Future Thames : applied geoscience for decision-making in London and the Thames Basin

The Thames Basin is the UK’s principal aquifer. It encompasses London, which is Europe’s largest megacity, and has an extensive coastal zone. It presents a unique conjunction of geological, hydrogeological, environmental, and socio-economic factors that are intrinsically linked by the effects of environmental change. The British Geological Survey (BGS) is responding to this challenge through its FutureThames initiative. FutureThames aims to initiate, facilitate and support interdisciplinary and collaborative geoscience research in an attempt to understand the effects of environmental change in the Thames Basin. Such collaboration will assist in providing ‘real world’ responses to different ‘what if’ scenarios, such as “What will happen to groundwater if a new housing estate is built here?” Or “How will sea-level rise affect my property?” Six key environmental challenges have been identified to provide a framework to focus our research activities in the region

Learning about our Disciplinary Reading through Interdisciplinary Conversations

This reflective essay explores some of what we have learned by participating in an interdisciplinary Scholarship of Teaching and Learning project about disciplinary reading. In dialogic form, we reflect on why we chose to get involved in this project, how this project has changed our understanding of reading in and across the disciplines, and how it affects our teaching practices going forward. We hope this form will reflect our excitement in these interdisciplinary conversations and will encourage readers to seek opportunities for their own interdisciplinary dialogues about reading. In our conclusion we offer a few framing suggestions for those who wish to set up more conversations about reading &nbsp

Comparing verbal autopsy cause of death findings as determined by physician coding and probabilistic modelling: a public health analysis of 54 000 deaths in Africa and Asia.

BACKGROUND: Coverage of civil registration and vital statistics varies globally, with most deaths in Africa and Asia remaining either unregistered or registered without cause of death. One important constraint has been a lack of fit-for-purpose tools for registering deaths and assigning causes in situations where no doctor is involved. Verbal autopsy (interviewing care-givers and witnesses to deaths and interpreting their information into causes of death) is the only available solution. Automated interpretation of verbal autopsy data into cause of death information is essential for rapid, consistent and affordable processing. METHODS: Verbal autopsy archives covering 54 182 deaths from five African and Asian countries were sourced on the basis of their geographical, epidemiological and methodological diversity, with existing physician-coded causes of death attributed. These data were unified into the WHO 2012 verbal autopsy standard format, and processed using the InterVA-4 model. Cause-specific mortality fractions from InterVA-4 and physician codes were calculated for each of 60 WHO 2012 cause categories, by age group, sex and source. Results from the two approaches were assessed for concordance and ratios of fractions by cause category. As an alternative metric, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed ranks test with two one-sided tests for stochastic equivalence was used. FINDINGS: The overall concordance correlation coefficient between InterVA-4 and physician codes was 0.83 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.91) and this increased to 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99) when HIV/AIDS and pulmonary TB deaths were combined into a single category. Over half (53%) of the cause category ratios between InterVA-4 and physician codes by source were not significantly different from unity at the 99% level, increasing to 62% by age group. Wilcoxon tests for stochastic equivalence also demonstrated equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show strong concordance between InterVA-4 and physician-coded findings over this large and diverse data set. Although these analyses cannot prove that either approach constitutes absolute truth, there was high public health equivalence between the findings. Given the urgent need for adequate cause of death data from settings where deaths currently pass unregistered, and since the WHO 2012 verbal autopsy standard and InterVA-4 tools represent relatively simple, cheap and available methods for determining cause of death on a large scale, they should be used as current tools of choice to fill gaps in cause of death data

The Clinicogenomic Landscape of Induction Failure in Childhood and Young Adult T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

PURPOSE: Failure to respond to induction chemotherapy portends a poor outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and is more frequent in T-cell ALL (T-ALL) than B-cell ALL. We aimed to address the limited understanding of clinical and genetic factors that influence outcome in a cohort of patients with T-ALL induction failure (IF).METHODS: We studied all cases of T-ALL IF on two consecutive multinational randomized trials, UKALL2003 and UKALL2011, to define risk factors, treatment, and outcomes. We performed multiomic profiling to characterize the genomic landscape.RESULTS: IF occurred in 10.3% of cases and was significantly associated with increasing age, occurring in 20% of patients age 16 years and older. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 52.1% in IF and 90.2% in responsive patients (P &lt; .001). Despite increased use of nelarabine-based chemotherapy consolidated by hematopoietic stem-cell transplant in UKALL2011, there was no improvement in outcome. Persistent end-of-consolidation molecular residual disease resulted in a significantly worse outcome (5-year OS, 14.3% v 68.5%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.35 to 12.45; P = .0071). Genomic profiling revealed a heterogeneous picture with 25 different initiating lesions converging on 10 subtype-defining genes. There was a remarkable abundance of TAL1 noncoding lesions, associated with a dismal outcome (5-year OS, 12.5%). Combining TAL1 lesions with mutations in the MYC and RAS pathways produces a genetic stratifier that identifies patients highly likely to fail conventional therapy (5-year OS, 23.1% v 86.4%; HR, 6.84; 95% CI, 2.78 to 16.78; P &lt; .0001) and who should therefore be considered for experimental agents.CONCLUSION: The outcome of IF in T-ALL remains poor with current therapy. The lack of a unifying genetic driver suggests alternative approaches, particularly using immunotherapy, are urgently needed.</p

The Clinicogenomic Landscape of Induction Failure in Childhood and Young Adult T-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

PURPOSE: Failure to respond to induction chemotherapy portends a poor outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and is more frequent in T-cell ALL (T-ALL) than B-cell ALL. We aimed to address the limited understanding of clinical and genetic factors that influence outcome in a cohort of patients with T-ALL induction failure (IF). METHODS: We studied all cases of T-ALL IF on two consecutive multinational randomized trials, UKALL2003 and UKALL2011, to define risk factors, treatment, and outcomes. We performed multiomic profiling to characterize the genomic landscape. RESULTS: IF occurred in 10.3% of cases and was significantly associated with increasing age, occurring in 20% of patients age 16 years and older. Five-year overall survival (OS) rates were 52.1% in IF and 90.2% in responsive patients (P < .001). Despite increased use of nelarabine-based chemotherapy consolidated by hematopoietic stem-cell transplant in UKALL2011, there was no improvement in outcome. Persistent end-of-consolidation molecular residual disease resulted in a significantly worse outcome (5-year OS, 14.3% v 68.5%; HR, 4.10; 95% CI, 1.35 to 12.45; P = .0071). Genomic profiling revealed a heterogeneous picture with 25 different initiating lesions converging on 10 subtype-defining genes. There was a remarkable abundance of TAL1 noncoding lesions, associated with a dismal outcome (5-year OS, 12.5%). Combining TAL1 lesions with mutations in the MYC and RAS pathways produces a genetic stratifier that identifies patients highly likely to fail conventional therapy (5-year OS, 23.1% v 86.4%; HR, 6.84; 95% CI, 2.78 to 16.78; P < .0001) and who should therefore be considered for experimental agents. CONCLUSION: The outcome of IF in T-ALL remains poor with current therapy. The lack of a unifying genetic driver suggests alternative approaches, particularly using immunotherapy, are urgently needed

Modelling the medium-term dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in England in the Omicron era

England has experienced a heavy burden of COVID-19, with multiple waves of SARS-CoV-2 transmission since early 2020 and high infection levels following the emergence and spread of Omicron variants since late 2021. In response to rising Omicron cases, booster vaccinations were accelerated and offered to all adults in England. Using a model fitted to more than 2 years of epidemiological data, we project potential dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospital admissions and deaths in England to December 2022. We consider key uncertainties including future behavioural change and waning immunity and assess the effectiveness of booster vaccinations in mitigating SARS-CoV-2 disease burden between October 2021 and December 2022. If no new variants emerge, SARS-CoV-2 transmission is expected to decline, with low levels remaining in the coming months. The extent to which projected SARS-CoV-2 transmission resurges later in 2022 depends largely on assumptions around waning immunity and to some extent, behaviour, and seasonality

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (&lt;50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Health outcomes 3 months and 6 months after molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 for people at higher risk in the community (PANORAMIC): a randomised controlled trial

Background: No randomised controlled trials have yet reported on the effectiveness of molnupiravir on longer term outcomes for COVID-19. The PANORAMIC trial found molnupiravir reduced time to recovery in acute COVID-19 over 28 days. We aimed to report the effect of molnupiravir treatment for COVID-19 on wellbeing, severe and persistent symptoms, new infections, health care and social service use, medication use, and time off work at 3 months and 6 months post-randomisation. Methods: This study is a follow-up to the main analysis, which was based on the first 28 days of follow-up and has been previously reported. For this multicentre, primary care, open-label, multi-arm, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted in the UK, participants were eligible if aged at least 50 years, or at least 18 years with a comorbidity, and unwell 5 days or less with confirmed COVID-19 in the community. Participants were randomly assigned to the usual care group or molnupiravir group plus usual care (800 mg twice a day for 5 days), which was stratified by age (&lt;50 years or ≥50 years) and vaccination status (at least one dose: yes or no). The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death (or both) at 28 days; all longer term outcomes were considered to be secondary outcomes and included self-reported ratings of wellness (on a scale of 0–10), experiencing any symptom (fever, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, muscle ache, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, loss of smell or taste, headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, and generally feeling unwell) rated as severe (moderately bad or major problem) or persistent, any health and social care use, health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L), time off work or school, new infections, and hospitalisation. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 25 783 participants were randomly assigned to the molnupiravir plus usual care group (n=12 821) or usual care group (n=12 962). Long-term follow-up data were available for 23 008 (89·2%) of 25 784 participants with 11 778 (91·9%) of 12 821 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and 11 230 (86·6%) of 12 963 in the usual care group. 22 806 (99·1%) of 23 008 had at least one previous dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Any severe (3 months: adjusted risk difference –1·6% [–2·6% to –0·6%]; probability superiority [p(sup)]&gt;0·99; number needed to treat [NNT] 62·5; 6 months: –1·9% [–2·9% to –0·9%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99, NNT 52·6) or persistent symptoms (3 months: adjusted risk difference –2·1% [–2·9% to –1·5%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; NNT 47·6; 6 months: –2·5% [–3·3% to –1·6%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; NNT 40) were reduced in severity, and health-related quality of life (measured by the EQ-5D-5L) improved in the molnupiravir plus usual care group at 3 months and 6 months (3 months: adjusted mean difference 1·08 [0·65 to 1·53]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; 6 months: 1·09 [0·63 to 1·55]; p(sup)&gt;0·99). Ratings of wellness (3 months: adjusted mean difference 0·15 (0·11 to 0·19); p(sup)&gt;0·99; 6 months: 0·12 (0·07 to 0·16); p(sup)&gt;0·99), experiencing any more severe symptom (3 months; adjusted risk difference –1·6% [–2·6% to –0·6%]; p(sup)=0·99; 6 months: –1·9% [–2·9% to –0·9%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99), and health-care use (3 months: adjusted risk difference –1·4% [–2·3% to –0·4%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; NNT 71·4; 6 months: –0·5% [–1·5% to 0·4%]; p(sup)&gt;0·99; NNT 200) had high probabilities of superiority with molnupiravir treatment. There were significant differences in persistence of any symptom (910 [8·9%] of 10 190 vs 1027 [11%] of 9332, NNT 67) at 6 months, and reported time off work at 3 months (2017 [17·9%] of 11 274 vs 2385 [22·4%] of 10 628) and 6 months (460 [4·4%] of 10 562 vs 527 [5·4%] of 9846; NNT 100). There were no differences in hospitalisations at long-term follow-up. Interpretation: In a vaccinated population, people treated with molnupiravir for acute COVID-19 felt better, experienced fewer and less severe COVID-19 associated symptoms, accessed health care less often, and took less time off work at 6 months. However, the absolute differences in this open-label design are small with high numbers needed to treat

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.MethodsPANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.FindingsBetween Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.InterpretationMolnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community