Breeding better fruits and nuts, Station Bulletin, no.448

The Bulletin is a publication of the New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Life Sciences and Agriculture, University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire

Cognitive or behavioural interventions (or both) to prevent or mitigate loneliness in adolescents, adults, and older adults

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To examine the effects of structured psychological interventions, based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) techniques, compared to all comparators on loneliness in adolescents, adults, and older adults with diagnoses of common mental disorders, or at risk of loneliness. To examine the effects of structured psychological interventions, based on CBT techniques, compared to all comparators on depression severity, anxiety severity, social connectedness, or quality of life in adolescents, adults, and older adults, with diagnoses of common mental disorders, or at risk of loneliness

Behavioural activation therapy for depression in adults (Review)

This is the final version. Available from Cochrane Collaboration via the DOI in this record. BACKGROUND: Behavioural activation is a brief psychotherapeutic approach that seeks to change the way a person interacts with their environment. Behavioural activation is increasingly receiving attention as a potentially cost-effective intervention for depression, which may require less resources and may be easier to deliver and implement than other types of psychotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with other psychological therapies for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with medication for depression in adults. To examine the effects of behavioural activation compared with treatment as usual/waiting list/placebo no treatment for depression in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CCMD-CTR (all available years), CENTRAL (current issue), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 onwards), Ovid EMBASE (1980 onwards), and Ovid PsycINFO (1806 onwards) on the 17 January 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of 'behavioural activation', or the main elements of behavioural activation for depression in participants with clinically diagnosed depression or subthreshold depression. We did not apply any restrictions on date, language or publication status to the searches. We searched international trials registries via the World Health Organization's trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural activation for the treatment of depression or symptoms of depression in adults aged 18 or over. We excluded RCTs conducted in inpatient settings and with trial participants selected because of a physical comorbidity. Studies were included regardless of reported outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all titles/abstracts and full-text manuscripts for inclusion. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments were also performed by two review authors in duplicate. Where necessary, we contacted study authors for more information. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-three studies with 5495 participants were included; 51 parallel group RCTs and two cluster-RCTs. We found moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation had greater short-term efficacy than treatment as usual (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10 to 1.78; 7 RCTs, 1533 participants), although this difference was no longer evident in sensitivity analyses using a worst-case or intention-to-treat scenario. Compared with waiting list, behavioural activation may be more effective, but there were fewer data in this comparison and evidence was of low certainty (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.90 to 5.09; 1 RCT, 26 participants). No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for behavioural activation versus placebo and behavioural activation versus no treatment. We found moderate-certainty evidence suggesting no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment efficacy between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 5 RCTs, 601 participants). Fewer data were available for other comparators. No evidence of a difference in short term-efficacy was found between behavioural activation and third-wave CBT (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.33; 2 RCTs, 98 participants; low certainty), and psychodynamic therapy (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.99; 1 RCT,60 participants; very low certainty). Behavioural activation was more effective than humanistic therapy (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.95; 2 RCTs, 46 participants; low certainty) and medication (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.14 to 2.76; 1 RCT; 141 participants; moderate certainty), but both of these results were based on a small number of trials and participants. No evidence on treatment efficacy was available for comparisons between behavioural activation versus interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapies. There was moderate-certainty evidence that behavioural activation might have lower treatment acceptability (based on dropout rate) than treatment as usual in the short term, although the data did not confirm a difference and results lacked precision (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.31; 14 RCTs, 2518 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence did not suggest any difference in short-term acceptability between behavioural activation and waiting list (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.93; 8 RCTs. 359 participants), no treatment (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.09; 3 RCTs, 187 participants), medication (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16; 2 RCTs, 243 participants), or placebo (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.67; 1 RCT; 96 participants; low-certainty evidence). No evidence on treatment acceptability was available comparing behavioural activation versus psychodynamic therapy. Low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (dropout rate) between behavioural activation and CBT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.25; 12 RCTs, 1195 participants), third-wave CBT (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; 3 RCTs, 147 participants); humanistic therapy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.20 to 5.55; 2 RCTs, 96 participants) (very low certainty), and interpersonal, cognitive analytic, and integrative therapy (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.20; 4 RCTs, 123 participants). Results from medium- and long-term primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses are summarised in the text. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests that behavioural activation may be more effective than humanistic therapy, medication, and treatment as usual, and that it may be no less effective than CBT, psychodynamic therapy, or being placed on a waiting list. However, our confidence in these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. We found no evidence of a difference in short-term treatment acceptability (based on dropouts) between behavioural activation and most comparison groups (CBT, humanistic therapy, waiting list, placebo, medication, no treatment or treatment as usual). Again, our confidence in all these findings is limited due to concerns about the certainty of the evidence. No data were available about the efficacy of behaioural activation compared with placebo, or about treatment acceptability comparing behavioural activation and psychodynamic therapy, interpersonal, cognitive analytic and integrative therapies. The evidence could be strengthened by better reporting and better quality RCTs of behavioural activation and by assessing working mechanisms of behavioural activation.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Interventions for preventing relapse or recurrence of major depressive disorder in adults in a primary care setting: a network meta‐analysis

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. The aim is to assess, using network meta-analysis (NMA), the effectiveness and safety of interventions for preventing relapse-recurrence of depression in adults in a primary care setting. NMA is a technique for comparing three or more interventions simultaneously in a single analysis by combining both direct and indirect evidence across a network of studies. The objectives are to:. estimate the relative effectiveness of pharmacological, psychological and other interventions to prevent relapse-recurrence, compared with each other and controls (e.g. pill placebo, treatment as usual) on relapse-recurrence outcomes and adverse events; assess the effect of interventions on quality of life outcomes and social and occupational functioning; estimate the relative ranking of included interventions on relapse-recurrence, quality of life, and adverse events; summarise availability and principal findings of eligible economic evaluations

CoronaHiT: high-throughput sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 genomes.

We present CoronaHiT, a platform and throughput flexible method for sequencing SARS-CoV-2 genomes (≤ 96 on MinION or > 96 on Illumina NextSeq) depending on changing requirements experienced during the pandemic. CoronaHiT uses transposase-based library preparation of ARTIC PCR products. Method performance was demonstrated by sequencing 2 plates containing 95 and 59 SARS-CoV-2 genomes on nanopore and Illumina platforms and comparing to the ARTIC LoCost nanopore method. Of the 154 samples sequenced using all 3 methods, ≥ 90% genome coverage was obtained for 64.3% using ARTIC LoCost, 71.4% using CoronaHiT-ONT and 76.6% using CoronaHiT-Illumina, with almost identical clustering on a maximum likelihood tree. This protocol will aid the rapid expansion of SARS-CoV-2 genome sequencing globally.The sequencing costs were funded by the COVID-19 Genomics UK (COG-UK) Consortium which is supported by funding from the Medical Research Council (MRC) part of UK Research & Innovation (UKRI), the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) and Genome Research Limited, operating as the Wellcome Sanger Institute

First-pass perfusion CMR two days after infarction predicts severity of functional impairment six weeks later in the rat heart

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In humans, dynamic contrast CMR of the first pass of a bolus infusion of Gadolinium-based contrast agent has become a standard technique to identify under-perfused regions of the heart and can accurately demonstrate the severity of myocardial infarction. Despite the clinical importance of this method, it has rarely been applied in small animal models of cardiac disease. In order to identify perfusion delays in the infarcted rat heart, here we present a method in which a T₁weighted MR image has been acquired during each cardiac cycle.</p> <p>Methods and results</p> <p>In isolated perfused rat hearts, contrast agent infusion gave uniform signal enhancement throughout the myocardium. Occlusion of the left anterior descending coronary artery significantly reduced the rate of signal enhancement in anterior regions of the heart, demonstrating that the first-pass method was sensitive to perfusion deficits. <it>In vivo </it>measurements of myocardial morphology, function, perfusion and viability were made at 2 and 8 days after infarction. Morphology and function were further assessed using cine-MRI at 42 days. The perfusion delay was larger in rat hearts that went on to develop greater functional impairment, demonstrating that first-pass CMR can be used as an early indicator of infarct severity. First-pass CMR at 2 and 8 days following infarction better predicted outcome than cardiac ejection fraction, end diastolic volume or end systolic volume.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>First-pass CMR provides a predictive measure of the severity of myocardial impairment caused by infarction in a rodent model of heart failure.</p