BackgroundDuring 2015–16 Brazil experienced the largest epidemic of Zika virus ever reported. This arthropod-borne virus (arbovirus) has been linked to Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) in adults but other neurological associations are uncertain. Chikungunya virus has caused outbreaks in Brazil since 2014 but associated neurological disease has rarely been reported here. We investigated adults with acute neurological disorders for Zika, chikungunya and dengue, another arbovirus circulating in Brazil.MethodsWe studied adults who had developed a new neurological condition following suspected Zika virus infection between 1st November 2015 and 1st June 2016. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), serum, and urine were tested for evidence of Zika, chikungunya, and dengue viruses.ResultsOf 35 patients studied, 22 had evidence of recent arboviral infection. Twelve had positive PCR or IgM for Zika, five of whom also had evidence for chikungunya, three for dengue, and one for all three viruses. Five of them presented with GBS; seven had presentations other than GBS, including meningoencephalitis, myelitis, radiculitis or combinations of these syndromes. Additionally, ten patients positive for chikungunya virus, two of whom also had evidence for dengue virus, presented with a similar range of neurological conditions.ConclusionsZika virus is associated with a wide range of neurological manifestations, including central nervous system disease. Chikungunya virus appears to have an equally important association with neurological disease in Brazil, and many patients had dual infection. To understand fully the burden of Zika we must look beyond GBS, and also investigate for other co-circulating arboviruses, particularly chikungunya.

Background Since 2015, the arthropod-borne viruses (arboviruses) Zika and chikungunya have spread across the Americas causing outbreaks, accompanied by increases in immune-mediated and infectious neurological disease. The spectrum of neurological manifestations linked to these viruses, and the importance of dual infection, are not known fully. We aimed to investigate whether neurological presentations differed according to the infecting arbovirus, and whether patients with dual infection had a different disease spectrum or severity. Methods We report a prospective observational study done during epidemics of Zika and chikungunya viruses in Recife, Pernambuco, a dengue-endemic area of Brazil. We recruited adults aged 18 years or older referred to Hospital da Restauração, a secondary-level and tertiary-level hospital, with suspected acute neurological disease and a history of suspected arboviral infection. We looked for evidence of Zika, chikungunya, or dengue infection by viral RNA or specific IgM antibodies in serum or CSF. We grouped patients according to their arbovirus laboratory diagnosis and then compared demographic and clinical characteristics. Findings Between Dec 4, 2014, and Dec 4, 2016, 1410 patients were admitted to the hospital neurology service; 201 (14%) had symptoms consistent with arbovirus infection and sufficient samples for diagnostic testing and were included in the study. The median age was 48 years (IQR 34–60), and 106 (53%) were women. 148 (74%) of 201 patients had laboratory evidence of arboviral infection. 98 (49%) of them had a single viral infection (41 [20%] had Zika, 55 [27%] had chikungunya, and two [1%] had dengue infection), whereas 50 (25%) had evidence of dual infection, mostly with Zika and chikungunya viruses (46 [23%] patients). Patients positive for arbovirus infection presented with a broad range of CNS and peripheral nervous system (PNS) disease. Chikungunya infection was more often associated with CNS disease (26 [47%] of 55 patients with chikungunya infection vs six [15%] of 41 with Zika infection; p=0·0008), especially myelitis (12 [22%] patients). Zika infection was more often associated with PNS disease (26 [63%] of 41 patients with Zika infection vs nine [16%] of 55 with chikungunya infection; p≤0·0001), particularly Guillain-Barré syndrome (25 [61%] patients). Patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome who had Zika and chikungunya dual infection had more aggressive disease, requiring intensive care support and longer hospital stays, than those with mono-infection (median 24 days [IQR 20–30] vs 17 days [10–20]; p=0·0028). Eight (17%) of 46 patients with Zika and chikungunya dual infection had a stroke or transient ischaemic attack, compared with five (6%) of 96 patients with Zika or chikungunya mono-infection (p=0·047). Interpretation There is a wide and overlapping spectrum of neurologica...

Background: The Relatives Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT) is an online supported self-management toolkit for relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar designed to improve access to NICE recommended information and emotional support. Aims: Our aim was to determine clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACT including a Resource Directory (RD), versus RD-only. Methods: A primarily online, observer-blind randomised controlled trial comparing REACT (including RD) with RD only (registration ISRCTN72019945). Participants were UK relatives aged > = 16, with high distress (assessed using the GHQ-28), and actively help-seeking, individually randomised, and assessed online. Primary outcome was relatives' distress (GHQ-28) at 24 weeks. Secondary outcomes were wellbeing, support, costs and user feedback. Results:We recruited 800 relatives (REACT = 399; RD only = 401) with high distress at baseline (GHQ-28 REACT mean 40.3, SD 14.6; RD only mean 40.0, SD 14.0). Median time spent online on REACT was 50.8 min (IQR 12.4-172.1) versus 0.5 min (IQR 0-1.6) on RD only. Retention to primary follow-up (24 weeks) was 75% (REACT n = 292 (73.2%); RD-only n = 307 (76.6%)). Distress decreased in both groups by 24 weeks, with no significant difference between the two groups (− 1.39, 95% CI -3.60, 0.83, p = 0.22). Estimated cost of delivering REACT was £62.27 per person and users reported finding it safe, acceptable and convenient. There were no adverse events or reported side effects.(Continued on next page)

BackgroundEarly growth of HIV-exposed, uninfected (HEU) children is poorer than that of their HIV-unexposed, uninfected (HUU) counterparts but there is little longitudinal or longer term information about the growth effects of early HIV exposure.MethodsWe performed a longitudinal analysis to compare growth of HEU and HUU infants and children using data from two cohort studies in Lusaka, Zambia. Initially 207 HUU and 200 HEU infants from the Breastfeeding and Postpartum Health (BFPH) study and 580 HUU and 165 HEU from the Chilenje Infant Growth, Nutrition and Infection Study (CIGNIS) had anthropometric measurements taken during infancy and again when school-aged, at which time 66 BFPH children and 326 CIGNIS children were available. We analysed the data from the two cohorts separately using linear mixed models. Linear regression models were used as a secondary analysis at the later time points, adjusting for breastfeeding duration. We explored when the main group differences in growth emerged in order to estimate the largest ‘effect periods’.ResultsAfter adjusting for socioeconomic status and maternal education, HEU children had lower weight-for-age, length-for-age and BMI-for-age Z-scores during early growth and these differences still existed when children were school-aged. Exposure group differences changed most between 1 and 6 weeks and between 18 months and ~7.5 years.ConclusionsHEU children have poorer early growth than HUU children which persists into later growth. Interventions to improve growth of HEU children need to target pregnant women and infants.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12887-017-0828-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe recruitment and retention of patients are significant methodological challenges for trials. Whilst research has focussed on recruitment, the failure to retain recruited patients and collect outcome data can lead to additional problems and potentially biased results. Research to identify effective retention strategies has focussed on influencing patient behaviour through incentives, reminders and alleviating patient burden, but has not sought to improve patient understanding of the importance of retention. Our aim is to assess how withdrawal, retention and the value of outcome data collection is described within the Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) used during consent.MethodsFifty adult or parent PIL from a cohort of trials starting between 2009–2012 and funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme were obtained from protocols, websites or by contacting trialists. A checklist of PIL content based on Health Research Authority (HRA) and ICH GCP Guidelines was supplemented with retention specific questions. Corresponding protocols were also evaluated to cross reference trial specific procedures with information communicated to patients.ResultsPIL frequently reiterated the patient’s right to withdraw at any time (n = 49, 98%), without having to give a reason and without penalty (n = 45, 90%). However, few informed patients they may be asked to give a withdrawal reason where willing (n = 6, 12%). Statements about the value of retention were infrequent (n = 8, 16%). Consent documents failed to include key content that might mitigate withdrawals, such as the need for treatment equipoise (n = 3, 6%). Nearly half the trials in the cohort (n = 23, 46%) wanted to continue to collect outcome data if patients withdraw. However, in 70% of PIL using prospective consent, withdrawal was described in generic terms leaving patients unaware of the difference between stopping treatment and all trial involvement. Nineteen (38%) trials offered withdrawing patients the option to delete existing data.ConclusionsWithdrawal and retention is poorly described within PIL and addressing this might positively impact levels of patient attrition, reducing missing data. Consent information is unbalanced, focussing on patient’s rights to withdraw without accompanying information that promotes robust consent and sustained participation. With many citing altruistic reasons for participation it is essential that PIL include more information on retention and clarify withdrawal terminology so patients are aware of how they can make a valuable contribution to clinical studies. There is a need to determine how retention can be described to patients to avoid concerns of coercion. Future research is needed to explore whether the absence of information about retention at the time of consent is impacting attrition.

BackgroundRecruiting the target number of participants within the pre-specified time frame agreed with funders remains a common challenge in the completion of a successful clinical trial and addressing this is an important methodological priority. While there is growing research around recruitment, navigating this literature to support an evidence-based approach remains difficult. The Online resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical triAls project aims to create an online searchable database of recruitment research to improve access to existing evidence and to identify gaps for future research.MethodsMEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Methodology Register, Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index within the ISI Web of Science and Education Resources Information Center were searched in January 2015. Search strategy results were screened by title and abstract, and full text obtained for potentially eligible articles. Studies reporting or evaluating strategies, interventions or methods used to recruit patients were included along with case reports and studies exploring reasons for patient participation or non-participation. Eligible articles were categorised as systematic reviews, nested randomised controlled trials and other designs evaluating the effects of recruitment strategies (Level 1); studies that report the use of recruitment strategies without an evaluation of impact (Level 2); or articles reporting factors affecting recruitment without presenting a particular recruitment strategy (Level 3). Articles were also assigned to 1, or more, of 42 predefined recruitment domains grouped under 6 categories.ResultsMore than 60,000 records were retrieved by the search, resulting in 56,030 unique titles and abstracts for screening, with a further 23 found through hand searches. A total of 4570 full text articles were checked; 2804 were eligible. Six percent of the included articles evaluated the effectiveness of a recruitment strategy (Level 1), with most of these assessing aspects of participant information, either its method of delivery (33%) or its content and format (28%).DiscussionRecruitment to clinical trials remains a common challenge and an important area for future research. The online resource for Recruitment Research in Clinical triAls project provides a searchable, online database of research relevant to recruitment. The project has identified the need for researchers to evaluate their recruitment strategies to improve the evidence base and broaden the narrow focus of existing research to help meet the complex challenges faced by those recruiting to clinical trials.

Background Relatives caring for people with severe mental health problems find information and emotional support hard to access. Online support for self-management offers a potential solution. Objective The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an online supported self-management tool for relatives: the Relatives’ Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT). Design and setting This was a primarily online (UK), single-blind, randomised controlled trial, comparing REACT plus a resource directory and treatment as usual with the resource directory and treatment as usual only, by measuring user distress and other well-being measures at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. Participants A total of 800 relatives of people with severe mental health problems across the UK took part; relatives who were aged ≥ 16 years, were experiencing high levels of distress, had access to the internet and were actively seeking help were recruited. Intervention REACT comprised 12 psychoeducation modules, peer support through a group forum, confidential messaging and a comprehensive resource directory of national support. Trained relatives moderated the forum and responded to messages. Main outcome measure The main outcome was the level of participants’ distress, as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-28 items. Results Various online and offline strategies, including social media, directed potential participants to the website. Participants were randomised to one of two arms: REACT plus the resource directory (n = 399) or the resource directory only (n = 401). Retention at 24 weeks was 75% (REACT arm, n = 292; resource directory-only arm, n = 307). The mean scores for the General Health Questionnaire-28 items reduced substantially across both arms over 24 weeks, from 40.2 (standard deviation 14.3) to 30.5 (standard deviation 15.6), with no significant difference between arms (mean difference –1.39, 95% confidence interval –3.60 to 0.83; p = 0.22). At 12 weeks, the General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores were lower in the REACT arm than in the resource directory-only arm (–2.08, 95% confidence interval –4.14 to –0.03; p = 0.027), but this finding is likely to be of limited clinical significance. Accounting for missing data, which were associated with higher distress in the REACT arm (0.33, 95% confidence interval –0.27 to 0.93; p = 0.279), in a longitudinal model, there was no significant difference between arms over 24 weeks (–0.56, 95% confidence interval –2.34 to 1.22; p = 0.51). REACT cost £142.95 per participant to design and deliver (£62.27 for delivery only), compared with £0.84 for the resource directory only. A health economic analysis of NHS, health and Personal Social Services outcomes found that REACT has higher costs (£286.77), slightly better General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores (incremental General Health Questionnaire-28 items score adjusted for baseline, age and gender: –1.152, 95% confidence interval –3.370 to 1.065) and slightly lower quality-adjusted life-year gains than the resource directory only; none of these differences was statistically significant. The median time spent online was 50.8 minutes (interquartile range 12.4–172.1 minutes) for REACT, with no significant association with outcome. Participants reported finding REACT a safe, confidential environment (96%) and reported feeling supported by the forum (89%) and the REACT supporters (86%). No serious adverse events were reported. Limitations The sample comprised predominantly white British females, 25% of participants were lost to follow-up and dropout in the REACT arm was not random. Conclusions An online self-management support toolkit with a moderated group forum is acceptable to relatives and, compared with face-to-face programmes, offers inexpensive, safe delivery of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended support to engage relatives as peers in care delivery. However, currently, REACT plus the resource directory is no more effective at reducing relatives’ distress than the resource directory only. Future work Further research in improving the effectiveness of online carer support interventions is required. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72019945. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

BackgroundMethodological research into the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trials is essential to optimise the process. UK specialists in the field have established a set of top priorities in aid of this research. These priorities, however, may not be reflected in the needs of similar research in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) with different healthcare provision, resources and research infrastructure. The aim of the study was to identify the top priorities for methodological research in LMICs to inform further research and ultimately to improve clinical trials in these regions.MethodsAn online, two-round survey was conducted from December 2016 to April 2017 amongst researchers and methodologists working on trials in LMICs. The first round required participants to suggest between three and six topics which they felt were priorities for trial methodological research in LMICs. The second round invited participants to grade the importance of a compulsory list of topics suggested by four or more individuals, and an optional list of the remaining topics.FindingsRounds 1 and 2 were completed by 412 and 314 participants, respectively. A wide spread of years of experience, discipline, current country of residence, origin of trials training and area of involvement in trials was reported. The topics deemed most important for methodological research were: choosing appropriate outcomes to measure and training of research staff.ConclusionBy presenting these top priorities we have the foundations of a global health trials methodological research agenda which we hope will foster future research in specific areas in order to increase and improve trials in LMICs.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2440-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.