Impact of co-occurring hearing and visual difficulties in childhood on educational outcomes:a longitudinal cohort study

Background: Mild hearing and visual difficulties are common in childhood, and both may have implications for educational achievement. However, the impact of co-occurring common hearing and visual difficulties in childhood is not known. Objective: To determine the prevalence and impact of co-occurring common hearing and visual difficulties of childhood on educational outcomes in primary and secondary school. Methods: The sample was drawn from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a longitudinal birth cohort study in England. The exposures were hearing and visual difficulties at age 7 (defined as conductive hearing loss or otitis media with effusion, and amblyopia, strabismus or reduced visual acuity, respectively). The outcomes measured were achievement of level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 (KS2) in English, Maths and Science, respectively, at age 11, and attainment of five or more General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSEs) at grades A*-C at age 16. Multiple logistic regression models assessed the relationship between hearing and visual difficulties and educational outcomes, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Results: 2909 children were included in the study; 261 had hearing difficulties, 189 had visual difficulties and 14 children had co-occurring hearing and visual difficulties. Children with co-occurring hearing and visual difficulties were less likely to achieve the national target at KS2 compared with children with normal hearing and vision, even after adjustment for confounding factors (OR 0.30, CI 0.15 to 0.61 for KS2 English). Differences in IQ, behaviour, attention and social cognition did not account for this relationship. The impact of co-occurring hearing and visual difficulties on GCSE results was explained largely by poor performance at KS2. Conclusions: Co-occurring hearing and visual difficulties in childhood have an enduring negative impact on educational outcomes. Identification of affected children and early intervention in primary school is essential

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for encephalitis in children aged 6 months to 16 years: the IgNiTE RCT

Background: There are data suggesting that intravenous immunoglobulin treatment has some benefit for certain forms of encephalitis but robust evidence from large randomised controlled trials in children with all-cause encephalitis is lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether intravenous immunoglobulin treatment improves neurological outcomes in childhood encephalitis when given early in the illness. Design: Phase 3b, investigator-initiated, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of encephalitis in children. Setting: Twenty-one NHS Hospitals in the UK. Participants: Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or sub-acute encephalitis. Intervention: Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either intravenous immunoglobulin or matching placebo, given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment. Main outcome measure: Participants were followed up for 12 months (+/– 4 weeks) after randomisation. The primary outcome measure was a ‘good recovery’ defined as a score of ≤ 2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes: The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and intravenous immunoglobulin safety data. Results: We planned to recruit 308 children over a 42-month period. After enrolment of 18 participants (8 male; 44%) over 21 months (from December 2015 to September 2017), funding was withdrawn due to slow recruitment and the study was terminated. Ten participants were randomised to the intravenous immunoglobulin group, and eight to the placebo group, and all 18 participants were included in the analysis. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 participants [50%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 5 (50%), placebo n = 4 (50%)] made good recovery and 5 participants [28%; intravenous immunoglobulin n = 3 (30%), placebo n = 2 (25%)] made a poor recovery. Three participants in the placebo group (43%) experienced a total of 10 serious adverse events compared with none in the intravenous immunoglobulin group but none of the adverse events were judged to be related to the study treatment. No deaths occurred during the study period. Conclusion: ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis (IgNiTE) was halted prematurely due to slow recruitment. Given the small sample size, the study was underpowered to evaluate the effect of intravenous immunoglobulin when compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis. The study findings, albeit from a small sample size, support existing evidence that encephalitis results in poor neurological outcomes for many children. Lessons learned from the ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis trial would be valuable for the success of future trials set up to address the efficacy of early treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin in all-cause encephalitis in children. Study limitations and future work: The study was underpowered to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous immunoglobulin in the treatment of childhood encephalitis due to the small sample size achieved. Future trials should seek to address this important question. Trial registration: This trial is registered as Clinical Trials.gov (NCT02308982) and ISRCTN15791925. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme (NIHR award ref: 12/212/15) and is published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 11, No. 6. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment in childhood encephalitis (IgNiTE): a randomised controlled trial

Objective: To investigate whether intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) improves neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis when administered early in the illness. // Design: Phase 3b multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial. // Setting: Twenty-one hospitals in the UK. // Participants: Children aged 6 months to 16 years with a diagnosis of acute or subacute encephalitis, with a planned sample size of 308. // Intervention: Two doses (1 g/kg/dose) of either IVIG or matching placebo given 24–36 hours apart, in addition to standard treatment. // Main outcome measure: The primary outcome was a ‘good recovery’ at 12 months after randomisation, defined as a score of≤2 on the Paediatric Glasgow Outcome Score Extended. // Secondary outcome measures: The secondary outcomes were clinical, neurological, neuroimaging and neuropsychological results, identification of the proportion of children with immune-mediated encephalitis, and IVIG safety data. // Results: 18 participants were recruited from 12 hospitals and randomised to receive either IVIG (n=10) or placebo (n=8) between 23 December 2015 and 26 September 2017. The study was terminated early following withdrawal of funding due to slower than anticipated recruitment, and therefore did not reach the predetermined sample size required to achieve the primary study objective; thus, the results are descriptive. At 12 months after randomisation, 9 of the 18 participants (IVIG n=5/10 (50%), placebo n=4/8 (50%)) made a good recovery and 5 participants (IVIG n=3/10 (30%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) made a poor recovery. Three participants (IVIG n=1/10 (10%), placebo n=2/8 (25%)) had a new diagnosis of epilepsy during the study period. Two participants were found to have specific autoantibodies associated with autoimmune encephalitis. No serious adverse events were reported in participants receiving IVIG. // Conclusions: The IgNiTE (ImmunoglobuliN in the Treatment of Encephalitis) study findings support existing evidence of poor neurological outcomes in children with encephalitis. However, the study was halted prematurely and was therefore underpowered to evaluate the effect of early IVIG treatment compared with placebo in childhood encephalitis. // Trial registration number: Clinical Trials.gov NCT02308982; ICRCTN registry ISRCTN15791925

Direct Measurements of Unimolecular and Bimolecular Reaction Kinetics of the Criegee Intermediate (CH 3 ) 2 COO

The Criegee intermediate acetone oxide, (CH3)2COO, is formed by laser photolysis of 2,2-diiodopropane in the presence of O2 and characterized by synchrotron photoionization mass spectrometry and by cavity ring-down ultraviolet absorption spectroscopy. The rate coefficient of the reaction of the Criegee intermediate with SO2 was measured using photoionization mass spectrometry and pseudo-first-order methods to be (7.3 ± 0.5) × 10–11 cm3 s–1 at 298 K and 4 Torr and (1.5 ± 0.5) × 10–10 cm3 s–1 at 298 K and 10 Torr (He buffer). These values are similar to directly measured rate coefficients of anti-CH3CHOO with SO2, and in good agreement with recent UV absorption measurements. The measurement of this reaction at 293 K and slightly higher pressures (between 10 and 100 Torr) in N2 from cavity ring-down decay of the ultraviolet absorption of (CH3)2COO yielded even larger rate coefficients, in the range (1.84 ± 0.12) × 10–10 to (2.29 ± 0.08) × 10–10 cm3 s–1. Photoionization mass spectrometry measurements with deuterated acetone oxide at 4 Torr show an inverse deuterium kinetic isotope effect, kH/kD = (0.53 ± 0.06), for reactions with SO2, which may be consistent with recent suggestions that the formation of an association complex affects the rate coefficient. The reaction of (CD3)2COO with NO2 has a rate coefficient at 298 K and 4 Torr of (2.1 ± 0.5) × 10–12 cm3 s–1 (measured with photoionization mass spectrometry), again similar to rate for the reaction of anti-CH3CHOO with NO2. Cavity ring-down measurements of the acetone oxide removal without added reagents display a combination of first- and second-order decay kinetics, which can be deconvolved to derive values for both the self-reaction of (CH3)2COO and its unimolecular thermal decay. The inferred unimolecular decay rate coefficient at 293 K, (305 ± 70) s–1, is similar to determinations from ozonolysis. The present measurements confirm the large rate coefficient for reaction of (CH3)2COO with SO2 and the small rate coefficient for its reaction with water. Product measurements of the reactions of (CH3)2COO with NO2 and with SO2 suggest that these reactions may facilitate isomerization to 2-hydroperoxypropene, possibly by subsequent reactions of association products

The impact of immediate breast reconstruction on the time to delivery of adjuvant therapy: the iBRA-2 study

Background: Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is routinely offered to improve quality-of-life for women requiring mastectomy, but there are concerns that more complex surgery may delay adjuvant oncological treatments and compromise long-term outcomes. High-quality evidence is lacking. The iBRA-2 study aimed to investigate the impact of IBR on time to adjuvant therapy. Methods: Consecutive women undergoing mastectomy ± IBR for breast cancer July–December, 2016 were included. Patient demographics, operative, oncological and complication data were collected. Time from last definitive cancer surgery to first adjuvant treatment for patients undergoing mastectomy ± IBR were compared and risk factors associated with delays explored. Results: A total of 2540 patients were recruited from 76 centres; 1008 (39.7%) underwent IBR (implant-only [n = 675, 26.6%]; pedicled flaps [n = 105,4.1%] and free-flaps [n = 228, 8.9%]). Complications requiring re-admission or re-operation were significantly more common in patients undergoing IBR than those receiving mastectomy. Adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy was required by 1235 (48.6%) patients. No clinically significant differences were seen in time to adjuvant therapy between patient groups but major complications irrespective of surgery received were significantly associated with treatment delays. Conclusions: IBR does not result in clinically significant delays to adjuvant therapy, but post-operative complications are associated with treatment delays. Strategies to minimise complications, including careful patient selection, are required to improve outcomes for patients

Robust estimation of bacterial cell count from optical density

Optical density (OD) is widely used to estimate the density of cells in liquid culture, but cannot be compared between instruments without a standardized calibration protocol and is challenging to relate to actual cell count. We address this with an interlaboratory study comparing three simple, low-cost, and highly accessible OD calibration protocols across 244 laboratories, applied to eight strains of constitutive GFP-expressing E. coli. Based on our results, we recommend calibrating OD to estimated cell count using serial dilution of silica microspheres, which produces highly precise calibration (95.5% of residuals <1.2-fold), is easily assessed for quality control, also assesses instrument effective linear range, and can be combined with fluorescence calibration to obtain units of Molecules of Equivalent Fluorescein (MEFL) per cell, allowing direct comparison and data fusion with flow cytometry measurements: in our study, fluorescence per cell measurements showed only a 1.07-fold mean difference between plate reader and flow cytometry data

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

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570