How family doctors conceptualise chronic illness in the consultation has important implications for both the delivery of medical care, and its experience by patients. In this paper, we present the results of a re-analysis of qualitative data collected in a series of studies of British family doctors between 1995 and 2001, to explore the ways in which the legitimacy and authority of medical knowledge and practice are organised and worked out in relation to three kinds of chronic illness (menorrhagia; depression; and chronic low back pain/medically unexplained symptoms). We present a comparative analysis of (a) the moral evaluation of the patient (and judgements about the legitimacy of symptom presentation); (b) the possibilities of disposal; and (c) doctors' empathic responses to the patient, in each of these clinical cases. Our analysis defines some of the fundamental conditions through which general practitioners frame their relationships with patients presenting complex but sometimes diffuse combinations of 'social', 'psychological' and 'medical' symptoms. These are fundamental to, yet barely touched by, the increasingly voluminous literature on how doctors should interact with patients. Moving beyond the individual studies from which our data are drawn, we have outlined some of the highly complex and demanding features of what is often seen as routine and unrewarding medical work, and some of the key requirements for the local negotiation of patients' problems and their 136 Carl May, Gayle Allison, Alison Chapple et al.

SummaryBackgroundIntensive antiplatelet therapy with three agents might be more effective than guideline treatment for preventing recurrent events in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole) with that of guideline-based antiplatelet therapy.MethodsWe did an international, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial in adult participants with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 48 h of onset. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio using computer randomisation to receive loading doses and then 30 days of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin 75 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily) or guideline-based therapy (comprising either clopidogrel alone or combined aspirin and dipyridamole). Randomisation was stratified by country and index event, and minimised with prognostic baseline factors, medication use, time to randomisation, stroke-related factors, and thrombolysis. The ordinal primary outcome was the combined incidence and severity of any recurrent stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic; assessed using the modified Rankin Scale) or TIA within 90 days, as assessed by central telephone follow-up with masking to treatment assignment, and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN47823388.Findings3096 participants (1556 in the intensive antiplatelet therapy group, 1540 in the guideline antiplatelet therapy group) were recruited from 106 hospitals in four countries between April 7, 2009, and March 18, 2016. The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the data monitoring committee. The incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA did not differ between intensive and guideline therapy (93 [6%] participants vs 105 [7%]; adjusted common odds ratio [cOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·67–1·20, p=0·47). By contrast, intensive antiplatelet therapy was associated with more, and more severe, bleeding (adjusted cOR 2·54, 95% CI 2·05–3·16, p<0·0001).InterpretationAmong patients with recent cerebral ischaemia, intensive antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA, but did significantly increase the risk of major bleeding. Triple antiplatelet therapy should not be used in routine clinical practice.FundingNational Institutes of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, British Heart Foundation.

Summary Background Antiplatelet therapy reduces the risk of major vascular events for people with occlusive vascular disease, although it might increase the risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Patients surviving the commonest subtype of intracranial haemorrhage, intracerebral haemorrhage, are at risk of both haemorrhagic and occlusive vascular events, but whether antiplatelet therapy can be used safely is unclear. We aimed to estimate the relative and absolute effects of antiplatelet therapy on recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage and whether this risk might exceed any reduction of occlusive vascular events. Methods The REstart or STop Antithrombotics Randomised Trial (RESTART) was a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel-group trial at 122 hospitals in the UK. We recruited adults (≥18 years) who were taking antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage, discontinued antithrombotic therapy, and survived for 24 h. Computerised randomisation incorporating minimisation allocated participants (1:1) to start or avoid antiplatelet therapy. We followed participants for the primary outcome (recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage) for up to 5 years. We analysed data from all randomised participants using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for minimisation covariates. This trial is registered with ISRCTN (number ISRCTN71907627). Findings Between May 22, 2013, and May 31, 2018, 537 participants were recruited a median of 76 days (IQR 29–146) after intracerebral haemorrhage onset: 268 were assigned to start and 269 (one withdrew) to avoid antiplatelet therapy. Participants were followed for a median of 2·0 years (IQR [1·0– 3·0]; completeness 99·3%). 12 (4%) of 268 participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had recurrence of intracerebral haemorrhage compared with 23 (9%) of 268 participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (adjusted hazard ratio 0·51 [95% CI 0·25–1·03]; p=0·060). 18 (7%) participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy experienced major haemorrhagic events compared with 25 (9%) participants allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (0·71 [0·39–1·30]; p=0·27), and 39 [15%] participants allocated to antiplatelet therapy had major occlusive vascular events compared with 38 [14%] allocated to avoid antiplatelet therapy (1·02 [0·65–1·60]; p=0·92). Interpretation These results exclude all but a very modest increase in the risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage with antiplatelet therapy for patients on antithrombotic therapy for the prevention of occlusive vascular disease when they developed intracerebral haemorrhage. The risk of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage is probably too small to exceed the established benefits of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention. Funding British Heart Foundation.

BackgroundCurrent pathways for testing fetuses at increased risk of a chromosomal anomaly because of an ultrasound anomaly involve karyotyping after rapid aneuploidy exclusion. Chromosomal microarray (CMA) may detect more clinically significant chromosomal imbalances than karyotyping but evidence to guide UK health service providers on whether or not CMA should replace karyotyping is limited.Objectives(1) To compare detection rates of copy number variants (CNVs) and laboratory turnaround times (TATs) by karyotyping and CMA in fetuses with ultrasound anomalies, (2) to calculate test costs and the cost per additional pathogenic CNV detected by CMA relative to karyotyping and (3) to determine what factors influence parents’ and health professionals’ choice and decision-making about CMA.DesignA multicentre experimental research cohort study with an additional cost analysis.SettingA total of 20 fetal medicine units and nine cytogenetic laboratories across England and Wales.ParticipantsWomen with a fetus undergoing quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) and karyotyping for clinical indications with (1) one or more structural anomalies identified on ultrasound or (2) an isolated nuchal translucency (NT) of ≥ 3.5 mm.InterventionsKaryotyping and CMA after exclusion of major chromosomal anomalies by QF-PCR. The array design consisted of 8-plex 60,000 60-mer oligonucleotides with a backbone resolution of ≈75 kb.Main outcome measuresRates of abnormal karyotypes and pathogenic CNVs and variants of unknown significance on CMA. Laboratory TATs for karyotyping and CMA. Costs of karyotyping and CMA and cost per additional pathogenic CNV detected by CMA. Parent and health professional attitudes to CMA.ResultsOut of the 1718 probands recruited, 1123 cases with normal QF-PCR and both karyotype and CMA were available for analysis. In the group with structural anomalies (n = 629), CMA detected more CNVs [6.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.4% to 9.3%] and more pathogenic CNVs (3.5%, 95% CI 1.5% to 5.5%) than karyotyping. In the increased NT group (n = 494), CMA detected more CNVs (4.5%, 95% CI 1.8% to 7.1%) than karyotyping but not more pathogenic CNVs. Compared with karyotyping, median TAT was 3 days [interquartile range (IQR) 0–13 days] longer with CMA but when actual set-up to reporting times were compared, CMA was 5 days (IQR 2–8 days) quicker. Cost calculations of the respective pathways indicated that, per patient, CMA is on average £113 more costly than karyotyping. The incremental cost per extra pathogenic CNV detected by CMA was greater in the increased NT than the structural anomaly group (£9439 vs. £3635). Qualitative evaluation suggested that parents find CMA acceptable, despite the uncertainties it may introduce, and that in the main it is acceptable to health professionals and commissioners.ConclusionsCMA is a robust, acceptable and probably cost-effective method to detect more clinically significant chromosomal imbalances in the anomalous fetus. The results suggest that CMA should replace karyotyping in these care pathways.Future workThe application of CMA (and exome sequencing) on cell-free DNA in maternal plasma.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN01058191.FundingThis project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a MRC and NIHR partnership. The funder had no role in the identification, design and conduct of the study and the reporting of the analysis. The funder did recommend the inclusion of the cell-free DNA aspects of the EACH study. Funding was also received from the Great Ormond Street Biomedical Research Centre.

No abstract