Class and conditional reasoning in children and adolescents

The development of the ability to comprehend and reason with class and conditional logic statements was examined in the light of Piaget's claim that prior to the age of 11-12 years children are limited to reasoning in terms of classes and relations but from the age of 11-12 years reasoning in terms of propositions becomes possible. Subjects from 5 years to 17.5 years were presented with several different comprehension and inference tasks with class and conditional logic statements. Evidence of differences in the ability of subjects under 12 years to verify class and conditional logic statements was consistent with Piaget's claim that the logical classification operations of the concrete subject enable him to interpret class inclusion statements but that the conditional interpretation of empirical information requires formal operational thinking. No distinction in performance between class and conditional statements was found on tasks which required an understanding of the logical consequences of the inclusion relation with subjects younger than first year secondary performing poorly on both class and conditional versions of an evaluation task and a syllogistic reasoning task. Significant changes in patterns of response at adolescence on the conditional verification task, the evaluation task and the syllogistic reasoning task supported Piaget's contention that there are qualitative changes in reasoning at adolescence although, as in other studies, errors in reasoning by adolescents indicated that Piaget overestimated the logical abilities of the formal subject and suggested that Piaget's logical model of cognition should be regarded as a model of logical competence

Demographic and Clinical Factors Associated With SARS-CoV-2 Spike 1 Antibody Response Among Vaccinated US Adults: the C4R Study

This study investigates correlates of anti-S1 antibody response following COVID-19 vaccination in a U.S. population-based meta-cohort of adults participating in longstanding NIH-funded cohort studies. Anti-S1 antibodies were measured from dried blood spots collected between February 2021-August 2022 using Luminex-based microsphere immunoassays. Of 6245 participants, mean age was 73 years (range, 21-100), 58% were female, and 76% were non-Hispanic White. Nearly 52% of participants received the BNT162b2 vaccine and 48% received the mRNA-1273 vaccine. Lower anti-S1 antibody levels are associated with age of 65 years or older, male sex, higher body mass index, smoking, diabetes, COPD and receipt of BNT16b2 vaccine (vs mRNA-1273). Participants with a prior infection, particularly those with a history of hospitalized illness, have higher anti-S1 antibody levels. These results suggest that adults with certain socio-demographic and clinical characteristics may have less robust antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccination and could be prioritized for more frequent re-vaccination

Pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in two large pooled case–control studies

The association between duration of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer has not been well characterized in large population-based studies. We conducted detailed analyses to determine the association between pancreatitis onset and pancreatic cancer risk. Data from two case–control studies of pancreatic cancer (n = 4515) in the San Francisco Bay Area and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center were pooled for analysis (1,663 cases, 2,852 frequency-matched controls). Adjusted odds ratios (OR) were estimated using a random-effects model. In the pooled multivariable model, history of pancreatitis was associated with a 7.2-fold increased risk estimate for pancreatic cancer [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.0, 13]. The risk estimate was nearly 10-fold in participants aged <55 years (OR = 9.9, 95% CI: 3.5, 28). A shorter temporal history of pancreatitis was more closely associated with pancreatic cancer than was a longer temporal history: <3 years (OR = 29, 95% CI: 12, 71), 3–10 years (OR = 2.6, 95% CI: 1.5, 5.6), and >10 years (OR = 1.8, 95% CI: 0.7, 4.5, p trend < 0.001). A short temporal history of pancreatitis was highly associated with pancreatic cancer, suggesting that pancreatitis may be an early manifestation of pancreatic cancer in some individuals. Pancreatic cancer should be considered in the differential diagnosis of individuals with an episode of pancreatitis

Living Well with Diabetes: a randomized controlled trial of a telephone-delivered intervention for maintenance of weight loss, physical activity and glycaemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes

Background By 2025, it is estimated that approximately 1.8 million Australian adults (approximately 8.4% of the adult population) will have diabetes, with the majority having type 2 diabetes. Weight management via improved physical activity and diet is the cornerstone of type 2 diabetes management. However, the majority of weight loss trials in diabetes have evaluated short-term, intensive clinic-based interventions that, while producing short-term outcomes, have failed to address issues of maintenance and broad population reach. Telephone-delivered interventions have the potential to address these gaps. Methods/Design Using a two-arm randomised controlled design, this study will evaluate an 18-month, telephone-delivered, behavioural weight loss intervention focussing on physical activity, diet and behavioural therapy, versus usual care, with follow-up at 24 months. Three-hundred adult participants, aged 20-75 years, with type 2 diabetes, will be recruited from 10 general practices via electronic medical records search. The Social-Cognitive Theory driven intervention involves a six-month intensive phase (4 weekly calls and 11 fortnightly calls) and a 12-month maintenance phase (one call per month). Primary outcomes, assessed at 6, 18 and 24 months, are: weight loss, physical activity, and glycaemic control (HbA1c), with weight loss and physical activity also measured at 12 months. Incremental cost-effectiveness will also be examined. Study recruitment began in February 2009, with final data collection expected by February 2013. Discussion This is the first study to evaluate the telephone as the primary method of delivering a behavioural weight loss intervention in type 2 diabetes. The evaluation of maintenance outcomes (6 months following the end of intervention), the use of accelerometers to objectively measure physical activity, and the inclusion of a cost-effectiveness analysis will advance the science of broad reach approaches to weight control and health behaviour change, and will build the evidence base needed to advocate for the translation of this work into population health practice

Health, education, and social care provision after diagnosis of childhood visual disability

Aim: To investigate the health, education, and social care provision for children newly diagnosed with visual disability.Method: This was a national prospective study, the British Childhood Visual Impairment and Blindness Study 2 (BCVIS2), ascertaining new diagnoses of visual impairment or severe visual impairment and blindness (SVIBL), or equivalent vi-sion. Data collection was performed by managing clinicians up to 1-year follow-up, and included health and developmental needs, and health, education, and social care provision.Results: BCVIS2 identified 784 children newly diagnosed with visual impairment/SVIBL (313 with visual impairment, 471 with SVIBL). Most children had associated systemic disorders (559 [71%], 167 [54%] with visual impairment, and 392 [84%] with SVIBL). Care from multidisciplinary teams was provided for 549 children (70%). Two-thirds (515) had not received an Education, Health, and Care Plan (EHCP). Fewer children with visual impairment had seen a specialist teacher (SVIBL 35%, visual impairment 28%, χ2p < 0.001), or had an EHCP (11% vs 7%, χ2p < 0 . 01).Interpretation: Families need additional support from managing clinicians to access recommended complex interventions such as the use of multidisciplinary teams and educational support. This need is pressing, as the population of children with visual impairment/SVIBL is expected to grow in size and complexity.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited

Point-of-care testing in paediatric settings in the UK and Ireland: A cross-sectional study

Background: Point-of-care testing (POCT) is diagnostic testing performed at or near to the site of the patient. Understanding the current capacity, and scope, of POCT in this setting is essential in order to respond to new research evidence which may lead to wide implementation. Methods: A cross-sectional online survey study of POCT use was conducted between 6th January and 2nd February 2020 on behalf of two United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland-based paediatric research networks (Paediatric Emergency Research UK and Ireland, and General and Adolescent Paediatric Research UK and Ireland). Results: In total 91/109 (83.5%) sites responded, with some respondents providing details for multiple units on their site based on network membership (139 units in total). The most commonly performed POCT were blood sugar (137/139; 98.6%), urinalysis (134/139; 96.4%) and blood gas analysis (132/139; 95%). The use of POCT for Influenza/Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) (45/139; 32.4%, 41/139; 29.5%), C-Reactive Protein (CRP) (13/139; 9.4%), Procalcitonin (PCT) (2/139; 1.4%) and Group A Streptococcus (5/139; 3.6%) and was relatively low. Obstacles to the introduction of new POCT included resources and infrastructure to support test performance and quality assurance. Conclusion: This survey demonstrates significant consensus in POCT practice in the UK and Ireland but highlights specific inequity in newer biomarkers, some which do not have support from national guidance. A clear strategy to overcome the key obstacles of funding, evidence base, and standardising variation will be essential if there is a drive toward increasing implementation of POCT

Dipeptidyl peptidase-1 inhibition in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial

Background Neutrophil serine proteases are involved in the pathogenesis of COVID-19 and increased serine protease activity has been reported in severe and fatal infection. We investigated whether brensocatib, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase-1 (DPP-1; an enzyme responsible for the activation of neutrophil serine proteases), would improve outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods In a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, placebo-controlled trial, across 14 hospitals in the UK, patients aged 16 years and older who were hospitalised with COVID-19 and had at least one risk factor for severe disease were randomly assigned 1:1, within 96 h of hospital admission, to once-daily brensocatib 25 mg or placebo orally for 28 days. Patients were randomly assigned via a central web-based randomisation system (TruST). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (65 years or ≥65 years), and within each stratum, blocks were of random sizes of two, four, or six patients. Participants in both groups continued to receive other therapies required to manage their condition. Participants, study staff, and investigators were masked to the study assignment. The primary outcome was the 7-point WHO ordinal scale for clinical status at day 29 after random assignment. The intention-to-treat population included all patients who were randomly assigned and met the enrolment criteria. The safety population included all participants who received at least one dose of study medication. This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN30564012. Findings Between June 5, 2020, and Jan 25, 2021, 406 patients were randomly assigned to brensocatib or placebo; 192 (47·3%) to the brensocatib group and 214 (52·7%) to the placebo group. Two participants were excluded after being randomly assigned in the brensocatib group (214 patients included in the placebo group and 190 included in the brensocatib group in the intention-to-treat population). Primary outcome data was unavailable for six patients (three in the brensocatib group and three in the placebo group). Patients in the brensocatib group had worse clinical status at day 29 after being randomly assigned than those in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·57–0·92]). Prespecified subgroup analyses of the primary outcome supported the primary results. 185 participants reported at least one adverse event; 99 (46%) in the placebo group and 86 (45%) in the brensocatib group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal disorders and infections. One death in the placebo group was judged as possibly related to study drug. Interpretation Brensocatib treatment did not improve clinical status at day 29 in patients hospitalised with COVID-19

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional outcome after acute stroke (AFFINITY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Trials of fluoxetine for recovery after stroke report conflicting results. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) trial aimed to show if daily oral fluoxetine for 6 months after stroke improves functional outcome in an ethnically diverse population. Methods AFFINITY was a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (four), and Vietnam (ten). Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of acute stroke in the previous 2–15 days, brain imaging consistent with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, and a persisting neurological deficit that produced a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 1 or more. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm to once daily, oral fluoxetine 20 mg capsules or matching placebo for 6 months. Patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured by the mRS, at 6 months. The primary analysis was an ordinal logistic regression of the mRS at 6 months, adjusted for minimisation variables. Primary and safety analyses were done according to the patient's treatment allocation. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000774921. Findings Between Jan 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1280 patients were recruited in Australia (n=532), New Zealand (n=42), and Vietnam (n=706), of whom 642 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 638 were randomly assigned to placebo. Mean duration of trial treatment was 167 days (SD 48·1). At 6 months, mRS data were available in 624 (97%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 632 (99%) in the placebo group. The distribution of mRS categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·76–1·15; p=0·53). Compared with patients in the placebo group, patients in the fluoxetine group had more falls (20 [3%] vs seven [1%]; p=0·018), bone fractures (19 [3%] vs six [1%]; p=0·014), and epileptic seizures (ten [2%] vs two [<1%]; p=0·038) at 6 months. Interpretation Oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and epileptic seizures. These results do not support the use of fluoxetine to improve functional outcome after stroke

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