Clinical Use of Aided Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials as a Measure of Physiological Detection or Physiological Discrimination

The clinical usefulness of aided cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) remains unclear despite several decades of research. One major contributor to this ambiguity is the wide range of variability across published studies and across individuals within a given study; some results demonstrate expected amplification effects, while others demonstrate limited or no amplification effects. Recent evidence indicates that some of the variability in amplification effects may be explained by distinguishing between experiments that focused on physiological detection of a stimulus versus those that differentiate responses to two audible signals, or physiological discrimination. Herein, we ask if either of these approaches is clinically feasible given the inherent challenges with aided CAEPs. N1 and P2 waves were elicited from 12 noise-masked normal-hearing individuals using hearing-aid-processed 1000-Hz pure tones. Stimulus levels were varied to study the effect of hearing-aid-signal/hearing-aid-noise audibility relative to the noise-masked thresholds. Results demonstrate that clinical use of aided CAEPs may be justified when determining whether audible stimuli are physiologically detectable relative to inaudible signals. However, differentiating aided CAEPs elicited from two suprathreshold stimuli (i.e., physiological discrimination) is problematic and should not be used for clinical decision making until a better understanding of the interaction between hearing-aid-processed stimuli and CAEPs can be established

Common Genetic Polymorphisms Influence Blood Biomarker Measurements in COPD

Implementing precision medicine for complex diseases such as chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) will require extensive use of biomarkers and an in-depth understanding of how genetic, epigenetic, and environmental variations contribute to phenotypic diversity and disease progression. A meta-analysis from two large cohorts of current and former smokers with and without COPD [SPIROMICS (N = 750); COPDGene (N = 590)] was used to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with measurement of 88 blood proteins (protein quantitative trait loci; pQTLs). PQTLs consistently replicated between the two cohorts. Features of pQTLs were compared to previously reported expression QTLs (eQTLs). Inference of causal relations of pQTL genotypes, biomarker measurements, and four clinical COPD phenotypes (airflow obstruction, emphysema, exacerbation history, and chronic bronchitis) were explored using conditional independence tests. We identified 527 highly significant (p 10% of measured variation in 13 protein biomarkers, with a single SNP (rs7041; p = 10−392) explaining 71%-75% of the measured variation in vitamin D binding protein (gene = GC). Some of these pQTLs [e.g., pQTLs for VDBP, sRAGE (gene = AGER), surfactant protein D (gene = SFTPD), and TNFRSF10C] have been previously associated with COPD phenotypes. Most pQTLs were local (cis), but distant (trans) pQTL SNPs in the ABO blood group locus were the top pQTL SNPs for five proteins. The inclusion of pQTL SNPs improved the clinical predictive value for the established association of sRAGE and emphysema, and the explanation of variance (R2) for emphysema improved from 0.3 to 0.4 when the pQTL SNP was included in the model along with clinical covariates. Causal modeling provided insight into specific pQTL-disease relationships for airflow obstruction and emphysema. In conclusion, given the frequency of highly significant local pQTLs, the large amount of variance potentially explained by pQTL, and the differences observed between pQTLs and eQTLs SNPs, we recommend that protein biomarker-disease association studies take into account the potential effect of common local SNPs and that pQTLs be integrated along with eQTLs to uncover disease mechanisms. Large-scale blood biomarker studies would also benefit from close attention to the ABO blood group

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 <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<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<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

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Frequency Following Responses to Tone Glides:Effects of Age and Hearing Loss

Purpose Speech is characterized by dynamic acoustic cues that must be encoded by the auditory periphery, auditory nerve, and brainstem before they can be represented in the auditory cortex. The fidelity of these cues in the brainstem can be assessed with the frequency-following response (FFR). Data obtained from older adults—with normal or impaired hearing—were compared with previous results obtained from normal-hearing younger adults to evaluate the effects of age and hearing loss on the fidelity of FFRs to tone glides. Method A signal detection approach was used to model a threshold criterion to distinguish the FFR from baseline neural activity. The response strength and temporal coherence of the FFR to tone glides varying in direction (rising or falling) and extent (13 , 23 , or 1 octave) were assessed by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and stimulus–response correlation coefficient (SRCC) in older adults with normal hearing and with hearing loss. Results Significant group mean differences in both SNR and SRCC were noted—with poorer responses more frequently observed with increased age and hearing loss—but with considerable response variability among individuals within each group and substantial overlap among group distributions. Conclusion The overall distribution of FFRs across listeners and stimulus conditions suggests that observed group differences associated with age and hearing loss are influenced by a decreased likelihood of older and hearing-impaired individuals having a detectable FFR response and by lower average FFR fidelity among those older and hearing-impaired individuals who do have a detectable response.</p

Speech-in-Noise Testing:An Introduction for Audiologists

Speech-in-noise testing has been proposed as a useful part of the audiometric test battery dating back to the earliest years of the field of audiology. Many speech-in-noise tests have been developed and used to varying degrees. However, multiple barriers have prevented speech-in-noise testing from being used widely in the clinic. The purpose of this article is to provide a resource to audiologists and other hearing health professionals who want to know (1) what tests are available for use, (2) the rationale behind specific tests, and (3) important considerations when selecting one or more tests to use clinically. In addition, data are presented for four speech-in-noise tests with the purpose of comparing outcomes as a function of age and hearing status. The four tests (QuickSIN, Words in Noise [WIN], Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences [LiSN-S], and Coordinate Response Measure [CRM]) were completed by 30 individuals from three groups: 10 young adults with normal hearing, 10 older adults with normal hearing, and 10 older adults with hearing loss. The results suggest that, despite significant differences in performance between groups, group overlap was present such that some individuals from one group performed similar to some individuals of other groups; therefore, individual performance was more important than associated group. When selecting an appropriate speech-in-noise test to use clinically, audiologists should carefully consider the purpose of their testing and the type of information they desire as an outcome. A quick-resource table and appendix is provided to aid audiologists and other health professionals in their selection of an appropriate speech-in-noise test.</p