SummaryBackgroundResults of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects.MethodsFOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762.FindingsBetween Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months.InterpretationFluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function.FundingUK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Background Down syndrome regression disorder is a symptom cluster consisting of neuropsychiatric regression without cause. This study evaluated the incidence of neurodiagnostic abnormalities in individuals with Down syndrome regression disorder and determined if abnormalities are indicative of responses to therapeutic intervention. Methods A retrospective, multi-center, case-control study was performed. Patients were required to have subacute onset and the presence of four of five symptom groups present (cognitive decline, expressive language, sleep derangement, loss of ability to perform activities of daily living, and/or a new movement disorder) and no other explanation for symptoms. Results Individuals with Down syndrome regression disorder were comparable to a cohort of individuals with only Down syndrome although had higher rates of autoimmune disease (p = 0.02, 95%CI 1.04–1.75). Neurodiagnostic abnormalities were found on EEG (n = 19, 26%), neuroimaging (n = 16, 22%), and CSF (n = 9, 17%). Pleocytosis was appreciated in five cases, elevated total protein in nine, elevated IgG index in seven, and oligoclonal bands in two. Testing within 2 years of symptom onset was more likely to have neurodiagnostic abnormalities (p = 0.01, 95%CI 1.64–37.06). In individuals with neurodiagnostic abnormalities, immunotherapy was nearly four times more likely to have a therapeutic effect than in those without neurodiagnostic abnormalities (OR 4.11, 95%CI 1.88–9.02). In those with normal neurodiagnostic studies (n = 43), IVIg was effective in 14 of 17 (82%) patients as well although other immunotherapies were uniformly ineffective. Conclusions This study reports the novel presence of neurodiagnostic testing abnormalities in individuals with Down syndrome regression disorder, providing credence to this symptom cluster potentially being of neurologic and/or neuroimmunologic etiology.

We describe the benefits of developing a novel digitally enabled service underpinned by participatory design. Future trials must evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the TiM system within a clinical environment.

No abstract

IntroductionPeople with long-term conditions typically have reduced physical functioning, are less physically active and therefore become less able to live independently and do the things they enjoy. However, assessment and promotion of physical function and physical activity is not part of routine management in primary care. This project aims to develop evidence-based recommendations about how primary care can best help people to become more physically active in order to maintain and improve their physical function, thus promoting independence.Methods and analysisThis study takes a realist synthesis approach, following RAMESES guidance, with embedded co-production and co-design. Stage 1 will develop initial programme theories about physical activity and physical function for people with long-term conditions, based on a review of the scientific and grey literature, and two multisector stakeholder workshops using LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. Stage 2 will involve focused literature searching, data extraction and synthesis to provide evidence to support or refute the initial programme theories. Searches for evidence will focus on physical activity interventions involving the assessment of physical function which are relevant to primary care. We will describe ‘what works’, ‘for whom’ and ‘in what circumstances’ and develop conjectured programme theories using context, mechanism and outcome configurations. Stage 3 will test and refine these theories through individual stakeholder interviews. The resulting theory-driven recommendations will feed into Stage 4 which will involve three sequential co-design stakeholder workshops in which practical ideas for service innovation in primary care will be developed.Ethics and disseminationHealthcare and Medical Sciences Academic Ethics Committee (Reference 2018-16308) and NHS Wales Research Ethics Committee 5 approval (References 256 729 and 262726) have been obtained. A knowledge mobilisation event will address issues relevant to wider implementation of the intervention and study findings. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal publications, conference presentations and formal and informal reports.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018103027.

Permutational analysis of the immune system reveals advanced immune aging in individuals with Down syndrome and in individuals with type 1 diabetes.

ObjectiveTo develop standardization for nomenclature, diagnostic work up and diagnostic criteria for cases of neurocognitive regression in Down syndrome.BackgroundThere are no consensus criteria for the evaluation or diagnosis of neurocognitive regression in persons with Down syndrome. As such, previously published data on this condition is relegated to smaller case series with heterogenous data sets. Lack of standardized assessment tools has slowed research in this clinical area.MethodsThe authors performed a two-round traditional Delphi method survey of an international group of clinicians with experience in treating Down syndrome to develop a standardized approach to clinical care and research in this area. Thirty-eight potential panelists who had either previously published on neurocognitive regression in Down syndrome or were involved in national or international working groups on this condition were invited to participate. In total, 27 panelists (71%) represented nine medical specialties and six different countries reached agreement on preliminary standards in this disease area. Moderators developed a proposed nomenclature, diagnostic work up and diagnostic criteria based on previously published reports of regression in persons with Down syndrome.ResultsDuring the first round of survey, agreement on nomenclature for the condition was reached with 78% of panelists agreeing to use the term Down Syndrome Regression Disorder (DSRD). Agreement on diagnostic work up and diagnostic criteria was not reach on the first round due to low agreement amongst panelists with regards to the need for neurodiagnostic testing. Following incorporation of panelist feedback, diagnostic criteria were agreed upon (96% agreement on neuroimaging, 100% agreement on bloodwork, 88% agreement on lumbar puncture, 100% agreement on urine studies, and 96% agreement on “other” studies) as were diagnostic criteria (96% agreement).ConclusionsThe authors present international consensus agreement on the nomenclature, diagnostic work up, and diagnostic criteria for DSRD, providing an initial practical framework that can advance both research and clinical practices for this condition.

Background Patients are increasingly being asked to provide feedback about their experience of health-care services. Within the NHS, a significant level of resource is now allocated to the collection of this feedback. However, it is not well understood whether or not, or how, health-care staff are able to use these data to make improvements to future care delivery. Objective To understand and enhance how hospital staff learn from and act on patient experience (PE) feedback in order to co-design, test, refine and evaluate a Patient Experience Toolkit (PET). Design A predominantly qualitative study with four interlinking work packages. Setting Three NHS trusts in the north of England, focusing on six ward-based clinical teams (two at each trust). Methods A scoping review and qualitative exploratory study were conducted between November 2015 and August 2016. The findings of this work fed into a participatory co-design process with ward staff and patient representatives, which led to the production of the PET. This was primarily based on activities undertaken in three workshops (over the winter of 2016/17). Then, the facilitated use of the PET took place across the six wards over a 12-month period (February 2017 to February 2018). This involved testing and refinement through an action research (AR) methodology. A large, mixed-methods, independent process evaluation was conducted over the same 12-month period. Findings The testing and refinement of the PET during the AR phase, with the mixed-methods evaluation running alongside it, produced noteworthy findings. The idea that current PE data can be effectively triangulated for the purpose of improvement is largely a fallacy. Rather, additional but more relational feedback had to be collected by patient representatives, an unanticipated element of the study, to provide health-care staff with data that they could work with more easily. Multidisciplinary involvement in PE initiatives is difficult to establish unless teams already work in this way. Regardless, there is merit in involving different levels of the nursing hierarchy. Consideration of patient feedback by health-care staff can be an emotive process that may be difficult initially and that needs dedicated time and sensitive management. The six ward teams engaged variably with the AR process over a 12-month period. Some teams implemented far-reaching plans, whereas other teams focused on time-minimising ‘quick wins’. The evaluation found that facilitation of the toolkit was central to its implementation. The most important factors here were the development of relationships between people and the facilitator’s ability to navigate organisational complexity. Limitations The settings in which the PET was tested were extremely diverse, so the influence of variable context limits hard conclusions about its success. Conclusions The current manner in which PE feedback is collected and used is generally not fit for the purpose of enabling health-care staff to make meaningful local improvements. The PET was co-designed with health-care staff and patient representatives but it requires skilled facilitation to achieve successful outcomes. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.