Doctor of Counselling Psychology : research undertaken for the award of Doctor of Counselling Psychology

Aim To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of a counselling psychology service in primary care. Method Comparison of SCL-90R and HAD scores of a group of clients in treatment with those of a control group receiving GP-only care, at four points in time; and with scores while waiting for treatment. The design combines elements of an open trial with elements of a randomised controlled trial, although full randomisation was not possible in practice. The results are expressed in terms of numbers of cases and effect size, as well as in terms of test scores, in an attempt to indicate levels of clinical as well as statistical significance. Comparison of number of visits made to general practitioners by participants in each group during the six months before and after treatment. Results The results indicate that the service was clinically effective: clients improved significantly after treatment on the scales used, the numbers of 'casee decreased significantly, and the number of visits to the general practitioners also dropped. Compared to the control condition, the treated clients did better on all these indicators, but the difference between the two groups was not great enough to show statistical significance at the 0.1% level required by the use of multiple planned tests, or on MANOVA, although on the major indicators (SCL-90R GSI and HAD Depression and Anxiety) significance was reached at the 5% level. The overall effect size was coculated to be 0.32. As it was 15 greater than zero, it indicates that the service's interventions were more effective than GP-care, but the magnitude of the effect was in the small to medium range. Conclusions The results of the research demonstrate that the counselling psychology service under study was clinically effective. On all indicators used, clients of the service improved over the period of treatment, and did so to a greater extent than patients in the control condition. However the advantage over the control group was not sufficient for statistical significance at the level required, and this is reflected in the relatively moderate effect size

Genetic map construction and quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping for nitrogen use efficiency and its relationship with productivity and quality of the biennial crop Belgian endive (Cichorium intybus L.)

A genetic study of the biennial crop Belgian endive (Cichorium intybus) was carried out to examine the effect of nitrogen nutrition during the vegetative phase in the control of the productivity and quality of the chicon (etiolated bud), a crop that grows during the second phase of development (forcing process). A population of 302 recombinant inbred lines (RIL) was obtained from the cross between contrasting lines "NS1" and "NR2". A genetic map was constructed and QTLs of several physiological and agronomical traits were mapped under two levels of nitrogen fertilization during the vegetative phase (N- and N+). The agronomical traits showed high broad sense heritability, whereas the physiological traits were characterized by low broad sense heritability. Nitrogen reserves mobilization during the forcing process was negatively correlated with nitrogen reserves content of the tuberized root and common QTLs were detected for these traits. The chicon productivity and quality were not correlated, but showed one common QTL. This study revealed that chicon productivity and quality were genetically associated with nitrogen reserves mobilization that exerts opposite effects on both traits. Chicon productivity was positively correlated with N reserves mobilization under N- and N+ and a common QTL with the same additive effects was detected for both traits. Chicon quality was negatively correlated with N reserves mobilization under N- and N+ and a common QTL with opposite additive effects was detected for both traits. These results lead to the conclusion that N reserves mobilization is a more effective trait than N reserves content in predicting chicon productivity and quality. Finally, this study revealed agronomical and physiological QTLs utilizable by breeders via marker-assisted selection to aid the optimization of chicon quality under adapted N fertilization

Some combinatorial identities related to commuting varieties and Hilbert schemes

In this article we explore some of the combinatorial consequences of recent results relating the isospectral commuting variety and the Hilbert scheme of points in the plane

Estímulo no crescimento e na hidrólise de atp em raízes de alface tratadas com humatos de vermicomposto: ii - efeito da fonte de vermicomposto.

Um dos fatores mais limitantes para a produção de vermicomposto é a disponibilidade de esterco. Neste trabalho, foi avaliado o efeito da substituição parcial do esterco por bagaço de cana e por resíduos de leguminosa (Gliricidia sepium) na vermicompostagem sobre a qualidade do vermicomposto e sobre a bioatividade dos humatos, avaliadas por meio da análise do crescimento radicular e da atividade das bombas de H+ isoladas de raízes de alface. A substituição do esterco por bagaço de cana e por resíduos de leguminosas não acarretou prejuízo às características químicas dos vermicompostos. No entanto, os humatos isolados dos diferentes vermicompostos apresentaram características químicas distintas,tais como: acidez e propriedades óticas distintas. Os humatos produzidos a partir de esterco de bovino e da mistura esterco bovino + bagaço proporcionaram maiores estímulos no crescimento radicular das plantas de alface, sendo os mais indicados para uso na forma solúvel. A inclusão de resíduos de leguminosas no processo de vermicompostagem produziu humatos sem efeito sobre o desenvolvimento das raízes de alface

SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 and inherited arrhythmia syndromes.

Ever since the first case was reported at the end of 2019, the SARS-COV-2 virus and associated lung disease COVID-19 has spread throughout the world and has become a pandemic. In particular, the high transmission rate of the virus has made it a threat to public health globally. Currently, there is no proven effective therapy against the virus, and the impact on other diseases is also uncertain, especially inherited arrhythmia syndrome. Arrhythmogenic effect of COVID-19 can be expected, potentially contributing to disease outcome. This may be of importance for patients with an increased risk for cardiac arrhythmias, either secondary to acquired conditions or co-morbidities or consequent to inherited syndromes. Management of patients with inherited arrhythmia syndromes such as Long QT syndrome, Brugada syndrome, Short QT syndrome and Catecholaminergic Polymorphic Ventricular Tachycardia in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic may prove particularly challenging. Depending on the inherited defect involved, these patients may be susceptible to pro-arrhythmic effects of COVID-19-related issues such as fever, stress, electrolyte disturbances and use of antiviral drugs. We here describe the potential COVID-19 associated risks and therapeutic considerations for patients with distinct inherited arrhythmia syndromes and provide recommendations, pending local possibilities, for their monitoring and management during this pandemic

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2,3,4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Tocilizumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research