Post-ischaemic immunological response in the brain: targeting microglia in ischaemic stroke therapy

Microglia, the major endogenous immune cells of the central nervous system, mediate critical degenerative and regenerative responses in ischaemic stroke. Microglia become "activated", proliferating, and undergoing changes in morphology, gene and protein expression over days and weeks post-ischaemia, with deleterious and beneficial effects. Pro-inflammatory microglia (commonly referred to as M1) exacerbate secondary neuronal injury through the release of reactive oxygen species, cytokines and proteases. In contrast, microglia may facilitate neuronal recovery via tissue and vascular remodelling, through the secretion of anti-inflammatory cytokines and growth factors (a profile often termed M2). This M1/M2 nomenclature does not fully account for the microglial heterogeneity in the ischaemic brain, with some simultaneous expression of both M1 and M2 markers at the single-cell level. Understanding and regulating microglial activation status, reducing detrimental and promoting repair behaviours, present the potential for therapeutic intervention, and open a longer window of opportunity than offered by acute neuroprotective strategies. Pharmacological modulation of microglial activation status to promote anti-inflammatory gene expression can increase neurogenesis and improve functional recovery post-stroke, based on promising preclinical data. Cell-based therapies, using preconditioned microglia, are of interest as a method of therapeutic modulation of the post-ischaemic inflammatory response. Currently, there are no clinically-approved pharmacological options targeting post-ischaemic inflammation. A major developmental challenge for clinical translation will be the selective suppression of the deleterious effects of microglial activity after stroke whilst retaining (or enhancing) the neurovascular repair and remodelling responses of microglia

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for people living with motor neuron disease: an uncontrolled feasibility study

Background: Motor neuron disease (MND) is a fatal, progressive neurodegenerative disease that causes progressive weakening and wasting of limb, bulbar, thoracic and abdominal muscles. Clear evidence-based guidance on how psychological distress should be managed in people living with MND (plwMND) is lacking. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a form of psychological therapy that may be particularly suitable for this population. However, to the authors' knowledge, no study to date has evaluated ACT for plwMND. Consequently, the primary aim of this uncontrolled feasibility study was to examine the feasibility and acceptability of ACT for improving the psychological health of plwMND. Methods: PlwMND aged ≥ 18 years were recruited from 10 UK MND Care Centres/Clinics. Participants received up to 8 one-to-one ACT sessions, developed specifically for plwMND, plus usual care. Co-primary feasibility and acceptability outcomes were uptake (≥ 80% of the target sample [N = 28] recruited) and initial engagement with the intervention (≥ 70% completing ≥ 2 sessions). Secondary outcomes included measures of quality of life, anxiety, depression, disease-related functioning, health status and psychological flexibility in plwMND and quality of life and burden in caregivers. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 6 months. Results: Both a priori indicators of success were met: 29 plwMND (104%) were recruited and 76% (22/29) attended ≥ 2 sessions. Attrition at 6-months was higher than anticipated (8/29, 28%), but only two dropouts were due to lack of acceptability of the intervention. Acceptability was further supported by good satisfaction with therapy and session attendance. Data were possibly suggestive of small improvements in anxiety and psychological quality of life from baseline to 6 months in plwMND, despite a small but expected deterioration in disease-related functioning and health status. Conclusions: There was good evidence of acceptability and feasibility. Limitations included the lack of a control group and small sample size, which complicate interpretation of findings. A fully powered RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ACT for plwMND is underway

Diagnosis Across the Spectrum of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Syndrome

IMPORTANCE: Patients with atypical parkinsonian syndromes (APS), including progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal syndrome (CBS) and multiple system atrophy (MSA), may be difficult to distinguish in early stages and are often misdiagnosed as Parkinson’s disease (PD). The diagnostic criteria for PSP have been updated to encompass a range of clinical subtypes, but have not been prospectively studied. OBJECTIVE: To define the distinguishing features of PSP and CBS, and to assess their usefulness in facilitating early diagnosis and separation from PD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study which recruited APS and PD patients from movement disorder clinics across the UK from September 2015 to December 2018, and will follow up patients over 5 years. APS patients were stratified into PSP-Richardson syndrome, PSP-subcortical (including PSP-parkinsonism and PSP-progressive gait freezing cases), PSP-cortical (including PSP-frontal and PSP/CBS overlap cases), MSA-parkinsonism, MSA-cerebellar, CBS-Alzheimer’s and CBS-non-Alzheimer’s groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline group comparisons were conducted using: 1) Clinical trajectory; 2) Cognitive screening scales; 3) Serum neurofilament light chain (NF-L); 4) TRIM11, ApoE and MAPT genotypes; 5) Volumetric MRI. RESULTS: 222 APS cases (101 PSP, 55 MSA, 40 CBS and 26 indeterminate) were recruited (58% male; mean age at recruitment, 68.3 years). Age-matched controls (n=76) and PD cases (n=1967) were also included. Concordance between the ante-mortem clinical diagnosis and pathological diagnosis was achieved in 12/13 (92%) of PSP and CBS cases coming to post-mortem. Applying the MDS PSP diagnostic criteria almost doubled the number of patients diagnosed with PSP. 49/101 (49%) of reclassified PSP patients did not have classical PSP-Richardson syndrome. PSP-subcortical patients had a longer diagnostic latency and a more benign clinical trajectory than PSP-Richardson syndrome and PSP-cortical (p<0.05). PSP-subcortical was distinguished from PSP-cortical and PSP-Richardson syndrome by cortical volumetric MRI measures (AUC 0.84-0.89), cognitive profile (AUC 0.80-0.83), serum NF-L (AUC 0.75-0.83) and TRIM11 rs564309 genotype. Midbrain atrophy was a common feature of all PSP subtypes. 8/17 (47%) of CBS patients with CSF analysis were identified as having CBS-Alzheimer’s. CBS-Alzheimer’s patients had a longer diagnostic latency, relatively benign clinical trajectory, greater cognitive impairment and higher APOE-ε4 allele frequency than CBS-non-Alzheimer’s (p<0.05, AUC 0.80-0.87). Serum NF-L levels distinguished PD from PSP and CBS (p<0.05, AUC 0.80). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinical, therapeutic and epidemiological studies focusing on PSP-Richardson syndrome are likely to miss a large number of patients with underlying PSP-tau pathology. CSF analysis defines a distinct CBS-Alzheimer’s subgroup. PSP and CBS subtypes have distinct characteristics that may enhance their early diagnosis

Comparative transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Omicron (B.1.1.529) and Delta (B.1.617.2) variants and the impact of vaccination: national cohort study, England

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Omicron variant (B.1.1.529) rapidly replaced Delta (B.1.617.2) to become dominant in England. Our study assessed differences in transmission between Omicron and Delta using two independent data sources and methods. Omicron and Delta cases were identified through genomic sequencing, genotyping and S-gene target failure in England from 5-11 December 2021. Secondary attack rates for named contacts were calculated in household and non-household settings using contact tracing data, while household clustering was identified using national surveillance data. Logistic regression models were applied to control for factors associated with transmission for both methods. For contact tracing data, higher secondary attack rates for Omicron vs. Delta were identified in households (15.0% vs. 10.8%) and non-households (8.2% vs. 3.7%). For both variants, in household settings, onward transmission was reduced from cases and named contacts who had three doses of vaccine compared to two, but this effect was less pronounced for Omicron (adjusted risk ratio, aRR 0.78 and 0.88) than Delta (aRR 0.62 and 0.68). In non-household settings, a similar reduction was observed only in contacts who had three doses vs. two doses for both Delta (aRR 0.51) and Omicron (aRR 0.76). For national surveillance data, the risk of household clustering, was increased 3.5-fold for Omicron compared to Delta (aRR 3.54 (3.29-3.81)). Our study identified increased risk of onward transmission of Omicron, consistent with its successful global displacement of Delta. We identified a reduced effectiveness of vaccination in lowering risk of transmission, a likely contributor for the rapid propagation of Omicron

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy plus usual care for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease (COMMEND) : a multicentre, parallel, randomised controlled trial in the UK

Background Motor neuron disease is a progressive, fatal neurodegenerative disease for which there is no cure. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is a psychological therapy incorporating acceptance, mindfulness, and behaviour change techniques. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ACT plus usual care, compared with usual care alone, for improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease. Methods We conducted a parallel, multicentre, two-arm randomised controlled trial in 16 UK motor neuron disease care centres or clinics. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of definite or laboratory-supported probable, clinically probable, or possible familial or sporadic amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; progressive muscular atrophy; or primary lateral sclerosis; which met the World Federation of Neurology's El Escorial diagnostic criteria. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive up to eight sessions of ACT adapted for people with motor neuron disease plus usual care or usual care alone by a web-based system, stratified by site. Participants were followed up at 6 months and 9 months post-randomisation. Outcome assessors and trial statisticians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was quality of life using the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised (MQOL-R) at 6 months post-randomisation. Primary analyses were multi-level modelling and modified intention to treat among participants with available data. This trial was pre-registered with the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN12655391). Findings Between Sept 18, 2019, and Aug 31, 2022, 435 people with motor neuron disease were approached for the study, of whom 206 (47%) were assessed for eligibility, and 191 were recruited. 97 (51%) participants were randomly assigned to ACT plus usual care and 94 (49%) were assigned to usual care alone. 80 (42%) of 191 participants were female and 111 (58%) were male, and the mean age was 63·1 years (SD 11·0). 155 (81%) participants had primary outcome data at 6 months post-randomisation. After controlling for baseline scores, age, sex, and therapist clustering, ACT plus usual care was superior to usual care alone for quality of life at 6 months (adjusted mean difference on the MQOL-R of 0·66 [95% CI 0·22–1·10]; d=0·46 [0·16–0·77]; p=0·0031). Moderate effect sizes were clinically meaningful. 75 adverse events were reported, 38 of which were serious, but no adverse events were deemed to be associated with the intervention. Interpretation ACT plus usual care is clinically effective for maintaining or improving quality of life in people with motor neuron disease. As further evidence emerges confirming these findings, health-care providers should consider how access to ACT, adapted for the specific needs of people with motor neuron disease, could be provided within motor neuron disease clinical services

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Diagnosis Across the Spectrum of Progressive Supranuclear Palsy and Corticobasal Syndrome

IMPORTANCE: Patients with atypical parkinsonian syndromes (APS), including progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), corticobasal syndrome (CBS) and multiple system atrophy (MSA), may be difficult to distinguish in early stages and are often misdiagnosed as Parkinson’s disease (PD). The diagnostic criteria for PSP have been updated to encompass a range of clinical subtypes, but have not been prospectively studied. OBJECTIVE: To define the distinguishing features of PSP and CBS, and to assess their usefulness in facilitating early diagnosis and separation from PD. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: Cohort study which recruited APS and PD patients from movement disorder clinics across the UK from September 2015 to December 2018, and will follow up patients over 5 years. APS patients were stratified into PSP-Richardson syndrome, PSP-subcortical (including PSP-parkinsonism and PSP-progressive gait freezing cases), PSP-cortical (including PSP-frontal and PSP/CBS overlap cases), MSA-parkinsonism, MSA-cerebellar, CBS-Alzheimer’s and CBS-non-Alzheimer’s groups. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline group comparisons were conducted using: 1) Clinical trajectory; 2) Cognitive screening scales; 3) Serum neurofilament light chain (NF-L); 4) TRIM11, ApoE and MAPT genotypes; 5) Volumetric MRI. RESULTS: 222 APS cases (101 PSP, 55 MSA, 40 CBS and 26 indeterminate) were recruited (58% male; mean age at recruitment, 68.3 years). Age-matched controls (n=76) and PD cases (n=1967) were also included. Concordance between the ante-mortem clinical diagnosis and pathological diagnosis was achieved in 12/13 (92%) of PSP and CBS cases coming to post-mortem. Applying the MDS PSP diagnostic criteria almost doubled the number of patients diagnosed with PSP. 49/101 (49%) of reclassified PSP patients did not have classical PSP-Richardson syndrome. PSP-subcortical patients had a longer diagnostic latency and a more benign clinical trajectory than PSP-Richardson syndrome and PSP-cortical (p<0.05). PSP-subcortical was distinguished from PSP-cortical and PSP-Richardson syndrome by cortical volumetric MRI measures (AUC 0.84-0.89), cognitive profile (AUC 0.80-0.83), serum NF-L (AUC 0.75-0.83) and TRIM11 rs564309 genotype. Midbrain atrophy was a common feature of all PSP subtypes. 8/17 (47%) of CBS patients with CSF analysis were identified as having CBS-Alzheimer’s. CBS-Alzheimer’s patients had a longer diagnostic latency, relatively benign clinical trajectory, greater cognitive impairment and higher APOE-ε4 allele frequency than CBS-non-Alzheimer’s (p<0.05, AUC 0.80-0.87). Serum NF-L levels distinguished PD from PSP and CBS (p<0.05, AUC 0.80). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Clinical, therapeutic and epidemiological studies focusing on PSP-Richardson syndrome are likely to miss a large number of patients with underlying PSP-tau pathology. CSF analysis defines a distinct CBS-Alzheimer’s subgroup. PSP and CBS subtypes have distinct characteristics that may enhance their early diagnosis