive PCR results for PcP between 2015 and 2018 were identified. The total number of unique positives with clinical and radiological correlation was 159 patients, a mean of 39.75 annually. The healthcare records of these patients were reviewed. The mortality at one month was 35.2% and 49.1% at one year. HIV remains the commonest cause of immunosuppression but has lower mortality than non-HIV conditions (12% vs. 59% at one year, p < 0.00001). Non-HIV conditions were categorised as life-threatening and non-life threatening but had a non-significant mortality (66% vs. 54%; p = 0.149), highlighting the negative impact of PcP. An incidence of PcP in Wales of 1.23-1.26 cases per 100,000 has been identified, 32-35% greater than the upper limit previously estimated. There is high mortality in non-HIV patients regardless of immunosuppression cause. A heightened awareness of PcP in these groups will hasten diagnosis and potentially improve mortality.

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.

Perspectives of Statistician, Microbiologist, and Clinician Stakeholders on the Use of Microbiological Outcomes in Randomised Trials of Antimicrobial Stewardship Interventions.

Microbiological data are used as indicators of infection, for diagnosis, and the identification of antimicrobial resistance in trials of antimicrobial stewardship interventions. However, several problems have been identified in a recently conducted systematic review (e.g., inconsistency in reporting and oversimplified outcomes), which motivates the need to understand and improve the use of these data including analysis and reporting. We engaged key stakeholders including statisticians, clinicians from both primary and secondary care, and microbiologists. Discussions included issues identified in the systematic review and questions about the value of using microbiological data in clinical trials, perspectives on current microbiological outcomes reported in trials, and alternative statistical approaches to analyse these data. Various factors (such as unclear sample collection process, dichotomising or categorising complex microbiological data, and unclear methods of handling missing data) were identified that contributed to the low quality of the microbiological outcomes and the analysis of these outcomes in trials. Whilst not all of these factors would be easy to overcome, there is room for improvement and a need to encourage researchers to understand the impact of misusing these data. This paper discusses the experience and challenges of using microbiological outcomes in clinical trials.

The importance of NOT being Other: Time to address the invisibility of nuanced gender and sexuality in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Representation of all members of society within research, especially those typically underserved, is needed to ensure that trial evidence applies to the relevant population, and that effective interventions are available to all. The lack of appropriate and representative options in demographic questions around sex, gender and sexuality may result in the exclusion of LGBTQIA + people from health research. MAIN BODY: Sex and gender are not the same, yet this is rarely recognised in trial data collection, with the terms sex and gender often being used interchangeably. Sex or gender is often used as a stratification factor at randomisation and/or to define sub-groups at the time of data analysis, so correct data collection is essential for producing high-quality science. Sexuality also suffers from 'othering' with identities not being acknowledged but simply provided as an alternative to the perceived main identities. When collecting sexuality information, it is important to consider the purposes of collecting this data. CONCLUSION: We call on those involved in trials to consider how sex, gender and sexuality data are collected, with an active consideration of inclusivity. Through the description of all non-straight, non-cisgender people as 'other' you may be ignoring the needs of these populations and doing science, yourself, and them a disservice. Inclusivity may require small but important changes to ensure your research findings are inclusive and develop the evidence base for often overlooked populations.

Antibiotic effectiveness for children with lower respiratory infections: prospective cohort and trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotics are commonly prescribed for children with chest infections but there is little randomised evidence and trials commonly recruit selected populations, which undermines their applicability. AIM: To document the effectiveness of antibiotics for chest infections in children. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a prospective cohort study with nested trial in primary care. METHOD: Children aged 1-12 years presenting with uncomplicated lower respiratory tract infections were included in the cohort. Children were either randomised to receive amoxicillin 50 mg/kg per day for 7 days or placebo, or participated in a parallel observational study, where propensity scores controlled for confounding by indication. The outcomes were duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse (primary outcome) and illness progression requiring hospital assessment. RESULTS: A total of 764 children participated (438 trial, 326 observational), and children were more unwell than in previous cohorts (more sputum, fever, shortness of breath). Children had been unwell for a median of 5-6 days, and symptoms rated moderately bad or worse lasted another 6 days when no antibiotics were given.With antibiotics there was a non-significant reduction of approximately 1 day in duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse for the whole cohort (hazard ratio [HR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.95 to 1.41), similar to the trial alone (HR 1.13, 95% CI = 0.90 to 1.43). The effect of antibiotic treatment on secondary outcomes was also non-significant. CONCLUSION: Antibiotics for uncomplicated chest infections, even in a sample of more unwell children, are unlikely to be clinically very effective.