2021

Making a diagnosis in type 2 diabetes (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:Interactive case study

Author(s):*Morris, David

Citation:Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(2)

Abstract:Brought to you by Diabetes & Primary Care, the three mini-case studies presented below take you through what it is necessary to consider in making an accurate diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. Each scenario provides a different set of circumstances that you could meet in your everyday practice. By actively engaging with them, you will feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such problems in the future.

Diabetic nephropathy and type 2 diabetes (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:Interactive case study

Author(s):*Morris, David

Citation:Diabetes and Primary Care; 2021; 23(1)

Abstract:This interactive case study, presented by Diabetes & Primary Care, takes you through the necessary considerations in managing diabetic nephropathy in an individual with type 2 diabetes. The scenario is not unusual and is one that, as a primary healthcare worker, you could easily be confronted with. By actively engaging with this case history, you should feel more confident and empowered to manage effectively such a problem in the future.

Pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer: A national prospective study (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:Journal article

Author(s):Harvey P.R.; McKay S.C.; Wilkin R.J.W.; Layton G.R.; Powell-Brett S.; Okoth K.; Trudgill N.; Roberts K.J.; Baker G.; Brom M.K.; Brown Z.; Farrugia A.; Haldar D.; Kalisvaart M.; Marley A.; Pande R.; Patel R.; Stephenson B.T.F.; Baillie C.; Croitoru C.; Eddowes P.J.; Elshaer M.; Farhan-Alanie M.M.; Laing R.; Mann K.; Materacki L.; Nandi S.; Pericleous S.; Prasad P.; Rinkoff S.; Selvaraj E.; Shah J.; Sheel A.R.G.; Szatmary P.; Williams P.; Milburn J.; Bekheit M.; Ghazanfar M.; Curry H.; Persson P.; Rollo A.; Thomson R.; Harper S.; Varghese S.; Collins J.; Stupalkowska W.; Afzal Z.; Badran A.; Barker J.; Hakeem A.; Kader R.; Saji S.; Sheikh S.; Smith A.C.D.; Stasinos K.; Steinitz H.; Malik H.; Burston C.; Carrion-Alvarez L.; Shiwani M.; Ahmad G.; Allen T.; Darley E.; Patil S.; Brooks C.; Cresswell B.; Welsh F.; Cook C.; Smyth R.; Booth R.; West M.; King A.; Tucker O.; Phelan L.; Burahee A.; Devogel C.; Javed A.; Kay R.; Khan S.; Leet F.; Troth T.; Ward A.; Young J.; Murray E.; Gray T.; Johnson R.; Lockwood S.; Young R.; Zhou G.; Portal J.; Rees J.; Arnold B.; Scroggie D.; Abeysekera K.W.M.; Asif A.; Hay F.; Maccabe T.; Pathak S.; Robertson H.; Sandberg C.; Woodland H.; Charalabopoulos A.; Kordzadeh A.; Anderson J.; Napier D.; Hodges P.; Jones G.; Sheiybani G.; Archer T.; Khan A.; Kirk S.; Walker N.; Hassam U.; Wong I.; Silva M.; Jones K.; Allen J.; Abbas S.H.; Harborne M.; Majid Z.; Eardley N.; Reilly I.; Wadsworth P.; Bell C.; Holloway K.; Stockton W.; Thomas R.; Williams K.J.; Canelo R.; Tay Y.; Adnan M.; Aroori S.; Rajaretnam N.; Rekhraj S.; Wilkins A.; Nelapatia R.; Verebcean M.; Braithwaite S.; Apollos J.; Robertson N.; Belgaumkar A.; Brant A.; Shahdoost A.; French J.J.; Sen G.; Thakkar R.; Kanwar A.; Klaptocz J.; Rodham P.; O'Riordan B.; Maharaj G.; Davies M.; Higgs S.; Cutting J.; Joseph M.; Backhouse L.; Butler J.; Cooper J.; O'nions T.; Shaukat S.; Kumar A.; George V.; Ingmire J.; Saha A.; Coe P.; Noor R.; Lykoudis P.; Elshaer A.; Andreou A.; Clarke T.; Davies O.; Rimmer P.; Kanakala V.; Mitra V.; Akol G.; Burgess M.; Elzubier M.; Jones R.; Majumdar D.; Wescott H.; Bailey A.; Gomez M.; Herman O.; Deguara J.; Whitehead-Clarke T.; Gorard L.; Law R.; Leung L.Y.; Whitelaw D.; Adil M.; Krivan S.; Waters J.; Fernandes R.; Mealey L.; Merh R.; Okaro A.; Shepherd J.; O'Reilly D.; Pilkington J.; Hussain Z.; Ingram S.; Stott M.C.; Abbott S.; Bhamra N.; Hirri F.; Lee K.; Murrell J.; Resool S.; Taylor M.; King M.; Madhotra R.; Ayubi H.; Ali J.; Chander N.; Mckune G.; Wothers T.; Shingler G.; Mortimer M.; Dykes K.; Edwards H.; Menon S.; Gautham A.; Ali I.; Anjum R.; Brookes M.; Wilkinson B.; Tait I.; Noaman I.; Wilson M.; Mogan S.; Rushbrook S.; Hyde S.; Baker S.; Hall P.; Lucas H.; Pease J.; Millar A.; Tariq Z.; Blad W.; Cunningham M.; Hall M.; Luthra P.; Seymour K.; Aawsaj Y.; Jones M.; Elliott D.; Finch J.G.; Rajjoub Y.; Gupta A.; Molloy P.; Mykoniatis I.; Atallah E.; Albraba E.; Asimba V.; Baxter A.; Chin A.; Vojtekova K.; Ong L.; Modi H.N.; Muscara F.; Perry M.; Katz C.; Shaban N.; Dichmont L.; Dissanayake T.; Mostafa W.; Ghosh D.; Hwang S.; Bajomo O.; Lloyd T.; Wye J.; Holt A.; Pathanki A.; Townsend S.; Babar N.; Giovinazzo F.; Kennedy L.; Kandathil M.; King D.; Pillai M.; Glen P.; Holroyd D.; Drozdzik S.; Kourounis G.; Thompson J.; McNally S.; Thomas I.; Reddy Y.; Subar D.; Heywood N.; Khoo E.; Austin A.; Awan A.; Tan H.; Kasi M.; Prasad S.; Baqai M.; Abd Alkoddus M.; Al-Allaf O.; Mitchell K.; Mole S.; Yoong A.; Fusai G.; Brown S.; Bulathsinhala S.; Gilliland J.; Boyce T.; Al-Ardah M.; Matthews E.; Wakefield C.; Hou D.; Thomasset S.; Guest R.; Falconer S.; Hughes M.; Johnston C.; Kung J.W.C.; Lee E.; McNally E.; Sherif A.E.; Stutchfield B.; Baron R.D.; Dunne D.F.J.; Dickerson L.D.; Exarchou K.E.; Knight E.; Whelan P.; Hutchins R.; Wilson P.; Phillpotts S.; Badrulhisham F.; Dawes A.; Derwa Y.; Rajagopal S.; Ramoutar S.; Vaik T.; Bhogal R.H.; McLaren N.; Policastro T.; *Butterworth J.; *Riera M.; *Ismail A.; *Ahmed A.; *Alame R.; *Alford K.; *Banerjee S.; *Bull C.; *Kirby G.; Athwal T.; Hebbar S.; Ishtiaq J.; Kamran U.; Abbasi A.; Kamarul-bahrin M.; Banks A.; Khalil A.; Karanjia N.; Trivedi D.; Chakravaratty S.; Frampton A.; Gabriella J.; Pinn G.; Colleypriest B.; Betteridge F.; Murugiah D.; Rossiter A.; Yong K.; Sellahewa C.; Chui K.; Ehsan A.; Fisher N.; Iyer S.; McMurtry H.; Garbutt G.; Mahgoub S.; Alleyne L.; Harvey J.; Johnson K.; Richards E.; Palaniyappan N.; Bowler C.; Inumerable R.; Abu M.; Suhool A.; Talbot T.; Westwood J.; Zumbo G.; Osborne A.; Botes A.; Dyer S.; Thomas-Jones I.; Merker L.; Przemioslo R.; Roderick M.; Valverde J.; Zerafa A.; Barker S.; Wan A.; Lalani R.; Barrett C.; Kapirial N.; McCarthney K.; Ramamoorthy R.; Yalchin M.; Huggett M.; Macutkiewicz C.; Smith A.; Buchanan A.; Burke J.; Goodchild G.; Keane M.G.; Potts J.; Disney B.; McFarlane M.; Baker E.; Bullock S.; Coleman S.; Mcardle C.; Morgan J.; Mozdiak E.; Obisesan A.; O'Flynn L.; Mowbray N.; de Berker H.T.; Driscoll P.; Alberts J.C.; Sadien I.D.; Webb K.; Khalil H.; Parmar C.; Sadigh D.; Seyed-Safi P.; Shala L.; Somasundaram M.; Bryce G.; McCormack K.; Jamieson W.; Mitchell L.; Cheung D.; Hicken B.; Abbas N.; Kurian A.; Tahir I.; Spearman J.; Johnston T.; Jones C.

Citation:Pancreatology; Sep 2021; vol. 21 (no. 6); p. 1127-1134

Abstract:Objective: UK national guidelines recommend pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT) in pancreatic cancer. Over 80% of pancreatic cancers are unresectable and managed in non-surgical units. The aim was to assess variation in PERT prescribing, determine factors associated with its use and identify potential actions to improve prescription rates. Design(s): RICOCHET was a national prospective audit of malignant pancreatic, peri-ampullary lesions or malignant biliary obstruction between April and August 2018. This analysis focuses on pancreatic cancer patients and is reported to STROBE guidelines. Multivariable regression analysis was undertaken to assess factors associated with PERT prescribing. Result(s): Rates of PERT prescribing varied among the 1350 patients included. 74.4% of patients with potentially resectable disease were prescribed PERT compared to 45.3% with unresectable disease. PERT prescription varied across surgical hospitals but high prescribing rates did not disseminate out to the respective referring network. PERT prescription appeared to be related to the treatment aim for the patient and the amount of clinician contact a patient has. PERT prescription in potentially resectable patients was positively associated with dietitian referral (p = 0.001) and management at hepaticopancreaticobiliary (p = 0.049) or pancreatic unit (p = 0.009). Prescription in unresectable patients also had a negative association with Charlson comorbidity score 5-7 (p = 0.045) or >7 (p = 0.010) and a positive association with clinical nurse specialist review (p = 0.028). Conclusion(s): Despite national guidance, wide variation and under-treatment with PERT exists. Given that most patients with pancreatic cancer have unresectable disease and are treated in non-surgical hospitals, where prescribing is lowest, strategies to disseminate best practice and overcome barriers to prescribing are urgently required.

Altmetrics:

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: The MifeMiso RCT (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:Journal article

Author(s):Devall A.; Chu J.; Gallos I.; Coomarasamy A.; Beeson L.; Cheed V.; Sun Y.; Roberts T.; Ogwulu C.O.; Williams E.; Jones L.; La Fontaine Papadopoulos J.; Hardy P.; Bender-Atik R.; Brewin J.; Hinshaw K.; Ahmed A.; Choudhary M.; Naftalin J.; Nunes N.; Oliver A.; Izzat F.; Bhatia K.; Hassan I.; Jeve Y.; Hamilton J.; Deb S.; Bottomley C.; Ross J.; Watkins L.; *Underwood M.; Cheong Y.; Kumar C.; Gupta P.; Small R.; Pringle S.; Hodge F.; Shahid A.; Horne A.; Quenby S.

Citation:Health Technology Assessment; 2021; vol. 25 (no. 68), p. 1-114

Abstract:Background Miscarriage is the most common complication of pregnancy. As many as 15-25% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage, and the number of miscarriages in England is estimated to be approximately 125,000 per year. Management of miscarriage can be expectant (i.e. waiting for natural miscarriage), medical (i.e. with drugs) or surgical. About 25% of women opt for medical management; however, there is uncertainty about the optimal drug regimens for medical management. Before National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline CG154 was published in 2012, it was common practice to use a combination of mifepristone (Mifegyne, Exelgyn, Paris, France) and misoprostol. The 2012 guideline, however, recommended that misoprostol alone should be given to women having medical management. This recommendation was based on very limited evidence, from one study of 115 women, which found no difference between a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol alone. Recognising the limited available evidence, NICE and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) called for a trial. Objectives The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol is superior to treatment with misoprostol alone for the resolution of miscarriage within 7 days in women diagnosed by pelvic ultrasound scan with a missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The key secondary objective aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of mifepristone reduces the need for surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage. Other secondary objectives aimed to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone reduces the need for further doses of misoprostol, to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone improves other clinical outcomes [including surgical intervention up to and including 7 days post randomisation and after 7 days post randomisation, duration of bleeding, infection, negative pregnancy test at 21 days post randomisation, time from randomisation to discharge from early pregnancy unit (EPU) care, side effects and complications], to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone improves patient satisfaction and acceptability of management and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol in the medical management of missed miscarriage. Methods Participants were randomised online in a 1: 1 ratio via a secure internet facility through an Integrated Trial Management System. Minimisation was implemented for maternal age (< 30 or >= 30 years), body mass index (< 35 or >= 35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous or parous women), gestational age (< 70 or >= 70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood loss Assessment Chart score; <= 2 or >= 3) and randomising centre. Clinical data were collected up to discharge from EPU care. Participants who agreed to participate in the qualitative study were interviewed by telephone or videoconference or face to face within approximately 6 weeks of their discharge date. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. A withintrial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted as part of the trial. Results A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, received either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group [risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04]. Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview.Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage, to help bring a timely resolution to the physical process. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis found that the use of mifepristone and misoprostol resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) group than in the placebo and misoprostol group, with a cost saving of 182 (95% CI 26 to 338). Hence the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The modelbased analysis, that compared the trial intervention with other existing possible interventions for the management of miscarriage not analysed in the trial, showed that the MifeMiso intervention is dominant when compared with expectant management and the current medical management strategy. However, the intervention is a less effective, although less costly, strategy than surgical management. Conclusions Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again.

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Randomised controlled trial

Author(s):
Devall A.; Chu J.; Beeson L.; Hardy P.; Cheed V.; Sun Y.; Roberts T.; Ogwulu C.O.; Williams E.; Jones L.; Papadopoulos J.F.; Bender-Atik R.; Brewin J.; Hinshaw K.; Choudhary M.; Ahmed A.; Naftalin J.; Nunes N.; Oliver A.; Izzat F.; Bhatia K.; Hassan I.; Jeve Y.; Hamilton J.; Deb S.; Bottomley C.; Ross J.; Watkins L.; *Underwood M.; Cheong Y.; Kumar C.; Gupta P.; Small R.; Pringle S.; Hodge F.; Shahid A.; Gallos I.; Horne A.; Quenby S.; Coomarasamy A.

Citation:

Health Technology Assessment, November 2021, 25(68) (pp 1-114)

Abstract:
TRIAL DESIGN: A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage. METHOD(S): Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive 200mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800mug of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage. RESULT(S): A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; p=0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; p=0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of 182 (95% confidence interval 26 to 338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. LIMITATIONS: The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage. FUTURE WORK: Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage. CONCLUSION(S): Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone.

Link to full-text [Open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

Myomectomy during cesarean section or non-caesarean myomectomy in reproductive surgery: This is the dilemma. (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Tinelli A.; Nezhat C.H.; Likic-Ladjevic I.; Andjic M.; Tomasevic D.; *Papoutsis D.; Stefanovic R.; Sparic R.

Citation:
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology. December 2021, 48(6) (pp 1250-1258)

Abstract:
Nowadays it is quite common to encounter pregnants over 35 years with uterine fibroids (UFs), requiring cesarean section (CS). Large UFs may cause severe complications during delivery, as bleeding and hemorrhage, during vaginal or cesarean delivery. Frequently, the caesarean myomectomy (CM) is recommended, but generally obstetricians are reluctant to perform CM, since literature data do not agree on its surgical recommendation. CM is jet particularly controversial, due to increased risk of perioperative hemorrhage and cesarean hysterectomy, and UFs are often left in situ during cesarean section (CS). CM investigations are generally directed to myomectomy associated issues, whereas CS complications without CM are largely underreported. The risks of leaving UF for an interval myomectomy is underestimated and large UFs, left in uterus during CS, might cause significant early and late postoperative complications, even necessitating a relaparotomy and/or a subsequent hysterectomy. CM would be mandatory in some instances, whatever the UF diameter, to avoid further damage or complications. UFs management prior to CS should include a full counselling on pro and cons on the possible consequences of surgical decisioning. To illustrate what was discussed above, authors performed a narrative review with an expert opinion, reporting a case of a 31-year-old woman with a large UF who underwent a CS without myomectomy. Nine hours after CS, puerpera was submitted, for a massive postoperative hemorrhage and hemorrhagic shock, to an emergency relaparotomy with total hysterectomy without salpingo-oophorectomy

Link to full-text [Open access - no password required]

Timing of surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international prospective cohort study (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
COVIDSurg Collaborative; GlobalSurg Collaborative (COVIDSurg Collaborative includes *Yen Nee Jenny Bo, *Mohammad Iqbal, *Aarti Lakhiani, *Guleed Mohamed, *William Parry-Smith, *Banchhita Sahu of Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust)

Citation:
Anaesthesia, June 2021, Volume 76, Issue 6, Pages 748-758

Abstract:
Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4–1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0–2 weeks, 3–4 weeks and 5–6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3–4.8), 3.9 (2.6–5.1) and 3.6 (2.0–5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9–2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2–8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4–3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6–2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

Link to full-text [Open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
COVIDSurg Collaborative, GlobalSurg Collaborative (COVIDSurg Collaborative includes *Yen Nee Jenny Bo, *Mohammad Iqbal, *Aarti Lakhiani, *Guleed Mohamed, *William Parry-Smith, *Banchhita Sahu of Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust)

Citation:
British Journal of Surgery. 2021 Sep 27;108(9):1056-1063

Abstract:
Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling.
Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18–49, 50–69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty.
Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year.
Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population.

Link to full-text [Open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

Appropriately timed COVID-19 PCR testing for hospital inpatients (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Conference abstract

Author(s):
*Zaheer Raffeeq, *Nawaid Ahmad, *Emma Crawford, *Devapriya Dev, *Annabel Makan, *Koottalai Srinivasan, *Harmesh Moudgil

Citation:
European Respiratory Journal 2021 58 Suppl 65, PA448

Abstract:
Background: Nosocomial spread of Coronavirus has been an issue for hospitals across the UK, with a recent report by Public Health England (PHE) and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) stating that the effective reproduction rate of SARS-CoV-2 in hospitals has been projected to have been as high as 14 during the first wave of the pandemic [1]. In order to stifle this spread hospital Infection and Prevention Control (IPC) set out regular guidelines concerning when patients should be tested for COVID-19.
Aims and objectives: We attempted to assess how well our trust followed the IPC guidance for testing patients for COVID-19, specifically with regard to swab timing following admission to hospital.
Methods: We analysed all admissions to the hospital during the week of 1st October 2020 to the 7th October 2020. We looked at how many patients were appropriately swabbed on day 1, and day 5, as was required according to IPC guidance at the time.
Results: We found that of the 266 patients admitted in the said week, 4 patients (1.5%) had a swab greater than 24 hours after admission, and 17 (6.39%) patients did not have a PCR swab at all. 148 patients stayed in hospital 5 days or greater, with 19 patients (17.27%) receiving their second swab correctly on day 5 of admission and 91 patients (82.73%) either not having their swab on the correct day or not having a follow up swab at all.
Conclusion: While testing on entry was generally done in a timely manner, follow-up swabs are not performed according to the guidelines set out by IPC, and therefore not following evidence-based practice.

Link to abstract