Screening For High-Risk Drinking In A College Student Health Center: Characterizing Students Based On Quantity, Frequency, And Harms.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined characteristics of students who presented to a college health center and screened positive for the 5/4 definition of high-risk drinking (five or more drinks in a row for men, or four or more drinks in a row for women, on at least one occasion in the past 2 weeks) and analyzed the students\u27 data according to their reporting of alcohol-related harms. METHOD: Secondary analysis of data obtained for an intervention study to reduce high-risk drinking in college students was used. Data on alcohol use and alcohol-related harms were obtained from Web-based Healthy Lifestyle Questionnaires and 30-day alcohol recall diaries (Timeline Followback calendar). Students (N = 363; 52% female) were classified as nonheavy, heavy, and heavy and frequent drinkers, based on their self-reported alcohol use. Alcohol-related harms were measured using the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index and eight additional items derived from the Drinker Inventory of Consequences-2L. RESULTS: Students in the nonheavy, heavy, and heavy and frequent groups had mean Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index scores of 10, 14, and 23, respectively. The heavy-and-frequent drinking group comprised 20% of the sample but experienced 31% of the total harms. CONCLUSIONS: The 5/4 screening question accurately identified college students presenting to a college health center who were already experiencing significant alcohol-related harms. The addition of a frequency question (drinking 3 or more days per week) to the 5/4 screening question provided a simple method for identifying those students at highest risk and in greatest need of intervention

Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in a College Student Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial*

OBJECTIVE: This study tested the effectiveness of brief primary care provider interventions delivered in a college student health center to a sample of college students who screened positive for high-risk drinking. METHOD: Between November 2005 and August 2006, 8,753 students who presented as new patients to the health service at a large public university were screened for high-risk drinking, and 2,484 students (28%) screened positive on the 5/4 gender-specific high-risk drinking question (i.e., five or more drinks per occasion for men and four or more for women). Students who screened positive for high-risk drinking and consented to participate (N= 363; 52% female) were randomly assigned either to a control group (n = 182) or to an experimental group (n = 181). Participants in the experimental group received two brief intervention sessions that were founded in motivational interviewing techniques and delivered by four specially trained providers within the student health center. Data on alcohol use and related harms were obtained from a Web-based Healthy Lifestyle Questionnaire, 30-day Timeline Followback alcohol-use diaries, the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI), and eight items from the Drinker Inventory of Consequences-2L. RESULTS: Repeated measures analysis showed that, compared with the control group (C), the intervention group (I) had significant reductions in typical estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) (C = .071 vs I = .057 at 3 months; C = .073 vs I = .057 at 6 months), peak BAC (C = . 142 vs I = .112 at 3 months; C = .145 vs I = .108 at 6 months), peak number of drinks per sitting (C = 8.03 vs I = 6.87 at 3 months; C = 7.98 vs I = 6.52 at 6 months), average number of drinks per week (C = 9.47 vs I = 7.33 at 3 months; C = 8.90 vs I = 6.16 at 6 months), number of drunk episodes in a typical week (C = 1.24 vs I = 0.85 at 3 months; C = 1.10 vs I = 0.71 at 6 months), number of times taken foolish risks (C = 2.24 vs I = 1.12 at 3 months), and RAPI sum scores (C = 6.55 vs I = 4.96 at 6 months; C = 6.17 vs I = 4.58 at 9 months). CONCLUSIONS: Brief interventions delivered by primary care providers in a student health center to high-risk-drinking students may result in significantly decreased alcohol consumption, high-risk drinking, and alcohol-related harms

Alcohol Screening And Brief Intervention In A College Student Health Center: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study tested the effectiveness of brief primary care provider interventions delivered in a college student health center to a sample of college students who screened positive for high-risk drinking. METHOD: Between November 2005 and August 2006, 8,753 students who presented as new patients to the health service at a large public university were screened for high-risk drinking, and 2,484 students (28%) screened positive on the 5/4 gender-specific high-risk drinking question (i.e., five or more drinks per occasion for men and four or more for women). Students who screened positive for high-risk drinking and consented to participate (N= 363; 52% female) were randomly assigned either to a control group (n = 182) or to an experimental group (n = 181). Participants in the experimental group received two brief intervention sessions that were founded in motivational interviewing techniques and delivered by four specially trained providers within the student health center. Data on alcohol use and related harms were obtained from a Web-based Healthy Lifestyle Questionnaire, 30-day Timeline Followback alcohol-use diaries, the Rutgers Alcohol Problem Index (RAPI), and eight items from the Drinker Inventory of Consequences-2L. RESULTS: Repeated measures analysis showed that, compared with the control group (C), the intervention group (I) had significant reductions in typical estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) (C = .071 vs I = .057 at 3 months; C = .073 vs I = .057 at 6 months), peak BAC (C = . 142 vs I = .112 at 3 months; C = .145 vs I = .108 at 6 months), peak number of drinks per sitting (C = 8.03 vs I = 6.87 at 3 months; C = 7.98 vs I = 6.52 at 6 months), average number of drinks per week (C = 9.47 vs I = 7.33 at 3 months; C = 8.90 vs I = 6.16 at 6 months), number of drunk episodes in a typical week (C = 1.24 vs I = 0.85 at 3 months; C = 1.10 vs I = 0.71 at 6 months), number of times taken foolish risks (C = 2.24 vs I = 1.12 at 3 months), and RAPI sum scores (C = 6.55 vs I = 4.96 at 6 months; C = 6.17 vs I = 4.58 at 9 months). CONCLUSIONS: Brief interventions delivered by primary care providers in a student health center to high-risk-drinking students may result in significantly decreased alcohol consumption, high-risk drinking, and alcohol-related harms

Public Confidence and Crime Reduction:The Impact of Forensic Property Marking

West Mercia Police treated domestic dwellings with Smartwater and their own We Don’t Buy Crime (WDBC) campaign. The campaign included prominent signage. Using crime statistics, we estimate that the treatment is associated with a reduction of domestic dwelling burglary of between approximately 10-50%. However, whilst we see the treatment coincides with a reduction in domestic burglary, we cannot say that the treatment “caused” the reduction in burglary. This is because (a) the treatment was not randomly allocated to sites (as would have been the case if this were a gold-standard randomised controlled trial) and (b) the incidence of burglary is too low to be confident when comparing crime trends in treated and untreated areas. Using a survey of residents, we see that reduced fear of crime and increased confidence in policing are associated with awareness of the WDBC / Smartwater treatment. While we cannot rule out a causal effect where Smartwater / WDBC causes these improvements, it may merely be that those most aware of the police are least fearful and most confident. Work at COPR continues, widening the assessment of treatments to other police forces

Metabolic support of regulatory T cells by lactic acid

Regulatory T (Treg) cells, although vital for immune homeostasis, also represent a major barrier to anti-cancer immunity, as the tumor microenvironment (TME) promotes the recruitment, differentiation, and activity of these cells1,2. Tumor cells show deregulated metabolism, leading to a metabolite-depleted, hypoxic and acidic TME3, which places infiltrating effector T cells in competition with the tumor for metabolites and impairs their function4–6. At the same time, Treg cells maintain a strong suppression of effector T cells within the TME7,8. As previous studies suggested that Treg cells possess a distinct metabolic profile from effector T cells9–11, we hypothesized that the altered metabolic landscape of the TME and increased activity of intratumoral Treg cells are linked. Here we show that Treg cells display broad heterogeneity in their metabolism of glucose within normal and transformed tissues and can engage an alternative metabolic pathway to maintain suppressive function and proliferation. Glucose uptake correlates with poorer suppressive function and long-term instability, and high-glucose conditions impair the function and stability of Treg cells in vitro. Treg cells instead upregulate pathways involved in the metabolism of the glycolytic by-product lactic acid. Treg cells withstand high-lactate conditions, and treatment with lactate prevents the destabilizing effects of high-glucose conditions, generating intermediates necessary for proliferation. Lactic acid also contributes directly to epigenetic modifications through histone lactylation which may support the expression of Treg cell signature genes. Deletion of MCT1—a lactate transporter—in Treg cells reveals that lactate uptake is dispensable for the function of peripheral Treg cells but required intratumorally, resulting in slowed tumor growth and an increased response to immunotherapy. Thus, Treg cells are metabolically flexible: they can use ‘alternative’ metabolites in the TME to maintain their suppressive identity. Further, our results suggest that tumors avoid destruction by not only depriving effector T cells of nutrients, but also metabolically supporting regulatory populations

Intranasal Oxytocin in Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder

BackgroundExperimental studies and small clinical trials have suggested that treatment with intranasal oxytocin may reduce social impairment in persons with autism spectrum disorder. Oxytocin has been administered in clinical practice to many children with autism spectrum disorder.MethodsWe conducted a 24-week, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial of intranasal oxytocin therapy in children and adolescents 3 to 17 years of age with autism spectrum disorder. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio, with stratification according to age and verbal fluency, to receive oxytocin or placebo, administered intranasally, with a total target dose of 48 international units daily. The primary outcome was the least-squares mean change from baseline on the Aberrant Behavior Checklist modified Social Withdrawal subscale (ABC-mSW), which includes 13 items (scores range from 0 to 39, with higher scores indicating less social interaction). Secondary outcomes included two additional measures of social function and an abbreviated measure of IQ.ResultsOf the 355 children and adolescents who underwent screening, 290 were enrolled. A total of 146 participants were assigned to the oxytocin group and 144 to the placebo group; 139 and 138 participants, respectively, completed both the baseline and at least one postbaseline ABC-mSW assessments and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses. The least-squares mean change from baseline in the ABC-mSW score (primary outcome) was -3.7 in the oxytocin group and -3.5 in the placebo group (least-squares mean difference, -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -1.5 to 1.0; P = 0.61). Secondary outcomes generally did not differ between the trial groups. The incidence and severity of adverse events were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsThis placebo-controlled trial of intranasal oxytocin therapy in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder showed no significant between-group differences in the least-squares mean change from baseline on measures of social or cognitive functioning over a period of 24 weeks. (Funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; SOARS-B ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944046.)