Original Article Randomized Controlled Trial of Mindfulness-Based Therapy for Dyspnea in Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease

Abstract Objectives: Patients with chronic obstructive lung disease (COPD) suffer from significant dyspnea and may benefit from complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies aimed at mitigating symptoms. The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of a mindfulness-based breathing therapy (MBBT) on improving symptoms and health-related quality of life in those with COPD. Design: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 8-week mindfulness-based breathing therapy (MBBT) compared to support groups to test efficacy on improving symptoms and health-related quality of life in those with COPD. Setting: The setting for this study was an academic-affiliated veterans healthcare system. Subjects: The subjects consisted of 86 patients with COPD. Interventions: MBBT included weekly meetings practicing mindfulness mediation and relaxation response. Outcome measures: The main outcome measure was a post 6-minute-walk test (6MWT) Borg dyspnea assessment. Other outcome measures included health-related quality of life measures, 6MWT distance, symptom scores, exacerbation rates, and measures of stress and mindfulness. Analysis of covariance compared differences in outcomes between groups; paired t test evaluated changes within groups. Results: Participants were predominantly elderly men with moderate to severe COPD. We found no improvements in dyspnea (post 6MWT Borg difference between the MBBT and support group was 0.3 (95% confidence interval [CI]: À

Implementation and benchmarking of a novel analytical framework to clinically evaluate tumor-specific fluorescent tracers

During the last decade, the emerging field of molecular fluorescence imaging has led to the development of tumor-specific fluorescent tracers and an increase in early-phase clinical trials without having consensus on a standard methodology for evaluating an optical tracer. By combining multiple complementary state-of-the-art clinical optical imaging techniques, we propose a novel analytical framework for the clinical translation and evaluation of tumor-targeted fluorescent tracers for molecular fluorescence imaging which can be used for a range of tumor types and with different optical tracers. Here we report the implementation of this analytical framework and demonstrate the tumor-specific targeting of escalating doses of the near-infrared fluorescent tracer bevacizumab-800CW on a macroscopic and microscopic level. We subsequently demonstrate an 88% increase in the intraoperative detection rate of tumor-involved margins in primary breast cancer patients, indicating the clinical feasibility and support of future studies to evaluate the definitive clinical impact of fluorescence-guided surgery

Loss-of-function mutations in UDP-Glucose 6-Dehydrogenase cause recessive developmental epileptic encephalopathy

Developmental epileptic encephalopathies are devastating disorders characterized by intractable epileptic seizures and developmental delay. Here, we report an allelic series of germline recessive mutations in UGDH in 36 cases from 25 families presenting with epileptic encephalopathy with developmental delay and hypotonia. UGDH encodes an oxidoreductase that converts UDP-glucose to UDP-glucuronic acid, a key component of specific proteoglycans and glycolipids. Consistent with being loss-of-function alleles, we show using patients’ primary fibroblasts and biochemical assays, that these mutations either impair UGDH stability, oligomerization, or enzymatic activity. In vitro, patient-derived cerebral organoids are smaller with a reduced number of proliferating neuronal progenitors while mutant ugdh zebrafish do not phenocopy the human disease. Our study defines UGDH as a key player for the production of extracellular matrix components that are essential for human brain development. Based on the incidence of variants observed, UGDH mutations are likely to be a frequent cause of recessive epileptic encephalopathy

Role of genetic testing for inherited prostate cancer risk: Philadelphia prostate cancer consensus conference 2017

Purpose: Guidelines are limited for genetic testing for prostate cancer (PCA). The goal of this conference was to develop an expert consensus-dri

Genetics of coronary artery calcification among African Americans, a meta-analysis

Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the major cause of death in the United States. Coronary artery calcification (CAC) scores are independent predictors of CHD. African Americans (AA) have higher rates of CHD but are less well-studied in genomic studies. We assembled the largest AA data resource currently available with measured CAC to identify associated genetic variants.Methods: We analyzed log transformed CAC quantity (ln(CAC + 1)), for association with ~2.5 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and performed an inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis on results for 5,823 AA from 8 studies. Heritability was calculated using family studies. The most significant SNPs among AAs were evaluated in European Ancestry (EA) CAC data; conversely, the significance of published SNPs for CAC/CHD in EA was queried within our AA meta-analysis.Results: Heritability of CAC was lower in AA (~30%) than previously reported for EA (~50%). No SNP reached genome wide significance (p < 5E-08). Of 67 SNPs with p < 1E-05 in AA there was no evidence of association in EA CAC data. Four SNPs in regions previously implicated in CAC/CHD (at 9p21 and PHACTR1) in EA reached

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

Clinical Case Conference 892 Bipolar Disorder and Pregnancy: Maintaining Psychiatric Stability in the Real World of Obstetric and Psychiatric Complications

sulting in relapse and ultimately the reinstatement of medications that had previously maintained the patient&apos;s clinical stability over an extended period. This report describes the complex, real-life issues faced by a woman with bipolar disorder who was determined to do all that she could to conceive and bear a healthy child while remaining psychiatrically well. What will become clear is that using an organized algorithm derived from evidencebased data is complicated by realities confronted on a daily basis in the context of unpredictable but not unexpected variables, such as miscarriage, abnormal or questionable prenatal screening tests, gestational diabetes, and the emergence of fetal decelerations, preterm labor, and psychiatric decompensation. The importance of family dynamics and beliefs, the viability of an available support system, and education regarding preconception planning as well as the risks and benefits of using psychotropic medications during pregnancy will be discussed in the context of real-life events. It should be noted that even when evidence-based decisions are made, clinicians and patients are often faced with newly published data that is inconsistent with prior data. The references cited below reflect both the literature available at the time of this patient&apos;s presentation and the literature published since then. Case Presentation Patient Description &quot;Ms. M&quot; was a 29-year-old Caucasian married woman, gravida 0, with a history of bipolar disorder diagnosed at Bi polar disorder poses uniquely gender-specific challenges for women considering the health and well-being of their unborn children. They struggle with decisions about taking mood stabilizers and other psychiatric medications during pregnancy and whether to breastfeed their babies. Recognizing these concerns, treatment guidelines have been published to provide clinicians and patients with recommendations for moving forward to conceive and bear children in the safest way possible (1-7). While these thoughtful guidelines are based on available perinatal psychopharmacologic data, psychiatrists in tertiary centers for women with reproductive psychiatric concerns have found that in the real world of perinatal psychiatry, strict adherence to these clear and logical guidelines is not always possible. In order to maximize the likelihood that maternal mood and behavioral stability will be maintained, treating bipolar disorder during pregnancy frequently requires polypharmacy with potentially teratogenic medications that may result in adverse side effects for both mother and fetus. Women with bipolar disorder often have complicating comorbid medical conditions such as hypothyroidism and polycystic ovary syndrome that affect their fertility and their psychiatric and medical stability. Routine assessments of prolactin levels are important in bipolar women who require certain neuroleptics for stability. Not infrequently, obstetric complications such as gestational diabetes further complicate psychiatric and obstetric management. Furthermore, despite the severity of bipolar illness, decisions on whether or not to use medications are often based on the patient&apos;s wishes and available data (which are sometimes limited and sparse), re- This article describes complex, real-life issues faced by a woman with bipolar I disorder who wished to bear a healthy child while remaining psychiatrically well. The therapeutic issues include balancing treatment decisions that affect fetal and maternal risks. The authors address the importance of carefully considering the patient&apos;s history of response to medications when evaluating risks to maternal and fetal health. They discuss the role of the psychiatrist as a part of the treatment team faced with unpredictable but not unexpected complexities, such as miscarriage, abnormal or questionable prenatal screening tests, gestational diabetes, and the emergence of fetal decelerations, preterm labor, and psychiatric decompensation. The article presents and evaluates treatment decisions made in the setting of multiple obstetric and psychiatric complications that do not clearly fit published algorithms. The importance of incorporating family and social supports as an integral part of the treatment plan is emphasized

Moderate and increased physical activity is not detrimental to live birth rates among women with unexplained infertility and obesity

Objective: To determine if moderate physical activity is associated with live birth rates in women with unexplained infertility and obesity. Design: Secondary analysis of the Improving Reproductive Fitness through Pretreatment with Lifestyle Modification in Obese Women with Unexplained Infertility trial. Setting: US fertility centers, 2015–2019. Patient(s): A total of 379 women participated in Improving Reproductive Fitness through Pretreatment with Lifestyle Modification in Obese Women with Unexplained Infertility trial, a lifestyle modification program with increased physical activity (phase I, 16 weeks) and up to three cycles of clomiphene citrate treatment and intrauterine insemination (phase II). Intervention(s): Participants were instructed to add 500 steps/day weekly until a maximum of 10,000 steps/day was reached and maintained. Participants were stratified as active (top third, N = 125) and less active (lower third, N = 125) on the basis of the average number of steps per day recorded using a FitBit activity tracker. Main Outcome Measure(s): Live birth rate. Result(s): Active participants were more physically active at the time of enrollment than less active participants (average baseline steps per day, 8,708 [7,079–10,000] vs. 4,695 [3,844–5,811]; P ≤ 0.001) and were more likely to reach 10,000 steps/day than less active participants (average steps per day, 10,526 [9,481–11,810] vs. 6,442 [4,644–7,747]; P ≤ 0.001), although both groups increased their average steps per day by a similar amount (1,818 vs.1,747; P = 0.57). There was no difference in live birth rates (24/125 [19.2%] vs. 25/125 [20%]; P = 0.87) between active and less active participants nor were there differences in clinical pregnancy rates (P = 0.45) or miscarriage rates (P = 0.49) between the two groups. Conclusion(s): Active participants were more likely to achieve the physical activity goal, although this was not associated with benefit or harm with respect to live birth. Clinical Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02432209), first posted: May 4, 2015