Famotidine use and quantitative symptom tracking for COVID-19 in non-hospitalised patients: a case series.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment options for non-hospitalised patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to reduce morbidity, mortality and spread of the disease are an urgent global need. The over-the-counter histamine-2 receptor antagonist famotidine is a putative therapy for COVID-19. We quantitively assessed longitudinal changes in patient reported outcome measures in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 who self-administered high-dose famotidine orally. DESIGN: Patients were enrolled consecutively after signing written informed consent. Data on demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis, famotidine use, drug-related side effects, temperature measurements, oxygen saturations and symptom scores were obtained using questionnaires and telephone interviews. Based on a National Institute of Health (NIH)-endorsed Protocol to research Patient Experience of COVID-19, we collected longitudinal severity scores of five symptoms (cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, headaches and anosmia) and general unwellness on a four-point ordinal scale modelled on performance status scoring. All data are reported at the patient level. Longitudinal combined normalised symptom scores were statistically compared. RESULTS: Ten consecutive patients with COVID-19 who self-administered high-dose oral famotidine were identified. The most frequently used famotidine regimen was 80 mg three times daily (n=6) for a median of 11 days (range: 5-21 days). Famotidine was well tolerated. All patients reported marked improvements of disease related symptoms after starting famotidine. The combined symptom score improved significantly within 24 hours of starting famotidine and peripheral oxygen saturation (n=2) and device recorded activity (n=1) increased. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this case series suggest that high-dose oral famotidine is well tolerated and associated with improved patient-reported outcomes in non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19

Further refinement of the Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure using classical test theory and item response theory

Background: Existing dermatology-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) do not fully capture the substantial physical, psychological, and social impact of dermatological conditions on patients’ lives and are not recommended for use according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria. Most were developed with insufficient patient involvement and relied on classical psychometric methods. We are developing the new Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological diseases (PRIDD) measure for use in research and clinical practice in partnership with patients. Objectives: To examine the factor structure of PRIDD, determine the definitive selection of items for each subscale, and establish structural validity and internal consistency through classical and modern psychometric methods. Methods: Two cross-sectional online surveys. Adults (≥ 18 years) worldwide living with a dermatological condition were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations’ (GlobalSkin) membership network. They completed PRIDD and a demographics questionnaire via an online survey. We examined missing data and distribution of scores for each item. The factor structure was assessed using confirmatory and exploratory factor analysis (Survey 1). Internal consistency was examined using Cronbach’s alpha. Rasch measurement theory analyses were conducted, including iterative assessment of rating scale function, fit to the Rasch model, unidimensionality, reliability, local dependence, targeting and differential item functioning (DIF)(Survey 1 and 2). Results: 483 and 504 people participated in Survey 1 and 2, respectively. All items had ≤3% missing scores and all five response options were used. A four-factor model showed best fit. PRIDD and all four subscales were internally consistent but showed some misfit to the Rasch measurement model. Adjustments were made to rectify disordered thresholds, remove misfitting items, local dependency and DIF, and improve targeting. The resultant 16-item version and subscales fit the Rasch model, showed no local dependency or DIF at the test level, and were well-targeted. Conclusions: This field test study produced the final PRIDD consisting of 16 items across four domains. The data triangulated and refined the conceptual framework of impact and provide evidence of PRIDD’s structural validity and internal consistency. The final step in PRIDD’s development and validation is to test the remaining measurement properties

Measurement properties and interpretability of the Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are crucial for assessing the impact of dermatological conditions on patients’ lives, but the existing dermatology-specific PROMs are not recommended for use according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN). We developed the Patient-Reported Impact of Dermatological Diseases (PRIDD) measure in partnership with patients. It has strong evidence of content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, acceptability, and feasibility. Objectives To test PRIDD’s remaining measurement properties and establish the interpretability of scores against the COSMIN criteria using classic and modern psychometric methods. Methods A global longitudinal study consisting of two online surveys administered two to four weeks apart. Adults (≥ 18 years) living with a dermatological condition were recruited through the International Alliance of Dermatology Patient Organizations’ (GlobalSkin) membership network. Participants completed PRIDD, a demographics questionnaire, and other related measures including the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). We tested PRIDD’s criterion validity, construct validity and responsiveness (Spearman’s ρ, independent-samples t-tests and ANOVA), test-retest reliability (interclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), measurement error (Smallest Detectable Change or Limits of Agreement [LoA], distribution-based Minimally Important Change [MIC]), floor and ceiling effects (number of minimum and maximum scores and Person-Item Location Distribution Maps), score bandings (κ coefficient of agreement) and anchor-based MIC. Results 504 patients with 35 dermatological conditions from 38 countries participated. Criterion validity (ρ = 0.79), construct validity (76% hypotheses met), test-retest validity (ICC = 0.93), and measurement error (LoA = 1.3 < MIC = 4.14) were sufficient. Floor and ceiling effects were in the acceptable range (< 15%). Score bandings were determined (κ = 0.47), however, the anchor-based MIC could not be calculated due to an insufficient anchor. Conclusions PRIDD is a valid and reliable tool to evaluate the impact of dermatological disease on patients’ lives in research and clinical practice. It is the first dermatology-specific PROM to meet the COSMIN criteria. These results support the value of developing and validating PROMs with a patient-centred approach and using classic and modern psychometric methods. Further testing of responsiveness and MIC, cross-cultural translation, linguistic validation, and global data collection are planned

Patient-reported outcome measures in dermatology: a systematic review

By relying on data from existing patient-reported outcome measures of quality of life, the true impact of skin conditions on patients’ lives may be underestimated. This study systematically reviewed all dermatology-specific (used across skin conditions) patient-reported outcome measures and makes evidence-based recommendations for their use. The study protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018108829). PubMed, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched from inception to 25 June 2018. The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) criteria were used to assess the measurement properties and methodological quality of studies. A total of 12,925 abstracts were identified. Zero patient-reported outcome measures were assigned to category A (ready for use without further validation), 31 to category B (recommended for use, but only with further validation) and 5 to category C (not recommended for use). There is no gold-standard dermatology-specific patient-reported outcome measure that can be recommended or used without caution. A new measure that can comprehensively capture the impact of dermatological conditions on the patient’s life is needed

Human cloning laws, human dignity and the poverty of the policy making dialogue

BACKGROUND: The regulation of human cloning continues to be a significant national and international policy issue. Despite years of intense academic and public debate, there is little clarity as to the philosophical foundations for many of the emerging policy choices. The notion of "human dignity" is commonly used to justify cloning laws. The basis for this justification is that reproductive human cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. DISCUSSION: The author critiques one of the most commonly used ethical justifications for cloning laws – the idea that reproductive cloning necessarily infringes notions of human dignity. He points out that there is, in fact, little consensus on point and that the counter arguments are rarely reflected in formal policy. Rarely do domestic or international instruments provide an operational definition of human dignity and there is rarely an explanation of how, exactly, dignity is infringed in the context reproductive cloning. SUMMARY: It is the author's position that the lack of thoughtful analysis of the role of human dignity hurts the broader public debate about reproductive cloning, trivializes the value of human dignity as a normative principle and makes it nearly impossible to critique the actual justifications behind many of the proposed policies

Plasma Biomarker Concentrations Associated With Return to Sport Following Sport-Related Concussion in Collegiate Athletes—A Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium Study

Importance: Identifying plasma biomarkers associated with the amount of time an athlete may need before they return to sport (RTS) following a sport-related concussion (SRC) is important because it may help to improve the health and safety of athletes. Objective: To examine whether plasma biomarkers can differentiate collegiate athletes who RTS in less than 14 days or 14 days or more following SRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective diagnostic study, conducted by the National Collegiate Athletics Association–Department of Defense Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium, included 127 male and female athletes who had sustained an SRC while enrolled at 6 Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education Consortium Advanced Research Core sites as well as 2 partial–Advanced Research Core military service academies. Data were collected between February 2015 and May 2018. Athletes with SRC completed clinical testing and blood collection at preseason (baseline), postinjury (0-21 hours), 24 to 48 hours postinjury, time of symptom resolution, and 7 days after unrestricted RTS. Main Outcomes and Measures: A total of 3 plasma biomarkers (ie, total tau protein, glial fibrillary acidic protein [GFAP], and neurofilament light chain protein [Nf-L]) were measured using an ultrasensitive single molecule array technology and were included in the final analysis. RTS was examined between athletes who took less than 14 days vs those who took 14 days or more to RTS following SRC. Linear mixed models were used to identify significant interactions between period by RTS group. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were conducted to examine whether these plasma biomarkers could discriminate between RTS groups. Results: The 127 participants had a mean (SD) age of 18.9 (1.3) years, and 97 (76.4%) were men; 65 (51.2%) took less than 14 days to RTS, and 62 (48.8%) took 14 days or more to RTS. Linear mixed models identified significant associations for both mean (SE) plasma total tau (24-48 hours postinjury, <14 days RTS vs ≥14 days RTS: −0.65 [0.12] pg/mL vs −0.14 [0.14] pg/mL; P = .008) and GFAP (postinjury, 14 days RTS vs ≥14 days RTS: 4.72 [0.12] pg/mL vs 4.39 [0.11] pg/mL; P = .04). Total tau at the time of symptom resolution had acceptable discrimination power (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.86; P < .001). We also examined a combined plasma biomarker panel that incorporated Nf-L, GFAP, and total tau at each period to discriminate RTS groups. Although the analyses did reach significance at each time period when combined, results indicated that they were poor at distinguishing the groups (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, <0.7). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that measures of total tau and GFAP may identify athletes who will require more time to RTS. However, further research is needed to improve our ability to determine recovery following an SRC.This publication was made possible with support from the Grand Alliance Concussion Assessment, Research, and Education (CARE) Consortium, funded, in part by the NCAA and the Department of Defense. The US Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity, 820 Chandler St, Ft Detrick, MD 21702, is the awarding and administering acquisition office. This work was supported by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs through the Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Program under award No. W81XWH-14-2-0151

The Stem Cell Research Environment:A Patchwork of Patchworks

Few areas of recent research have received as much focus or generated as much excitement and debate as stem cell research. Hope for the therapeutic promise of this field has been matched by social concern associated largely with the sources of stem cells and their uses. This interplay between promise and controversy has contributed to the enormous variation that exists among the environments in which stem cell research is conducted throughout the world. This variation is layered upon intra-jurisdictional policies that are also often complex and in flux, resulting in what we term a 'patchwork of patchworks'. This patchwork of patchworks and its implications will become increasingly important as we enter this new era of stem cell research. The current progression towards translational and clinical research among international collaborators serves as a catalyst for identifying potential policy conflict and makes it imperative to address jurisdictional variability in stem cell research environments. The existing patchworks seen in contemporary stem cell research environments provide a valuable opportunity to consider how variations in regulations and policies across and within jurisdictions influence research efficiencies and directions. In one sense, the stem cell research context can be viewed as a living experiment occurring across the globe. The lessons to be gleaned from examining this field have great potential for broad-ranging general science policy application

Fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin with gemtuzumab ozogamicin improves event-free survival in younger patients with newly diagnosed aml and overall survival in patients with npm1 and flt3 mutations

Purpose To determine the optimal induction chemotherapy regimen for younger adults with newly diagnosed AML without known adverse risk cytogenetics. Patients and Methods One thousand thirty-three patients were randomly assigned to intensified (fludarabine, cytarabine, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, and idarubicin [FLAG-Ida]) or standard (daunorubicin and Ara-C [DA]) induction chemotherapy, with one or two doses of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results There was no difference in remission rate after two courses between FLAG-Ida + GO and DA + GO (complete remission [CR] + CR with incomplete hematologic recovery 93% v 91%) or in day 60 mortality (4.3% v 4.6%). There was no difference in OS (66% v 63%; P = .41); however, the risk of relapse was lower with FLAG-Ida + GO (24% v 41%; P < .001) and 3-year event-free survival was higher (57% v 45%; P < .001). In patients with an NPM1 mutation (30%), 3-year OS was significantly higher with FLAG-Ida + GO (82% v 64%; P = .005). NPM1 measurable residual disease (MRD) clearance was also greater, with 88% versus 77% becoming MRD-negative in peripheral blood after cycle 2 (P = .02). Three-year OS was also higher in patients with a FLT3 mutation (64% v 54%; P = .047). Fewer transplants were performed in patients receiving FLAG-Ida + GO (238 v 278; P = .02). There was no difference in outcome according to the number of GO doses, although NPM1 MRD clearance was higher with two doses in the DA arm. Patients with core binding factor AML treated with DA and one dose of GO had a 3-year OS of 96% with no survival benefit from FLAG-Ida + GO. Conclusion Overall, FLAG-Ida + GO significantly reduced relapse without improving OS. However, exploratory analyses show that patients with NPM1 and FLT3 mutations had substantial improvements in OS. By contrast, in patients with core binding factor AML, outcomes were excellent with DA + GO with no FLAG-Ida benefit