Perceived barriers in family-based behavioural treatment of paediatric obesity – Results from the FABO study

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.Background: To date, few studies have investigated perceived barriers among those who participate in and drop out of family-based behavioural treatment (FBT) for paediatric obesity. Examining experienced barriers during treatment, and their role in participation and completion of treatment has important implications for clinical practice. Objectives: To compare perceived barriers to participating in a family-based behavioural social facilitation treatment (FBSFT) for obesity among families who completed and did not complete treatment. Methods: Data were analysed from 90 families of children and adolescents (mean (M) age = 12.8 years, standard deviation (SD) = 3.05) with severe obesity enrolled in a 17-session FBSFT program. After completing 12 sessions or at the time of dropout, parents and therapists completed the Barriers to Treatment Participation Scale (BTPS), a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never a problem, 5 = very often a problem) which includes four subscales: 1. Stressors and obstacles that compete with treatment, 2. Treatment demands and issues, 3. Perceived relevance of treatment, 4. Relationship with the therapist. Results: Families who did not complete treatment scored significantly higher on the BTPS subscales stressors and obstacles that compete with treatment (M = 2.03, SD = 0.53 vs. M = 1.70, SD = 0.42), p = 0.010 and perceived relevance of treatment (M = 2.27, SD = 0.48 vs. M = 1.80, SD = 0.50), p < 0.001 than families who completed treatment. No other significant differences between groups were observed. Conclusion: Families are more likely to drop out of FBSFT when experiencing a high burden from life stressors or when treatment is not meeting the expectations and perceived needs of the family.publishedVersio

Family-based treatment of children with severe obesity in a public healthcare setting: Results from a randomized controlled trial

To compare the effectiveness of family-based behavioural social facilitation treatment (FBSFT) versus treatment as usual (TAU) in children with severe obesity. Parallel-design, nonblinded, randomized controlled trial conducted at a Norwegian obesity outpatient clinic. Children aged 6–18 years referred to the clinic between 2014 and 2018 were invited to participate. Participants were randomly allocated using sequentially numbered, opaqued, sealed envelopes. FBSFT (n = 59) entailed 17 sessions of structured cognitive behavioural treatment, TAU (n = 55) entailed standard lifestyle counselling sessions every third month for 1 year. Primary outcomes included changes in body mass index standard deviation score (BMI SDS) and percentage above the International Obesity Task Force cut-off for overweight (%IOTF-25). Secondary outcomes included changes in sleep, physical activity, and eating behaviour. From pre- to posttreatment there was a statistically significant difference in change in both BMI SDS (0.19 units, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.10–0.28, p < .001) and %IOTF-25 (5.48%, 95%CI: 2.74–8.22, p < .001) between FBSFT and TAU groups. FBSFT participants achieved significant reductions in mean BMI SDS (0.16 units, (95%CI: −0.22 to −0.10, p < .001) and %IOTF-25 (6.53%, 95% CI: −8.45 to −4.60, p < .001), whereas in TAU nonsignificant changes were observed in BMI SDS (0.03 units, 95% CI: −0.03 to 0.09, p = .30) and %IOTF-25 (−1.04%, 95% CI: −2.99 to −0.90, p = .29). More FBSFT participants (31.5%) had clinically meaningful BMI SDS reductions of ≥0.25 from pre- to posttreatment than in TAU (13.0%, p = .021). Regarding secondary outcomes, only changes in sleep timing differed significantly between groups. FBSFT improved weight-related outcomes compared to TAU.publishedVersio

Antimicrobial resistance among migrants in Europe: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Rates of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are rising globally and there is concern that increased migration is contributing to the burden of antibiotic resistance in Europe. However, the effect of migration on the burden of AMR in Europe has not yet been comprehensively examined. Therefore, we did a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify and synthesise data for AMR carriage or infection in migrants to Europe to examine differences in patterns of AMR across migrant groups and in different settings. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus with no language restrictions from Jan 1, 2000, to Jan 18, 2017, for primary data from observational studies reporting antibacterial resistance in common bacterial pathogens among migrants to 21 European Union-15 and European Economic Area countries. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to report data on carriage or infection with laboratory-confirmed antibiotic-resistant organisms in migrant populations. We extracted data from eligible studies and assessed quality using piloted, standardised forms. We did not examine drug resistance in tuberculosis and excluded articles solely reporting on this parameter. We also excluded articles in which migrant status was determined by ethnicity, country of birth of participants' parents, or was not defined, and articles in which data were not disaggregated by migrant status. Outcomes were carriage of or infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms. We used random-effects models to calculate the pooled prevalence of each outcome. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42016043681. FINDINGS: We identified 2274 articles, of which 23 observational studies reporting on antibiotic resistance in 2319 migrants were included. The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or AMR infection in migrants was 25·4% (95% CI 19·1-31·8; I2 =98%), including meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (7·8%, 4·8-10·7; I2 =92%) and antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria (27·2%, 17·6-36·8; I2 =94%). The pooled prevalence of any AMR carriage or infection was higher in refugees and asylum seekers (33·0%, 18·3-47·6; I2 =98%) than in other migrant groups (6·6%, 1·8-11·3; I2 =92%). The pooled prevalence of antibiotic-resistant organisms was slightly higher in high-migrant community settings (33·1%, 11·1-55·1; I2 =96%) than in migrants in hospitals (24·3%, 16·1-32·6; I2 =98%). We did not find evidence of high rates of transmission of AMR from migrant to host populations. INTERPRETATION: Migrants are exposed to conditions favouring the emergence of drug resistance during transit and in host countries in Europe. Increased antibiotic resistance among refugees and asylum seekers and in high-migrant community settings (such as refugee camps and detention facilities) highlights the need for improved living conditions, access to health care, and initiatives to facilitate detection of and appropriate high-quality treatment for antibiotic-resistant infections during transit and in host countries. Protocols for the prevention and control of infection and for antibiotic surveillance need to be integrated in all aspects of health care, which should be accessible for all migrant groups, and should target determinants of AMR before, during, and after migration. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, the Wellcome Trust, and UK National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare-associated Infections and Antimictobial Resistance at Imperial College London

Surgical site infection after gastrointestinal surgery in high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries: a prospective, international, multicentre cohort study

Background: Surgical site infection (SSI) is one of the most common infections associated with health care, but its importance as a global health priority is not fully understood. We quantified the burden of SSI after gastrointestinal surgery in countries in all parts of the world. Methods: This international, prospective, multicentre cohort study included consecutive patients undergoing elective or emergency gastrointestinal resection within 2-week time periods at any health-care facility in any country. Countries with participating centres were stratified into high-income, middle-income, and low-income groups according to the UN's Human Development Index (HDI). Data variables from the GlobalSurg 1 study and other studies that have been found to affect the likelihood of SSI were entered into risk adjustment models. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day SSI incidence (defined by US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria for superficial and deep incisional SSI). Relationships with explanatory variables were examined using Bayesian multilevel logistic regression models. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02662231. Findings: Between Jan 4, 2016, and July 31, 2016, 13 265 records were submitted for analysis. 12 539 patients from 343 hospitals in 66 countries were included. 7339 (58·5%) patient were from high-HDI countries (193 hospitals in 30 countries), 3918 (31·2%) patients were from middle-HDI countries (82 hospitals in 18 countries), and 1282 (10·2%) patients were from low-HDI countries (68 hospitals in 18 countries). In total, 1538 (12·3%) patients had SSI within 30 days of surgery. The incidence of SSI varied between countries with high (691 [9·4%] of 7339 patients), middle (549 [14·0%] of 3918 patients), and low (298 [23·2%] of 1282) HDI (p < 0·001). The highest SSI incidence in each HDI group was after dirty surgery (102 [17·8%] of 574 patients in high-HDI countries; 74 [31·4%] of 236 patients in middle-HDI countries; 72 [39·8%] of 181 patients in low-HDI countries). Following risk factor adjustment, patients in low-HDI countries were at greatest risk of SSI (adjusted odds ratio 1·60, 95% credible interval 1·05–2·37; p=0·030). 132 (21·6%) of 610 patients with an SSI and a microbiology culture result had an infection that was resistant to the prophylactic antibiotic used. Resistant infections were detected in 49 (16·6%) of 295 patients in high-HDI countries, in 37 (19·8%) of 187 patients in middle-HDI countries, and in 46 (35·9%) of 128 patients in low-HDI countries (p < 0·001). Interpretation: Countries with a low HDI carry a disproportionately greater burden of SSI than countries with a middle or high HDI and might have higher rates of antibiotic resistance. In view of WHO recommendations on SSI prevention that highlight the absence of high-quality interventional research, urgent, pragmatic, randomised trials based in LMICs are needed to assess measures aiming to reduce this preventable complication

A blood atlas of COVID-19 defines hallmarks of disease severity and specificity.

Treatment of severe COVID-19 is currently limited by clinical heterogeneity and incomplete description of specific immune biomarkers. We present here a comprehensive multi-omic blood atlas for patients with varying COVID-19 severity in an integrated comparison with influenza and sepsis patients versus healthy volunteers. We identify immune signatures and correlates of host response. Hallmarks of disease severity involved cells, their inflammatory mediators and networks, including progenitor cells and specific myeloid and lymphocyte subsets, features of the immune repertoire, acute phase response, metabolism, and coagulation. Persisting immune activation involving AP-1/p38MAPK was a specific feature of COVID-19. The plasma proteome enabled sub-phenotyping into patient clusters, predictive of severity and outcome. Systems-based integrative analyses including tensor and matrix decomposition of all modalities revealed feature groupings linked with severity and specificity compared to influenza and sepsis. Our approach and blood atlas will support future drug development, clinical trial design, and personalized medicine approaches for COVID-19

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

Factors associated with early gestational weight gain among women with pre-pregnancy overweight or obesity

The present study aimed to document the prevalence of and identify factors associated with excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) in early pregnancy among women with pre-pregnancy overweight or obesity. Women with pre-pregnancy overweight or obesity (n = 247) were recruited between 12 and 20 weeks of gestation and completed questionnaires and were weighed to estimate early GWG. Nearly one-third of women met (17%, n = 42) or exceeded (13%, n = 33) guidelines for total GWG in early pregnancy. Univariate analyses showed race, income, and pre-pregnancy weight status to be significantly related to GWG category in early pregnancy (p < .009). Only race and pre-pregnancy weight status remained significant in a multivariate model, with Black women and women with pre-pregnancy obesity having higher odds of having met or exceeded guidelines for total GWG in early pregnancy compared with White women and women with pre-pregnancy overweight (p < .04). These findings highlight the need for early intervention to reduce weight-related complications among pregnant women.Impact statement What is already known on this subject? Women with pre-pregnancy overweight or obesity who gain excessive gestational weight early in pregnancy are at unique risk for pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes. What do the results of this study add? The present study adds to a growing body of literature documenting that a notable amount of women are gaining excessive gestational weight early in pregnancy. The present study further documents that Black women and women with pre-pregnancy obesity are at particular risk of gaining excessive gestational weight early in pregnancy. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Additional work examining modifiable risk factors, particularly among Black women and women with pre-pregnancy obesity, that contribute to excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) in the first half of pregnancy is warranted and will be necessary to inform interventions aimed at promoting weight loss during the preconception and interconception periods or encouraging appropriate GWG across the entire course of pregnancy

Thinking Critically about Racial Identity Data in Perinatal Health Research: An Example with Loss of Control Eating and Tobacco Dependence

Purpose: Racial inequities in perinatal health necessitate additional research. However, limited guidance exists on how to group racial identity data for analyses. We explored methods for grouping racial identity in two prior perinatal studies (LEAP and STARTS) that examined modifiable contributors to cardiovascular disease: loss of control (LOC) eating and nicotine dependence. Methods: Participants were pregnant individuals in two studies (LEAP: N=257; STARTS: N=300). LOC was assessed throughout pregnancy using the Eating Disorder Examination-Pregnancy Version. Nicotine dependence was assessed with the Fagerstrom Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND) in late pregnancy. Participants self-reported racial identity using NIH-defined categories at baseline. We explored five methods of grouping participants by racial identity. The relation of racial identity to LOC eating or FTND score was examined in separate regression models for each method of grouping racial identity. Results: Black-identifying participants, whether Black-only (OR=1.88, p=.024) or Black and additional racial identities (OR=2.09, p=.006), were more likely to experience LOC eating than individuals identifying as White-only. However, when Black-only participants were compared to those identifying as White and additional racial identities, this effect was attenuated (OR=1.55, p=0.101). Findings were less susceptible to changes based on racial identity groupings when examining associations between racial identity and FTND. Conclusions: Among pregnant individuals, the magnitude of the associations between racial identity and LOC and, to a lesser extent, nicotine dependence, varied by racial identity grouping method, demonstrating the importance of careful considerations when examining racial identity data and highlighting the need to examine systemic factors underlying inequities