Search

Background: Early diagnosis and treatment of obesity in primary care may help to tackle the obesity pandemic. Nonetheless, GPs frequently fail to address obesity and demonstrate limited adherence to guidelines. Aim: To explore Dutch GPs’ perspectives on addressing obesity regarding the following three target behaviours: discussing weight; diagnosing; and referring patients with obesity. Design & setting: A qualitative focus group study with Dutch GPs. Method: Six focus groups were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 GPs. Thematic analysis was performed using deductive coding, according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Results: For discussing weight, the main barriers identified were a presented complaint unrelated to obesity (environmental context and resources), concerns about a negative response from the patient (beliefs about consequences), and worries about obesity being a sensitive subject to discuss (emotions). A long-term trustworthy relationship (social influences) facilitated discussing weight. For diagnosing patients with obesity, the main barriers were related to resources; for example, lack of (appropriate) measuring equipment and time (environmental context and resources). For referring patients with obesity, the main barriers were no referral options nearby (environmental context and resources), and doubts about the positive effects of the referral on weight change (beliefs about consequences). Conclusion: Different barriers for discussing weight, diagnosing, and referring patients with obesity were identified, underscoring the importance for tailored interventions to these specific behaviours. Improving knowledge and skills of GPs seems insufficient as this study showed that particular attention should be paid to establishing long-term relationships, addressing GPs' beliefs about consequences, and creating a supportive environment with sufficient time and resources.

A response by Catharine Evers and colleagues to a letter to the editor about their study "Assessing yourself as an emotional eater: Mission impossible?," published in a previous issue is presented.

Abstract Background Despite the abundant availability of effective medication adherence interventions, uptake of these interventions into routine care often lacks. Examples of effective medication adherence interventions include telephone counseling, consult preparation and the teach-back method. Assessing context is an important step in understanding implementation success of interventions, but context is often not reported or only moderately described. This study aims to describe context-specific characteristics in four living labs prior to the implementation of evidence-based interventions aiming to improve medication adherence. Methods A qualitative study was conducted within four living labs using individual interviews (n = 12) and focus groups (n = 4) with project leaders and involved healthcare providers. The four living labs are multidisciplinary collaboratives that are early adopters of medication adherence interventions in the Dutch primary care system. Context is defined as the environment or setting in which the proposed change is to be implemented. Interview topics to assess context were formulated based on the ‘inner setting’ and ‘outer setting’ domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were deductively analyzed. Results A total of 39 community pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, general practitioners and a home care employee participated in the (focus group) interviews. All four living labs proved to be pharmacy-driven and characterized by a high regard for innovation by staff members, a positive implementation climate, high levels of leadership engagement and high compatibility between the living labs and the interventions. Two living labs were larger in size and characterized by more formal communication. Two living labs were characterized by higher levels of cosmopolitanism which resulted in more adaptable interventions. Worries about external policy, most notably lack of reimbursement for sustainment and upscaling of the interventions, were shared among all living labs. Conclusions Contextual characteristics of four living labs that are early adopters of medication adherence interventions provide detailed examples of a positive implementation setting. These can be used to inform dissemination of medication adherence interventions in settings less experienced in implementing medication adherence interventions.

Abstract In KMT2A-rearranged acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), an aggressive malignancy, oncogenic KMT2A-fusion proteins inappropriately recruit DOT1L to promote leukemogenesis, highlighting DOT1L as an attractive therapeutic target. Unfortunately, treatment with the first-in-class DOT1L inhibitor pinometostat eventually leads to non-responsiveness. To understand this we established acquired pinometostat resistance in pediatric KMT2A::AFF1 + B-ALL cells. Interestingly, these cells became mostly independent of DOT1L-mediated H3K79 methylation, but still relied on the physical presence of DOT1L, HOXA9 and the KMT2A::AFF1 fusion. Moreover, these cells selectively lost the epigenetic regulation and expression of various KMT2A-fusion target genes such as PROM1/CD133, while other KMT2A::AFF1 target genes, including HOXA9 and CDK6 remained unaffected. Concomitantly, these pinometostat-resistant cells showed upregulation of several myeloid-associated genes, including CD33 and LILRB4/CD85k. Taken together, this model comprehensively shows the adaptive potential of KMT2A-rearranged ALL cells upon losing dependency on one of its main oncogenic properties.

Abstract Background Clients with severe mental illness (SMI) have overall poor physical health. SMI reduces life expectancy by 5–17 years, primarily due to physical comorbidity linked to cardiometabolic risks that are mainly driven by unhealthy lifestyle behaviours. To improve physical health in clients with SMI, key elements are systematic somatic screening and lifestyle promotion. The nurse-led GILL eHealth was developed for somatic screening and the implementation of lifestyle activities in clients with SMI. Aims of this study are to evaluate the effectiveness of the GILL eHealth intervention in clients with SMI compared to usual care, and to evaluate the implementation process, and the experiences of clients and healthcare providers with GILL eHealth. Methods The GILL study encompasses a cluster-randomised controlled trial in approximately 20 mental health care facilities in the Netherlands. The randomisation takes place at the team level, assigning clients to the eHealth intervention or the usual care group. The GILL eHealth intervention consists of two complementary modules for somatic screening and lifestyle promotion, resulting in personalised somatic treatment and lifestyle plans. Trained mental health nurses and nurse practitioners will implement the intervention within the multidisciplinary treatment context, and will guide and support the participants in promoting their physical health, including cardiometabolic risk management. Usual care includes treatment as currently delivered, with national guidelines as frame of reference. We aim to include 258 clients with SMI and a BMI of 27 or higher. Primary outcome is the metabolic syndrome severity score. Secondary outcomes are physical health measurements and participants’ reports on physical activity, perceived lifestyle behaviours, quality of life, recovery, psychosocial functioning, and health-related self-efficacy. Measurements will be completed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. A qualitative process evaluation will be conducted alongside, to evaluate the process of implementation and the experiences of clients and healthcare professionals with GILL eHealth. Discussion The GILL eHealth intervention is expected to be more effective than usual care in improving physical health and lifestyle behaviours among clients with SMI. It will also provide important information on implementation of GILL eHealth in mental health care. If proven effective, GILL eHealth offers a clinically useful tool to improve physical health and lifestyle behaviours. Trial registration Clinical trial registration NCT05533749, registration date: 8 September 2022.

Summary: SARS-CoV-2 infection in children typically results in asymptomatic or mild disease. There is a paucity of studies on SARS-CoV-2 antiviral immunity in African children. We investigated SARS-CoV-2-specific T cell responses in 71 unvaccinated asymptomatic South African children who were seropositive or seronegative for SARS-CoV-2. SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cell responses were detectable in 83% of seropositive and 60% of seronegative children. Although the magnitude of the CD4+ T cell response did not differ significantly between the two groups, their functional profiles were distinct, with SARS-CoV-2 seropositive children exhibiting a higher proportion of polyfunctional T cells compared to their seronegative counterparts. The frequency of SARS-CoV-2-specific CD4+ T cells in seronegative children was associated with the endemic human coronavirus (HCoV) HKU1 IgG response. Overall, the presence of SARS-CoV-2-responding T cells in seronegative children may result from cross-reactivity to endemic coronaviruses and could contribute to the relative protection from disease observed in SARS-CoV-2-infected children.

Background: COVID-19 cardiovascular research from Africa is limited. This study describes cardiovascular risk factors, manifestations, and outcomes of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the African region, with an overarching goal to investigate whether important differences exist between African and other populations, which may inform health policies. Methods: A multinational prospective cohort study was conducted on adults hospitalised with confirmed COVID-19, consecutively admitted to 40 hospitals across 23 countries, 6 of which were African countries. Of the 5,313 participants enrolled globally, 948 were from African sites (n = 9). Data on demographics, pre-existing conditions, clinical outcomes in hospital (major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), renal failure, neurological events, pulmonary outcomes, and death), 30-day vitality status and re-hospitalization were assessed, comparing African to non-African participants. Results: Access to specialist care at African sites was significantly lower than the global average (71% vs. 95%), as were ICU admissions (19.4% vs. 34.0%) and COVID-19 vaccination rates (0.6% vs. 7.4%). The African cohort was slightly younger than the non-African cohort (55.0 vs. 57.5 years), with higher rates of hypertension (48.8% vs. 46.9%), HIV (5.9% vs. 0.3%), and Tuberculosis (3.6% vs. 0.3%). In African sites, a higher proportion of patients suffered cardiac arrest (7.5% vs. 5.1%) and acute kidney injury (12.7% vs. 7.2%), with acute kidney injury (AKI) appearing to be one of the strongest predictors of MACE and death in African populations compared to other populations. The overall mortality rate was significantly higher among African participants (18.2% vs. 14.2%). Conclusions: Overall, hospitalised African patients with COVID-19 had a higher mortality despite a lower mean age, contradicting literature that had previously reported a lower mortality attributed to COVID-19 in Africa. African sites had lower COVID-19 vaccination rates and higher AKI rates, which were positively associated with increased mortality. In conclusion, African patients were hospitalized with more severe COVID-19 cases and had poorer outcomes.

Background: The emergence of genetic variants of SARS-CoV-2 was associated with changing epidemiological characteristics throughout coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in population-based studies. Individual-level data on the clinical characteristics of infection with different SARS-CoV-2 variants in African countries is less well documented. Objectives: To describe the evolving clinical differences observed with the various SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and compare the Omicron-driven wave in infections to the previous Delta-driven wave. Method: We performed a retrospective observational cohort study among patients admitted to a South African referral hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were stratified by epidemiological wave period, and in a subset, the variants associated with each wave were confirmed by genomic sequencing. Outcomes were analysed by Cox proportional hazard models. Results: We included 1689 patients were included, representing infection waves driven predominantly by ancestral, Beta, Delta and Omicron BA1/BA2 BA4/BA5 variants. Crude 28-day mortality was 25.8% (34/133) in the Omicron wave period versus 37.1% (138/374) in the Delta wave period (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68 [95% CI 0.47–1.00] p = 0.049); this effect persisted after adjustment for age, gender, HIV status and presence of cardiovascular disease (adjusted HR [aHR] 0.43 [95% CI 0.28–0.67] p 0.001). Hospital-wide SARS-CoV-2 admissions and deaths were highest during the Delta wave period, with a decoupling of SARS-CoV-2 deaths and overall deaths thereafter. Conclusion: There was lower in-hospital mortality during Omicron-driven waves compared with the prior Delta wave, despite patients admitted during the Omicron wave being at higher risk. Contribution: This study summarises clinical characteristics associated with SARS-CoV-2 variants during the COVID-19 pandemic at a South African tertiary hospital, demonstrating a waning impact of COVID-19 on healthcare services over time despite epidemic waves driven by new variants. Findings suggest the absence of increasing virulence from later variants and protection from population and individual-level immunity.

The impact of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection on the durability of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine-elicited responses, and the effect of homologous boosting has not been well explored. We followed a cohort of healthcare workers for 6 months after receiving the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine and a further one month after they received an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose. We assessed longitudinal spike-specific antibody and T cell responses in individuals who had never had SARS-CoV-2 infection, compared to those who were infected with either the D614G or Beta variants prior to vaccination. Antibody and T cell responses elicited by the primary dose were durable against several variants of concern over the 6 month follow-up period, regardless of infection history. However, at 6 months after first vaccination, antibody binding, neutralization and ADCC were as much as 59-fold higher in individuals with hybrid immunity compared to those with no prior infection. Antibody cross-reactivity profiles of the previously infected groups were similar at 6 months, unlike at earlier time points, suggesting that the effect of immune imprinting diminishes by 6 months. Importantly, an Ad26.COV2.S booster dose increased the magnitude of the antibody response in individuals with no prior infection to similar levels as those with previous infection. The magnitude of spike T cell responses and proportion of T cell responders remained stable after homologous boosting, concomitant with a significant increase in long-lived early differentiated CD4 memory T cells. Thus, these data highlight that multiple antigen exposures, whether through infection and vaccination or vaccination alone, result in similar boosts after Ad26.COV2.S vaccination.

Abstract Background Smoking among people with severe mental illness (SMI) is highly prevalent and strongly associated with poor physical health. Currently, evidence-based smoking cessation interventions are scarce and need to be integrated into current mental health care treatment guidelines and clinical practice. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of a smoking cessation intervention in comparison with usual care in people with SMI treated by Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) teams in the Netherlands. Methods A pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with embedded process evaluation will be conducted. Randomisation will be performed at the level of FACT teams, which will be assigned to the KISMET intervention or a control group (care as usual). The intervention will include pharmacological treatment combined with behavioural counselling and peer support provided by trained mental health care professionals. The intervention was developed using a Delphi study, through which a consensus was reached on the core elements of the intervention. We aim to include a total of 318 people with SMI (aged 18–65 years) who smoke and desire to quit smoking. The primary outcome is smoking status, as verified by carbon monoxide measurements and self-report. The secondary outcomes are depression and anxiety, psychotic symptoms, physical fitness, cardiovascular risks, substance use, quality of life, and health-related self-efficacy at 12 months. Alongside the trial, a qualitative process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the barriers to and facilitators of its implementation as well as the satisfaction and experiences of both patients and mental health care professionals. Discussion The results of the KISMET trial will contribute to the evidence gap of effective smoking cessation interventions for people treated by FACT teams. Moreover, insights will be obtained regarding the implementation process of the intervention in current mental health care. The outcomes should advance the understanding of the interdependence of physical and mental health and the gradual integration of both within the mental health care system. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register, NTR9783. Registered on 18 October 2021.

Abstract Groundwater monitoring is the highest tier in the leaching assessment of plant protection products in the EU. The European Commission requested EFSA for a review by the PPR Panel of the scientific paper of Gimsing et al. (2019) on the design and conduct of groundwater monitoring studies. The Panel concludes that this paper provides many recommendations; however, specific guidance on how to design, conduct and evaluate groundwater monitoring studies for regulatory purposes is missing. The Panel notes that there is no agreed specific protection goal (SPG) at EU level. Also, the SPG has not yet been operationalised in an agreed exposure assessment goal (ExAG). The ExAG describes which groundwater needs to be protected, where and when. Because the design and interpretation of monitoring studies depends on the ExAG, development of harmonised guidance is not yet possible. The development of an agreed ExAG must therefore be given priority. A central question in the design and interpretation of groundwater monitoring studies is that of groundwater vulnerability. Applicants must demonstrate that the selected monitoring sites represent realistic worst‐case conditions as specified in the ExAG. Guidance and models are needed to support this step. A prerequisite for the regulatory use of monitoring data is the availability of complete data on the use history of the products containing the respective active substances. Applicants must further demonstrate that monitoring wells are hydrologically connected to the fields where the active substance has been applied. Modelling in combination with (pseudo)tracer experiments would be the preferred option. The Panel concludes that well‐conducted monitoring studies provide more realistic exposure assessments and can therefore overrule results from lower tier studies. Groundwater monitoring studies involve a high workload for both regulators and applicants. Standardised procedures and monitoring networks could help to reduce this workload.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA to revise the risk assessment for honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. This guidance document describes how to perform risk assessment for bees from plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1107/2009. It is a review of EFSA's existing guidance document, which was published in 2013. The guidance document outlines a tiered approach for exposure estimation in different scenarios and tiers. It includes hazard characterisation and provides risk assessment methodology covering dietary and contact exposure. The document also provides recommendations for higher tier studies, risk from metabolites and plant protection products as mixture.

Abstract Development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for uterine adenocarcinoma can provide a practical tool to implement the EFSA‐ECHA Guidance (2018) for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. AOPs can give indications about the strength of the relationship between an adverse outcome (intended as a human health outcome) and chemicals (pesticides but not only) affecting the pathways. In this scientific opinion, the PPR Panel explored the development of AOPs for uterine adenocarcinoma. An evidence‐based approach methodology was applied, and literature reviews were produced using a structured framework assuring transparency, objectivity, and comprehensiveness. Several AOPs were developed; these converged to a common critical node, that is increased estradiol availability in the uterus followed by estrogen receptor activation in the endometrium; therefore, a putative AOP network was considered. An uncertainty analysis and a probabilistic quantification of the weight of evidence have been carried out via expert knowledge elicitation for each set of MIEs/KEs/KERs included in individual AOPs. The collected data on the AOP network were evaluated qualitatively, whereas a quantitative uncertainty analysis for weight of the AOP network certainty has not been performed. Recommendations are provided, including exploring further the uncertainties identified in the AOPs and putative AOP network; further methodological developments for quantifying the certainty of the KERs and of the overall AOPs and AOP network; and investigating of NAMs applications in the context of some of the MIEs/KEs currently part of the putative AOP network developed.

Groundwater monitoring is the highest tier in the leaching assessment of plant protection products in the EU. The European Commission requested EFSA for a review by the PPR Panel of the scientific paper of Gimsing et al. (2019) on the design and conduct of groundwater monitoring studies. The Panel concludes that this paper provides many recommendations; however, specific guidance on how to design, conduct and evaluate groundwater monitoring studies for regulatory purposes is missing. The Panel notes that there is no agreed specific protection goal (SPG) at EU level. Also, the SPG has not yet been operationalised in an agreed exposure assessment goal (ExAG). The ExAG describes which groundwater needs to be protected, where and when. Because the design and interpretation of monitoring studies depends on the ExAG, development of harmonised guidance is not yet possible. The development of an agreed ExAG must therefore be given priority. A central question in the design and interpretation of groundwater monitoring studies is that of groundwater vulnerability. Applicants must demonstrate that the selected monitoring sites represent realistic worst-case conditions as specified in the ExAG. Guidance and models are needed to support this step. A prerequisite for the regulatory use of monitoring data is the availability of complete data on the use history of the products containing the respective active substances. Applicants must further demonstrate that monitoring wells are hydrologically connected to the fields where the active substance has been applied. Modelling in combination with (pseudo)tracer experiments would be the preferred option. The Panel concludes that well-conducted monitoring studies provide more realistic exposure assessments and can therefore overrule results from lower tier studies. Groundwater monitoring studies involve a high workload for both regulators and applicants. Standardised procedures and monitoring networks could help to reduce this workload., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)