BioMed Central (United Kingdom)

<h3>Background</h3> Acute Exacerbations in asthma (AEA) can be fatal and both NRAD (National Review of asthma deaths) and BTS have made recommendations around prevention and follow-up post-AEA, however this has been challenging in primary care and further guidance on strategically approaching this is needed. Identification of high-risk patients systematically and proactively is important to optimize care, prevent further exacerbations and effectively treat difficult and severe phenotypes. <h3>Methods</h3> Retrospective analyses of patients attending emergency departments (ED) with AEA using ED Dataset (fiscal year 2024–2025) was mapped to GP practices within the integrated care board (ICB) and according to socioeconomic status and index of multiple deprivation. Heat map (figure 1) shows practices with the highest number of ED attendances, where more attention is required for collaborative and integrated outward facing working by the respiratory secondary care teams. Regular monthly sessions with individual practices allows deep dive drilling down to important issues affecting the populations where AEA rates are high and ensure issues addressed like (i) education for staff and patients particularly accounting for locations of more health inequality, (ii) appropriate secondary care review or (iii) referral to other services to evaluate diagnosis and comorbidities. <h3>Results</h3> 4366 patients were admitted for AEA in the past year of whom, 36% [n=1570] were of white ethnicity, 19% [n=811] black and 7% [n=303] were South Asian. 173 GP practices were reviewed and asthma attendance rate per practice showed 54% practices had rates up to 2%, and 13% of practices above 3%. Figure 1 identifies GP surgeries with highest number of patients with frequent AEA. 404 patients had 2 or more ED admissions. Areas with greatest deprivation showed higher rates of AEA admitted to hospital. <h3>Conclusion</h3> With one of the worst mortality rates in Europe for asthma, a UK systems-based approach is required to personalize follow-up AEA and is key to prevention of AEA in hotspots of poor asthma control. Specific national guidance is called for to target care to the vulnerable groups in a timely manner and support on the implementation of an integrated approach to ensure delivery of focused attention to those at greatest risk.

The rapid rise and global consequences of the novel coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) have again brought the focus of the scientific community on the possible host factors involved in patient response and outcome to exposure to the virus. The disease severity remains highly unpredictable, and individuals with none of the aforementioned risk factors may still develop severe COVID-19. It was shown that genotype-related factors like an ABO Blood Group affect COVID-19 severity, and the risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 was higher for patients with blood type A and lower for patients with blood type O. Currently it is not clear which specific genes are associated with COVID-19 severity. The comparative analysis of COVID-19 and other viral infections allows us to predict that the variants within the interferon pathway genes may serve as markers of the magnitude of immune response to specific pathogens. In particular, various members of Class III interferons (lambda) are reviewed in detail.

A brief discussion is presented of the use of &amp;quot;ize&amp;quot; rather than &amp;quot;ise&amp;quot; in most current day journals. The need for editors and authors to be consistent in their spelling remains an issue.

Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical ‘top tips’ that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one.

This article reviews new requirements for peer review in scholarly publishing. New models include open, transparent, and post-publication peer review. These have emerged in response to increasing expectations around peer review. Notable other issues

During this presentation we will share learning from a Wellcome Trust Engagement Fellowship. We will present examples of artsbased public involvement activities, including a sculpture project with young people and a play about dementia. We aim to raise awareness of what public involvement can gain from the arts; stimulate discussion about the pros and cons of different approaches; and discuss how to encourage more creativity within public involvement. Why is it important and to whom? Public involvement has been criticised for a lack of diversity and inclusivity. By diversifying the involvement activities which we offer, we may attract a wider variety of people. Arts based activities also have the potential to facilitate discussion in an accessible, safe and fun way. This session may be of particular interest to people who are planning or facilitating public involvement activities (members of the public and researchers). What difference has, or could, this project make? Throughout the project, both researchers and members of the public have found arts activities stimulating and useful. However people have encountered some practical challenges when running these projects. Specifically, people do not feel they have the necessary skills to plan and facilitate arts activities. I will discuss how we might address that skills gap and invite the audience to suggest what support is needed. What will people take away from session?

Ethics review bodies are well placed to check trial reporting, say Simon E Kolstoe and Daniel R Shanahan, but Janet Wisely worries about resourcing and the lack of sanctions available once approval has been granted