A Comparison Of Outcomes In Osteoarthritis Patients Undergoing Total Hip And Knee Replacement Surgery

Objective The aims of this study were to assess changes in physical function and quality of life with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the instrument of the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 Health Survey (MOS SF-36), respectively, in patients undergoing hip and knee joint replacement surgery and to compare the responsiveness of these two outcome measures 1 year after surgery. Design One hundred and ninety-four patients with osteoarthritis (OA knee 108, OA hip 86) admitted to four hospitals in Sydney were followed over a period of 1 year at 3 monthly intervals. Results WOMAC measures improved significantly after 1 year for OA hip and OA knee: there was reduction in pain of 71% and 53%, reduction in stiffness of 55% and 43% and improvement in physical function of 68% and 43%, respectively. MOS SF-36 measures in those having hip surgery improved significantly for pain (222%), physical function (247%), physical role functioning (402%), general health (110%), vitality (143%), social functioning (169%) and mental health (114%). For those in the knee surgery group, significant improvement was seen for pain (175%), physical function (197%), physical role functioning (275%), vitality (125%) and social functioning (119%). The WOMAC was a more responsive measure than the MOS SF-36. Conclusion WOMAC and MOS SF-36 detect significant and clinically meaningful changes in outcome after hip and knee replacement. WOMAC requires a smaller sample size and is more responsive in the short term. For a follow-up longer than 6 months MOS SF-36 provides additional information. The improvement in outcomes following hip joint surgery were significantly greater than those following knee surgery

New insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

Characterization of the genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADD) provides a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the associated pathophysiological processes. We performed a two-stage genome-wide association study totaling 111,326 clinically diagnosed/'proxy' AD cases and 677,663 controls. We found 75 risk loci, of which 42 were new at the time of analysis. Pathway enrichment analyses confirmed the involvement of amyloid/tau pathways and highlighted microglia implication. Gene prioritization in the new loci identified 31 genes that were suggestive of new genetically associated processes, including the tumor necrosis factor alpha pathway through the linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex. We also built a new genetic risk score associated with the risk of future AD/dementia or progression from mild cognitive impairment to AD/dementia. The improvement in prediction led to a 1.6- to 1.9-fold increase in AD risk from the lowest to the highest decile, in addition to effects of age and the APOE ε4 allele

Para-infectious brain injury in COVID-19 persists at follow-up despite attenuated cytokine and autoantibody responses

To understand neurological complications of COVID-19 better both acutely and for recovery, we measured markers of brain injury, inflammatory mediators, and autoantibodies in 203 hospitalised participants; 111 with acute sera (1–11 days post-admission) and 92 convalescent sera (56 with COVID-19-associated neurological diagnoses). Here we show that compared to 60 uninfected controls, tTau, GFAP, NfL, and UCH-L1 are increased with COVID-19 infection at acute timepoints and NfL and GFAP are significantly higher in participants with neurological complications. Inflammatory mediators (IL-6, IL-12p40, HGF, M-CSF, CCL2, and IL-1RA) are associated with both altered consciousness and markers of brain injury. Autoantibodies are more common in COVID-19 than controls and some (including against MYL7, UCH-L1, and GRIN3B) are more frequent with altered consciousness. Additionally, convalescent participants with neurological complications show elevated GFAP and NfL, unrelated to attenuated systemic inflammatory mediators and to autoantibody responses. Overall, neurological complications of COVID-19 are associated with evidence of neuroglial injury in both acute and late disease and these correlate with dysregulated innate and adaptive immune responses acutely

SARS-CoV-2-specific nasal IgA wanes 9 months after hospitalisation with COVID-19 and is not induced by subsequent vaccination

BACKGROUND: Most studies of immunity to SARS-CoV-2 focus on circulating antibody, giving limited insights into mucosal defences that prevent viral replication and onward transmission. We studied nasal and plasma antibody responses one year after hospitalisation for COVID-19, including a period when SARS-CoV-2 vaccination was introduced. METHODS: In this follow up study, plasma and nasosorption samples were prospectively collected from 446 adults hospitalised for COVID-19 between February 2020 and March 2021 via the ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. IgA and IgG responses to NP and S of ancestral SARS-CoV-2, Delta and Omicron (BA.1) variants were measured by electrochemiluminescence and compared with plasma neutralisation data. FINDINGS: Strong and consistent nasal anti-NP and anti-S IgA responses were demonstrated, which remained elevated for nine months (p < 0.0001). Nasal and plasma anti-S IgG remained elevated for at least 12 months (p < 0.0001) with plasma neutralising titres that were raised against all variants compared to controls (p < 0.0001). Of 323 with complete data, 307 were vaccinated between 6 and 12 months; coinciding with rises in nasal and plasma IgA and IgG anti-S titres for all SARS-CoV-2 variants, although the change in nasal IgA was minimal (1.46-fold change after 10 months, p = 0.011) and the median remained below the positive threshold determined by pre-pandemic controls. Samples 12 months after admission showed no association between nasal IgA and plasma IgG anti-S responses (R = 0.05, p = 0.18), indicating that nasal IgA responses are distinct from those in plasma and minimally boosted by vaccination. INTERPRETATION: The decline in nasal IgA responses 9 months after infection and minimal impact of subsequent vaccination may explain the lack of long-lasting nasal defence against reinfection and the limited effects of vaccination on transmission. These findings highlight the need to develop vaccines that enhance nasal immunity. FUNDING: This study has been supported by ISARIC4C and PHOSP-COVID consortia. ISARIC4C is supported by grants from the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council. Liverpool Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre provided infrastructure support for this research. The PHOSP-COVD study is jointly funded by UK Research and Innovation and National Institute of Health and Care Research. The funders were not involved in the study design, interpretation of data or the writing of this manuscript

Large-scale phenotyping of patients with long COVID post-hospitalization reveals mechanistic subtypes of disease

One in ten severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections result in prolonged symptoms termed long coronavirus disease (COVID), yet disease phenotypes and mechanisms are poorly understood1. Here we profiled 368 plasma proteins in 657 participants ≥3 months following hospitalization. Of these, 426 had at least one long COVID symptom and 233 had fully recovered. Elevated markers of myeloid inflammation and complement activation were associated with long COVID. IL-1R2, MATN2 and COLEC12 were associated with cardiorespiratory symptoms, fatigue and anxiety/depression; MATN2, CSF3 and C1QA were elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms and C1QA was elevated in cognitive impairment. Additional markers of alterations in nerve tissue repair (SPON-1 and NFASC) were elevated in those with cognitive impairment and SCG3, suggestive of brain–gut axis disturbance, was elevated in gastrointestinal symptoms. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-specific immunoglobulin G (IgG) was persistently elevated in some individuals with long COVID, but virus was not detected in sputum. Analysis of inflammatory markers in nasal fluids showed no association with symptoms. Our study aimed to understand inflammatory processes that underlie long COVID and was not designed for biomarker discovery. Our findings suggest that specific inflammatory pathways related to tissue damage are implicated in subtypes of long COVID, which might be targeted in future therapeutic trials

Supplementary Material for: Differences in Cognitive Profile between TIA, Stroke and Elderly Memory Research Subjects: A Comparison of the MMSE and MoCA

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) appears more sensitive to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) than the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE): over 50% of TIA and stroke patients with an MMSE score of ≥27 (‘normal’ cognitive function) at ≥6 months after index event, score <26 on the MoCA, a cutoff which has good sensitivity and specificity for MCI in this population. We hypothesized that sensitivity of the MoCA to MCI might in part be due to detection of different patterns of cognitive domain impairment. We therefore compared performance on the MMSE and MoCA in subjects without major cognitive impairment (MMSE score of ≥24) with differing clinical characteristics: a TIA and stroke cohort in which frontal/executive deficits were expected to be prevalent and a memory research cohort. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The MMSE and MoCA were done on consecutive patients with TIA or stroke in a population-based study (Oxford Vascular Study) 6 months or more after the index event and on consecutive subjects enrolled in a memory research cohort (the Oxford Project to Investigate Memory and Ageing). Patients with moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment (MMSE score of <24), dysphasia or inability to use the dominant arm were excluded. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of 207 stroke patients (mean age ± SD: 72 ± 11.5 years, 54% male), 156 TIA patients (mean age 71 ± 12.1 years, 53% male) and 107 memory research subjects (mean age 76 ± 6.6 years, 46% male), stroke patients had the lowest mean ± SD cognitive scores (MMSE score of 27.7 ± 1.84 and MoCA score of 22.9 ± 3.6), whereas TIA (MMSE score of 28.4 ± 1.7 and MoCA score of 24.9 ± 3.3) and memory subject scores (MMSE score of 28.5 ± 1.7 and MoCA score of 25.5 ± 3.0) were more similar. Rates of MoCA score of <26 in subjects with normal MMSE ( ≥27) were lowest in memory subjects, intermediate in TIA and highest after stroke (34 vs. 48 vs. 67%, p < 0.001). The cerebrovascular patients scored lower than the memory subjects on all MoCA frontal/executive subtests with differences being most marked in visuoexecutive function, verbal fluency and sustained attention (all p < 0.0001) and in stroke versus TIA (after adjustment for age and education). Stroke patients performed worse than TIA patients only on MMSE orientation in contrast to 6/10 subtests of the MoCA. Results were similar after restricting analyses to those with an MMSE score of ≥27. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The MoCA demonstrated more differences in cognitive profile between TIA, stroke and memory research subjects without major cognitive impairment than the MMSE. The MoCA showed between-group differences even in those with normal MMSE and would thus appear to be a useful brief tool to assess cognition in those with MCI, particularly where the ceiling effect of the MMSE is problematic

An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice

Background. The challenges of implementing evidence‐based practice are complex and varied. Against this background a framework has been developed to represent the multiple factors that may influence the implementation of evidence into practice. It is proposed that successful implementation is dependent upon the nature of the evidence being used, the quality of context, and, the type of facilitation required to enable the change process. This study sets out to scrutinize the elements of the framework through empirical enquiry. Aims and objectives. The aim of the study was to address the following questions: • What factors do practitioners identify as the most important in enabling implementation of evidence into practice? • What are the factors practitioners identify that mediate the implementation of evidence into practice? • Do the concepts of evidence, context and facilitation constitute the key elements of a framework for getting evidence into practice? Design and methods. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase 1: Exploratory focus groups (n = 2) were conducted to inform the development of an interview guide. This was used with individual key informants in case study sites. Phase 2: Two sites with on‐going or recent implementation projects were studied. Within sites semi‐structured interviews were conducted (n = 17). Results. A number of key issues in relation to the implementation of evidence into practice emerged including: the nature and role of evidence, relevance and fit with organizational and practice issues, multi‐professional relationships and collaboration, role of the project lead and resources. Conclusions. The results are discussed with reference to the wider literature and in relation to the on‐going development of the framework. Crucially the growing body of evidence reveals that a focus on individual approaches to implementing evidence‐based practice, such as skilling‐up practitioners to appraise research evidence, will be ineffective by themselves. Relevance to clinical practice. Key elements that require attention in implementing evidence into practice are presented and may provide a useful checklist for future implementation and evaluation projects