The Grizzly, September 15, 2016

Board Chair Marcon Resigns Amid Controversy • Meet the Interim Board Chair • Black Girl Dangerous Comes to Speak at Ursinus • Student Work Hits the Stage • A Creative Approach to Raising Awareness • Opinions: Choose the America You Wish to be a Part of ; Students\u27 Guide to Weekends at Reimert • Field Hockey Off to a Hot Start, Looking for Redemption • You Bend \u27Em, We Mend \u27Em: The Life of an Athletic Trainerhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1648/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, November 10, 2016

Ursinus Picks New Dean / VPAA after Months-Long Search • Innovation and Discovery Center Breaks New Ground • Q&A with Anupy Singla • International Perspective: Chinese Teaching Assistant Embraces the Freedom to be Herself in the U.S. • U-Speak Talk to Explore Under-Represented Voices • Women Entrepreneurs Share Stories of Success • Opinions: Offensive Costumes are Micro-aggressions; UC Needs In-Person Activism to Make Progress • Wrestling Looks to Win it All in 2016-2017 • Field Hockey Tops Conference Once Againhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1655/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, September 28, 2016

Campus Safety Takes Safety Initiatives • Poet Comes to UC • ESL Program Promotes Community Between Students and Staff • New Club Aims to Get Money Out of Politics • Shakespeare in the Summer of Love • Family Day Branches Out • Opinions: Let\u27s (Finally) Talk About Sex Addiction; Frank Ocean\u27s Blonde was Worth Waiting For • Ursinus Men\u27s and Women\u27s Cross Country Team Off to a Hot Start • Rare Breed: The Two-Sport Athletehttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1650/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, October 13, 2016

Annual Safety Report Released • Ma Tones Brings Music to Collegeville • Come to Me Campaign Raises Awareness • International Perspective: French TA Excited to Learn What it\u27s Really Like to Live in the U.S. • Students Unite for Worker Justice • Partnership in Politics • Opinions: New Face of Change: A Defense of Millennials; Students Need to Understand Consent • UC Athletes Give Back to Their Community • Rafter Tackles Milestonehttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1652/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, September 8, 2016

Marcon Under Fire for Controversial Tweets • First-Year Class Smaller Than Usual • Ursinus Offers Gateway to Success • Ursinus\u27 Students Mourn the Loss of Beloved Wawa • History Department Welcomes New Professor • Student Researchers Spend Summer with NASA • Opinions: Ostrum to Marcon: Let\u27s Work Toward Inclusion; Students Happily Embrace Changes to Wismer • Spike! Ursinus Volleyball is Back in Action! • The Bears and the Bisonhttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1647/thumbnail.jp

The Grizzly, October 6, 2016

How do UC Disability? • Ursinus\u27 Student Radio Renaissance • Get Ready to Vote, Ursinus! • Students Adjust to Philly Experience • CSCG Speaker Dissects Affordable Care Act • Schroeder Takes Love for American Studies Abroad • An Electronic Spin on Music • Opinion: Use Your Vote and Use it Wisely This November; Here\u27s What it\u27s Like to be a Republican at UC • Life of a Student Athlete at Ursinus: From Practice to Class • Kicking it Into Overdrivehttps://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/grizzlynews/1651/thumbnail.jp

Considering the case for an antidepressant drug trial involving temporary deception: a qualitative enquiry of potential participants

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Systematic reviews of randomised placebo controlled trials of antidepressant medication show small and decreasing differences between pharmacological and placebo arms. In part this finding may relate to methodological problems with conventional trial designs, including their assumption of additivity between drug and placebo trial arms. Balanced placebo designs, which include elements of deception, may address the additivity question, but pose substantial ethical and pragmatic problems. This study aimed to ascertain views of potential study participants of the ethics and pragmatics of various balanced placebo designs, in order to inform the design of future antidepressant drug trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A qualitative approach was employed to explore the perspectives of general practitioners, psychiatrists, and patients with experience of depression. The doctors were chosen via purposive sampling, while patients were recruited through participating general practitioners. Three focus groups and 12 in-depth interviews were conducted. A vignette-based topic guide invited views on three deceptive strategies: post hoc, authorised and minimised deception. The focus groups and interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed thematically using Framework.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Deception in non-research situations was typically perceived as acceptable within specific parameters. All participants could see the potential utility of introducing deception into trial designs, however views on the acceptability of deception within antidepressant drug trials varied substantially. Authorized deception was the most commonly accepted strategy, though some thought this would reduce the effectiveness of the design because participants would correctly guess the deceptive element. The major issues that affected views about the acceptability of deception studies were the welfare and capacity of patients, practicalities of trial design, and the question of trust.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>There is a trade-off between pragmatic and ethical responses to the question of whether, and under what circumstances, elements of deception could be introduced into antidepressant drug trials. Ensuring adequate ethical safeguards within balanced placebo designs is likely to diminish their ability to address the crucial issue of additivity. The balanced placebo designs considered in this study are unlikely to be feasible in future trials of antidepressant medication. However there remains an urgent need to improve the quality of antidepressant drug trials.</p

The first 20 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: Mortality, intubation and ICU rates among 104,590 patients hospitalized at 21 United States health systems

Main objective: There is limited information on how patient outcomes have changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study characterizes changes in mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates during the first 20 months of the pandemic. Study design and methods: University of Wisconsin researchers collected and harmonized electronic health record data from 1.1 million COVID-19 patients across 21 United States health systems from February 2020 through September 2021. The analysis comprised data from 104,590 adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Inclusion criteria for the analysis were: (1) age 18 years or older; (2) COVID-19 ICD-10 diagnosis during hospitalization and/or a positive COVID-19 PCR test in a 14-day window (+/- 7 days of hospital admission); and (3) health system contact prior to COVID-19 hospitalization. Outcomes assessed were: (1) mortality (primary), (2) endotracheal intubation, and (3) ICU admission. Results and significance: The 104,590 hospitalized participants had a mean age of 61.7 years and were 50.4% female, 24% Black, and 56.8% White. Overall risk-standardized mortality (adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, body mass index, insurance status and medical comorbidities) declined from 16% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients (95% CI: 16% to 17%) early in the pandemic (February-April 2020) to 9% (CI: 9% to 10%) later (July-September 2021). Among subpopulations, males (vs. females), those on Medicare (vs. those on commercial insurance), the severely obese (vs. normal weight), and those aged 60 and older (vs. younger individuals) had especially high mortality rates both early and late in the pandemic. ICU admission and intubation rates also declined across these 20 months. Conclusions: Mortality, intubation, and ICU admission rates improved markedly over the first 20 months of the pandemic among adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients although gains varied by subpopulation. These data provide important information on the course of COVID-19 and identify hospitalized patient groups at heightened risk for negative outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:&nbsp;NCT04506528&nbsp;(https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04506528).</p