Outcome Assessment by Central Adjudicators Versus Site Investigators in Stroke Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Purpose— In randomized stroke trials, central adjudication of a trial’s primary outcome is regularly implemented. However, recent evidence questions the importance of central adjudication in randomized trials. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes assessed by central adjudicators with outcomes assessed by site investigators. Methods— We included randomized stroke trials where the primary outcome had undergone an assessment by site investigators and central adjudicators. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for eligible studies. We extracted information about the adjudication process as well as the treatment effect for the primary outcome, assessed both by central adjudicators and by site investigators. We calculated the ratio of these treatment effects so that a ratio of these treatment effects &gt;1 indicated that central adjudication resulted in a more beneficial treatment effect than assessment by the site investigator. A random-effects meta-analysis model was fitted to estimate a pooled effect. Results— Fifteen trials, comprising 69 560 participants, were included. The primary outcomes included were stroke (8/15, 53%), a composite event including stroke (6/15, 40%) and functional outcome after stroke measured on the modified Rankin Scale (1/15, 7%). The majority of site investigators were blind to treatment allocation (9/15, 60%). On average, there was no difference in treatment effect estimates based on data from central adjudicators and site investigators (pooled ratio of these treatment effects=1.02; 95% CI, [0.95–1.09]). Conclusions— We found no evidence that central adjudication of the primary outcome in stroke trials had any impact on trial conclusions. This suggests that potential advantages of central adjudication may not outweigh cost and time disadvantages in stroke studies if the primary purpose of adjudication is to ensure validity of trial findings. </jats:sec

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Historical Analysis [Library Research Essay]

Essay written by University of Scranton graduate student Emily Dineen, describing the research process for her Occupational Therapy 501 paper, titled 'Historical Analysis.' Dineen was selected by a panel of faculty and staff as the winner of the University's 2018 Bonnie W. Oldham Library Research Prize, in the Graduate category

Historical Analysis

Research paper written by University of Scranton graduate student Emily Dineen. Dineen was selected by a panel of faculty and staff as the winner of the University's 2018 Bonnie W. Oldham Library Research Prize, in the Graduate category.Occupational therapy (OT) is a holistic profession, consistently striving to encompass a client's past, present, and future meaningful experiences within treatment. Just as practitioners' look at the client as a whole, the profession itself should do the same; to look inwardly can be painful, but in the end it is a life-giving process. Truly understanding occupational therapy's past- taking into account our struggles and successes, mistakes and advancements- will lead to progress in the future. Thus, this paper will attempt to do just that by way of examining the history of occupational therapy with a particular focus on the development of sensory integration (SI) treatment for the pediatric population

Exploring unnecessary invasive procedures in the United States: a retrospective mixed-methods analysis of cases from 2008-2016

Abstract Background Unnecessary invasive procedures risk harming patients physically, emotionally, and financially. Very little is known about the factors that provide the motive, means, and opportunity (MMO) for unnecessary procedures. Methods This project used a mixed-methods design that involved five key steps: (1) systematically searching the literature to identify cases of unnecessary procedures reported from 2008 to 2016; (2) identifying all medical board, court, and news records on relevant cases; (3) coding all relevant records using a structured codebook of case characteristics; (4) analyzing each case using a MMO framework to develop a causal theory of the case; and (5) identifying typologies of cases through a two-step cluster analysis using variables hypothesized to be causally related to unnecessary procedures. Results Seventy-nine cases met inclusion criteria. The mean number of documents or sources examined for each case was 36.4. Unnecessary procedures were performed for at least five years in most cases (53.2%); 56.3% of the cases involved 30 or more patients, and 37.5% involved 100 or more patients. In nearly all cases the physician was male (96.2%) and working in private practice (92.4%); 57.0% of the physicians had an accomplice, 48.1% were 50 years of age or older, and 40.5% trained outside the U.S. The most common motives were financial gain (92.4%) and suspected antisocial personality (48.1%), followed by poor problem-solving or clinical skills (11.4%) and ambition (3.8%). The most common environmental factors that provided opportunity for unnecessary procedures included a lack of oversight (40.5%) or oversight failures (39.2%), a corrupt moral climate (26.6%), vulnerable patients (20.3%), and financial conflicts of interest (13.9%). Conclusions Unnecessary procedures usually appear motivated by financial gain and occur in settings that have oversight problems. Preventive efforts should focus on early detection by peers and institutions, and decisive action by medical boards and federal prosecutors

Outcome Assessment by Central Adjudicators Versus Site Investigators in Stroke Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

© 2019 American Heart Association, Inc. Background and Purpose-In randomized stroke trials, central adjudication of a trial's primary outcome is regularly implemented. However, recent evidence questions the importance of central adjudication in randomized trials. The aim of this review was to compare outcomes assessed by central adjudicators with outcomes assessed by site investigators. Methods-We included randomized stroke trials where the primary outcome had undergone an assessment by site investigators and central adjudicators. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar for eligible studies. We extracted information about the adjudication process as well as the treatment effect for the primary outcome, assessed both by central adjudicators and by site investigators. We calculated the ratio of these treatment effects so that a ratio of these treatment effects >1 indicated that central adjudication resulted in a more beneficial treatment effect than assessment by the site investigator. A random-effects meta-analysis model was fitted to estimate a pooled effect. Results-Fifteen trials, comprising 69 560 participants, were included. The primary outcomes included were stroke (8/15, 53%), a composite event including stroke (6/15, 40%) and functional outcome after stroke measured on the modified Rankin Scale (1/15, 7%). The majority of site investigators were blind to treatment allocation (9/15, 60%). On average, there was no difference in treatment effect estimates based on data from central adjudicators and site investigators (pooled ratio of these treatment effects=1.02; 95% CI, [0.95-1.09]). Conclusions-We found no evidence that central adjudication of the primary outcome in stroke trials had any impact on trial conclusions. This suggests that potential advantages of central adjudication may not outweigh cost and time disadvantages in stroke studies if the primary purpose of adjudication is to ensure validity of trial findings

Sulfonamides as Selective Na_V1.7 Inhibitors: Optimizing Potency and Pharmacokinetics While Mitigating Metabolic Liabilities

Several reports have recently emerged regarding the identification of heteroarylsulfonamides as Na_V1.7 inhibitors that demonstrate high levels of selectivity over other Na_V isoforms. The optimization of a series of internal Na_V1.7 leads that address a number of metabolic liabilities including bioactivation, PXR activation, as well as CYP3A4 induction and inhibition led to the identification of potent and selective inhibitors that demonstrated favorable pharmacokinetic profiles and were devoid of the aforementioned liabilities. The key to achieving this within a series prone to transporter-mediated clearance was the identification of a small range of optimal cLogD values and the discovery of subtle PXR SAR that was not lipophilicity dependent. This enabled the identification of compound <b>20</b>, which was advanced into a target engagement pharmacodynamic model where it exhibited robust reversal of histamine-induced scratching bouts in mice

Sulfonamides as Selective Na_V1.7 Inhibitors: Optimizing Potency and Pharmacokinetics to Enable in Vivo Target Engagement

Human genetic evidence has identified the voltage-gated sodium channel Na_V1.7 as an attractive target for the treatment of pain. We initially identified naphthalene sulfonamide <b>3</b> as a potent and selective inhibitor of Na_V1.7. Optimization to reduce biliary clearance by balancing hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity (Log <i>D</i>) while maintaining Na_V1.7 potency led to the identification of quinazoline <b>16</b> (AM-2099). Compound <b>16</b> demonstrated a favorable pharmacokinetic profile in rat and dog and demonstrated dose-dependent reduction of histamine-induced scratching bouts in a mouse behavioral model following oral dosing