Stroke Prediction Based on the Spontaneous Nystagmus Suppression Test in Dizzy Patients: A Diagnostic Accuracy Study.

ObjectiveFailure of fixation suppression of spontaneous nystagmus is sometimes seen in patients with vestibular strokes involving the cerebellum or brainstem, however, the accuracy of this test for the discrimination between peripheral and central causes in patients with an acute vestibular syndrome (AVS) is unknown.MethodsPatients with AVS were screened and recruited (convenience sample) as part of a prospective cross-sectional study in the Emergency Department between 2015-2020. All patients received neuroimaging which served as a reference standard. We recorded fixation suppression with video-oculography (VOG) for straight, right and left gaze. The ocular fixation index (OFI) and the spontaneous nystagmus slow velocity reduction was calculated.ResultsWe screened 1646 dizzy patients in the emergency department and tested for spontaneous nystagmus in 148 included AVS patients. We analyzed 56 patients with a diagnosed acute unilateral vestibulopathy (vestibular neuritis) and 28 patients with a confirmed stroke. There was a complete nystagmus fixation suppression in 49.5% of AVS patients, in 40% of patients with vestibular neuritis and in 62.5% of vestibular strokes. OFI scores had no predictive value for detecting strokes, however, a nystagmus reduction of less than 2deg/s showed a high accuracy of 76.9% (CI 0.59-0.89) with a sensitivity of 62.2% and specificity of 84.8% in detecting strokes..ConclusionsThe presence of fixation suppression does not rule out a central lesion. The magnitude of suppression was lower compared to patients with vestibular neuritis. The nystagmus suppression test still predicts accurately vestibular strokes provided that eye movements are recorded with VOG.Classification of EvidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that in patients with an acute vestibular syndrome, decreased fixation suppression recorded with VOG occurred more often in stroke (76.9%) than in vestibular neuritis (37.8%)

Barriers to participation in mental health research: are there specific gender, ethnicity and age related barriers?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>It is well established that the incidence, prevalence and presentation of mental disorders differ by gender, ethnicity and age, and there is evidence that there is also differential representation in mental health research by these characteristics. The aim of this paper is to a) review the current literature on the nature of barriers to participation in mental health research, with particular reference to gender, age and ethnicity; b) review the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to overcome these barriers.</p> <p>Method</p> <p>Studies published up to December 2008 were identified using MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE using relevant mesh headings and keywords.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Forty-nine papers were identified. There was evidence of a wide range of barriers including transportation difficulties, distrust and suspicion of researchers, and the stigma attached to mental illness. Strategies to overcome these barriers included the use of bilingual staff, assistance with travel, avoiding the use of stigmatising language in marketing material and a focus on education about the disorder under investigation. There were very few evaluations of such strategies, but there was evidence that ethnically matching recruiters to potential participants did not improve recruitment rates. Educational strategies were helpful and increased recruitment.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Mental health researchers should consider including caregivers in recruitment procedures where possible, provide clear descriptions of study aims and describe the representativeness of their sample when reporting study results. Studies that systematically investigate strategies to overcome barriers to recruitment are needed.</p

The Science Performance of JWST as Characterized in Commissioning

This paper characterizes the actual science performance of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), as determined from the six month commissioning period. We summarize the performance of the spacecraft, telescope, science instruments, and ground system, with an emphasis on differences from pre-launch expectations. Commissioning has made clear that JWST is fully capable of achieving the discoveries for which it was built. Moreover, almost across the board, the science performance of JWST is better than expected; in most cases, JWST will go deeper faster than expected. The telescope and instrument suite have demonstrated the sensitivity, stability, image quality, and spectral range that are necessary to transform our understanding of the cosmos through observations spanning from near-earth asteroids to the most distant galaxies.Comment: 5th version as accepted to PASP; 31 pages, 18 figures; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1538-3873/acb29

The contribution of X-linked coding variation to severe developmental disorders

Abstract: Over 130 X-linked genes have been robustly associated with developmental disorders, and X-linked causes have been hypothesised to underlie the higher developmental disorder rates in males. Here, we evaluate the burden of X-linked coding variation in 11,044 developmental disorder patients, and find a similar rate of X-linked causes in males and females (6.0% and 6.9%, respectively), indicating that such variants do not account for the 1.4-fold male bias. We develop an improved strategy to detect X-linked developmental disorders and identify 23 significant genes, all of which were previously known, consistent with our inference that the vast majority of the X-linked burden is in known developmental disorder-associated genes. Importantly, we estimate that, in male probands, only 13% of inherited rare missense variants in known developmental disorder-associated genes are likely to be pathogenic. Our results demonstrate that statistical analysis of large datasets can refine our understanding of modes of inheritance for individual X-linked disorders

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

Long-term survival and cure fraction estimates for childhood cancer in Europe (EUROCARE-6): results from a population-based study

Background: The EUROCARE-5 study revealed disparities in childhood cancer survival among European countries, giving rise to important initiatives across Europe to reduce the gap. Extending its representativeness through increased coverage of eastern European countries, the EUROCARE-6 study aimed to update survival progress across countries and years of diagnosis and provide new analytical perspectives on estimates of long-term survival and the cured fraction of patients with childhood cancer. Methods: In this population-based study, we analysed 135 847 children (aged 0–14 years) diagnosed during 2000–13 and followed up to the end of 2014, recruited from 80 population-based cancer registries in 31 European countries. We calculated age-adjusted 5-year survival differences by country and over time using period analysis, for all cancers combined and for major cancer types. We applied a variant of standard mixture cure models for survival data to estimate the cure fraction of patients by childhood cancer and to estimate projected 15-year survival. Findings: 5-year survival for all childhood cancer combined in Europe in 2010–14 was 81% (95% CI 81–82), showing an increase of three percentage points compared with 2004–06. Significant progress over time was observed for almost all cancers. Survival remained stable for osteosarcomas, Ewing sarcoma, Burkitt lymphoma, non-Hodgkin lymphomas, and rhabdomyoscarcomas. For all cancers combined, inequalities still persisted among European countries (with age-adjusted 5-year survival ranging from 71% [95% CI 60–79] to 87% [77–93]). The 15-year survival projection for all patients with childhood cancer diagnosed in 2010–13 was 78%. We estimated the yearly long-term mortality rate due to causes other than the diagnosed cancer to be around 2 per 1000 patients for all childhood cancer combined, but to approach zero for retinoblastoma. The cure fraction for patients with childhood cancer increased over time from 74% (95% CI 73–75) in 1998–2001 to 80% (79–81) in 2010–13. In the latter cohort, the cure fraction rate ranged from 99% (95% CI 74–100) for retinoblastoma to 60% (58–63) for CNS tumours and reached 90% (95% CI 87–93) for lymphoid leukaemia and 70% (67–73) for acute myeloid leukaemia. Interpretation: Childhood cancer survival is increasing over time in Europe but there are still some differences among countries. Regular monitoring of childhood cancer survival and estimation of the cure fraction through population-based registry data are crucial for evaluating advances in paediatric cancer care. Funding: European Commission

Partnership for Research on Ebola VACcination (PREVAC): protocol of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial evaluating three vaccine strategies against Ebola in healthy volunteers in four West African countries

International audienceAbstract Introduction The Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in 2014–2016 in West Africa was the largest on record and provided an opportunity for large clinical trials and accelerated efforts to develop an effective and safe preventative vaccine. Multiple questions regarding the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of EVD vaccines remain unanswered. To address these gaps in the evidence base, the Partnership for Research on Ebola Vaccines (PREVAC) trial was designed. This paper describes the design, methods, and baseline results of the PREVAC trial and discusses challenges that led to different protocol amendments. Methods This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial of three vaccine strategies against the Ebola virus in healthy volunteers 1 year of age and above. The three vaccine strategies being studied are the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine, with and without a booster dose at 56 days, and the Ad26.ZEBOV,MVA-FN-Filo vaccine regimen with Ad26.ZEBOV given as the first dose and the MVA-FN-Filo vaccination given 56 days later. There have been 4 versions of the protocol with those enrolled in Version 4.0 comprising the primary analysis cohort. The primary endpoint is based on the antibody titer against the Ebola virus surface glycoprotein measured 12 months following the final injection. Results From April 2017 to December 2018, a total of 5002 volunteers were screened and 4789 enrolled. Participants were enrolled at 6 sites in four countries (Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Mali). Of the 4789 participants, 2560 (53%) were adults and 2229 (47%) were children. Those < 18 years of age included 549 (12%) aged 1 to 4 years, 750 (16%) 5 to 11 years, and 930 (19%) aged 12–17 years. At baseline, the median (25th, 75th percentile) antibody titer to Ebola virus glycoprotein for 1090 participants was 72 (50, 116) EU/mL. Discussion The PREVAC trial is evaluating—placebo-controlled—two promising Ebola candidate vaccines in advanced stages of development. The results will address unanswered questions related to short- and long-term safety and immunogenicity for three vaccine strategies in adults and children. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02876328 . Registered on 23 August 2016