Modeling early haematologic adverse events in conformal and intensity-modulated pelvic radiotherapy in anal cancer

AbstractBackground and purposeTo determine if there are differences between dose to pelvic bone marrow (PBM) using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) under UK guidance versus conformal radiotherapy (CRT) per ACT II protocol and if differences translate to rates of early haematological adverse events grade 3 or greater (HT3+).Methods and materialsTwo groups of 20+ patients, treated under IMRT and CRT regimes respectively, were identified. All patients underwent weekly blood cell count: haemoglobin (HgB), white cell count (WCC), absolute neutrophil count (ANC) and platelets (plats).Percent volume of PBM and sub structures receiving 5–25Gy were tested for statistical significance. Regression models were used to test for correlation to blood counts. NTCP modeling was also performed.ResultsPMB dose metrics showed a significant increase in the IMRT group. Regression analysis showed iliac and lumbosacral PBM dose metrics to associate with reduced nadir ANC and WCC. NTCP at HT3+ was 0.13 using IMRT relative to 0.07 using CRT (p<0.05).ConclusionWhilst this is a relatively small retrospective study and lacks information on the distribution of active PBM, IMRT treatment has been shown to significantly increase PMB irradiation. PBM dose metrics have been shown to be predictive of WCC and ANC suppression. NTCP modeling predicts much high risk of HT3+. Paradoxically, actual rates of HT3+ were comparable suggesting that differences in the distributions of dose metrics maybe a significant factor and/or that there are insufficiency in the NTCP modeling

Survey Data Collection Network (SDC-Net): The impact of Covid-19 on survey data collection methods in the social sciences

This is the final report of the Survey Data Collection Network (SDC-Net). SDC-Net was a network of UK-based academic and non-academic partners including government departments, third sector and commercial research organisations, academics and major ESRC investments to share knowledge and collaborate in the area of survey data collection in social surveys as well as in setting the research agenda in the field. The network operated between December 2021 and April 2023. The Principal Investigator was Olga Maslovskaya (University of Southampton) and the Co-Investigators are Gabriele Durrant (University of Southampton and NCRM), Lisa Calderwood (UCL), Gerry Nicolaas (NatCen) and Laura Wilson (ONS). The network activities were funded by the ESRC via the project “The impact of Covid-19 on survey data collection methods in the Social Sciences” as an additional funding stream of the ESRC-funded UK National Centre for Research Methods (NCRM). The network included 107 members. The list of the organisations of the network members can be found in Appendix 1. Tim Hanson, who is the Head of ESS Questionnaire Design and Fieldwork in the European Social Survey (ESS), Ben Humberstone, who is the Head of Population Studies in Kantar Public, Sam Clemens, who is the Head of Probability Survey in Ipsos-Mori as well as Debrah Harding, who is the Managing Director of the Market Research Society (MRS), were project partners. The ESRC recognised the importance of the activities of the previous network GenPopWeb2 which was also funded by the ESRC and the activities of SDC-Net were the continuation of the GenPopWeb2 with the wider scope addressing not only issues associated with online data collection in social surveys but the wider area of survey data collection in the UK

Health literacy in pressure injury: findings from a mixed methods study of community-based patients and carers

This paper, drawn from a larger mixed methods case study, provides insights into the health literacy of community-based patients with pressure injuries, and their carers, and critically analyses the patient information resources available; crucial because health literacy is associated with patient care and outcomes for patients. Two data sets were used to better understand patient literacy in relation to pressure injury: (i) narratives from patients and carers; and, (ii) analysis of patient education resources. Narratives were subject to content analysis and patient education resources available to the patients were analysed drawing on the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook, the National Health Service Toolkit for Producing Patient Resources and compared to an internationally advocated pressure injury leaflet. Study findings indicated that despite leaflets broadly meeting required production and content guidelines, patients appeared to poorly engage with these materials and demonstrated limited health literacy in relation to pressure injury. Although improvements in leaflet production and readability may be advantageous, emphasis should remain on quality patient-healthcare professional relationships, to enable tailored patient education that can enhance awareness and engagement with treatment and prevention interventions

Living with multiple losses: insights from patients living with pressure injury

Background: Pressure injury is a common problem. Its prevention and treatment is predominantly focussed on views, perceptions and knowledge of healthcare staff rather than on patient experience, particularly those patients living in their own homes. Aim: This paper reports findings on patients experiences and perceptions of loss associated with PI. These findings are drawn from a larger study of pressure injury patients living and receiving care in the community. Methods: Qualitative interviews with 12 participants with pressure injury and five carers. Data was audio recorded and thematically analysed. The study is reported in accordance with the COREQ guidelines. Findings: Having a pressure injury negatively affected many aspects of life for our participants resulting in multiple losses. These losses included loss of mobility and independence, privacy and dignity, and social engagement and ability to engage in preferred activities. Discussion: Although the effects of a pressure injury may be similar for many people, the most important issues will differ from person-to-person thus treatment and prevention of pressure injury requires a multidisciplinary team having a holistic care approach. Some patients’ pressure injury will never heal and it is increasingly important to involve the patient to find out what matters most to them and how their wound is impacting on them, to jointly develop a holistic, person-centred plan. Conclusion: Policy and practice should recognise and reflect that patients living with a pressure injury at home have different challenges and needs to those in acute or long term care. Pragmatic solutions in the delivery of pressure injury care are needed to compliment the drive to move healthcare from the hospital-to-home

Early experience of COVID-19 vaccination in adults with systemic rheumatic diseases : Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Vaccine Survey

Funding Information: Competing interests SES has received funding from the Vasculitis Foundation and the Vasculitis Clinical Research Consortium unrelated to this work. JL has received research grant funding from Pfizer unrelated to this work. ES is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient run, volunteer-based organisation whose activities are primarily supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. MP was supported by a Rheumatology Research Foundation Scientist Development grant. DA-R is a Scientific Advisor for GlaxoSmithKilne unrelated to this work. FB reports personal fees from Boehringer, Bone Therapeutics, Expanscience, Galapagos, Gilead, GSK, Merck Sereno, MSD, Nordic, Novartis, Pfizer, Regulaxis, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier, UCB, Peptinov, TRB Chemedica and 4P Pharma outside of the submitted work. No funding relevant to this manuscript. RC: speakers bureau for Janssen, Roche, Sanofi, AbbVie. KD reports no COI-unpaid volunteer president of the Autoinflammatory Alliance. Any grants or funding from pharma is received by the non-profit organisation only. CLH received funding under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper from Vifor Pharmaceuticals. LeK has received a research grant from Lilly unrelated to this work. AHJK participated in consulting, advisory board or speaker's bureau for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Aurinia Pharmaceuticals, Annexon Biosciences, Exagen Diagnostics and GlaxoSmithKilne and received funding under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the paper from GlaxoSmithKline. JSingh has received consultant fees from Crealta/ Horizon, Medisys, Fidia, PK Med, Two Labs, Adept Field Solutions, Clinical Care Options, Clearview Healthcare Partners, Putnam Associates, Focus Forward, Navigant Consulting, Spherix, MedIQ, Jupiter Life Science, UBM, Trio Health, Medscape, WebMD and Practice Point Communications; and the National Institutes of Health and the American College of Rheumatology. JSingh owns stock options in TPT Global Tech, Vaxart Pharmaceuticals and Charlotte’s Web Holdings. JSingh previously owned stock options in Amarin, Viking and Moderna Pharmaceuticals. JSingh is on the speaker’s bureau of Simply Speaking. JSingh is a member of the executive of Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT), an organisation that develops outcome measures in rheumatology and receives arms-length funding from eight companies. JSingh serves on the FDA Arthritis Advisory Committee. JSingh is the chair of the Veterans Affairs Rheumatology Field Advisory Committee. JSingh is the editor and the Director of the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Satellite Center on Network Meta-analysis. NSingh is supported by funding from the Rheumatology Research Foundation Investigator Award and the American Heart Association. MFU-G has received research support from Pfizer and Janssen, unrelated to this work. SB reports personal fees from Novartis, AbbVie, Pfizer and Horizon Pharma, outside the submitted work. RG reports personal fees from AbbVie New Zealand, Cornerstones, Janssen New Zealand and personal fees and non-financial support Pfizer New Zealand (all <US$10 000) outside the submitted work. PMM reports personal fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, grants and personal fees from Orphazyme, outside the submitted work. PCR reports personal fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly and Roche, grants and personal fees from Novartis, UCB Pharma, Janssen and Pfizer and non-financial support from BMS, outside the submitted work. PS reports honoraria from Social media editor for @ACR_Journals, outside the submitted work. ZSW reports grants from NIH, BMS and Principia/ Sanofi and personal fees from Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work. JY reports personal fees from Pfizer and Eli Lilly, and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. MJL reports grants from American College of Rheumatology, during the conduct of the study and consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Actelion, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Gilead, J&J, Mallinckrodt, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Sobi and UCB, outside the submitted work. LGR was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS; ZIAES101074) of the National Institutes of Health. JH reports grants from Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) and Rheumatology Research Alliance, and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer and Biogen, outside the submitted work. JSimard received research grant funding from the National Institutes of Health unrelated to this work (NIAMS: R01 AR077103 and NIAID R01 AI154533). JSparks has performed consultancy for AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova Diagnostics, Optum and Pfizer unrelated to this work. Funding Information: Funding This study was supported by the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology and American College of Rheumatology Research and Education Foundation. Dr. Lisa Rider's involvement was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Background. We describe the early experiences of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received the COVID-19 vaccine. Methods From 2 April to 30 April 2021, we conducted an online, international survey of adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination. We collected patient-reported data on clinician communication, beliefs and intent about discontinuing disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) around the time of vaccination, and patient-reported adverse events after vaccination. Results We analysed 2860 adults with systemic rheumatic diseases who received COVID-19 vaccination (mean age 55.3 years, 86.7% female, 86.3% white). Types of COVID-19 vaccines were Pfizer-BioNTech (53.2%), Oxford/AstraZeneca (22.6%), Moderna (21.3%), Janssen/Johnson & Johnson (1.7%) and others (1.2%). The most common rheumatic disease was rheumatoid arthritis (42.3%), and 81.2% of respondents were on a DMARD. The majority (81.9%) reported communicating with clinicians about vaccination. Most (66.9%) were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy, although many (44.3%) were concerned about rheumatic disease flares. After vaccination, the most reported patient-reported adverse events were fatigue/somnolence (33.4%), headache (27.7%), muscle/joint pains (22.8%) and fever/chills (19.9%). Rheumatic disease flares that required medication changes occurred in 4.6%. Conclusion. Among adults with systemic rheumatic disease who received COVID-19 vaccination, patient-reported adverse events were typical of those reported in the general population. Most patients were willing to temporarily discontinue DMARDs to improve vaccine efficacy. The relatively low frequency of rheumatic disease flare requiring medications was reassuring.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Blood Parasites in Owls with Conservation Implications for the Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis)

The three subspecies of Spotted Owl (Northern, Strix occidentalis caurina; California, S. o. occidentalis; and Mexican, S. o. lucida) are all threatened by habitat loss and range expansion of the Barred Owl (S. varia). An unaddressed threat is whether Barred Owls could be a source of novel strains of disease such as avian malaria (Plasmodium spp.) or other blood parasites potentially harmful for Spotted Owls. Although Barred Owls commonly harbor Plasmodium infections, these parasites have not been documented in the Spotted Owl. We screened 111 Spotted Owls, 44 Barred Owls, and 387 owls of nine other species for haemosporidian parasites (Leucocytozoon, Plasmodium, and Haemoproteus spp.). California Spotted Owls had the greatest number of simultaneous multi-species infections (44%). Additionally, sequencing results revealed that the Northern and California Spotted Owl subspecies together had the highest number of Leucocytozoon parasite lineages (n = 17) and unique lineages (n = 12). This high level of sequence diversity is significant because only one Leucocytozoon species (L. danilewskyi) has been accepted as valid among all owls, suggesting that L. danilewskyi is a cryptic species. Furthermore, a Plasmodium parasite was documented in a Northern Spotted Owl for the first time. West Coast Barred Owls had a lower prevalence of infection (15%) when compared to sympatric Spotted Owls (S. o. caurina 52%, S. o. occidentalis 79%) and Barred Owls from the historic range (61%). Consequently, Barred Owls on the West Coast may have a competitive advantage over the potentially immune compromised Spotted Owls

Defining the Critical Hurdles in Cancer Immunotherapy

ABSTRACT: Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators, others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet be overcome to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Defining the critical hurdles in cancer immunotherapy

Scientific discoveries that provide strong evidence of antitumor effects in preclinical models often encounter significant delays before being tested in patients with cancer. While some of these delays have a scientific basis, others do not. We need to do better. Innovative strategies need to move into early stage clinical trials as quickly as it is safe, and if successful, these therapies should efficiently obtain regulatory approval and widespread clinical application. In late 2009 and 2010 the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC), convened an "Immunotherapy Summit" with representatives from immunotherapy organizations representing Europe, Japan, China and North America to discuss collaborations to improve development and delivery of cancer immunotherapy. One of the concepts raised by SITC and defined as critical by all parties was the need to identify hurdles that impede effective translation of cancer immunotherapy. With consensus on these hurdles, international working groups could be developed to make recommendations vetted by the participating organizations. These recommendations could then be considered by regulatory bodies, governmental and private funding agencies, pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions to facilitate changes necessary to accelerate clinical translation of novel immune-based cancer therapies. The critical hurdles identified by representatives of the collaborating organizations, now organized as the World Immunotherapy Council, are presented and discussed in this report. Some of the identified hurdles impede all investigators; others hinder investigators only in certain regions or institutions or are more relevant to specific types of immunotherapy or first-in-humans studies. Each of these hurdles can significantly delay clinical translation of promising advances in immunotherapy yet if overcome, have the potential to improve outcomes of patients with cancer

Genetic mechanisms of critical illness in COVID-19.

Host-mediated lung inflammation is present1, and drives mortality2, in the critical illness caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Host genetic variants associated with critical illness may identify mechanistic targets for therapeutic development3. Here we report the results of the GenOMICC (Genetics Of Mortality In Critical Care) genome-wide association study in 2,244 critically ill patients with COVID-19 from 208 UK intensive care units. We have identified and replicated the following new genome-wide significant associations: on chromosome 12q24.13 (rs10735079, P = 1.65 × 10-8) in a gene cluster that encodes antiviral restriction enzyme activators (OAS1, OAS2 and OAS3); on chromosome 19p13.2 (rs74956615, P = 2.3 × 10-8) near the gene that encodes tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2); on chromosome 19p13.3 (rs2109069, P = 3.98 ×  10-12) within the gene that encodes dipeptidyl peptidase 9 (DPP9); and on chromosome 21q22.1 (rs2236757, P = 4.99 × 10-8) in the interferon receptor gene IFNAR2. We identified potential targets for repurposing of licensed medications: using Mendelian randomization, we found evidence that low expression of IFNAR2, or high expression of TYK2, are associated with life-threatening disease; and transcriptome-wide association in lung tissue revealed that high expression of the monocyte-macrophage chemotactic receptor CCR2 is associated with severe COVID-19. Our results identify robust genetic signals relating to key host antiviral defence mechanisms and mediators of inflammatory organ damage in COVID-19. Both mechanisms may be amenable to targeted treatment with existing drugs. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials will be essential before any change to clinical practice

Motor Skills Enhance Procedural Memory Formation and Protect against Age-Related Decline

The ability to consolidate procedural memories declines with increasing age. Prior knowledge enhances learning and memory consolidation of novel but related information in various domains. Here, we present evidence that prior motor experience-in our case piano skills-increases procedural learning and has a protective effect against age-related decline for the consolidation of novel but related manual movements. In our main experiment, we tested 128 participants with a sequential finger-tapping motor task during two sessions 24 hours apart. We observed enhanced online learning speed and offline memory consolidation for piano players. Enhanced memory consolidation was driven by a strong effect in older participants, whereas younger participants did not benefit significantly from prior piano experience. In a follow up independent control experiment, this compensatory effect of piano experience was not visible after a brief offline period of 30 minutes, hence requiring an extended consolidation window potentially involving sleep. Through a further control experiment, we rejected the possibility that the decreased effect in younger participants was caused by training saturation. We discuss our results in the context of the neurobiological schema approach and suggest that prior experience has the potential to rescue memory consolidation from age-related cognitive decline