Language and social/emotional problems identified at a universal developmental assessment at 30 months

Non peer reviewedPublisher PD

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

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

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Circulation of respiratory viruses during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Gambia

Between April 2020 and March 2022, respiratory viruses were detected using RT-PCR in nasopharyngeal swabs from 1397 participants with influenza-like illness. An assay to detect SARS-CoV-2 and a viral multiplex RT-PCR assay was used as previously described to detect influenza A and B, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) A and B, parainfluenza viruses 1-4, human metapneumovirus (HMPV), adenovirus, seasonal coronaviruses (229E, OC43, NL63) and human rhinovirus

Meningococcal ACWYX Conjugate Vaccine in 2-to-29-Year-Olds in Mali and Gambia.

BACKGROUND: An effective, affordable, multivalent meningococcal conjugate vaccine is needed to prevent epidemic meningitis in the African meningitis belt. Data on the safety and immunogenicity of NmCV-5, a pentavalent vaccine targeting the A, C, W, Y, and X serogroups, have been limited. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, noninferiority trial involving healthy 2-to-29-year-olds in Mali and Gambia. Participants were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive a single intramuscular dose of NmCV-5 or the quadrivalent vaccine MenACWY-D. Immunogenicity was assessed at day 28. The noninferiority of NmCV-5 to MenACWY-D was assessed on the basis of the difference in the percentage of participants with a seroresponse (defined as prespecified changes in titer; margin, lower limit of the 96% confidence interval [CI] above -10 percentage points) or geometric mean titer (GMT) ratios (margin, lower limit of the 98.98% CI >0.5). Serogroup X responses in the NmCV-5 group were compared with the lowest response among the MenACWY-D serogroups. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1800 participants received NmCV-5 or MenACWY-D. In the NmCV-5 group, the percentage of participants with a seroresponse ranged from 70.5% (95% CI, 67.8 to 73.2) for serogroup A to 98.5% (95% CI, 97.6 to 99.2) for serogroup W; the percentage with a serogroup X response was 97.2% (95% CI, 96.0 to 98.1). The overall difference between the two vaccines in seroresponse for the four shared serogroups ranged from 1.2 percentage points (96% CI, -0.3 to 3.1) for serogroup W to 20.5 percentage points (96% CI, 15.4 to 25.6) for serogroup A. The overall GMT ratios for the four shared serogroups ranged from 1.7 (98.98% CI, 1.5 to 1.9) for serogroup A to 2.8 (98.98% CI, 2.3 to 3.5) for serogroup C. The serogroup X component of the NmCV-5 vaccine generated seroresponses and GMTs that met the prespecified noninferiority criteria. The incidence of systemic adverse events was similar in the two groups (11.1% in the NmCV-5 group and 9.2% in the MenACWY-D group). CONCLUSIONS: For all four serotypes in common with the MenACWY-D vaccine, the NmCV-5 vaccine elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those elicited by the MenACWY-D vaccine. NmCV-5 also elicited immune responses to serogroup X. No safety concerns were evident. (Funded by the U.K. Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03964012.)

Digital heritage interpretation: a conceptual framework

© 2018, © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. ‘Heritage Interpretation’ has always been considered as an effective learning, communication and management tool that increases visitors’ awareness of and empathy to heritage sites or artefacts. Yet the definition of ‘digital heritage interpretation’ is still wide and so far, no significant method and objective are evident within the domain of ‘digital heritage’ theory and discourse. Considering ‘digital heritage interpretation’ as a process rather than as a tool to present or communicate with end-users, this paper presents a critical application of a theoretical construct ascertained from multiple disciplines and explicates four objectives for a comprehensive interpretive process. A conceptual model is proposed and further developed into a conceptual framework with fifteen considerations. This framework is then implemented and tested on an online platform to assess its impact on end-users’ interpretation level. We believe the presented interpretive framework (PrEDiC) will help heritage professionals and media designers to develop interpretive heritage project