The adaptation of cognitive behavioural therapy for adult Maori clients with depression: A pilot study

A semistructured cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme for depression was adapted for use with Maori adult clients with depression. Adaptations were developed in consultation with an advisory group consisting of Maori clinical psychologists and kaumatua with experience working in mental health services. The programme was piloted with 2 participants who were clients of a Maori mental health service. The programme builds on a more traditional CBT treatment programme by integrating concepts such as whakatauki, whanaungatanga, whanau involvement, and whakapapa into the therapeutic context. Despite limitations the results demonstrate considerable promise. Depressive symptoms increased substantially in both cases and both clients reflected positively on the adaptations incorporated into therapy

Exploration of a new tool for assessing emotional inferencing after traumatic brain injury

bjective: To explore validity of an assessment tool under development—the Emotional Inferencing from Stories Test (EIST). This measure is being designed to assess the ability of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to make inferences about the emotional state of others solely from contextual cues. Methods and procedures: Study 1: 25 stories were presented to 40 healthy young adults. From this data, two versions of the EIST (EIST-1; EIST-2) were created. Study 2: Each version was administered to a group of participants with moderate-to-severe TBI—EIST 1 group: 77 participants; EIST-2 group: 126 participants. Participants also completed a facial affect recognition (DANVA2-AF) test. Participants with facial affect recognition impairment returned 2 weeks later and were re-administered both tests. Main outcomes: Participants with TBI scored significantly lower than the healthy group mean for EIST-1, F(1,114) = 68.49, p < 0.001, and EIST-2, F(1,163) = 177.39, p < 0.001. EIST scores in the EIST-2 group were significantly lower than the EIST-1 group, t = 4.47, p < 0.001. DANVA2-AF scores significantly correlated with EIST scores, EIST-1: r = 0.50, p < 0.001; EIST-2: r = 0.31, p < 0.001. Test–re-test reliability scores for the EIST were adequate. Conclusions: Both versions of the EIST were found to be sensitive to deficits in emotional inferencing. After further development, the EIST may provide clinicians valuable information for intervention planning

Solvent neurotoxicity in vehicle collision repair workers in New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether solvent use and workplace practices in the vehicle collision repair industry are associated with symptoms of neurotoxicity in spray painters and panel beaters (auto body repair workers). METHODS: Neurobehavioural symptoms were assessed using a cross-sectional study design in 370 vehicle collision repair and 211 reference workers using the EUROQUEST questionnaire. Full-shift airborne solvent levels were measured in a subset (n=92) of collision repair workers. RESULTS: Solvent exposures were higher in spray painters than in panel beaters, but levels were below current international exposure standards. Collision repair workers were more likely to report symptoms of neurotoxicity than reference workers with ORs of 2.0, 2.4 and 6.4 (all p<0.05) for reporting ≥5, ≥10 and ≥15 symptoms respectively. This trend was generally strongest for panel beaters (ORs of 2.1, 3.3 and 8.2 for ≥5, ≥10 and ≥15 symptoms respectively). Associations with specific symptom domains showed increased risks for neurological (OR 4.2), psychosomatic (OR 3.2), mood (OR 2.1), memory (OR 2.9) and memory and concentration symptoms combined (OR 2.4; all p<0.05). Workers who had worked for 10-19 years or 20+ years in the collision repair industry reported consistently more symptoms than those who had only worked less than 10 years even after adjusting for age. However, those who worked more than 20 years generally reported fewer symptoms than those who worked 10-19 years, suggesting a possible healthy worker survivor bias. CONCLUSIONS: Despite low airborne solvent exposures, vehicle collision repair spray painters and panel beaters continue to be at risk of symptoms of neurotoxicity

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

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

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

Sex differences in response to emotion recognition training after traumatic brain injury

<p><b>Objective</b>: To examine sex differences in the effectiveness of a <i>Stories</i> intervention for teaching affect recognition in people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI).</p> <p><b>Setting</b>: Post-acute rehabilitation facilities.</p> <p><b>Participants</b>: 203 participants (53 women and 150 men) with moderate to severe TBI were screened. 71 were eligible and randomized to one of three treatment conditions: two affect recognition conditions and an active control (cognition). This paper examines sex differences between the <i>Stories</i> intervention (<i>n</i> = 23, 5 women and 18 men) and the cognitive treatment control (<i>n</i> = 24, 8 women and 16 men).</p> <p><b>Design</b>: Randomized controlled trial with immediate, 3- and 6-month follow-up post-tests. Interventions were 9 hours of computer-based training with a therapist.</p> <p><b>Measures</b>: Facial Affect Recognition (DANVA2-AF); Emotional Inference from Stories Test (EIST).</p> <p><b>Results</b>: A significant treatment effect was observed for the <i>Stories</i> intervention for women, who demonstrated and maintained improved facial affect recognition. In contrast, males in our sample did not benefit from the <i>Stories</i> intervention.</p> <p><b>Conclusion</b>: This positive finding for the <i>Stories</i> intervention for females contrasts with our conclusions in a previous paper, where an analysis collapsed across sex did not reveal an overall effectiveness of the <i>Stories</i> intervention. This intervention warrants further research and development.</p

Impact of neurobehavioural sequelae of mild traumatic brain injury on rehabilitation

Neurobehavioural symptoms, such as changes in personality, psychiatric symptoms such as depression, and behavioural changes such as increased irritability, are frequent consequences of head injury. Even in the case of mild head injuries, such symptoms may be severe enough to have a negative impact upon rehabilitation. The nature of these symptoms, mitigating factors and possible responses within a rehabilitation context are discussed

Affect recognition, empathy, and dysosmia after traumatic brain injury

Zupan, BA ORCiD: 0000-0002-4603-333XObjective: To investigate if olfaction is associated with affect recognition and empathy deficits after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Prior research has shown that TBI often leads to loss of smell. We hypothesized a relationship with emotion perception, because the neural substrates of the olfactory system overlap with the ventral circuitry of the orbital frontal cortex, which play a critical role in affective responses, such as empathy. Design: Comparative study investigating differences between participants with TBI who had impaired olfaction (dysosmia) with those with normal olfaction (normosmia). Setting: Postacute rehabilitation facilities in the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Participants: Participants (N=106) in the current study were a convenience sample of adults with moderate to severe TBI who were tested for olfactory function as part of a larger, related study on affect recognition. On average, participants were 11.5 years postinjury. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Olfaction (Brief Smell Identification Test), facial affect recognition (Diagnostic Assessment of Nonverbal Affect 2-Adult Faces [DANVA2-AF]), vocal affect recognition (Diagnostic Assessment of Nonverbal Affect 2-Adult Paralanguage [DANVA2-AP] ), emotional inference (Emotional Inference from Stories Test [EIST]), and empathy (Interpersonal Reactivity Index [IRI] ). Results: Fifty-six percent of participants were dysosmic and only 36% of these participants were aware of their deficit. Participants with dysosmia performed significantly poorer on the DANVA2-AF (P=.003), DANVA2-AP (P=.007), EIST (P=.016), and IRI (P=.013). Medium effect sizes were found for all measures. Dysosmia had a sensitivity value of 86.4% for detecting facial affect recognition impairments and 67.8% for vocal affect recognition impairments. Conclusions: This study shows that olfactory deficits may be indicative of affect recognition impairments and reduced empathy. Early knowledge of affect recognition and empathy deficits would be valuable so that treatment could be implemented predischarge. © 2012 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine