Identification of Violence in the Home - Pediatric and Parental Reports

Objectives: To compare the rates of domestic violence reported by mothers with those identified by physicians, to compare the rates of harsh discipline practices reported by mothers with the rates of abuse identified by physicians, and to examine the relationship between reported domestic violence and harsh discipline practices. Design: Interviews with parents and pediatricians to compare pediatric detection of domestic violence and child abuse with parental reports of domestic violence and harsh discipline practices. Setting: Community-based pediatric practices in the 13-town greater New Haven, Conn, area. Participants: Of the 23 practices invited, 19 agreed to participate. Of the 2006 parents of eligible 4- to 8-year-olds asked to participate, 1886 (94%) completed the Child Behavior Checklist. Of those invited into the interview portion, 1148 (83%) completed the 90-minute in-person interview. Main Outcome Measures: Percentages of cases of domestic violence identified by pediatricians and reported by mothers. Percentages of cases of child abuse detected by pediatricians and percentages of mothers reporting that they have hit their children and left a mark. Results: Pediatricians detected domestic violence in 0.3% of the cases, but parents reported domestic violence in 4.2% (kappa = 0.106 [95% confidence interval, -0.007 to 0.219]). Pediatricians identified physical abuse of children in 0.5% of the cases, while mothers reported hitting their children and leaving a mark in 21.6% (kappa = 0.003 [95% confidence interval, -0.018 to 0.024]). Mothers reporting domestic violence were significantly more likely to report hitting hard enough to leave a mark (relative risk, 1.6 ([95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.38]) compared with those not reporting domestic violence. Physicians identifying domestic violence were not significantly more likely to report child abuse than those not identifying domestic violence. Conclusions: Parents report more cases of violence than pediatricians detect. Pediatricians should ask parents directly about domestic violence and harsh discipline

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

Supplemental Material, SPPS758709_suppl_mat - Partisan Barriers to Bipartisanship: Understanding Climate Policy Polarization

<p>Supplemental Material, SPPS758709_suppl_mat for Partisan Barriers to Bipartisanship: Understanding Climate Policy Polarization by Phillip J. Ehret, Leaf Van Boven, and David K. Sherman in Social Psychological and Personality Science</p

Opportunistic infections and AIDS malignancies early after initiating combination antiretroviral therapy in high-income countries

Background: There is little information on the incidence of AIDS-defining events which have been reported in the literature to be associated with immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) after combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) initiation. These events include tuberculosis, mycobacterium avium complex (MAC), cytomegalovirus (CMV) retinitis, progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), herpes simplex virus (HSV), Kaposi sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), cryptococcosis and candidiasis. Methods: We identified individuals in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration, which includes data from six European countries and the US, who were HIV-positive between 1996 and 2013, antiretroviral therapy naive, aged at least 18 years, hadCD4+ cell count and HIV-RNA measurements and had been AIDS-free for at least 1 month between those measurements and the start of follow-up. For each AIDS-defining event, we estimated the hazard ratio for no cART versus less than 3 and at least 3 months since cART initiation, adjusting for time-varying CD4+ cell count and HIV-RNA via inverse probability weighting. Results: Out of 96 562 eligible individuals (78% men) with median (interquantile range) follow-up of 31 [13,65] months, 55 144 initiated cART. The number of cases varied between 898 for tuberculosis and 113 for PML. Compared with non-cART initiation, the hazard ratio (95% confidence intervals) up to 3 months after cART initiation were 1.21 (0.90-1.63) for tuberculosis, 2.61 (1.05-6.49) for MAC, 1.17 (0.34-4.08) for CMV retinitis, 1.18 (0.62-2.26) for PML, 1.21 (0.83-1.75) for HSV, 1.18 (0.87-1.58) for Kaposi sarcoma, 1.56 (0.82-2.95) for NHL, 1.11 (0.56-2.18) for cryptococcosis and 0.77 (0.40-1.49) for candidiasis. Conclusion: With the potential exception of mycobacterial infections, unmasking IRIS does not appear to be a common complication of cART initiation in high-income countries