Search

Background: Accumulating data suggest infectious agents are involved in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The two primary aims of this trial were to assess safety and efficacy of an antiviral drug combination on AD progression. Objective: The trial evaluated whether Apovir, a combination of two antiviral agents, pleconaril (active on enteroviruses) and ribavirin (active on several viruses), could slow AD progression. Methods: Sixty-nine patients 60–85 years were treated with Apovir or placebo for 9 months and followed until 12 months after end of treatment. Cognitive tests, safety, biomarkers, drug plasma, and cerebrospinal fluid concentrations were assessed. Results: The tolerability of Apovir was compromised as demonstrated by the large drop-out rate and increased frequency and severity of adverse events. The primary endpoint, demonstrating a difference in change from baseline to 9 months between groups in ADAS-cog total score, was not met (p = 0.1809). However, there were observations indicating potential effects on both ADAS-cog and CDR-SB but these effects need to be verified. Also, there was a decrease in cerebrospinal fluid amyloid-β in Apovir at 9 months (p = 0.0330) but no change in placebo. Conclusion: This was the first randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial exploring antiviral treatment on AD progression. The trial is considered inconclusive due to the large drop-out rate. New trials are needed to verify if the indications of effect observed can be confirmed and which component(s) in Apovir contributed to such effects. Pleconaril alone may be studied to improve the tolerability and to verify if enterovirus is involved in the disease process.

An editorial is presented on the COVID-19 has undoubtedly stimulated discussions about the sort of society people want. The article discusses that this helped alleviate the dreariness of the winter months and temper the gloomy predictions from the British Academy (2021) of the pandemic's potential;and the earlier observations suggest the need for a theoretical dimension to achieve concordance by ensuring that every aspect is underpinned by clear aims and principles.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2006 (McGuinness 2006), and previously updated in 2009 (McGuinness 2009). Hypertension is a risk factor for dementia. Observational studies suggest antihypertensive treatment is associated with lower incidences of cognitive impairment and dementia. There is already clear evidence to support the treatment of hypertension after stroke.OBJECTIVES: To assess whether pharmacological treatment of hypertension can prevent cognitive impairment or dementia in people who have no history of cerebrovascular disease.SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, as well as many trials registries and grey literature sources, most recently on 7 July 2020.SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which pharmacological interventions to treat hypertension were given for at least 12 months. We excluded trials of pharmacological interventions to lower blood pressure in non-hypertensive participants. We also excluded trials conducted solely in people with stroke.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected information regarding incidence of dementia, cognitive decline, change in blood pressure, adverse effects and quality of life. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies, totaling 30,412 participants, in this review. Eight studies compared active treatment with placebo. Of the four non-placebo-controlled studies, two compared intensive versus standard blood pressure reduction. The two final included studies compared different classes of antihypertensive drug. Study durations varied from one to five years. The combined result of four placebo-controlled trials that reported incident dementia indicated no evidence of a difference in the risk of dementia between the antihypertensive treatment group and the placebo group (236/7767 versus 259/7660, odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.09; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to study limitations and indirectness). The combined results from five placebo-controlled trials that reported change in Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) may indicate a modest benefit from antihypertensive treatment (mean difference (MD) 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.29; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to study limitations, indirectness and imprecision). The certainty of evidence for both cognitive outcomes was downgraded on the basis of study limitations and indirectness. Study durations were too short, overall, to expect a significant difference in dementia rates between groups. Dementia and cognitive decline were secondary outcomes for most studies. Additional sources of bias include: the use of antihypertensive medication by the placebo group in the placebo-controlled trials; failure to reach recruitment targets; and early termination of studies on safety grounds. Meta-analysis of the placebo-controlled trials reporting results found a mean change in systolic blood pressure of -9.25 mmHg (95% CI -9.73, -8.78) between treatment (n = 8973) and placebo (n = 8820) groups, and a mean change in diastolic blood pressure of -2.47 mmHg (95% CI -2.70, -2.24) between treatment (n = 7700) and placebo (n = 7509) groups (both low certainty evidence downgraded on the basis of study limitations and inconsistency). Three trials - SHEP 1991, LOMIR MCT IL 1996 and MRC 1996 - reported more withdrawals due to adverse events in active treatment groups than placebo groups. Participants on active treatment in Syst Eur 1998 were less likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects, and participants on active treatment in HYVET 2008 reported fewer 'serious adverse events' than in the placebo group. There was no evidence of a difference in withdrawals rates between groups in SCOPE 2003, and results were unclear for Perez Stable 2000 and Zhang 2018. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Five of the placebo-controlled trials provided quality of life (QOL) data. Heterogeneity again precluded meta-analysis. SHEP 1991, Syst Eur 1998 and HYVET 2008 reported no evidence of a difference in QOL measures between active treatment and placebo groups over time. The SCOPE 2003 sub-study (Degl'Innocenti 2004) showed a smaller drop in QOL measures in the active treatment compared to the placebo group. LOMIR MCT IL 1996 reported an improvement in a QOL measure at twelve months in one active treatment group and deterioration in another.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: High certainty randomised controlled trial evidence regarding the effect of hypertension treatment on dementia and cognitive decline does not yet exist. The studies included in this review provide low certainty evidence (downgraded primarily due to study limitations and indirectness) that pharmacological treatment of hypertension, in people without prior cerebrovascular disease, leads to less cognitive decline compared to controls. This difference is below the level considered clinically significant. The studies included in this review also provide very low certainty evidence that pharmacological treatment of hypertension, in people without prior cerebrovascular disease, prevents dementia.

Roy Parker, who died in January 2017, was one of the first researchers to study foster care and adoption and was Chair of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF – now CoramBAAF) for six years from 1980. One of his last projects was a historical review of the concept of severe and multiple disadvantage and responses to it. At a time when 13.5 million people, including 30% of the UK’s children, are living in poverty (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2016) we publish it to mark his enormous contribution to the welfare of disadvantaged children and families.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to chart the history of personal social services for children and families in the UK and examine the factors that have influenced it. Special attention is given to changing perceptions of rights, the impact of scandals and the contribution of child development research. Design/methodology/approach Analysis of historical documents and research reports using four methods: a timeline of milestones, demarcation of distinct developmental periods, trends in policy and practice and comparisons of children’s needs and experiences at different times. Findings The evolution of services has not been linear. In policy, there have been reform and retrenchment, amalgamation and differentiation. Practice has been shaped by the emergence of new problems and the disappearance of old ones as well as by legislation, extreme events, research and finance, all occurring in specific political, moral and economic contexts. Originality/value An analysis of developments in children’s services in their political, economic, moral and research contexts.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to assess the legacy of six pioneer child care researchers. Design/methodology/approach An assessment of the achievements of a generation of child care researchers. Findings The early researchers were not only highly innovative in terms of theory and methodologies but also left a set of studies that stimulated and informed subsequent studies. Originality/value A review of the work of six pioneering child care researchers.