Vision and visual history in elite-/near-elite level cricketers and rugby-league players

Background: The importance of optimal and/or superior vision for participation in high-level sport remains the subject of considerable clinical research interest. Here we examine the vision and visual history of elite/near-elite cricketers and rugby-league players. Methods: Stereoacuity (TNO), colour vision, and distance (with/without pinhole) and near visual acuity (VA) were measured in two cricket squads (elite/international-level, female, n=16; near-elite, male, n=23) and one professional rugby-league squad (male, n=20). Refractive error was determined, and details of any correction worn and visual history were recorded. Results: Overall, 63% had their last eye-examination within 2 years. However, some had not had an eye examination for 5 years, or had never had one (near-elite-cricketers: 30%; rugby-league players: 15%; elite-cricketers: 6%). Comparing our results for all participants to published data for young, optimally-corrected, non-sporting adults, distance VA was ~1 line of letters worse than expected. Adopting α=0.01, the deficit in distance-VA deficit was significant, but only for elite-cricketers (p0.02 for all comparisons). On average, stereoacuity was better than in young adults, but only in elite-cricketers (p<0.001; p=0.03, near-elite-cricketers; p=0.47, rugby-league -players). On-field visual issues were present in 27% of participants, and mostly (in 75% of cases) comprised uncorrected ametropia. Some cricketers (near-elite: 17.4%; elite: 38%) wore refractive correction during play but no rugby-league player did. Some individuals with prescribed correction choose not to wear it when playing. Conclusion: Aside from near stereoacuity in elite-cricketers, these basic visual abilities were not better than equivalent, published data for optimally-corrected adults. 20-25% exhibited sub-optimal vision, suggesting that the clearest possible vision might not be critical for participation at the highest levels in the sports of cricket or rugby-league. Although vision could be improved in a sizeable proportion of our sample, the impact of correcting these, mostly subtle, refractive anomalies on playing performance is unknown

Evaluating the Number of Stages in Development of Squamous Cell and Adenocarcinomas across Cancer Sites Using Human Population-Based Cancer Modeling

BACKGROUND: Adenocarcinomas (ACs) and squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) differ by clinical and molecular characteristics. We evaluated the characteristics of carcinogenesis by modeling the age patterns of incidence rates of ACs and SCCs of various organs to test whether these characteristics differed between cancer subtypes. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Histotype-specific incidence rates of 14 ACs and 12 SCCs from the SEER Registry (1973-2003) were analyzed by fitting several biologically motivated models to observed age patterns. A frailty model with the Weibull baseline was applied to each age pattern to provide the best fit for the majority of cancers. For each cancer, model parameters describing the underlying mechanisms of carcinogenesis including the number of stages occurring during an individual's life and leading to cancer (m-stages) were estimated. For sensitivity analysis, the age-period-cohort model was incorporated into the carcinogenesis model to test the stability of the estimates. For the majority of studied cancers, the numbers of m-stages were similar within each group (i.e., AC and SCC). When cancers of the same organs were compared (i.e., lung, esophagus, and cervix uteri), the number of m-stages were more strongly associated with the AC/SCC subtype than with the organ: 9.79±0.09, 9.93±0.19 and 8.80±0.10 for lung, esophagus, and cervical ACs, compared to 11.41±0.10, 12.86±0.34 and 12.01±0.51 for SCCs of the respective organs (p<0.05 between subtypes). Most SCCs had more than ten m-stages while ACs had fewer than ten m-stages. The sensitivity analyses of the model parameters demonstrated the stability of the obtained estimates. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: A model containing parameters capable of representing the number of stages of cancer development occurring during individual's life was applied to the large population data on incidence of ACs and SCCs. The model revealed that the number of m-stages differed by cancer subtype being more strongly associated with ACs/SCCs histotype than with organ/site

Relapse patterns in NMOSD: evidence for earlier occurrence of optic neuritis and possible seasonal variation

Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders (NMOSD) and multiple sclerosis (MS) show overlap in their clinical features. We performed an analysis of relapses with the aim of determining differences between the two conditions. Cases of NMOSD and age- and sex-matched MS controls were collected from across Australia and New Zealand. Demographic and clinical information, including relapse histories, were recorded using a standard questionnaire. There were 75 cases of NMOSD and 101 MS controls. There were 328 relapses in the NMOSD cases and 375 in MS controls. Spinal cord and optic neuritis attacks were the most common relapses in both NMOSD and MS. Optic neuritis (p P = 0.002) were more common in NMOSD and other brainstem attacks were more common in MS (p P = 0.065). Optic neuritis and transverse myelitis are the most common types of relapse in NMOSD and MS. Optic neuritis tends to occur more frequently in NMOSD prior to the age of 30, with transverse myelitis being more common thereafter. Relapses in NMOSD were more severe. A seasonal bias for relapses in spring-summer may exist in NMOSD

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

Background: Casirivimab and imdevimab are non-competing monoclonal antibodies that bind to two different sites on the receptor binding domain of the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein, blocking viral entry into host cells. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of casirivimab and imdevimab administered in combination in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: RECOVERY is a randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial comparing several possible treatments with usual care in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. 127 UK hospitals took part in the evaluation of casirivimab and imdevimab. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 12 years admitted to hospital with clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual care plus casirivimab 4 g and imdevimab 4 g administered together in a single intravenous infusion. Investigators and data assessors were masked to analyses of the outcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality assessed by intention to treat, first only in patients without detectable antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 infection at randomisation (ie, those who were seronegative) and then in the overall population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received casirivimab and imdevimab. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between Sept 18, 2020, and May 22, 2021, 9785 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible for casirivimab and imdevimab, of which 4839 were randomly assigned to casirivimab and imdevimab plus usual care and 4946 to usual care alone. 3153 (32%) of 9785 patients were seronegative, 5272 (54%) were seropositive, and 1360 (14%) had unknown baseline antibody status. 812 (8%) patients were known to have received at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. In the primary efficacy population of seronegative patients, 396 (24%) of 1633 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 452 (30%) of 1520 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio [RR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·69–0·91; p=0·0009). In an analysis of all randomly assigned patients (regardless of baseline antibody status), 943 (19%) of 4839 patients allocated to casirivimab and imdevimab versus 1029 (21%) of 4946 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (RR 0·94, 95% CI 0·86–1·02; p=0·14). The proportional effect of casirivimab and imdevimab on mortality differed significantly between seropositive and seronegative patients (p value for heterogeneity=0·002). There were no deaths attributed to the treatment, or meaningful between-group differences in the pre-specified safety outcomes of cause-specific mortality, cardiac arrhythmia, thrombosis, or major bleeding events. Serious adverse reactions reported in seven (<1%) participants were believed by the local investigator to be related to treatment with casirivimab and imdevimab. Interpretation: In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab reduced 28-day mortality in patients who were seronegative (and therefore had not mounted their own humoral immune response) at baseline but not in those who were seropositive at baseline. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

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

BACKGROUND: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). FINDINGS: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids