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.