Comparison of the NEI-VFQ and OSDI questionnaires in patients with Sjögren's syndrome-related dry eye

BACKGROUND: To examine the associations between vision-targeted health-related quality of life (VT-HRQ) and ocular surface parameters in patients with Sjögren's syndrome, a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by dry eye and dry mouth. METHODS: Forty-two patients fulfilling European / American diagnostic criteria for Sjögren's syndrome underwent Schirmer testing without anesthesia, ocular surface vital dye staining; and measurement of tear film breakup time (TBUT). Subjects were administered the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) and the 25-item National Eye Institute Vision Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ). Main outcome measures included ocular surface parameters, OSDI subscales describing ocular discomfort (OSDI-symptoms), vision-related function (OSDI-function), and environmental triggers, and NEI-VFQ subscales. RESULTS: Participants (aged 31–81 y; 95% female) all had moderate to severe dry eye. Associations of OSDI subscales with the ocular parameters were modest (Spearman r (ρ) < 0.22) and not statistically significant. Associations of NEI-VFQ subscales with the ocular parameters reached borderline significance for the near vision subscale with TBUT (ρ = 0.32, p = .05) and for the distance vision subscale with van Bijsterveld score (ρ = 0.33, p = .04). The strongest associations of the two questionnaires were for: ocular pain and mental function with OSDI-symptoms (ρ = 0.60 and 0.45, respectively); and general vision, ocular pain, mental function, role function, and driving with OSDI-function (ρ = 0.60, 0.50, 0.61, 0.64, 0.57, and 0.67, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Associations between conventional objective measures of dry eye and VT-HRQ were modest. The generic NEI-VFQ was similar to the disease-specific OSDI in its ability to measure the impact of Sjögren's syndrome-related dry eye on VT-HRQ

Genome-wide imputation identifies novel associations and localises signals in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies.

OBJECTIVES The idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are heterogeneous diseases, thought to be initiated by immune activation in genetically predisposed individuals. In this study we imputed variants from the Immunochip array using a large reference panel to fine-map associations and identify novel associations in IIM. METHODS We analysed 2,565 Caucasian IIM samples collected through the Myositis Genetics Consortium (MYOGEN) and 10,260 ethnically-matched controls. We imputed 1,648,116 variants from the Immunochip array using the Haplotype Reference Consortium panel and conducted association analysis on IIM, and clinical and serological subgroups. RESULTS The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) locus was consistently the most significantly associated region. Four non-HLA regions reached genome-wide significance, three in the whole IIM cohort (SDK2 and LINC00924 - both novel, and STAT4), with evidence of independent variants in STAT4, and NAB1 in the polymyositis (PM) subgroup. We also found suggestive evidence of association with loci previously associated with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (TEC and LTBR). We identified more significant associations than those previously reported in IIM, for STAT4 and DGKQ in the total cohort, for NAB1 and FAM167A-BLK loci in PM, and CCR5 in inclusion body myositis. We found enrichment of variants among DNase I hypersensitivity sites and histone marks associated with active transcription within blood cells. CONCLUSIONS We report novel and strong associations in IIM and PM, and localise signals to single genes and immune cell types. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Identification of Novel Associations and Localization of Signals in Idiopathic Inflammatory Myopathies Using Genome-Wide Imputation

OBJECTIVES: The idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are heterogeneous diseases, thought to be initiated by immune activation in genetically predisposed individuals. In this study we imputed variants from the Immunochip array using a large reference panel to fine-map associations and identify novel associations in IIM. METHODS: We analysed 2,565 Caucasian IIM samples collected through the Myositis Genetics Consortium (MYOGEN) and 10,260 ethnically-matched controls. We imputed 1,648,116 variants from the Immunochip array using the Haplotype Reference Consortium panel and conducted association analysis on IIM, and clinical and serological subgroups. RESULTS: The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) locus was consistently the most significantly associated region. Four non-HLA regions reached genome-wide significance, three in the whole IIM cohort (SDK2 and LINC00924 - both novel, and STAT4), with evidence of independent variants in STAT4, and NAB1 in the polymyositis (PM) subgroup. We also found suggestive evidence of association with loci previously associated with other autoimmune rheumatic diseases (TEC and LTBR). We identified more significant associations than those previously reported in IIM, for STAT4 and DGKQ in the total cohort, for NAB1 and FAM167A-BLK loci in PM, and CCR5 in inclusion body myositis. We found enrichment of variants among DNase I hypersensitivity sites and histone marks associated with active transcription within blood cells. CONCLUSIONS: We report novel and strong associations in IIM and PM, and localise signals to single genes and immune cell types

Focused HLA analysis in Caucasians with myositis identifies significant associations with autoantibody subgroups

Objectives: Idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM) are a spectrum of rare autoimmune diseases characterised clinically by muscle weakness and heterogeneous systemic organ involvement. The strongest genetic risk is within the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). Since autoantibody presence defines specific clinical subgroups of IIM, we aimed to correlate serotype and genotype, to identify novel risk variants in the MHC region that co-occur with IIM autoantibodies. Methods: We collected available autoantibody data in our cohort of 2582 Caucasian patients with IIM. High resolution human leucocyte antigen (HLA) alleles and corresponding amino acid sequences were imputed using SNP2HLA from existing genotyping data and tested for association with 12 autoantibody subgroups. Results: We report associations with eight autoantibodies reaching our study-wide significance level of p<2.9x10(-5). Associations with the 8.1 ancestral haplotype were found with anti-Jo-1 (HLA-B*08:01, p=2.28x10(-53) and HLA-DRB1*03:01, p=3.25x10(-9)), anti-PM/Scl (HLA-DQB1*02:01, p=1.47x10(-26)) and anti-cN1A autoantibodies (HLA-DRB1*03:01, p=1.40x10(-11)). Associations independent of this haplotype were found with anti-Mi-2 (HLA-DRB1*07:01, p=4.92x10(-13)) and anti-HMGCR autoantibodies (HLA-DRB1*11, p=5.09x10(-6)). Amino acid positions may be more strongly associated than classical HLA associations; for example with anti-Jo-1 autoantibodies and position 74 of HLA-DRB1 (p=3.47x10(-64)) and position 9 of HLA-B (p=7.03x10(-11)). We report novel genetic associations with HLA-DQB1 anti-TIF1 autoantibodies and identify haplotypes that may differ between adult-onset and juvenile-onset patients with these autoantibodies. Conclusions: These findings provide new insights regarding the functional consequences of genetic polymorphisms within the MHC. As autoantibodies in IIM correlate with specific clinical features of disease, understanding genetic risk underlying development of autoantibody profiles has implications for future research

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

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

Dissolving the dichotomies between online and campus-based teaching: a collective response to The manifesto for teaching online (Bayne et al. 2020)

This article is a collective response to the 2020 iteration of The Manifesto for Teaching Online. Originally published in 2011 as 20 simple but provocative statements, the aim was, and continues to be, to critically challenge the normalization of education as techno-corporate enterprise and the failure to properly account for digital methods in teaching in Higher Education. The 2020 Manifesto continues in the same critically provocative fashion, and, as the response collected here demonstrates, its publication could not be timelier. Though the Manifesto was written before the Covid-19 pandemic, many of the responses gathered here inevitably reflect on the experiences of moving to digital, distant, online teaching under unprecedented conditions. As these contributions reveal, the challenges were many and varied, ranging from the positive, breakthrough opportunities that digital learning offered to many students, including the disabled, to the problematic, such as poor digital networks and access, and simple digital poverty. Regardless of the nature of each response, taken together, what they show is that The Manifesto for Teaching Online offers welcome insights into and practical advice on how to teach online, and creatively confront the supremacy of face-to-face teaching

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden

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