Patients’ preferred mode of travel to the orthopaedic theatre

AIM: To determine the preferred mode of travel to the operating theatre for elective orthopaedic patients. METHODS: Data was collected prospectively over a 2-wk period at an elective Orthopaedic Treatment Centre. Patients were asked to complete a patient satisfaction questionnaire following their surgery on their experience and subsequent preferred mode of transport to theatre. The data was then recorded in a tabulated format and analysed with percentages. Fisher’s exact test was used to determine if there was any statistical association between patients’ preference to walk and various groups; in-patient or day case procedures, and whether patients were < 60 years or > 60 years of age. RESULTS: Seventy patients (40 females and 30 males) fully completed the questionnaire. In total there were 33 d-cases and 37 in-patients. The spectrum of orthopaedic sub-specialties included was knee (41%), hip (17%), foot and ankle (24%), spine (13%) and upper limb (4%). Patient satisfaction for overall experience of travelling to theatre was either excellent (77%) or good (23%). Following their experience of travelling to theatre, 87% (95%CI: 79%-95%) of the total cohort would have preferred to walk to the operating theatre. There was a statistically significant association (P = 0.003) between patients’ preference to walk and whether they were day-case or in-patients. Similarly, there was a statistically significance association (P = 0.028) between patients’ preference to walk and whether they were < 60 years or > 60 years of age. CONCLUSION: This study confirms the majority of Orthopaedic elective patients would prefer to walk to theatre, when given the choice and if practically possible

Gene Expression Profile of Neuronal Progenitor Cells Derived from hESCs: Activation of Chromosome 11p15.5 and Comparison to Human Dopaminergic Neurons

BACKGROUND: We initiated differentiation of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) into dopamine neurons, obtained a purified population of neuronal precursor cells by cell sorting, and determined patterns of gene transcription. METHODOLOGY: Dopaminergic differentiation of hESCs was initiated by culturing hESCs with a feeder layer of PA6 cells. Differentiating cells were then sorted to obtain a pure population of PSA-NCAM-expressing neuronal precursors, which were then analyzed for gene expression using Massive Parallel Signature Sequencing (MPSS). Individual genes as well as regions of the genome which were activated were determined. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A number of genes known to be involved in the specification of dopaminergic neurons, including MSX1, CDKN1C, Pitx1 and Pitx2, as well as several novel genes not previously associated with dopaminergic differentiation, were expressed. Notably, we found that a specific region of the genome located on chromosome 11p15.5 was highly activated. This region contains several genes which have previously been associated with the function of dopaminergic neurons, including the gene for tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), the rate-limiting enzyme in catecholamine biosynthesis, IGF2, and CDKN1C, which cooperates with Nurr1 in directing the differentiation of dopaminergic neurons. Other genes in this region not previously recognized as being involved in the functions of dopaminergic neurons were also activated, including H19, TSSC4, and HBG2. IGF2 and CDKN1C were also found to be highly expressed in mature human TH-positive dopamine neurons isolated from human brain samples by laser capture. CONCLUSIONS: The present data suggest that the H19-IGF2 imprinting region on chromosome 11p15.5 is involved in the process through which undifferentiated cells are specified to become neuronal precursors and/or dopaminergic neurons

Ageing, Muscle Power and Physical Function: A Systematic Review and Implications for Pragmatic Training Interventions.

BACKGROUND: The physiological impairments most strongly associated with functional performance in older people are logically the most efficient therapeutic targets for exercise training interventions aimed at improving function and maintaining independence in later life. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to (1) systematically review the relationship between muscle power and functional performance in older people; (2) systematically review the effect of power training (PT) interventions on functional performance in older people; and (3) identify components of successful PT interventions relevant to pragmatic trials by scoping the literature. METHODS: Our approach involved three stages. First, we systematically reviewed evidence on the relationship between muscle power, muscle strength and functional performance and, second, we systematically reviewed PT intervention studies that included both muscle power and at least one index of functional performance as outcome measures. Finally, taking a strong pragmatic perspective, we conducted a scoping review of the PT evidence to identify the successful components of training interventions needed to provide a minimally effective training dose to improve physical function. RESULTS: Evidence from 44 studies revealed a positive association between muscle power and indices of physical function, and that muscle power is a marginally superior predictor of functional performance than muscle strength. Nine studies revealed maximal angular velocity of movement, an important component of muscle power, to be positively associated with functional performance and a better predictor of functional performance than muscle strength. We identified 31 PT studies, characterised by small sample sizes and incomplete reporting of interventions, resulting in less than one-in-five studies judged as having a low risk of bias. Thirteen studies compared traditional resistance training with PT, with ten studies reporting the superiority of PT for either muscle power or functional performance. Further studies demonstrated the efficacy of various methods of resistance and functional task PT on muscle power and functional performance, including low-load PT and low-volume interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Maximal intended movement velocity, low training load, simple training methods, low-volume training and low-frequency training were revealed as components offering potential for the development of a pragmatic intervention. Additionally, the research area is dominated by short-term interventions producing short-term gains with little consideration of the long-term maintenance of functional performance. We believe the area would benefit from larger and higher-quality studies and consideration of optimal long-term strategies to develop and maintain muscle power and physical function over years rather than weeks

Critical Assessment of Metagenome Interpretation:A benchmark of metagenomics software

International audienceIn metagenome analysis, computational methods for assembly, taxonomic profilingand binning are key components facilitating downstream biological datainterpretation. However, a lack of consensus about benchmarking datasets andevaluation metrics complicates proper performance assessment. The CriticalAssessment of Metagenome Interpretation (CAMI) challenge has engaged the globaldeveloper community to benchmark their programs on datasets of unprecedentedcomplexity and realism. Benchmark metagenomes were generated from newlysequenced ~700 microorganisms and ~600 novel viruses and plasmids, includinggenomes with varying degrees of relatedness to each other and to publicly availableones and representing common experimental setups. Across all datasets, assemblyand genome binning programs performed well for species represented by individualgenomes, while performance was substantially affected by the presence of relatedstrains. Taxonomic profiling and binning programs were proficient at high taxonomicranks, with a notable performance decrease below the family level. Parametersettings substantially impacted performances, underscoring the importance ofprogram reproducibility. While highlighting current challenges in computationalmetagenomics, the CAMI results provide a roadmap for software selection to answerspecific research questions

2019 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has initiated a continuous review of new, peer-reviewed, published cardiopulmonary resuscitation science. This is the third annual summary of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published resuscitation evidence reviewed by International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the role of cardiac arrest centers and dispatcher-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation, the role of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation in adults and children, vasopressors in adults, advanced airway interventions in adults and children, targeted temperature management in children after cardiac arrest, initial oxygen concentration during resuscitation of newborns, and interventions for presyncope by first aid providers. Members from 6 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation task forces have assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of the evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria, and their statements include consensus treatment recommendations. Insights into the deliberations of the task forces are provided in the Justification and Evidence to Decision Framework Highlights sections. The task forces also listed priority knowledge gaps for further 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

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 &lt;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&lt;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&lt;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

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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

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

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

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