Search

The mRNA COVID vaccines are only licensed for intramuscular injection but it is unclear whether successful intramuscular administration is required for immunogenicity.In this observational study, eligible adults receiving their first ComirnatyParticipants (n = 402) had a mean age of 34.7 years, BMI 29.1 kg/mA 25 mm needle length is likely to be inadequate to ensure vaccine deposition within the deltoid muscle in a small proportion of adults. Vaccine-induced spike antibody titres were comparable in those vaccinated with a needle of sufficient versus insufficient length suggesting deltoid muscle deposition may not be required for an adequate antibody response to mRNA vaccines.

Review question / Objective: The primary objective of the systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether TMPRSS2 inhibition with nafamostat or camostat mesylate is associated with a reduced risk of 30-day all-cause mortality in hospitalised and non-hospitalised adults with COVID-19. Condition being studied: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19 is an infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Most people infected with the virus will experience mild to moderate respiratory illness and recover without requiring special treatment. However, some will become seriously ill and require medical attention. Older people and those with underlying medical conditions like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease, or cancer are more likely to develop serious illness. Anyone can get sick with COVID-19 and become seriously ill or die at any age.

Conspiracy theories may arise out of an overarching conspiracy worldview that identifies common elements of subterfuge across unrelated or even contradictory explanations, leading to networks of self-reinforcing beliefs. We test this conjecture by analyzing a large natural language database of conspiracy and nonconspiracy texts for the same events, thus linking theory-driven psychological research with data-driven computational approaches. We find that, relative to nonconspiracy texts, conspiracy texts are more interconnected, more topically heterogeneous, and more similar to one another, revealing lower cohesion within texts but higher cohesion between texts and providing strong empirical support for an overarching conspiracy worldview. Our results provide inroads for classification algorithms and further exploration into individual differences in belief structures.

Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has exposed the disproportionate effects of pandemics on frontline workers and the ethical imperative to provide effective prophylaxis. We present a model for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) that utilises Bayesian methods to rapidly determine the efficacy or futility of a prophylactic agent. Methods We initially planned to undertake a multicentre, phase III, parallel-group, open-label RCT, to determine if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) taken once a week was effective in preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in healthcare workers (HCW) aged ≥ 18 years in New Zealand (NZ) and Ireland. Participants were to be randomised 2:1 to either HCQ (800 mg stat then 400 mg weekly) or no prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was time to Nucleic Acid Amplification Test-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Secondary outcome variables included mortality, hospitalisation, intensive care unit admissions and length of mechanical ventilation. The trial had no fixed sample size or duration of intervention. Bayesian adaptive analyses were planned to occur fortnightly, commencing with a weakly informative prior for the no prophylaxis group hazard rate and a moderately informative prior on the intervention log hazard ratio centred on ‘no effect’. Stopping for expected success would be executed if the intervention had a greater than 0.975 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Final success would be declared if, after completion of 8 weeks of follow-up (reflecting the long half-life of HCQ), the prophylaxis had at least a 0.95 posterior probability of reducing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 10%. Futility would be declared if HCQ was shown to have less than a 0.10 posterior probability of reducing acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection by more than 20%. Discussion This study did not begin recruitment due to the marked reduction in COVID-19 cases in NZ and concerns regarding the efficacy and risks of HCQ treatment in COVID-19. Nonetheless, the model presented can be easily adapted for other potential prophylactic agents and pathogens, and pre-established collaborative models like this should be shared and incorporated into future pandemic preparedness planning. Trial registration The decision not to proceed with the study was made before trial registration occurred.

SummaryCommon variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVID) are multi-system disorders where target organ damage is mediated by infective, autoimmune and inflammatory processes. Bronchiectasis is probably the most common disabling complication of CVID. The risk factors for bronchiectasis in CVID patients are incompletely understood. The New Zealand CVID study (NZCS) is a nationwide longitudinal observational study of adults, which commenced in 2006. In this analysis, the prevalence and risk factors for bronchiectasis were examined in the NZCS. After informed consent, clinical and demographic data were obtained with an interviewer-assisted questionnaire. Linked electronic clinical records and laboratory results were also reviewed. Statistical methods were applied to determine if variables such as early-onset disease, delay in diagnosis and increased numbers of infections were associated with greater risk of bronchiectasis. One hundred and seven adult patients with a diagnosis of CVID are currently enrolled in the NZCS, comprising approximately 70% of patients known to have CVID in New Zealand. Fifty patients (46·7%) had radiologically proven bronchiectasis. This study has shown that patients with compared to those without bronchiectasis have an increased mortality at a younger age. CVID patients with bronchiectasis had a greater number of severe infections consequent to early-onset disease and delayed diagnosis. Indigenous Māori have a high prevalence of CVID and a much greater burden of bronchiectasis compared to New Zealand Europeans. Diagnostic latency has not improved during the study period. Exposure to large numbers of infections because of early-onset disease and delayed diagnosis was associated with an increased risk of bronchiectasis. Earlier diagnosis and treatment of CVID may reduce the risk of bronchiectasis and premature death in some patients.

As New Zealand transitions towards endemic SARS-CoV-2, understanding patient factors predicting severity, as well as hospital resourcing requirements will be essential for future planning.We retrospectively enrolled patients hospitalised with COVID-19 from 26 February to 5 October 2020 as part of the COVID-19 HospitalisEd Patient SeverIty Observational Study NZ (COHESION). Data on demographics, clinical course and outcomes were collected and analysed as a descriptive case series.Eighty-four patients were identified across eight district health boards. Forty-one (49%) were male. The median age was 58 years [IQR: 41.7-70.3 years]. By ethnicity, hospitalisations included 38 NZ European (45%), 19 Pasifika (23%), 13 Māori (15%), 12 Asian (14%) and 2 Other (2%). Pre-existing co-morbidities included hypertension (26/82, 32%), obesity (16/66, 24%) and diabetes (18/81, 22%). The median length of stay was four days [IQR: 2-15 days]. Twelve patients (12/83, 14%) were admitted to an intensive care unit or high dependency unit (ICU/HDU). Ten (10/83, 12%) patients died in hospital of whom seven (70%) were not admitted to ICU/HDU; the median age at death was 83 years.Despite initially low case numbers in New Zealand during 2020, hospitalisation with COVID-19 was associated with a high mortality and hospital resource requirements.

Patients post haematopoietic stem cell transplant or CAR-T cell therapy face significant risk of morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV19, due to their immunosuppressed state. As case numbers in Australia and New Zealand continue to rise, guidance on management in this high-risk population is needed. Whilst we have learnt much from international colleagues who faced high infection rates early in the pandemic, guidance relevant to local health system structures, medication availability and emerging therapies is essential to equip physicians to optimally manage our patients. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

How does the relation between two words create humor? In this article, we investigated the effect of global and local contrast on the humor of word pairs. We capitalized on the existence of psycholinguistic lexical norms by examining violations of expectations set up by typical patterns of English usage (global contrast) and within the local context of the words within the word pairs (local contrast). Global contrast was operationalized as lexical-semantic norms for single-words and local contrast was operationalized as the orthographic, phonological, and semantic distance between the two words in the pair. Through crowd-sourced (Study 1) and best-worst (Study 2) ratings of the humor of a large set of word pairs (i.e., compounds), we find evidence of both global and local contrast on compound-word humor. Specifically, we find that humor arises when there is a violation of expectations at the local level, between the individual words that make up the word pair, even after accounting for violations at the global level relative to the entire language. Semantic variables (arousal, dominance, and concreteness) were stronger predictors of word pair humor whereas form-related variables (number of letters, phonemes, and letter frequency) were stronger predictors of single-word humor. Moreover, we also find that semantic dissimilarity increases humor, by defusing the impact of low-valence words-making them seem more amusing-and by enhancing the incongruence of highly imageable pairs of concrete words. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Purpose To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. Results We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (– 1 to 15), 0 (– 1 to 9) and—1 (– 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (– 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). Conclusion Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06448-5.

Objectives(1) Assess the distribution of skin-to-deltoid-muscle distance (SDMD) at the deltoid intramuscular (IM) injection site; (2) its relationship with demographic and anthropometric variables and (3) Consider the findings in relation to clinical guidance on IM injection, such as COVID-19 vaccines.DesignSystematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and SCOPUS between June and July 2021 with no publication date limit.Eligibility criteriaStudies reporting measurements of the SDMD in living adults aged 16 years and older, at the deltoid IM injection site, published in English were considered.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers performed each stage of screening, data extraction and quality assessments using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for analytical cross sectional studies.Results16 105 papers were identified, of which 11 studies were suitable for review, representing 1414 participants. Heterogeneity in the definition of the deltoid IM injection site, locations measured and methods of measurement precluded meta-analysis. Evidence from ultrasound SDMD measurements demonstrated some patients in all but ‘underweight’ body mass index (BMI) categories, may require needles longer than 25 mm for successful IM injection. Calliper measurements overestimated SDMD compared with ultrasound. Female sex, higher BMI categories and greater weight in women were associated with greater SDMD.ConclusionsThe reviewed evidence was insufficient to inform definitive needle length ‘cut points’ for IM injection based on demographic or anthropomorphic variables. Contemporary clinical guidance currently based on this evidence, including the site of injection and choice of needle length, may result in subcutaneous administration in a small proportion of recipients, particularly if obese or of female sex.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021264625.

Confirmation bias is defined as searching for and assimilating information in a way that favours existing beliefs. We show that confirmation bias emerges as a natural consequence of boundedly rational belief updating by presenting the BIASR model (Bayesian updating with an Independence Approximation and Source Reliability). In this model, an individual's beliefs about a hypothesis and the source reliability form a Bayesian network. Upon receiving information, an individual simultaneously updates beliefs about the hypothesis in question and the reliability of the information source simultaneously. If the individual updates rationally then this introduces numerous dependencies between beliefs, the tracking of which represents an unrealistic demand on memory. In our model and we propose that human cognition overcomes this memory limitation by assuming independence between beliefs, evidence for which is provided in prior research. We show how a Bayesian belief updating model incorporating this independence approximation generates many types of confirmation bias, including biased evaluation, biased assimilation, attitude polarisation, belief perseverance and confirmation bias in the selection of sources.

Characterizing the cultural evolution of imaginary worlds as a hedonic but non-adaptive exaptation from evolved exploratory tendencies, Dubourg and Baumard defend too narrow a conception of the adaptive evolution of imaginary worlds. Imagination and its imaginary worlds are ancient and adaptive, allowing deliberation over actions, consequences, and futures worth aspiring to, often engendering the world we see around us.

This collaborative meta-analysis was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (grant supporting the post-doctoral fellowship at the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University). The funders had no role in the design of this collaborative meta-analysis; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; or in the report writing., We would like to express our warm gratitude to all participating patients and convalescent plasma donors. We thank Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, University of Basel, for their administrative assistance. For their helpful contribution to individual trials, we thank Erica Wood, Iain Gosbell, Richard Charlewood, Thomas Hills, Veronica Hoad, Kristina Kairaitis, Aikaj Jindal, John Gerrard, Hong Foo, Adam Stewart, and Nanette Trask (ASCOT trial); Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, Ral Carrillo-Esper, Karla Maldonado-Silva, Catalina Casillas-Suárez, Orlando Carrillo-Torres, Sandra Murrieta, Elizabeth Diaz-Padilla, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Yadira Bejar-Ramirez, and Evelyn Cortina-de la Rosa (CPC-SARS trial); Sheri Renaud, Roel Rolando-Almario, and Jacqueline Day (NCT04385199 trial); Sandra Tingsgrd, MD, Karen Brorup Heje Pedersen, MD, Michaela Tinggaard, MD, Louise Thorlacius-Ussing, MD, Clara Lundetoft Clausen, MD, Nichlas Hovmand, MD, Simone Bastrup Israelsen, MD, Cecilie Leding, MD, Katrine Iversen, MD, Maria Engel Miller, MD, Hkon Sandholdt, MSc biostatistician (CCAP-2 trial). On behalf of the IRCT20200310046736N1 trial, we thank the Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization for specialized assistance in the preparation and maintenance of plasma samples. On behalf of the NCT04332835 trial, we thank all the members of the "PC-COVID-19 Group" at the Clinica del Occidente and Hospital Universitario Mayor Mederi in Bogota, and Clinica CES in Medellin. On behalf of the NCT04403477 trial, we thank Miles Carroll for his support regarding the antibody testing in Bangladesh. The Co-CLARITY team would like to extend their gratitude to the Department of Science and Technology Philippine Council for Health Research and Development and the UP-Philippine General Hospital for all their support in the setting up and conduct of the trial. For helpfully communicating details of their trial, we thank members of the PlasmAr trial, NCT04359810 trial (Max O´Donnell), NCT04468009 trial, and CTRI/2020/05/025299 trial. Support for title page creation and format was provided by AuthorArranger, a tool developed at the National Cancer Institute (https://www.cancer.gov/)., During the conduct of the study, the following is reported: Dr. Berry reports being employee with ownership role at Berry Consultants (receives payments for statistical modeling and design of REMAP-CAP). Dr. Castillo reports grants from DOST PCHRD. Dr. Daly reports grants from Medical Research Future Fund (Australian Govt) and RBWH. Dr. Denkinger reports grants from German Ministry for Education and Research. Dr. Dumagay reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Dunachie reports grants from UK Department of Health and Social Care, grants from UK National Institute of Health Research. Dr. Gauiran reports grants from Department of Science and Technology—Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Gordon reports grants from NIHR, grants from NIHR Research Professorship (RP-2015-06-18), and non-financial support from NIHR Clinical Research Network. Dr. Higgins reports grants from NHMRC and from the Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Hills reports grants from Health Research Council of New Zealand. Dr. Holm reports grants from Swedish Government Funds for Clinical Research (ALF). Dr. Janssen and Dr. Müller-Tidow report grants from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany (BMBF) to the RECOVER clinical trial. Dr. Krapp reports grants from Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, grants from Fundación Telefónica del Perú. Dr. J. Lim reports grants from the Department of Science and Technology, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr. Lucero reports grants from Philippine Council for Health Research and Development. Dr Manrique reports economic support from Grupo ISA Intercolombia for the project development of trial NCT04332835. Drs. McQuilten and Wood report grants from Medical Research Future Fund. Dr. McVerry reports grants from The Pittsburgh Foundation, Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium, and from UPMC Learning While Doing Program. Mr. Mouncey reports grants from National Institute for Health Research and from the European Union FP7: PREPARE. Dr. Najdovski reports payment from KUL Leuven to Belgian Red Cross for supply of convalescent plasma. Dr. Nichol reports grants from Health Research Board of Ireland. Dr. D. Roberts reports grants from the National Institute for Health (UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call—Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS) and the European Commission (SUPPORT-E #101015756). Dr. Rowan reports grants from the European Commission and from the UK National Institute for Health Research. Dr. Shankar-Hari reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, grants from UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK. Dr. Turgeon reports grants from Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. Venkatesh reports grants from Baxter. Dr. Webb reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council, grants from Minderoo Foundation. Dr. Zacharowski reports grants from EU Horizon 2020. The ASCOT trial team (Drs Bowen, Daly, Davis, Denholm, Hammond, Jha, L. Lim, McQuilten, Molton, Morpeth, O’Sullivan, Paterson, Perry, Price, Rees, Roberts, Rogers, Sasadeusz, Snelling, Tong, Venkatesh, Wood) is funded by grants from from Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital Foundation, Pratt Foundation, Minderoo Foundation, BHP Foundation, Hospital Research Foundation, Macquarie Group Foundation, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Australian Partnership for Preparedness Research on Infectious Disease Emergencies (APPRISE), and the collection and supply of convalescent plasma was conducted within Lifeblood’s funding arrangements. The CONFIDENT trial is funded by the Belgian KCE (blood establishments received payment for the convalescent plasma supplied in the clinical trial). REMAP-CAP was supported in part by funding from UKRIDHSC COVID-19 Rapid Response Rolling Call (Grant Reference Number COV19-RECPLAS). Collection of convalescent plasma for REMAP-CAP was funded by the Department of Health and Social Care, UK. The IRCT20200310046736N1 trial was supported by the Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. R.AJUMS.REC.1399.003, Dr. Pouladzadeh). The PC-COVID-19 Group is supported by the Universidad del Rosario, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana (Colombia). Outside the submitted work, the following is reported: Dr. Axfors reports postdoctoral grants from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, Uppsala University, the Swedish Society of Medicine, the Blanceflor Foundation, and the Sweden-America Foundation. Dr. Aomar reports personal fees from SOBI, GEDEON RICHTER, and GSK. Dr. Benfield reports grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation, Simonsen Foundation, Lundbeck Foundation, Kai Hansen Foundation, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund; grants and personal fees from GSK, Pfizer, Gilead; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, and Pentabase ApS. Dr. Estcourt reports being an investigator on the RECOVERY trial. Dr. Gordon reports personal fees from GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol Myers Squibb, and 30 Respiratory. Dr. Jha reports grants and personal fees from Baxter Healthcare, personal fees from Astra Zeneca, grants from NephroPlus. Dr. Laterre reports personal fees from Adrenomed. Dr. McVerry reports grants from NIH/NHLBI and Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Dr. Mondragon reports financial activities outside the submitted work (employment at Johnson & Johnson). Dr. Perry reports partner being employed at CSL and owning shares in CSL. Dr. Paterson reports involvement with ALLIANCE trial of COVID-19 treatments. Dr. J. Roberts reports other COVID-19 related trials (in different patient groups): tocilizumab in ICU patients; hydroxychloroquine dosing in ICU patients; planned study of remdesivir pharmacokinetics in patients during expanded access program; and in silico evaluation of ivermectin dosing. Dr Sasadeusz reports grants from various Pharma companies including Gilead Sciences, Abvvie, Merck, and Takeda. Dr. Zacharowski reports personal fees from Biotest AG, CSL Behring, GE Heathcare, and is President of the ESAIC., Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care., Amalia Bravo-Lindoro, BHP Foundation, Blanceflor Foundation, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development of Canada, Eli Omar Zavaleta, Erik and Susanna Olesen’s Charitable Fund, Federal Ministry of Education and Research in Germany, Fundación Telefónica del Perú, IDCBIS, ISA Group and Suramericana, Kai Hansen Foundation, Katja Suter and Sina Ullrich, Khuzestan Blood Transfusion Organization, Macquarie Group Foundation, Medical Research Future Fund, NephroPlus, RBWH, Roel Rolando-Almario NCT04385199, Royal Brisbane, Sheri Renaud, Simonsen Foundation, UKRI-National Institute for Health Research UK, UKRIDHSC COV19-RECPLAS, UP-Philippine General Hospital CTRI/2020/05/025299, NCT04359810, NCT04468009, Women’s Hospital Foundation, National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Pittsburgh Foundation, Pfizer, Baxter International, Stanford University, Gilead Sciences, National Institute on Handicapped Research RP-2015-06-18, Meso Scale Diagnostics, Universität Basel, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Health Research Board, Pratt Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institute for Health Research, Department of Health and Social Care, European Commission 101015756, National Health and Medical Research Council, Department of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India, Health Research Council of New Zealand, Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung, Sweden-America Foundation, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Lundbeckfonden, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse, Seventh Framework Programme, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Uppsala Universitet, Horizon 2020, Svenska Läkaresällskapet, Universidad del Rosario, Pharmaceuticals Bayer, Novo Nordisk Fonden, Department of Science and Technology, Philippines, Philippine Council for Health Research and Development, Minderoo Foundation

Suicide remains a serious public-health concern that is difficult to accurately predict in real-world settings. To identify potential predictors of suicide, we examined the emotional content of suicide notes using methods from cognitive network science. Specifically, we compared the co-occurrence networks of suicide notes with those constructed out of emotion words written by individuals scoring low or high on measures of depression, anxiety, and stress. Our objective was to identify which networks were most similar to the suicide notes network, in particular with regard to the connectivity between words and their emotional contents. We also investigated what types of words remained in the high/low emotion networks after controlling for the words present in the suicide notes, which we conceptualize as the “words not said” in the suicide notes. We found that patterns of connectivity among emotion words in suicide notes were most similar to those in texts written by low-anxiety individuals. However, upon analyzing the “words not said” in suicide notes, we observed that the remaining collection of emotions in suicide notes was most similar to those expressed by high-anxiety individuals. We discuss how these findings relate with existing clinical psychological literature as well as their potential implications for predicting suicidal behavior.

Background Asthma is the most common chronic disease in children, many of whom are managed solely with a short-acting β2-agonist (SABA). In adults, the evidence that budesonide-formoterol as sole reliever therapy markedly reduces the risk of severe exacerbations compared with SABA alone has contributed to the Global Initiative for Asthma recommending against SABA monotherapy in this population. The current lack of evidence in children means it is unknown whether these findings are also relevant to this demographic. High-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are needed. Objective The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of as-needed budesonide-formoterol therapy compared with as-needed salbutamol in children aged 5 to 15 years with mild asthma, who only use a SABA. Methods A 52-week, open-label, parallel group, phase III RCT will recruit 380 children aged 5 to 15 years with mild asthma. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to either budesonide-formoterol (Symbicort Rapihaler®) 50/3 µg, two actuations as needed, or salbutamol (Ventolin®) 100 µg, two actuations as needed. The primary outcome is asthma attacks as rate per participant per year. Secondary outcomes assess asthma control, lung function, exhaled nitric oxide and treatment step change. A cost-effectiveness analysis is also planned. Conclusion This is the first RCT to assess the safety and efficacy of as-needed budesonide-formoterol in children with mild asthma. The results will provide a much-needed evidence base for the treatment of mild asthma in children., This protocol describes the first randomised controlled trial to investigate the efficacy and safety of budesonide/formoterol as sole reliever therapy for children with mild asthma, providing urgently needed evidence in this population https://bit.ly/35v0R3Z

Background: Influenza is a global cause of morbidity and mortality and a significant risk for a future pandemic infection. Host hyperinflammation, similar to that seen in COVID-19, may occur in response to influenza virus pneumonia, with Janus kinase (JAK) signalling and proinflammatory cytokines Interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 involved. Immune modulation treatment of hospitalised and critically ill COVID-19 patients, including with IL-6 and JAK inhibitors, has been found to be beneficial. Significant interest exists in the use of immunomodulatory agents targeting these pathways in the treatment of severe influenza pneumonia. Methods: We conducted a review with both systematic and narrative methods to assess whether, in patients with severe influenza pneumonia, treatment with immunomodulatory agents targeting IL-1, IL-6 or JAK signalling, in comparison to no immune modulation, is beneficial and improves clinical outcomes. Results: Our systematic search screened 5409 records and found no randomised controlled trials of IL-1, IL-6 or JAK immunomodulatory agents in patients with severe influenza pneumonia. To support this systematic search, we provide a narrative review of the biological rationale, previous use of these agents, including in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, and an overview of their safety profiles. Conclusions: Although immune modulation has proven successful in treating hospitalised and critically ill patients with COVID-19 and a biological rationale exists for testing these agents in influenza, no agents targeting IL-1, IL-6 or JAK signalling have been assessed in randomised controlled trials of patients with severe influenza pneumonia. This highlights a significant evidence gap.

Background The rate of community antibiotic use in New Zealand (NZ) is high and some may be unnecessary. Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (Alert Levels) were implemented in 2020 to reduce the spread of COVID-19 in NZ and were likely to have affected antibiotic prescribing. Methods We aimed to identify the impact of these public health interventions on community antibiotic dispensing. We also examined rates of hospitalisation with infectious diseases that could be influenced by changing community antibiotic use. A retrospective review of two national databases was undertaken. Findings 1.17 million people received 1.19 million prescriptions for antibiotics between 23/02/2020 and 18/07/2020. Antibiotic dispensing rates fell from 14 prescriptions per 1000 population per week during pre-Alert Level weeks to 9 prescriptions per 1000 population per week (a reduction of 36%) during the weeks of COVID Alert Level 3–4. Large reductions were seen with antibiotics predominantly used for respiratory- or urinary-tract infections. Hospital discharges with sentinel infections did not increase over this period; pneumonia discharges during Alert Level weeks were lower than in 2017-2019 (3 vs 6 discharges per 100,000 population). Interpretation A large reduction in community antibiotic dispensing was observed in NZ during the implementation of non-pharmaceutical public health interventions to eliminate COVID-19. Despite this marked reduction in antibiotic use, there was no increase in rates of hospitalisation for sentinel infections that community antibiotic use could prevent. These findings suggest that countries with high rates of antibiotic use could significantly reduce their use without an increase in morbidity. Funding No financial support received.

BACKGROUNDThe evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with Covid-19 is inconsistent. We hypothesized that convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adult patients with Covid-19.METHODSIn an ongoing adaptive platform trial, critically ill patients with confirmed Covid-19, defined as receiving intensive care-level organ support, were randomized to open-label convalescent plasma or not (i.e., control group). The primary end point was organ support-free days (i.e., days alive and free of ICU-based organ support) up to day 21. The primary analysis was a Bayesian cumulative logistic model with predefined criteria for superiority or futility. An odds ratio greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both.RESULTSThe convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after pre-specified criteria for futility were met. At that time, 1084 participants had been randomized to convalescent plasma and 916 to no convalescent plasma (control). The median organ support-free days were 0 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) for the convalescent plasma group and 3 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) days for the control group. The median adjusted odds ratio (OR) was 0.97 (95% credible interval 0.83 to 1.15) and posterior probability of futility (OR < 1.2) was 99.4% for convalescent plasma compared to control. In-hospital mortality was 37.3% (401/1075) in convalescent plasma group, and 38.4% (347/904) in controls. The observed treatment effects were consistent across primary and secondary outcomes.CONCLUSIONSIn critically ill adults with confirmed Covid-19, treatment with convalescent plasma, did not improve clinical outcomes.Clinicaltrials.gov:NCT02735707

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/ ). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

The rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) brought into sharp focus the conundrum of how to balance evidence-based prescribing vs empiric treatment with repurposed drugs for a pandemic with a high mortality risk. Initial attention focused on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine due to evidence of in vitro activity against the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2,1 yet the external validity of these data was limited by knowledge that in vitro antiviral activity did not equate to efficacy in randomised controlled trails (RCTs) of hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine treatment for influenza, dengue, chikungunya, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.1.

Unverified penicillin allergies are common but most patients with a penicillin allergy label can safely use penicillin antibiotics. Penicillin allergy labels are associated with poor clinical outcomes and overuse of second-line antibiotics. There is increasing focus on penicillin allergy “de-labeling” as a tool to improve antibiotic prescribing and antimicrobial stewardship. The effect of outpatient penicillin allergy de-labeling on long-term antibiotic use is uncertain. We performed a retrospective pre- and post- study of antibiotic dispensing patterns, from an electronic dispensing data repository, in patients undergoing penicillin allergy assessment at Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand. Over a mean follow-up of 4.55 years, 215/304 (70.7%) of de-labeled patients were dispensed a penicillin antibiotic. Rates of penicillin antibiotic dispensing were 0.24 (0.18–0.30) penicillin courses per year before de-labeling and 0.80 (0.67–0.93) following de-labeling with a reduction in total antibiotic use from 2.30 (2.06–2.54) to 1.79 (1.59–1.99) antibiotic courses per year. In de-labeled patients, the proportion of antibiotic courses that were penicillin antibiotics increased from 12.81 to 39.62%. Rates of macrolide, cephalosporin, trimethoprim/co-trimoxazole, fluoroquinolone, “other” non-penicillin antibiotic use, and broad-spectrum antibiotic use were all lower following de-labeling. Further, antibiotic costs were lower following de-labeling. In this study, penicillin allergy de-labeling was associated with significant changes in antibiotic dispensing patterns.