Lucy Brookes-Howell

Background: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, there was concern about potentially unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in the National Health Service. Procalcitonin testing was being used in some hospitals to guide antibiotic use. This study aimed to investigate the impact of procalcitonin testing on United Kingdom’s antibiotic prescribing and health outcomes. Methods: Mixed-methods study comprising quantitative, qualitative and health economic work packages, including a: survey of National Health Service hospitals to understand procalcitonin use retrospective, controlled, interrupted time series analysis of aggregated, organisation-level data, including antibiotic dispensing, hospital activity and procalcitonin testing from acute hospital trusts/hospitals in England/Wales. Primary outcome: change in level and/or trend of antibiotic prescribing rates following introduction of procalcitonin multicentre, retrospective, cohort study of 5960 patients using patient-level clinical data from 11 trusts/health boards to determine the difference in early antibiotic prescribing between COVID-19 patients who did/did not have baseline procalcitonin testing by using propensity score matching. Primary outcome: days of early antibiotic therapy qualitative study exploring the decision-making process around antibiotic use for inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia to identify the contextual factors, feasibility and acceptability of procalcitonin testing algorithms health economic analysis evaluating the cost-effectiveness of baseline procalcitonin testing using the matched data within a decision-analytic model. Setting: Acute hospital trusts/health boards in England/Wales. Participants: Inpatients ≥ 16 years, admitted to participating trusts/health boards and with a confirmed positive COVID-19 test between 1 February 2020 and 30 June 2020, National Health Service healthcare workers. Results: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, procalcitonin use was expanded/introduced in many National Health Service hospitals, with variation in guidance and interpretation of results. The number of hospitals using procalcitonin in emergency/acute admissions rose from 17 (11%) to 74/146 (50.7%), and its use in intensive care unit increased from 70 (47.6%) to 124/147 (84.4%). Introduction of procalcitonin testing in emergency departments/acute medical admission units was associated with a statistically significant decrease in antibiotic use, which was not sustained. Patient-level data showed that baseline procalcitonin testing was associated with an average reduction in early antibiotic prescribing of 0.43 days (95% confidence interval: 0.22 to 0.64 days, p < 0.001) and a reduction of 0.72 days (95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 1.38 days, p = 0.03) in total antibiotic prescribing, with no increased mortality/hospital length of stay. Interviews revealed concerns about secondary bacterial infections that led to increased antibiotic prescribing in COVID-19 patients. As experience increased, clinician’s ability to distinguish between COVID-19 alone and bacterial coinfections increased. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. The health economic analysis concluded that baseline procalcitonin testing was more likely to be cost-effective than not, albeit with some uncertainty. Conclusion: Baseline procalcitonin testing appears to have been an effective antimicrobial stewardship tool during the first wave of the pandemic, reducing antibiotic prescribing without evidence of harm. Limitations: The retrospective, hospital record-based studies were limited by missing data, incorrectly recorded information and lack of randomisation. Interviews with clinicians were conducted more than a year after the first wave, potentially resulting in recall bias. Future work: This study highlights the need for adaptive, inclusive, wide-reaching trials of infection diagnostics and implementation research to assess clinical utility before routine introduction into clinical practice. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR132254.

Background: Procalcitonin is a biomarker specific for bacterial infection, with a more rapid response than other commonly used biomarkers, such as C-reactive protein, but it is not routinely used in the National Health Service. Objective: To determine if using a procalcitonin-guided algorithm may safely reduce duration of antibiotic therapy compared to standard of care in hospitalised children with suspected or confirmed infection. Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, parallel two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial with internal pilot phase, qualitative study and health economic evaluations. Setting: Paediatric wards or paediatric intensive care units within children’s hospitals (n = 6) and district general hospitals (n = 9) in the United Kingdom. Participants: Children aged between 72 hours and 18 years admitted to hospital and being treated with intravenous antibiotics for suspected or confirmed bacterial infection. Interventions: Procalcitonin-guided algorithm versus usual standard care alone. Main outcome measures: Coprimary outcomes were duration of intravenous antibiotic use and a composite safety measure. Results: Between 11 June 2018 and 12 October 2022, 1949 children were recruited: 977 to the procalcitonin group [427 female (43.7%), 550 male (56.3%)], and 972 to the usual care group [478 female (49.2%), 494 male (50.8%)]. Duration of intravenous antibiotics was not significantly different between the procalcitonin group (median 96.0 hours) and the usual care group (median 99.7 hours) [hazard ratio = 0.96 (0.87, 1.05)], and the procalcitonin-guided algorithm was non-inferior to usual care [risk difference = −0.81% (95% confidence interval upper bound 1.11%)]. At clinical review, a procalcitonin result was available for 81.8% of the time, which was considered as part of clinical decision-making 66.6% of the time, and the algorithm was adhered to 57.2% of the time. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per duration of intravenous antibiotics hour avoided from bootstrapped samples was £467.62 per intravenous antibiotic hour avoided. Cost analysis of complete cases was also higher in the procalcitonin arm for all age groups, and for children aged 5 years and over. The intervention is not cost-effective as it is more expensive with no significant improvement in intravenous antibiotic duration. Limitations: Robust antimicrobial stewardship programmes were already implemented in the lead recruiting sites, and adherence to the algorithm was poor. Clinicians may be reluctant to adhere to biomarker-guided algorithms, due to unfamiliarity with interpreting the test result. Conclusions: In children hospitalised with confirmed or suspected bacterial infection, the addition of a procalcitonin-guided algorithm to usual care is non-inferior in terms of safety, but does not reduce duration of intravenous antibiotics, and is not cost-effective. In the presence of robust antimicrobial stewardship programmes to reduce antibiotic use, a procalcitonin-guided algorithm may offer little added value. Future work: Future trials must include an implementation framework to improve trial intervention fidelity, and repeated cycles of education and training to facilitate implementation of biomarker-guided algorithms into routine clinical care. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN11369832. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 15/188/42) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 29, No. 16. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Rehabilitation experiences of lower limb amputees with poorer physical health have not been fully explored. This study aimed to qualitatively explore experiences of rehabilitation amongst patients who had recently undergone amputation due to complications of vascular disease. Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with 14 patients participating in the PLACEMENT randomised controlled feasibility trial (ISRCTN: 85710690; EudraCT: 2016-003544-37), which investigated the effectiveness of using a perineural catheter for postoperative pain relief following major lower limb amputation. Framework analysis was used to identify key themes and compare participant data. Three main themes and corresponding sub-themes were identified: (i) other patients as inspiration; (ii) other patients as competition; and (iii) imagined futures. Perceptions relating to other patients played a key role in rehabilitation, providing a source of motivation, support, and competition. Participants' imagined futures were uncertain, and this was compounded by a lack of information and delays in equipment and/or adaptations. Findings highlight the importance of fellow patients in supporting rehabilitation following lower limb amputation. Enabling contact with other patients should thus be a key consideration when planning rehabilitation. There is a clear unmet need for realistic information relating to post-amputation recovery, tailored to the needs of individual patients.

Objective To explore and model factors affecting antibiotic prescribing decision-making early in the pandemic. Design Semistructured qualitative interview study. Setting National Health Service (NHS) trusts/health boards in England and Wales. Participants Clinicians from NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales. Method Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with clinicians in six NHS trusts/health boards in England and Wales as part of the Procalcitonin Evaluation of Antibiotic use in COVID-19 Hospitalised patients study, a wider study that included statistical analysis of procalcitonin (PCT) use in hospitals during the first wave of the pandemic. Thematic analysis was used to identify key factors influencing antibiotic prescribing decisions for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic (March to May 2020), including how much influence PCT test results had on these decisions. Results During the first wave of the pandemic, recommendations to prescribe antibiotics for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were based on concerns about secondary bacterial infections. However, as clinicians gained more experience with COVID-19, they reported increasing confidence in their ability to distinguish between symptoms and signs caused by SARS-CoV-2 viral infection alone, and secondary bacterial infections. Antibiotic prescribing decisions were influenced by factors such as clinician experience, confidence, senior support, situational factors and organisational influences. A decision-making model was developed. Conclusion This study provides insight into the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during the first wave of the pandemic. The importance of clinician experience and of senior review of decisions as factors in optimising antibiotic stewardship is highlighted. In addition, situational and organisational factors were identified that could be optimised. The model presented in the study can be used as a tool to aid understanding of the complexity of the decision-making process around antibiotic prescribing and planning antimicrobial stewardship support in the context of a pandemic. Trial registration number ISRCTN66682918.

Background Guided self-help has been shown to be effective for other mental conditions and, if effective for post-traumatic stress disorder, would offer a time-efficient and accessible treatment option, with the potential to reduce waiting times and costs. Objective To determine if trauma-focused guided self-help is non-inferior to individual, face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event. Design Multicentre pragmatic randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with economic evaluation to determine cost-effectiveness and nested process evaluation to assess fidelity and adherence, dose and factors that influence outcome (including context, acceptability, facilitators and barriers, measured qualitatively). Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. The primary analysis was intention to treat using multilevel analysis of covariance. Setting Primary and secondary mental health settings across the United Kingdom’s National Health Service. Participants One hundred and ninety-six adults with a primary diagnosis of mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder were randomised with 82% retention at 16 weeks and 71% at 52 weeks. Nineteen participants and ten therapists were interviewed for the process evaluation. Interventions Up to 12 face-to-face, manualised, individual cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus sessions, each lasting 60–90 minutes, or to guided self-help using Spring, an eight-step online guided self-help programme based on cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus, with up to five face-to-face meetings of up to 3 hours in total and four brief telephone calls or e-mail contacts between sessions. Main outcome measures Primary outcome: the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes: included severity of post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms at 52 weeks, and functioning, symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, alcohol use and perceived social support at both 16 and 52 weeks post-randomisation. Those assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. Results Non-inferiority was demonstrated at the primary end point of 16 weeks on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [mean difference 1.01 (one-sided 95% CI −∞ to 3.90, non-inferiority p = 0.012)]. Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, score improvements of over 60% in both groups were maintained at 52 weeks but the non-inferiority results were inconclusive in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus at this timepoint [mean difference 3.20 (one-sided 95% confidence interval −∞ to 6.00, non-inferiority p = 0.15)]. Guided self-help using Spring was not shown to be more cost-effective than face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus although there was no significant difference in accruing quality-adjusted life-years, incremental quality-adjusted life-years −0.04 (95% confidence interval −0.10 to 0.01) and guided self-help using Spring was significantly cheaper to deliver [£277 (95% confidence interval £253 to £301) vs. £729 (95% CI £671 to £788)]. Guided self-help using Spring appeared to be acceptable and well tolerated by participants. No important adverse events or side effects were identified. Limitations The results are not generalisable to people with post-traumatic stress disorder to more than one traumatic event. Conclusions Guided self-help using Spring for mild to moderate post-traumatic stress disorder to a single traumatic event appears to be non-inferior to individual face-to-face cognitive-behavioural therapy with a trauma focus and the results suggest it should be considered a first-line treatment for people with this condition. Future work Work is now needed to determine how best to effectively disseminate and implement guided self-help using Spring at scale. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN13697710. Funding This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 14/192/97) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 26. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Background: Guided internet-based, cognitive behavioural therapy with a trauma-focus (i-CBT-TF) is recommended in guidelines for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). There is limited evidence regarding its acceptability, with significant dropout from individual face-to-face CBT-TF, suggesting non-acceptability at least in some cases.Objective: To determine the acceptability of a guided internet-based CBT-TF intervention, 'Spring', in comparison with face-to-face CBT-TF for mild to moderate PTSD.Method: Treatment adherence, satisfaction, and therapeutic alliance were measured quantitatively for participants receiving 'Spring' or face-to-face CBT-TF as part of a Randomised Controlled Trial. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of therapists and participants.Results: 'Spring' guided internet-based CBT-TF was found to be acceptable, with over 89% participants fully or partially completing the programme. Therapy adherence and alliance for 'Spring' and face-to-face CBT-TF did not differ significantly, apart from post-treatment participant-reported alliance, which was in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF. Treatment satisfaction was high for both treatments, in favour of face-to-face CBT-TF. Interviews with participants receiving, and therapists delivering 'Spring' corroborated its acceptability.Conclusions: Guided internet-based CBT-TF is acceptable for many people with mild to moderate PTSD. Findings provide insights into future implementation, highlighting the importance of personalising guided self-help, depending on an individual's presentation, and preferences.

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.

Domiciliary care workers (DCWs) continued to provide care to adults in their own homes throughout the COVID‐19 pandemic. The evidence of the impact of COVID‐19 on health outcomes of DCWs is currently mixed. The OSCAR study will quantify the impact of COVID‐19 upon health outcomes of DCWs in Wales, explore causes of variation and extrapolate to the rest of the UK DCW population. An embedded qualitative study aimed to explore DCW experiences during the pandemic, including factors that may have varied risk of exposure to COVID‐19 and adverse health and wellbeing outcomes. Registered DCWs working throughout Wales were invited to participate in a semi‐structured telephone interview. 24 DCWs were interviewed between February and July 2021. Themes were identified through inductive analysis using thematic coding. Several themes emerged relating to risk of exposure to COVID‐19. First, general changes to the role of the DCW during the pandemic were identified. Second, practical challenges for DCWs in the workplace were reported, including staff shortages, clients and families not following safety procedures, initial shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), DCW criticism of standard use PPE, client difficulty with PPE and management of rapid antigen testing. Third, lack of government/employer preparation for a pandemic was described, including the reorganisation of staff clients and services, inadequate or confusing information for many DCWs, COVID‐19 training and the need for improved practical instruction and limited official standard risk assessments for DCWs. Pressure to attend work and perceptions of COVID‐19 risk and vaccination was also reported. In summary, this paper describes the risk factors associated with working during the pandemic. We have mapped recommendations for each problem using these qualitative findings including tailored training and better support for isolated team members and identified the required changes at several socio‐ecological levels.

Introduction Sepsis is a common, potentially life-threatening complication of infection. The optimal treatment for sepsis includes prompt antibiotics and intravenous fluids, facilitated by its early and accurate recognition. Currently, clinicians identify and assess severity of suspected sepsis using validated clinical scoring systems. In England, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been mandated across all National Health Service (NHS) trusts and ambulance organisations. Like many clinical scoring systems, NEWS2 should not be used without clinical judgement to determine either the level of acuity or a diagnosis. Despite this, there is a tendency to overemphasise the score in isolation in patients with suspected infection, leading to the overprescription of antibiotics and potentially treatment-related complications and rising antimicrobial resistance. The biomarker procalcitonin (PCT) has been shown to be useful in specific circumstances to support appropriate antibiotics prescribing by identifying bacterial infection. PCT is not routinely used in the care of undifferentiated patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs), and the evidence base of its optimal usage is poor. The PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal (PRONTO) study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in adults with suspected sepsis presenting to the ED to compare standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment with standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring alone and compare if this approach reduces prescriptions of antibiotics without increasing mortality. Methods and analysis PRONTO is a parallel two-arm open-label individually RCT set in up to 20 NHS EDs in the UK with a target sample size of 7676 participants. Participants will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring or standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment. We will compare whether the addition of PCT measurement to NEWS2 scoring can lead to a reduction in intravenous antibiotic initiation in ED patients managed as suspected sepsis, with at least no increase in 28-day mortality compared with NEWS2 scoring alone (in conjunction with local standard care pathways). PRONTO has two coprimary endpoints: initiation of intravenous antibiotics at 3 hours (superiority comparison) and 28-day mortality (non-inferiority comparison). The study has an internal pilot phase and group-sequential stopping rules for effectiveness and futility/safety, as well as a qualitative substudy and a health economic evaluation. Ethics and dissemination The trial protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and NHS Research Ethics Committee (Wales REC 2, reference 20/WA/0058). In England and Wales, the law allows the use of deferred consent in approved research situations (including ED studies) where the time dependent nature of intervention would not allow true informed consent to be obtained. PRONTO has approval for a deferred consent process to be used. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. Trial registration number ISRCTN54006056.

Background: Carers report unmet need for occupational therapy services addressing sensory difficulties in autism, yet insufficient evidence exists to recommend a therapeutic approach. Objectives: Our aim was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sensory integration therapy for children with autism and sensory difficulties across behavioural, functional and quality-of-life outcomes. Design: We carried out a parallel-group randomised controlled trial, incorporating an internal pilot and a process evaluation. Randomisation utilised random permuted blocks. Setting and participants: Children were recruited via services and self-referral in Wales and England. Inclusion criteria were having an autism diagnosis, being in mainstream primary education and having definite/probable sensory processing difficulties. Exclusion criteria were having current/previous sensory integration therapy and current applied behaviour analysis therapy. Intervention: The intervention was manualised sensory integration therapy delivered over 26 weeks and the comparator was usual care. Outcomes: The primary outcome was problem behaviours (determined using the Aberrant Behavior Checklist), including irritability/agitation, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were adaptive behaviour, functioning and socialisation (using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales); carer stress (measured using the Autism Parenting Stress Index); quality of life (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions and Carer Quality of Life); functional change (according to the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure); sensory processing (determined using the Sensory Processing Measure™ at screening and at 6 months to examine mediation effects); and cost-effectiveness (assessed using the Client Service Receipt Inventory). Every effort was made to ensure that outcome assessors were blind to allocation. Results: A total of 138 participants were randomised (n = 69 per group). Usual care was significantly different from the intervention, which was delivered with good fidelity and adherence and minimal contamination, and was associated with no adverse effects. Trial procedures and outcome measures were acceptable. Carers and therapists reported improvement in daily functioning. The primary analysis included 106 participants. There were no significant main effects of the intervention at 6 or 12 months. The adjusted mean difference between groups on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist – irritability at 6 months post randomisation was 0.40 (95% confidence interval –2.33 to 3.14; p = 0.77). Subgroup differences in irritability/agitation at 6 months were observed for sex of child (intervention × female = 6.42, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 12.85; p = 0.050) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (intervention × attention deficit hyperactivity disorder = –6.77, 95% confidence interval –13.55 to –0.01; p = 0.050). There was an effect on carer stress at 6 months by region (intervention × South England = 7.01, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 13.56; p = 0.04) and other neurodevelopmental/genetic conditions (intervention × neurodevelopmental/genetic condition = –9.53, 95% confidence interval –18.08 to –0.98; p = 0.030). Carer-rated goal performance and satisfaction increased across sessions (p < 0.001), with a mean change of 2.75 (95% confidence interval 2.14 to 3.37) for performance and a mean change of 3.34 (95% confidence interval 2.63 to 4.40) for satisfaction. Health economic evaluation suggests that sensory integration therapy is not cost-effective compared with usual care alone. Limitations: Limitations included variability of the intervention setting (i.e. NHS vs. private), delay for some receiving therapy, an error in administration of Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales and no measurement of comparator arm goal performance. Conclusions: The intervention did not demonstrate clinical benefit above standard care. Subgroup effects are hypothesis-generating only. The intervention is likely to be effective for individualised performance goals, although it is unclear whether effects were in addition to standard care or were maintained. Future work: Further investigation of subgroup effects is needed. Trial registration: This trial is registered as ISRCTN14716440. 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. 26, No. 29. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.