Defective Gut Function in \u3cem\u3eDrop-Dead\u3c/em\u3e Mutant \u3cem\u3eDrosophila\u3c/em\u3e

Mutation of the gene drop-dead (drd ) causes adult Drosophila to die within 2 weeks of eclosion and is associated with reduced rates of defecation and increased volumes of crop contents. In the current study, we demonstrate that flies carrying the strong allele drdlwf display a reduction in the transfer of ingested food from the crop to the midgut, as measured both as a change in the steady-state distribution of food within the gut and also in the rates of crop emptying and midgut filling following a single meal. Mutant flies have abnormal triglyceride (TG) and glycogen stores over the first 4 days post-eclosion, consistent with their inability to move food into the midgut for digestion and nutrient absorption. However, the lifespan of mutants was dependent upon food presence and quality, suggesting that at least some individual flies were able to digest some food. Finally, spontaneous motility of the crop was abnormal in drdlwf flies, with the crops of mutant flies contracting significantly more rapidly than those of heterozygous controls. We therefore hypothesize that mutation of drd causes a structural or regulatory defect that inhibits the entry of food into the midgut

Risk of Social Isolation as a Contributing Factor to Diet Quality in Community-Dwelling Older Persons Living in the Australian Capital Territory—A Pilot Study

Objectives: Social isolation is recognised as a risk factor in the inflammatory process. This study explored the association between social isolation and the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) in community-dwelling older persons. Methods: This cross-sectional pilot study recruited 107 community-dwelling people aged over 55 years living in the Australian Capital Territory. Participants completed an extensive food frequency questionnaire and provided anthropometric and sociodemographic data. Social isolation was evaluated using the Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS). Diet quality was assessed using DII. Results: Average age was 70.1 (±8.61) years and 62.8% were female. The average DII score was −1.10 (±1.21), indicating an anti-inflammatory diet. Higher LSNS was associated with lower DII (b (95% CI) = −0.041 (−0.066, −0.17); p < 0.01) and was positively influenced by the number of people in household (b (95% CI) = 5.731 (2.336, 9.127); p = 0.001). Conclusion: Increased risk of social isolation was associated with an increased tendency towards a more inflammatory diet. Reducing social isolation may decrease the inflammatory component of dietary intake for older persons living independently in the community

Professional Development for Early Career DBER Scholars through In-Person and Virtual Career Panel Workshops

In discipline-based education research (DBER), early career scholars, such as graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, observe a slew of possible career pathways. Yet, there is a lack of opportunities to learn about such pathways, particularly when transitioning from traditional science, technology, engineering, or math (STEM) disciplinary training into a DBER position. Thus, the DBER Scholars-in-Training Professional Development subcommittee was created within the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER) community to develop a collection of workshops that would serve the greatest professional development needs of early career scholars entering DBER. Through a series of surveys disseminated over multiple years, early career scholars expressed interest in better navigating their career options, which led to the development of the career panel workshop, held during the 2019 and 2020 SABER Annual National Conferences. In this report, we explore the development, implementation, and results of two career panel workshops and compare and contrast the 2019 in-person workshop with the 2020 virtual workshop. We also offer our insights on the value of the career workshop, discuss the next steps, and explore valuable resources for those planning on organizing similar events

Comparative effectiveness of BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 covid-19 vaccine boosting in England: matched cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP

Objective To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) covid-19 vaccines during the booster programme in England. Design Matched cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial. Setting Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants were dominant. Participants 3 237 918 adults who received a booster dose of either vaccine between 29 October 2021 and 25 February 2022 as part of the national booster programme in England and who received a primary course of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. Intervention Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster vaccine dose. Main outcome measures Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and non-covid-19 related death at 20 weeks after receipt of the booster dose. Results 1 618 959 people were matched in each vaccine group, contributing a total 64 546 391 person weeks of follow-up. The 20 week risks per 1000 for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 164.2 (95% confidence interval 163.3 to 165.1) for BNT162b2 and 159.9 (159.0 to 160.8) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.96). The 20 week risks per 1000 for hospital admission with covid-19 were 0.75 (0.71 to 0.79) for BNT162b2 and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.69) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.82 to 0.95). Covid-19 related deaths were rare: the 20 week risks per 1000 were 0.028 (0.021 to 0.037) for BNT162b2 and 0.024 (0.018 to 0.033) for mRNA-1273; hazard ratio 0.83 (0.58 to 1.19). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clinical vulnerability. Relative benefit was similar when vaccines were compared separately in the delta and omicron variant eras. Conclusions This matched observational study of adults estimated a modest benefit of booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 in preventing positive SARS-CoV-2 tests and hospital admission with covid-19 20 weeks after vaccination, during a period of delta followed by omicron variant dominance

Study protocol: Comparison of different risk prediction modelling approaches for COVID-19 related death using the OpenSAFELY platform

On March 11th 2020, the World Health Organization characterised COVID-19 as a pandemic. Responses to containing the spread of the virus have relied heavily on policies involving restricting contact between people. Evolving policies regarding shielding and individual choices about restricting social contact will rely heavily on perceived risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. In order to make informed decisions, both individual and collective, good predictive models are required.   For outcomes related to an infectious disease, the performance of any risk prediction model will depend heavily on the underlying prevalence of infection in the population of interest. Incorporating measures of how this changes over time may result in important improvements in prediction model performance.  This protocol reports details of a planned study to explore the extent to which incorporating time-varying measures of infection burden over time improves the quality of risk prediction models for COVID-19 death in a large population of adult patients in England. To achieve this aim, we will compare the performance of different modelling approaches to risk prediction, including static cohort approaches typically used in chronic disease settings and landmarking approaches incorporating time-varying measures of infection prevalence and policy change, using COVID-19 related deaths data linked to longitudinal primary care electronic health records data within the OpenSAFELY secure analytics platform.</ns4:p

OpenSAFELY: a platform for analysing electronic health records designed for reproducible research

Electronic health records (EHRs) and other administrative health data are increasingly used in research to generate evidence on the effectiveness, safety, and utilisation of medical products and services, and to inform public health guidance and policy. Reproducibility is a fundamental step for research credibility and promotes trust in evidence generated from EHRs. At present, ensuring research using EHRs is reproducible can be challenging for researchers. Research software platforms can provide technical solutions to enhance the reproducibility of research conducted using EHRs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we developed the secure, transparent, analytic open-source software platform OpenSAFELY designed with reproducible research in mind. OpenSAFELY mitigates common barriers to reproducible research by: standardising key workflows around data preparation; removing barriers to code-sharing in secure analysis environments; enforcing public sharing of programming code and codelists; ensuring the same computational environment is used everywhere; integrating new and existing tools that encourage and enable the use of reproducible working practices; and providing an audit trail for all code that is run against the real data to increase transparency. This paper describes OpenSAFELY’s reproducibility-by-design approach in detail

HIV Testing and Treatment with the Use of a Community Health Approach in Rural Africa.

BACKGROUND: Universal antiretroviral therapy (ART) with annual population testing and a multidisease, patient-centered strategy could reduce new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections and improve community health. METHODS: We randomly assigned 32 rural communities in Uganda and Kenya to baseline HIV and multidisease testing and national guideline-restricted ART (control group) or to baseline testing plus annual testing, eligibility for universal ART, and patient-centered care (intervention group). The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of HIV infection at 3 years. Secondary end points included viral suppression, death, tuberculosis, hypertension control, and the change in the annual incidence of HIV infection (which was evaluated in the intervention group only). RESULTS: A total of 150,395 persons were included in the analyses. Population-level viral suppression among 15,399 HIV-infected persons was 42% at baseline and was higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 3 years (79% vs. 68%; relative prevalence, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 1.20). The annual incidence of HIV infection in the intervention group decreased by 32% over 3 years (from 0.43 to 0.31 cases per 100 person-years; relative rate, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84). However, the 3-year cumulative incidence (704 incident HIV infections) did not differ significantly between the intervention group and the control group (0.77% and 0.81%, respectively; relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.17). Among HIV-infected persons, the risk of death by year 3 was 3% in the intervention group and 4% in the control group (0.99 vs. 1.29 deaths per 100 person-years; relative risk, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.93). The risk of HIV-associated tuberculosis or death by year 3 among HIV-infected persons was 4% in the intervention group and 5% in the control group (1.19 vs. 1.50 events per 100 person-years; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.94). At 3 years, 47% of adults with hypertension in the intervention group and 37% in the control group had hypertension control (relative prevalence, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.39). CONCLUSIONS: Universal HIV treatment did not result in a significantly lower incidence of HIV infection than standard care, probably owing to the availability of comprehensive baseline HIV testing and the rapid expansion of ART eligibility in the control group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; SEARCH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01864603.)

Comparative effectiveness of BNT162b2 versus mRNA-1273 covid-19 vaccine boosting in England: matched cohort study in OpenSAFELY-TPP.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) covid-19 vaccines during the booster programme in England. DESIGN: Matched cohort study, emulating a comparative effectiveness trial. SETTING: Linked primary care, hospital, and covid-19 surveillance records available within the OpenSAFELY-TPP research platform, covering a period when the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variants were dominant. PARTICIPANTS: 3 237 918 adults who received a booster dose of either vaccine between 29 October 2021 and 25 February 2022 as part of the national booster programme in England and who received a primary course of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1. INTERVENTION: Vaccination with either BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 as a booster vaccine dose. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recorded SARS-CoV-2 positive test, covid-19 related hospital admission, covid-19 related death, and non-covid-19 related death at 20 weeks after receipt of the booster dose. RESULTS: 1 618 959 people were matched in each vaccine group, contributing a total 64 546 391 person weeks of follow-up. The 20 week risks per 1000 for a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 164.2 (95% confidence interval 163.3 to 165.1) for BNT162b2 and 159.9 (159.0 to 160.8) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio comparing mRNA-1273 with BNT162b2 was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.95 to 0.96). The 20 week risks per 1000 for hospital admission with covid-19 were 0.75 (0.71 to 0.79) for BNT162b2 and 0.65 (0.61 to 0.69) for mRNA-1273; the hazard ratio was 0.89 (0.82 to 0.95). Covid-19 related deaths were rare: the 20 week risks per 1000 were 0.028 (0.021 to 0.037) for BNT162b2 and 0.024 (0.018 to 0.033) for mRNA-1273; hazard ratio 0.83 (0.58 to 1.19). Comparative effectiveness was generally similar within subgroups defined by the primary course vaccine brand, age, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and clinical vulnerability. Relative benefit was similar when vaccines were compared separately in the delta and omicron variant eras. CONCLUSIONS: This matched observational study of adults estimated a modest benefit of booster vaccination with mRNA-1273 compared with BNT162b2 in preventing positive SARS-CoV-2 tests and hospital admission with covid-19 20 weeks after vaccination, during a period of delta followed by omicron variant dominance

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes