Understanding the field of rural health academic research: a national qualitative, interview-based study

Introduction: Rural areas depend on a specific evidence base that directly informs their unique health systems and population health context. Developing this evidence base and its translation depends on a trained rural health academic workforce. However, to date, there is limited description of this workforce and the field of rural health research. This study aimed to characterise this field to inform how it can be fostered. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured interviews of 50-70 minutes duration were conducted with 17 early career rural health researchers based in Australian rural and remote communities, to explore their professional background, training and research experiences. Results: Six key themes emerged: becoming a rural health researcher; place-based research that has meaning; generalist breadth; trusted partnerships; small, multidisciplinary research teams; and distance and travel. The field mostly attracted researchers already living in rural areas. Researchers were strongly inspired by doing research that effected local change and addressed inequalities. Their research required a generalist skill set, applying diverse academic and local contextual knowledge that was broader than their doctoral training. Research problems were complex, diverse and required novel methods. Research occurred within trusted community partnerships spanning wide geographic catchments, stakeholders and organisations. This involved extensive leadership, travel and time for engagement and research co-production. Responding to the community was related to researchers doing multiple projects of limited funding. The field was also depicted by research occurring in small collegial, multidisciplinary teams focused on 'people' and 'place' although researchers experienced geographic and professional isolation with respect to their field and main university campuses. Researchers were required to operationalise all aspects of research processes with limited help. They took available opportunities to build capacity in the face of limited staff and high community demand. Conclusion: The findings suggest that rural health research is highly rewarding, distinguished by a generalist scope and basis of 'rural' socially accountable research that is done in small, isolated teams of limited resources. Strategies are needed to grow capacity to a level fit to address the level of community demand but these must embrace development of the rural academic entry pathway, the generalist breadth and social accountability of this field, which underpins the perceived value of rural health research for rural communities

Antitumor activity of an anti-CD98 antibody.

CD98 is expressed on several tissue types and specifically upregulated on fast-cycling cells undergoing clonal expansion. Various solid (e.g., nonsmall cell lung carcinoma) as well as hematological malignancies (e.g., acute myeloid leukemia) overexpress CD98. We have identified a CD98-specific mouse monoclonal antibody that exhibits potent preclinical antitumor activity against established lymphoma tumor xenografts. Additionally, the humanized antibody designated IGN523 demonstrated robust tumor growth inhibition in leukemic cell-line derived xenograft models and was as efficacious as standard of care carboplatin in patient-derived nonsmall lung cancer xenografts. In vitro studies revealed that IGN523 elicited strong ADCC activity, induced lysosomal membrane permeabilization and inhibited essential amino acid transport function, ultimately resulting in caspase-3 and -7-mediated apoptosis of tumor cells. IGN523 is currently being evaluated in a Phase I clinical trial for acute myeloid leukemia (NCT02040506). Furthermore, preclinical data support the therapeutic potential of IGN523 in solid tumors

Intravenous immunoglobulin and rituximab versus placebo treatment of antibody-associated psychosis: study protocol of a randomised phase IIa double-blinded placebo-controlled trial (SINAPPS2)

Abstract: Background: Evidence is conflicting about a causal role of inflammation in psychosis and, specifically, regarding antibodies binding to neuronal membrane targets, especially N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors. NMDAR, LGI1 and GABA-A antibodies were found more prevalent in people with psychosis than in healthy controls. We aim to test whether these antibodies are pathogenic and may cause isolated psychosis. The SINAPPS2 phase IIa double-blinded randomised controlled trial will test the efficacy and safety of immunoglobulin and rituximab treatment versus placebo for patients with acute psychosis symptoms as added to psychiatric standard of care. Methods: We will screen approximately 2500 adult patients with acute psychosis to identify 160 with antibody-positive psychosis without co-existing neurological disease and recruit about 80 eligible participants to the trial in the period from September 2017 to September 2021 across the UK. Eligible patients will be randomised 1:1 either to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) followed by rituximab or to placebo infusions of 1% albumin followed by 0.9% sodium chloride, respectively. To detect a time-to-symptomatic-recovery hazard ratio of 0.322 with a power of 80%, 56 participants are needed to complete the trial, allowing for up to 12 participants to drop out of each group. Eligible patients will be randomised and assessed at baseline within 4 weeks of their eligibility confirmation. The treatment will start with IVIG or 1% albumin placebo infusions over 2–4 consecutive days no later than 7 days from baseline. It will continue 4–5 weeks later with a rituximab or sodium chloride placebo infusion and will end 2–3 weeks after this with another rituximab or placebo infusion. The primary outcome is the time to symptomatic recovery defined as symptomatic remission sustained for at least 6 months on the following Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale items: P1, P2, P3, N1, N4, N6, G5 and G9. Participants will be followed for 12 months from the first day of treatment or, where sustained remission begins after the first 6 months, for an additional minimum of 6 months to assess later response. Discussion: The SINAPPS2 trial aims to test whether immunotherapy is efficacious and safe in psychosis associated with anti-neuronal membrane antibodies. Trial registration: ISRCTN, 11177045. Registered on 2 May 2017. EudraCT, 2016-000118-31. Registered on 22 November 2016. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03194815. Registered on 21 June 2017

Post-Transcriptional Trafficking and Regulation of Neuronal Gene Expression

Intracellular messenger RNA (mRNA) traffic and translation must be highly regulated, both temporally and spatially, within eukaryotic cells to support the complex functional partitioning. This capacity is essential in neurons because it provides a mechanism for rapid input-restricted activity-dependent protein synthesis in individual dendritic spines. While this feature is thought to be important for synaptic plasticity, the structures and mechanisms that support this capability are largely unknown. Certainly specialized RNA binding proteins and binding elements in the 3′ untranslated region (UTR) of translationally regulated mRNA are important, but the subtlety and complexity of this system suggests that an intermediate “specificity” component is also involved. Small non-coding microRNA (miRNA) are essential for CNS development and may fulfill this role by acting as the guide strand for mediating complex patterns of post-transcriptional regulation. In this review we examine post-synaptic gene regulation, mRNA trafficking and the emerging role of post-transcriptional gene silencing in synaptic plasticity

Antimicrobials: a global alliance for optimizing their rational use in intra-abdominal infections (AGORA)

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are an important cause of morbidity and are frequently associated with poor prognosis, particularly in high-risk patients. The cornerstones in the management of complicated IAIs are timely effective source control with appropriate antimicrobial therapy. Empiric antimicrobial therapy is important in the management of intra-abdominal infections and must be broad enough to cover all likely organisms because inappropriate initial antimicrobial therapy is associated with poor patient outcomes and the development of bacterial resistance. The overuse of antimicrobials is widely accepted as a major driver of some emerging infections (such as C. difficile), the selection of resistant pathogens in individual patients, and for the continued development of antimicrobial resistance globally. The growing emergence of multi-drug resistant organisms and the limited development of new agents available to counteract them have caused an impending crisis with alarming implications, especially with regards to Gram-negative bacteria. An international task force from 79 different countries has joined this project by sharing a document on the rational use of antimicrobials for patients with IAIs. The project has been termed AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections). The authors hope that AGORA, involving many of the world's leading experts, can actively raise awareness in health workers and can improve prescribing behavior in treating IAIs

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

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

Consensus-based framework for the growth and sustainability of rural health research

There is an urgent need for research to assist with targeting strategies and reducing health care inequalities. This is critical in rural areas, where communities require an evidence base that informs their unique health systems context, including optimal ways to address significant population and workforce needs. However, as a field, rural health research has never had a comprehensive strategy for its growth and sustainability. This is despite the reliance of many rural stakeholders and communities on high-quality evidence that can be directly applied to improve rural health policies/programs and outcomes. For example, the World Health Organization, seeking to serve nearly half the world's population that lives rurally, also has no specific strategy for fostering a rural research industry. This is despite explicitly valuing monitoring and evaluation as part of most of its rural health strategies

Exploring how to sustain ‘place-based’ rural health academic research for informing rural health systems: a qualitative investigation

Background The field of rural health research is critical for informing health improvement in rural places but it involves researching in small teams and distributed sites that may have specific sustainability challenges. We aimed to evaluate this to inform how to sustain the field of rural health research. Methods We conducted In-depth semi-structured interviews of 50-70 minutes with 17 rural early career researchers who were from different research sites across rural Australia. Data were thematically coded. Results Seven sustainability challenges were noted, namely recognition, workload, networks, funding and strategic grants, organisational culture, job security, and career progression options. Rural researchers were poorly recognised for their work and researchers were not extended the same opportunities enjoyed by staff at main campuses. Unpredictable and high workloads stemmed from community demand and limited staff. Strategic grant opportunities failed to target the generalist, complex research in this field and the limited time researchers had for grant writing due to their demands within small academic teams. Limited collaboration with other sites increased dissatisfaction. In the face of strong commitment to rural ‘places’ and their enthusiasm for improving rural health, fixed-term contracts and limited career progression options were problematic for researchers and their families in continuing in these roles. Conclusion A comprehensive set of strategies is needed to address the sustainability of this field, recognising its value for rural self-determination and health equity. Hubs and networks could enable more cohesively planned, collaborative research, skills sharing, senior academic supervision and career development. Targeted funding, fit to the context and purpose of this field, is urgent. Inaction may fuel regular turnover, starting after a researcher’s first years, losing rich academic theoretical and contextual knowledge that is essential to address the health of rural populations