Cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficits following stroke

BackgroundMany survivors of stroke report attentional impairments, such as diminished concentration and distractibility. However, the effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for improving these impairments is uncertain.This is an update of the Cochrane Review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2013.ObjectivesTo determine whether people receiving cognitive rehabilitation for attention problems 1. show better outcomes in their attentional functions than those given no treatment or treatment as usual, and 2. have a better functional recovery, in terms of independence in activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life, than those given no treatment or treatment as usual.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PsycBITE, REHABDATA and ongoing trials registers up to February 2019. We screened reference lists and tracked citations using Scopus.Selection criteriaWe included controlled clinical trials (CCTs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cognitive rehabilitation for impairments of attention for people with stroke. We did not consider listening to music, meditation, yoga, or mindfulness to be a form of cognitive rehabilitation. We only considered trials that selected people with demonstrable or self‐reported attentional deficits. The primary outcomes were measures of global attentional functions, and secondary outcomes were measures of attentional domains (i.e. alertness, selective attention, sustained attention, divided attention), functional abilities, mood, and quality of life.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.Main resultsWe included no new trials in this update. The results are unchanged from the previous review and are based on the data of six RCTs with 223 participants. All six RCTs compared cognitive rehabilitation with a usual care control.Meta‐analyses demonstrated no convincing effect of cognitive rehabilitation on subjective measures of attention either immediately after treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.03 to 1.08; P = 0.06; 2 studies, 53 participants; very low‐quality evidence) or at follow‐up (SMD 0.16, 95% CI –0.23 to 0.56; P = 0.41; 2 studies, 99 participants; very low‐quality evidence).People receiving cognitive rehabilitation (when compared with control) showed that measures of divided attention recorded immediately after treatment may improve (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98; P < 0.0001; 4 studies, 165 participants; low‐quality evidence), but it is uncertain that these effects persisted (SMD 0.36, 95% CI –0.04 to 0.76; P = 0.08; 2 studies, 99 participants; very low‐quality evidence). There was no evidence for immediate or persistent effects of cognitive rehabilitation on alertness, selective attention, and sustained attention.There was no convincing evidence for immediate or long‐term effects of cognitive rehabilitation for attentional problems on functional abilities, mood, and quality of life after stroke.Authors' conclusionsThe effectiveness of cognitive rehabilitation for attention deficits following stroke remains unconfirmed. The results suggest there may be an immediate effect after treatment on attentional abilities, but future studies need to assess what helps this effect persist and generalise to attentional skills in daily life. Trials also need to have higher methodological quality and better reporting

Experiences of receiving a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

PurposeThis meta-synthesis aimed to synthesise qualitative evidence on experiences of people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in receiving a diagnosis, to derive a conceptual understanding of adjustment to MS diagnosis.MethodsFive electronic databases were systematically searched to identify qualitative studies that explored views and experiences around MS diagnosis. Papers were quality-appraised using a standardised checklist. Data synthesis was guided by principles of meta-ethnography, a well-established interpretive method for synthesising qualitative evidence.ResultsThirty-seven papers were selected (with 874 people with MS). Synthesis demonstrated that around the point of MS diagnosis people experienced considerable emotional upheaval (e.g., shock, denial, anger, fear) and difficulties (e.g., lengthy diagnosis process) that limited their ability to make sense of their diagnosis, leading to adjustment difficulties. However, support resources (e.g., support from clinicians) and adaptive coping strategies (e.g., acceptance) facilitated the adjustment process. Additionally, several unmet emotional and informational support needs (e.g., need for personalised information and tailored emotional support) were identified that, if addressed, could improve adjustment to diagnosis.ConclusionsOur synthesis highlights the need for providing person-centred support and advice at the time of diagnosis and presents a conceptual map of adjustment for designing interventions to improve adjustment following MS diagnosis.Implications for RehabilitationThe period surrounding Multiple Sclerosis diagnosis can be stressful and psychologically demanding.Challenges and disruptions at diagnosis can threaten sense of self, resulting in negative emotions.Adaptive coping skills and support resources could contribute to better adjustment following diagnosis.Support interventions should be tailored to the needs of newly diagnosed people

Psychosocial adjustment to multiple sclerosis diagnosis: A meta-review of systematic reviews

This meta-review aimed to synthesise evidence on psychosocial adjustment to multiple sclerosis, to identify available treatment models and services for recently diagnosed individuals, and to explore their effectiveness. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature were searched to include systematic reviews on psychosocial adjustment in multiple sclerosis. Two reviewers independently screened and assessed the quality of the selected reviews. Data were synthesised using narrative approach. Overall, thirty systematic reviews were included (with ~131,813 people with multiple sclerosis). A variety of psychosocial factors were identified in relation to adjustment to multiple sclerosis. Seven theoretical models that underpinned the available services and ten different intervention categories (e.g. cognitive behavioural approaches, mindfulness) for adjustment to multiple sclerosis were identified. There was some evidence that these interventions improved quality of life and coping, however, the difference they could make to people's adjustment was inconclusive. It was also difficult to conclude whether these interventions were particularly effective with the newly diagnosed. There is some support for the effectiveness of adjustment interventions. However, there is a need to design and rigorously evaluate support programmes for newly diagnosed people with multiple sclerosis, specifically focusing on information and adjustment support

Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome

The sequence of the human genome encodes the genetic instructions for human physiology, as well as rich information about human evolution. In 2001, the International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium reported a draft sequence of the euchromatic portion of the human genome. Since then, the international collaboration has worked to convert this draft into a genome sequence with high accuracy and nearly complete coverage. Here, we report the result of this finishing process. The current genome sequence (Build 35) contains 2.85 billion nucleotides interrupted by only 341 gaps. It covers ∼99% of the euchromatic genome and is accurate to an error rate of ∼1 event per 100,000 bases. Many of the remaining euchromatic gaps are associated with segmental duplications and will require focused work with new methods. The near-complete sequence, the first for a vertebrate, greatly improves the precision of biological analyses of the human genome including studies of gene number, birth and death. Notably, the human enome seems to encode only 20,000-25,000 protein-coding genes. The genome sequence reported here should serve as a firm foundation for biomedical research in the decades ahead

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis

BackgroundProblems with cognition, particularly memory, are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can affect their ability to complete daily activities and can negatively affect quality of life. Over the last few years, there has been considerable growth in the number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of memory rehabilitation in MS. To guide clinicians and researchers, this review provides an overview of the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation for people with MS.ObjectivesTo determine whether people with MS who received memory rehabilitation compared to those who received no treatment, or an active control showed better immediate, intermediate, or longer‐term outcomes in their:1. memory functions,2. other cognitive abilities, and3. functional abilities, in terms of activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life.Search methodsWe searched CENTRAL which includes Clinicaltrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Portal, Embase and PubMed (MEDLINE), and the following electronic databases (6 September 2020): CINAHL, LILACS, the NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio database, The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, PsycINFO, and CAB Abstracts.Selection criteriaWe selected RCTs or quasi‐RCTs of memory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for people with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared with a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and then confirmed through group discussion. We excluded studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS, unless we could identify a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results.Data collection and analysisEight review authors were involved in this update in terms of study selection, quality assessment, data extraction and manuscript review. We contacted investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with Cochrane methods. We performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included. Outcomes were considered separately for ‘immediate’ (within the first month after completion of intervention), ‘intermediate’ (one to six months), and ‘longer‐term’ (more than six months) time points.Main resultsWe added 29 studies during this update, bringing the total to 44 studies, involving 2714 participants. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on using internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment‐only groups, discussion and games, non‐specific cognitive retraining, and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias amongst the included studies was generally low, but we found eight studies to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology.In this abstract, we are only reporting outcomes at the intermediate timepoint (i.e., between one and six months). We found a slight difference between groups for subjective memory (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.35; 11 studies; 1045 participants; high‐quality evidence) and quality of life (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.58; 6 studies; 683 participants; high‐quality evidence) favoring the memory rehabilitation group. There was a small difference between groups for verbal memory (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40; 6 studies; 753 participants; low‐quality evidence) and information processing (SMD 0.27, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.54; 8 studies; 933 participants; low‐quality evidence), favoring the memory rehabilitation group. We found little to no difference between groups for visual memory (SMD 0.20, 95% CI ‐0.11 to 0.50; 6 studies; 751 participants; moderate‐quality evidence), working memory (SMD 0.16, 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.40; 8 studies; 821 participants; moderate‐quality evidence), or activities of daily living (SMD 0.06, 95% CI ‐0.36 to 0.24; 4 studies; 400 participants; high‐quality evidence). Authors' conclusionsThere is evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on some outcomes assessed in this review at intermediate follow‐up. The evidence suggests that memory rehabilitation results in between‐group differences favoring the memory rehabilitation group at the intermediate time point for subjective memory, verbal memory, information processing, and quality of life outcomes, suggesting that memory rehabilitation is beneficial and meaningful to people with MS. There are differential effects of memory rehabilitation based on the quality of the trials, with studies of high risk of bias inflating (positive) outcomes. Further robust, large‐scale, multi‐centre RCTs, with better quality reporting, using ecologically valid outcome assessments (including health economic outcomes) assessed at longer‐term time points are still needed to be certain about the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation in people with MS