Clinician-facilitated physical activity intervention versus pulmonary rehabilitation for improving physical activity in COPD: a feasibility study

Pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) may not suit all individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and may not result in increased physical activity. Higher levels of physical activity are associated with reduced mortality and morbidity. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a trial to investigate the effectiveness of a clinician-facilitated physical activity intervention (PAI) versus PR in improving physical activity in patients with COPD referred to PR. In this randomised controlled mixed methods feasibility study, all patients referred to PR who were eligible and willing were assessed at baseline and then randomised to the PAI or to PR. The assessments were repeated post-intervention and at 3-month follow-up. The main outcome was step count measured by Actigraph. Semi-structured interviews were conducted post-intervention. The N = 50 patients; mean (SD) age, 64.1(8.6) years, 24M were recruited and randomised; N = 23 (PAI) and n = 26 (PR): one patient was excluded from the analysis as that person did not meet the GOLD diagnostic criteria. Key feasibility criteria were met; recruitment was 11%, dropouts in PAI were 26% (n = 6) and 50% (n = 13/26) PR. Participants in both groups experienced a range of health benefits from their respective programmes. The PAI appears to be effective in increasing step counts in people with COPD: mean change (standard deviation) [confidence interval] for the PAI group was 972.0(3230.3)[–1080.3 to 3024.4], n = 12 and 4.3(662.7)[-440.9 to 449.5], n = 11 for the PR group. The PAI met all domains of fidelity. This study provides key information to inform a future-randomised controlled trial in physical activity

Academic, clinical and personal experiences of undergraduate healthcare students during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective cohort study

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 has impacted upon the role and safety of healthcare workers, with the potential to have a lasting effect on their wellbeing. Limited research has been conducted during previous pandemics exploring how student healthcare workers are impacted as they study and train for their professional careers.ObjectiveThe aim of the current study was to examine the specific impact of COVID-19 on the academic, clinical and personal experiences of healthcare students.MethodUndergraduate students across three year groups within the School of Health Sciences at Ulster University completed online Qualtrics surveys at three timepoints during one academic year (2020/2021). Quantitative survey data was downloaded from Qualtrics into SPSS Version 25 for descriptive analysis of each cross-sectional sample. Qualitative survey data was downloaded into text format, which was thematically analysed using content analysis.Results412 students completed the survey at Time 1 (October 2020), n = 309 at Time 2 (December 2020) and n = 259 at Time 3 (April 2021). Academically, the pandemic had mostly a negative impact on the learning environment, the development of practical skills, the assessment process and opportunities for peer learning and support. Students reported increased stress and challenges managing their workload and maintaining a sense of motivation and routine. Clinically, they felt unprepared by the university for placement where the pandemic had an increasingly negative impact over time on learning and skill development. In terms of personal experiences, despite the majority of students taking steps to keep physically and mentally well, negative impacts on friendships, mental wellbeing and concerns for family were reported. The pandemic had not impacted upon career choice for most students.ConclusionConsideration must be given to the development of practical skills so students feel prepared for their professional careers given the practical nature of their roles. Programme coordinators should adopt a holistic approach to student wellbein

A 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, open-label trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care over 52 weeks in adults with bronchiectasis:a protocol for the CLEAR clinical trial

Background: Current guidelines for the management of bronchiectasis (BE) highlight the lack of evidence to recommend mucoactive agents, such as hypertonic saline (HTS) and carbocisteine, to aid sputum removal as part of standard care. We hypothesise that mucoactive agents (HTS or carbocisteine, or a combination) are effective in reducing exacerbations over a 52-week period, compared to usual care. Methods: This is a 52-week, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, open-label trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of HTS 6% and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care-the Clinical and cost-effectiveness of hypertonic saline (HTS 6%) and carbocisteine for airway clearance versus usual care (CLEAR) trial. Patients will be randomised to (1) standard care and twice-daily nebulised HTS (6%), (2) standard care and carbocisteine (750 mg three times per day until visit 3, reducing to 750 mg twice per day), (3) standard care and combination of twice-daily nebulised HTS and carbocisteine, or (4) standard care. The primary outcome is the mean number of exacerbations over 52 weeks. Key inclusion criteria are as follows: Adults with a diagnosis of BE on computed tomography, BE as the primary respiratory diagnosis, and two or more pulmonary exacerbations in the last year requiring antibiotics and production of daily sputum. Discussion: This trial's pragmatic research design avoids the significant costs associated with double-blind trials whilst optimising rigour in other areas of trial delivery. The CLEAR trial will provide evidence as to whether HTS, carbocisteine or both are effective and cost effective for patients with BE. Trial registration: EudraCT number: 2017-000664-14 (first entered in the database on 20 October 2017). ISRCTN.com, ISRCTN89040295. Registered on 6 July/2018. Funder: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment Programme (15/100/01). Sponsor: Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Ethics Reference Number: 17/NE/0339. Protocol version: V3.0 Final_14052018

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Machine Learning Identifies Stemness Features Associated with Oncogenic Dedifferentiation.

Cancer progression involves the gradual loss of a differentiated phenotype and acquisition of progenitor and stem-cell-like features. Here, we provide novel stemness indices for assessing the degree of oncogenic dedifferentiation. We used an innovative one-class logistic regression (OCLR) machine-learning algorithm to extract transcriptomic and epigenetic feature sets derived from non-transformed pluripotent stem cells and their differentiated progeny. Using OCLR, we were able to identify previously undiscovered biological mechanisms associated with the dedifferentiated oncogenic state. Analyses of the tumor microenvironment revealed unanticipated correlation of cancer stemness with immune checkpoint expression and infiltrating immune cells. We found that the dedifferentiated oncogenic phenotype was generally most prominent in metastatic tumors. Application of our stemness indices to single-cell data revealed patterns of intra-tumor molecular heterogeneity. Finally, the indices allowed for the identification of novel targets and possible targeted therapies aimed at tumor differentiation