Applying a new concept of embedding qualitative research: An example from a quantitative study of carers of people in later stage dementia

BACKGROUND: Qualitative methods are increasingly included in larger studies to provide a richer understanding of people's experience. This paper explores the potential of using a novel approach to embedded qualitative design as part of an observational study examining the effectiveness of home support for people in later stage dementia in England. The method involved collecting and analysing unsolicited conversational comments made by participants as they completed standardised measures. An evaluation of the method is presented using the voices of participants to illustrate its potential. METHODS: The conversations of 17 carers recruited to an observational study were audio recorded to gather commentary made while completing a structured interview. Data were interrogated using thematic analysis to investigate the feasibility of conducting an embedded qualitative study, the potential richness of the material and participants' reactions to formal questioning and participating in research. RESULTS: The findings revealed that qualitative data were available from this approach. Analysis generated three themes from carers: conflicting carer emotions; the importance of maintaining normality and agency within day-to-day life; and tensions between these desires and making use of formal services. Important issues for carers were revealed establishing the benefit of using the method. The advantages of exploiting unsolicited conversation included enhancing understanding of people's lived experience, reducing participant burden in research and easing the process of data collection. In addition, it provided an opportunity to evaluate individuals' experience of the research process. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate how unsolicited comments during structured interviews may appear incidental but can reveal important aspects of living with dementia. The method also emphasised methodological challenges for research in dementia, including the influence and impact of the research context. Further research is required to evaluate the method with other groups including people with dementia themselves

Comparison of two normative paediatric gait databases

The availability of age-matched normative data is an essential component of clinical gait analyses. Comparison of normative gait databases is difficult due to the high-dimensionality and temporal nature of the various gait waveforms. The purpose of this study was to provide a method of comparing the sagittal joint angle data between two normative databases. We compared a modern gait database to the historical San Diego database using statistical classifiers developed by Tingley et al. (2002). Gait data were recorded from 60 children aged 1–13 years. A six-camera Vicon 512 motion analysis system and two force plates were utilized to obtain temporal-spatial, kinematic, and kinetic parameters during walking. Differences between the two normative data sets were explored using the classifier index scores, and the mean and covariance structure of the joint angle data from each lab. Significant differences in sagittal angle data between the two databases were identified and attributed to technological advances and data processing techniques (data smoothing, sampling, and joint angle approximations). This work provides a simple method of database comparison using trainable statistical classifiers

Aβ Imaging: feasible, pertinent, and vital to progress in Alzheimer’s disease

status: publishe

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis

Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS

A Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing Tearcare&reg; and Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion for the Treatment of Dry Eye Disease (SAHARA)

Brandon D Ayres,1 Marc R Bloomenstein,2 Jennifer Loh,3 Thomas Chester,4 Bobby Saenz,5,6 Julio Echegoyen,7 Shane R Kannarr,8 Victor L Perez,9 Tomasita C Rodriguez,10 Jaime E Dickerson Jr10,11 1Private Practice, Philadelphia, PA, USA; 2Schwartz Laser Eye Center, Scottsdale, AZ, USA; 3Loh Ophthalmology Associates, Miami, FL, USA; 4Cleveland Eye Clinic, Brecksville, OH, USA; 5Rosenberg School of Optometry, University of the Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX, USA; 6LASIK San Antonio, Kerrville, TX, USA; 7Gordon Schanzlin New Vision Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA; 8Kannarr Eye Care, Pittsburg, KS, USA; 9Department of Ophthalmology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; 10Sight Sciences, Menlo Park, CA, USA; 11North Texas Eye Research Institute, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USACorrespondence: Jaime E Dickerson Jr, Email [email protected]: We compare outcomes in eyes with dry eye disease (DED) treated with TearCare (TC) or topical cyclosporine 0.05% (RESTASIS; CsA).Setting: Nineteen ophthalmic and optometric practices in 11 US states.Design: Multicenter, randomized, assessor-masked, controlled IRB-approved trial. Eligible subjects: ≥ 22 years of age, dry eye symptoms within 3– 6 months, Tear Break-up Time (TBUT) ≥ 1 to ≤ 7 s, Meibomian Gland Secretion Score (MGSS) ≤ 12, Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) of 23– 79. Randomized (1:1) to TC or CsA. TC subjects treated at baseline and month 5; CsA was twice daily for 6 months.Methods: Follow-up visits were scheduled for Day 1, Week 1, Months 1, 3, and 6 with primary inference at Month 6. Primary outcomes: TBUT and OSDI; secondary outcomes: MGSS, conjunctival and corneal staining, eye dryness score (EDS), symptoms assessment in dry eye (SANDE) score, and Schirmer tear score (STS). Safety assessments included adverse events, best corrected visual acuity, intraocular pressure, and slit-lamp findings.Results: Overall, 345 subjects, 172 TC and 173 CsA. TBUT improved at all time points in both groups (p< 0.0001), with statistically greater improvement for TC versus CsA (p=0.0006). OSDI improved significantly at all time points in both groups (p< 0.0001) with no significant differences between treatments. MGSS and other measures of meibomian gland function improved significantly more with TC eyes versus CsA; other secondary outcomes showed significant improvements in both groups with no difference between groups. Treatment-related adverse events were uncommon (10 total, 8 in the CsA group consistent with prior CsA studies); most (9/10) mild.Conclusion: TC provides statistically superior and sustained improvement in TBUT and multiple measures of meibomian gland secretion, and non-inferior improvement in OSDI, corneal and conjunctival staining, SANDE, EDS, and STS versus CsA. TC should be a preferred treatment for DED associated with MGD.Keywords: dry eye disease, meibomian gland dysfunction, restasis, TearCare, cyclosporin

Guidelines for Assessment of Gait and Reference Values for Spatiotemporal Gait Parameters in Older Adults: The Biomathics and Canadian Gait Consortiums Initiative

Background: Gait disorders, a highly prevalent condition in older adults, are associated with several adverse health consequences. Gait analysis allows qualitative and quantitative assessments of gait that improves the understanding of mechanisms of gait disorders and the choice of interventions. This manuscript aims (1) to give consensus guidance for clinical and spatiotemporal gait analysis based on the recorded footfalls in older adults aged 65 years and over, and (2) to provide reference values for spatiotemporal gait parameters based on the recorded footfalls in healthy older adults free of cognitive impairment and multi-morbidities. Methods: International experts working in a network of two different consortiums (i.e., Biomathics and Canadian Gait Consortium) participated in this initiative. First, they identified items of standardized information following the usual procedure of formulation of consensus findings. Second, they merged databases including spatiotemporal gait assessments with GAITRite® system and clinical information from the "Gait, cOgnitiOn & Decline" (GOOD) initiative and the Generation 100 (Gen 100) study. Only healthy-free of cognitive impairment and multi-morbidities (i.e., ≤ 3 therapeutics taken daily)-participants aged 65 and older were selected. Age, sex, body mass index, mean values, and coefficients of variation (CoV) of gait parameters were used for the analyses. Results: Standardized systematic assessment of three categories of items, which were demographics and clinical information, and gait characteristics (clinical and spatiotemporal gait analysis based on the recorded footfalls), were selected for the proposed guidelines. Two complementary sets of items were distinguished: a minimal data set and a full data set. In addition, a total of 954 participants (mean age 72.8 ± 4.8 years, 45.8% women) were recruited to establish the reference values. Performance of spatiotemporal gait parameters based on the recorded footfalls declined with increasing age (mean values and CoV) and demonstrated sex differences (mean values). Conclusions: Based on an international multicenter collaboration, we propose consensus guidelines for gait assessment and spatiotemporal gait analysis based on the recorded footfalls, and reference values for healthy older adults