Correction to: The Toxicology Investigators Consortium Case Registry-The 2017 Annual Report.

Please note the Collaborators for this article listed in the Acknowledgements

Acetaminophen-cysteine adducts during therapeutic dosing and following overdose

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Acetaminophen-cysteine adducts (APAP-CYS) are a specific biomarker of acetaminophen exposure. APAP-CYS concentrations have been described in the setting of acute overdose, and a concentration >1.1 nmol/ml has been suggested as a marker of hepatic injury from acetaminophen overdose in patients with an ALT >1000 IU/L. However, the concentrations of APAP-CYS during therapeutic dosing, in cases of acetaminophen toxicity from repeated dosing and in cases of hepatic injury from non-acetaminophen hepatotoxins have not been well characterized. The objective of this study is to describe APAP-CYS concentrations in these clinical settings as well as to further characterize the concentrations observed following acetaminophen overdose.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Samples were collected during three clinical trials in which subjects received 4 g/day of acetaminophen and during an observational study of acetaminophen overdose patients. Trial 1 consisted of non-drinkers who received APAP for 10 days, Trial 2 consisted of moderate drinkers dosed for 10 days and Trial 3 included subjects who chronically abuse alcohol dosed for 5 days. Patients in the observational study were categorized by type of acetaminophen exposure (single or repeated). Serum APAP-CYS was measured using high pressure liquid chromatography with electrochemical detection.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Trial 1 included 144 samples from 24 subjects; Trial 2 included 182 samples from 91 subjects and Trial 3 included 200 samples from 40 subjects. In addition, we collected samples from 19 subjects with acute acetaminophen ingestion, 7 subjects with repeated acetaminophen exposure and 4 subjects who ingested another hepatotoxin. The mean (SD) peak APAP-CYS concentrations for the Trials were: Trial 1- 0.4 (0.20) nmol/ml, Trial 2- 0.1 (0.09) nmol/ml and Trial 3- 0.3 (0.12) nmol/ml. APAP-CYS concentrations varied substantially among the patients with acetaminophen toxicity (0.10 to 27.3 nmol/ml). No subject had detectable APAP-CYS following exposure to a non-acetaminophen hepatotoxin.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Lower concentrations of APAP-CYS are detectable after exposure to therapeutic doses of acetaminophen and higher concentrations are detected after acute acetaminophen overdose and in patients with acetaminophen toxicity following repeated exposure.</p

Performance targets, effort and risk-taking

Growing economic and psychological evidence documents effects of target setting on levels of effort and risk-taking, even in the absence of a monetary reward for attaining the target. I explore a principal–agent environment in which the principal sets the agent a performance target, and the agent’s intrinsic motivation to work is influenced by their performance relative to the target. When the agent has prospect theory preferences relative to the target I show that a performance target can induce greater effort, but, when set too high, it eventually induces lower effort. Also, the agent’s preferences for risk-taking hinge on whether the target is set above or below expected output. I find that the principal’s optimal target exceeds expected output

An examination of the relationship between shame, guilt and self-harm: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Self-harm is a major public health concern associated with suicide risk and significant psychological distress. Theories suggest that aversive emotional states are an important process that drives self-harm. Shame and guilt may , in particular, be important emotions in self-harm. This review therefore sought to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship between shame, guilt, and self-harm. A systematic search of electronic databases (PsycINFO; Medline; CINAHL Plus; Web of Science and ProQuest) was undertaken to identify studies measuring shame, guilt and self-harm (including suicidal and non-suicidal behaviour). Meta-analysis was undertaken where papers focused on the same subtype of shame or guilt and shared a common outcome. Thirty studies were identified for inclusion. Most forms of shame were associated with non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI), but research was sparse concerning suicidal behaviour. Fewer studies examined guilt and findings were more varied. Methodological issues included a paucity of longitudinal designs and lack of justification for sample sizes. Results of this review support the link between shame and self-harm, particularly NSSI. The direction of this relationship is yet to be established. Clinically, consideration should be given to the role of shame amongst individuals who present with NSSI. This review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42017056165)

An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment

Objectives To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment. Study Design and Setting Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties. Results One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was “best for them”. Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation. Conclusions The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome