The Cranial Nerve Exam: Effectiveness of Peer-to-Peer Teaching and Experiential Learning in Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Students

This study sought to determine if speech-language pathology graduate students found peer-to-peer teaching and experiential learning beneficial in learning how to assess the cranial nerves. Graduate students in a motor speech disorders course completed an in-class cranial nerve examination in which they either portrayed clinicians or patients. Student groups utilized a reflective practice approach by teaching their peers how to assess the cranial nerves. Intensive practice sessions were offered almost daily for two weeks prior to the exam. Thirty-seven students completed an online survey about their knowledge and confidence in assessing cranial nerves and identifying diagnoses before starting the training for the exam; 36 participants completed the same survey post-exam training. Students reported feeling more confident and less anxious in evaluating the cranial nerves, assessing damages, and identifying diagnoses. This preliminary study indicates peer-to-peer teaching could be an effective strategy for learning how to evaluate cranial nerves

Effects of exercise on tests measuring attention and executive function in younger and older adults

Purpose: This study investigated whether or not performance differed between Young and Older Exercisers and between Young and Older Non-exercisers on the Attention Processing Training-Test (APT-Test), Behavioral Assessment of Dysexecutive Syndrome (BADS), and Functional Assessment of Verbal Reasoning and Executive Strategies (FAVRES). Methods: A total of 119 participants were divided into the following groups: 46 Young Exercisers: (aged 18-40 years), 45 Older Exercisers (aged 60 and older), fourteen Young Non-exercisers, and fourteen Older Non-exercisers. Participants completed the APT-Test, BADS, and FAVRES in a counterbalanced manner. Independent sample t-tests were used to calculate outcomes. Results: Young Exercisers had significantly higher scores than Older Exercisers on the APT-Test, BADS Total Profile Score, and the FAVRES Total Accuracy Score. No significant differences occurred between Young and Older Exercisers on the FAVRES Total Rationale, Total Time, or Reasoning scores. No statistically significant differences occurred on any measures between Young and Older Non-exercisers. Conclusions: Different performance trends occurred between the Exerciser groups and the Non-exerciser groups. For example, both Exerciser groups performed similarly on the FAVRES when asked to justify their responses and perform reasoning tasks. Older Exercisers provided correct responses for Accuracy measures, yet their responses did not earn the total points. No differences occurred on any test between the Non-exerciser groups. Thus, it could be helpful for clinicians to inquire about patients\u27 pre-morbid exercise habits when using these tests. Participants were healthy, neurologically intact adults. Future research should investigate potential effects exercise has on these tests in adults with acquired neurological damage

Remote Testing of Adult Neurogenic Tests: Implications and Recommendations for Speech-Language Pathologists

Purpose: One purpose of this preliminary case report was to document the challenges that can arise when giving adult neurogenic tests via telepractice. Another purpose was to develop recommendations on adaptations that can be made when speech-language pathologists give the tests employed in this report. Though one test was adapted by its authors to be given remotely, the other two tests have little or no published adaptations regarding remote administration. Methods: A 33 year old female and a 51 year old male, both of whom have acquired neurogenic communicative disorders, were given the Apraxia Battery for Adults-2nd edition, the Ross Information Processing Assessment-2nd edition, and the Quick Aphasia Battery-Remote via telepractice across 2-3 sessions per participant. The female participant used an iPad during remote testing, while the male participant used a Chromebook. Results: All three tests had some challenges when given remotely. Though slight technical issues were encountered, the research team needed to make various test adaptations, such as putting pictures into a Google presentation so that patients could adequately see the target picture. In other instances, wording to questions were changed slightly while still retaining the general integrity of the original item. Conclusions: Recommended adaptations to the three tests used in this study are included. Though issues may arise during telepractice, these suggestions should aid clinicians who want to use these tests with their telepractice clients

The neurogenic potential of astrocytes is regulated by inflammatory signals

Although the adult brain contains neural stem cells (NSCs) that generate new neurons throughout life, these astrocyte-like populations are restricted to two discrete niches. Despite their terminally differentiated phenotype, adult parenchymal astrocytes can re-acquire NSC-like characteristics following injury, and as such, these 'reactive' astrocytes offer an alternative source of cells for central nervous system (CNS) repair following injury or disease. At present, the mechanisms that regulate the potential of different types of astrocytes are poorly understood. We used in vitro and ex vivo astrocytes to identify candidate pathways important for regulation of astrocyte potential. Using in vitro neural progenitor cell (NPC)-derived astrocytes, we found that exposure of more lineage-restricted astrocytes to either tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) (via nuclear factor-κB (NFκB)) or the bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) inhibitor, noggin, led to re-acquisition of NPC properties accompanied by transcriptomic and epigenetic changes consistent with a more neurogenic, NPC-like state. Comparative analyses of microarray data from in vitro-derived and ex vivo postnatal parenchymal astrocytes identified several common pathways and upstream regulators associated with inflammation (including transforming growth factor (TGF)-β1 and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ)) and cell cycle control (including TP53) as candidate regulators of astrocyte phenotype and potential. We propose that inflammatory signalling may control the normal, progressive restriction in potential of differentiating astrocytes as well as under reactive conditions and represent future targets for therapies to harness the latent neurogenic capacity of parenchymal astrocytes

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

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

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

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