Brain Imaging With Portable Low-Field MRI

The advent of portable, low-field MRI (LF-MRI) heralds new opportunities in neuroimaging. Low power requirements and transportability have enabled scanning outside the controlled environment of a conventional MRI suite, enhancing access to neuroimaging for indications that are not well suited to existing technologies. Maximizing the information extracted from the reduced signal-to-noise ratio of LF-MRI is crucial to developing clinically useful diagnostic images. Progress in electromagnetic noise cancellation and machine learning reconstruction algorithms from sparse k-space data as well as new approaches to image enhancement have now enabled these advancements. Coupling technological innovation with bedside imaging creates new prospects in visualizing the healthy brain and detecting acute and chronic pathological changes. Ongoing development of hardware, improvements in pulse sequences and image reconstruction, and validation of clinical utility will continue to accelerate this field. As further innovation occurs, portable LF-MRI will facilitate the democratization of MRI and create new applications not previously feasible with conventional systems

Increasing frailty is associated with higher prevalence and reduced recognition of delirium in older hospitalised inpatients: results of a multi-centre study

Purpose: Delirium is a neuropsychiatric disorder delineated by an acute change in cognition, attention, and consciousness. It is common, particularly in older adults, but poorly recognised. Frailty is the accumulation of deficits conferring an increased risk of adverse outcomes. We set out to determine how severity of frailty, as measured using the CFS, affected delirium rates, and recognition in hospitalised older people in the United Kingdom. Methods: Adults over 65 years were included in an observational multi-centre audit across UK hospitals, two prospective rounds, and one retrospective note review. Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), delirium status, and 30-day outcomes were recorded. Results: The overall prevalence of delirium was 16.3% (483). Patients with delirium were more frail than patients without delirium (median CFS 6 vs 4). The risk of delirium was greater with increasing frailty [OR 2.9 (1.8–4.6) in CFS 4 vs 1–3; OR 12.4 (6.2–24.5) in CFS 8 vs 1–3]. Higher CFS was associated with reduced recognition of delirium (OR of 0.7 (0.3–1.9) in CFS 4 compared to 0.2 (0.1–0.7) in CFS 8). These risks were both independent of age and dementia. Conclusion: We have demonstrated an incremental increase in risk of delirium with increasing frailty. This has important clinical implications, suggesting that frailty may provide a more nuanced measure of vulnerability to delirium and poor outcomes. However, the most frail patients are least likely to have their delirium diagnosed and there is a significant lack of research into the underlying pathophysiology of both of these common geriatric syndromes

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

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial

Background Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. Methods RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. Findings Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61–69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1–10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688–1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4–82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6–83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial

Background Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. Methods RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT00541047 . Findings Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60–69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0–10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612–0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6–75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2–81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. Funding Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society

Misty water coloured misogyny : The politics of "false memory syndrome"

Over the past 20 years feminism has clearly altered popular consciousness about sexual abuse and record numbers of women have come forward to expose the men who sexually assaulted them. It is in this context that the notion of false memory syndrome (FMS) has arisen signifying a debate about the scientific validity of repression and memory of sexual abuse. In order to challenge the notion of FMS, which I argue in part of a right wing attack against feminism, and particularly in the psychotherapeutic realm, I critically analyze 4 volumes of False Memory Syndrome Foundation Newsletters. I argue that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, a Pennsylvania based lobby group, masterminded the notion of FMS as part of a political and legal strategy to deny women's allegations of sexual abuse against powerful white men. I argue further that this movement employs rhetoric and organizing tactics that are consistent with neoconservative movements more generally.Education, Faculty ofEducational and Counselling Psychology, and Special Education (ECPS), Department ofGraduat

MPL estimation of a proportional hazards mixture cure model with partly-interval censoring

Mode of access: InternetTheoretical thesis.Bibliography: pages 49-531 Introduction -- 2 Literature Review -- 3 Model Specification and Estimation Procedure -- 4 Simulation Studies -- 5 R Package and Implementation -- 6 Conclusion and Future Research.Proportional hazards mixture cure models are an important tool in survival analysis because they account for the presence of a sub-population who will never experience the event of interest. Much previous research in this area has been limited in scope to right censored data and has not offered a smooth estimate of the baseline hazard function. This thesis considers a maximum penalised likelihood (MPL) estimation of a proportional hazards mixture cure model for partly-interval censored survival data. The MPL method simultaneously estimates all model parameters, including a smooth Mspline approximation to the baseline hazard function. The non-negativity constraint on the baseline hazard function is guaranteed through the use of a multiplicative-iterative algorithm. Asymptotic properties are presented to allow for large sample inference on all parameters, including regression parameters and survival quantities. The results of two simulation studies are presented to demonstrate the method's performance, including a comparison to an existing method. A newly developed package for implementing the model in R is outlined and an example of its use is demonstrated with data from a melanoma study.Mode of access: Internet.1 online resource (6 unnumbered pages, 58 pages) illustration

Risk factors for perinatal stroke in term infants: A case-control study in Australia

Aim: The aetiology of perinatal stroke is poorly understood. This study aimed to prospectively confirm the risk factors and identify any previously unknown variables. Methods: A prospective case–control study was conducted in Australia. Univariate odds ratios (ORs), associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and multivariable logistic regression models fitted with backwards stepwise variable selection were used. Results: Sixty perinatal stroke cases reported between 2017 and 2019 included 95% (57/60) with multiple risk factors. Univariate analysis identified emergency caesarean section rather than NVD (P \u3c 0.01), low Apgar score (\u3c7) at 1, 5 and 10 min of age (P \u3e\u3c 0.01), resuscitation at birth (P \u3c 0.01), abnormal cord blood gas (P \u3c 0.01), neonatal infection/sepsis (P \u3c 0.01), congenital heart disease (P \u3c 0.01) and hypoglycaemia (P \u3c 0.01) as significant risk factors. Multivariate analysis found smoking during pregnancy (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.09–1.99), 1-min Apgar score \u3c 7 (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.15–2.08), 10-min Apgar score \u3c 7 (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 1.02–1.54) and hypoglycaemia (OR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.07–2.06). Conclusions: Perinatal stroke is associated with multiple risk factors. Exposure to smoking, 10-min Apgar score \u3c 7, neonatal infection and hypoglycaemia were independent risk factors. Emergency caesarean section, resuscitation at birth and abnormal cord blood gas were additional risk factors

Can web-based implementation interventions improve physician early diagnosis of cerebral palsy? Protocol for a 3-arm parallel superiority randomised controlled trial and cost-consequence analysis comparing adaptive and non-adaptive virtual patient instructional designs with control to evaluate effectiveness on physician behaviour, diagnostic skills and patient outcomes

Introduction Cerebral palsy (CP) is the most common childhood physical disability. Accurate diagnosis before 6 months is possible using predictive tools and decision-making skills. Yet diagnosis is typically made at 12-24 months of age, hindering access to early interventions that improve functional outcomes. Change in practice is required for physicians in key diagnostic behaviours. This study aims to close the identified research-practice gap and increase accurate CP diagnosis before 6 months of age through tailored web-based implementation interventions. This trial will determine whether adaptive e-learning using virtual patients, targeting CP diagnostic behaviours and clinical decision-making skills, effectively changes physician behaviour and practice compared with non-adaptive e-learning instructional design or control. Methods and analysis This study is a 3-arm parallel superiority randomised controlled trial of two tailored e-learning interventions developed to expedite physician CP diagnosis. The trial will compare adaptive (arm 1) and non-adaptive (arm 2) instructional designs with waitlist control (arm 3) to evaluate change in physician behaviour, skills and diagnostic practice. A sample size of 275 paediatric physicians enables detection of small magnitude effects (0.2) of primary outcomes between intervention comparators with 90% power (α=0.05), allowing for 30% attrition. Barrier analysis, Delphi survey, Behaviour Change Wheel and learning theory frameworks guided the intervention designs. Adaptive and non-adaptive video and navigation sequences utilising virtual patients and clinical practice guideline content were developed, integrating formative key features assessment targeting clinical decision-making skills relative to CP diagnosis. Physician outcomes will be evaluated based on postintervention key feature examination scores plus preintervention/postintervention behavioural intentions and practice measures. Associations with CP population registers will evaluate real-world diagnostic patient outcomes. Intervention costs will be reported in a cost-consequence analysis from funders\u27 and societal perspectives. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approved from The University of Sydney (Project number 2021/386). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and scientific conferences. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN 12622000184774