Suicides In Rhodesia

A CAJM survey on suicide rates in Zimbabwe (ex-Rhodesia)Suicide rates are often used as one index of community mental health and may be of use in planning mental health services

The cortical focus in childhood absence epilepsy; evidence from nonlinear analysis of scalp EEG recordings

OBJECTIVE: To determine the origin and dynamic characteristics of the generalised hyper-synchronous spike and wave (SW) discharges in childhood absence epilepsy (CAE). METHODS: We applied nonlinear methods, the error reduction ratio (ERR) causality test and cross-frequency analysis, with a nonlinear autoregressive exogenous (NARX) model, to electroencephalograms (EEGs) from CAE, selected with stringent electro-clinical criteria (17 cases, 42 absences). We analysed the pre-ictal and ictal strength of association between homologous and heterologous EEG derivations and estimated the direction of synchronisation and corresponding time lags. RESULTS: A frontal/fronto-central onset of the absences is detected in 13 of the 17 cases with the highest ictal strength of association between homologous frontal followed by centro-temporal and fronto-central areas. Delays consistently in excess of 4 ms occur at the very onset between these regions, swiftly followed by the emergence of "isochronous" (0-2 ms) synchronisation but dynamic time lag changes occur during SW discharges. CONCLUSIONS: In absences an initial cortico-cortical spread leads to dynamic lag changes to include periods of isochronous interhemispheric synchronisation, which we hypothesize is mediated by the thalamus. SIGNIFICANCE: Absences from CAE show ictal epileptic network dynamics remarkably similar to those observed in WAG/Rij rats which guided the formulation of the cortical focus theory

COVID-19 in congenital heart disease (COaCHeD) study

Background: COVID-19 has caused significant worldwide morbidity and mortality. Congenital heart disease (CHD) is likely to increase vulnerability and understanding the predictors of adverse outcomes is key to optimising care.// Objective: Ascertain the impact of COVID-19 on people with CHD and define risk factors for adverse outcomes.// Methods: Multicentre UK study undertaken 1 March 2020–30 June 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected on CHD diagnoses, clinical presentation and outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression with multiple imputation was performed to explore predictors of death and hospitalisation.// Results: There were 405 reported cases (127 paediatric/278 adult). In children (age <16 years), there were 5 (3.9%) deaths. Adjusted ORs (AORs) for hospitalisation in children were significantly lower with each ascending year of age (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96 (p<0.01)). In adults, there were 24 (8.6%) deaths (19 with comorbidities) and 74 (26.6%) hospital admissions. AORs for death in adults were significantly increased with each year of age (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10 (p<0.01)) and with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; OR 5.99, 95% CI 1.34 to 26.91 (p=0.02)). AORs for hospitalisation in adults were significantly higher with each additional year of age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05 (p=0.04)), additional comorbidities (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.31 to 7.97 (p=0.01)) and genetic disease (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.94 (p=0.04)).// Conclusions: Children were at low risk of death and hospitalisation secondary to COVID-19 even with severe CHD, but hospital admission rates were higher in younger children, independent of comorbidity. In adults, higher likelihood of death was associated with increasing age and PAH, and of hospitalisation with age, comorbidities and genetic disease. An individualised approach, based on age and comorbidities, should be taken to COVID-19 management in patients with CHD

COVID-19 in congenital heart disease (COaCHeD) study

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has caused significant worldwide morbidity and mortality. Congenital heart disease (CHD) is likely to increase vulnerability and understanding the predictors of adverse outcomes is key to optimising care.OBJECTIVE: Ascertain the impact of COVID-19 on people with CHD and define risk factors for adverse outcomes.METHODS: Multicentre UK study undertaken 1 March 2020-30 June 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected on CHD diagnoses, clinical presentation and outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression with multiple imputation was performed to explore predictors of death and hospitalisation.RESULTS: There were 405 reported cases (127 paediatric/278 adult). In children (age &lt;16 years), there were 5 (3.9%) deaths. Adjusted ORs (AORs) for hospitalisation in children were significantly lower with each ascending year of age (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.96 (p&lt;0.01)). In adults, there were 24 (8.6%) deaths (19 with comorbidities) and 74 (26.6%) hospital admissions. AORs for death in adults were significantly increased with each year of age (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10 (p&lt;0.01)) and with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; OR 5.99, 95% CI 1.34 to 26.91 (p=0.02)). AORs for hospitalisation in adults were significantly higher with each additional year of age (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05 (p=0.04)), additional comorbidities (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.31 to 7.97 (p=0.01)) and genetic disease (OR 2.87, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.94 (p=0.04)).CONCLUSIONS: Children were at low risk of death and hospitalisation secondary to COVID-19 even with severe CHD, but hospital admission rates were higher in younger children, independent of comorbidity. In adults, higher likelihood of death was associated with increasing age and PAH, and of hospitalisation with age, comorbidities and genetic disease. An individualised approach, based on age and comorbidities, should be taken to COVID-19 management in patients with CHD.</p

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of valproate versus levetiracetam for newly diagnosed generalised and unclassifiable epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Valproate is a first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed idiopathic generalised or difficult to classify epilepsy, but not for women of child-bearing potential because of teratogenicity. Levetiracetam is increasingly prescribed for these patient populations despite scarcity of evidence of clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We aimed to compare the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam compared with valproate in participants with newly diagnosed generalised or unclassifiable epilepsy. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial to compare levetiracetam with valproate as first-line treatment for patients with generalised or unclassified epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services (69 centres overall) across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked generalised or unclassifiable seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either levetiracetam or valproate, using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factors. Participants and investigators were aware of treatment allocation. For participants aged 12 years or older, the initial advised maintenance doses were 500 mg twice per day for levetiracetam and valproate, and for children aged 5–12 years, the initial daily maintenance doses advised were 25 mg/kg for valproate and 40 mg/kg for levetiracetam. All drugs were administered orally. SANAD II was designed to assess the non-inferiority of levetiracetam compared with valproate for the primary outcome time to 12-month remission. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·314, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on valproate. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. Per-protocol (PP) analyses excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analyses included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 520 participants were recruited between April 30, 2013, and Aug 2, 2016, and followed up for a further 2 years. 260 participants were randomly allocated to receive levetiracetam and 260 participants to receive valproate. The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 255 participants randomly allocated to valproate and 254 randomly allocated to levetiracetam. Median age of participants was 13·9 years (range 5·0–94·4), 65% were male and 35% were female, 397 participants had generalised epilepsy, and 123 unclassified epilepsy. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission (HR 1·19 [95% CI 0·96–1·47]); non-inferiority margin 1·314. The PP analysis showed that the 12-month remission was superior with valproate than with levetiracetam. There were two deaths, one in each group, that were unrelated to trial treatments. Adverse reactions were reported by 96 (37%) participants randomly assigned to valproate and 107 (42%) participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam. Levetiracetam was dominated by valproate in the cost-utility analysis, with a negative incremental net health benefit of −0·040 (95% central range −0·175 to 0·037) and a probability of 0·17 of being cost-effectiveness at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Interpretation: Compared with valproate, levetiracetam was found to be neither clinically effective nor cost-effective. For girls and women of child-bearing potential, these results inform discussions about benefit and harm of avoiding valproate. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme

The SANAD II study of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam, zonisamide, or lamotrigine for newly diagnosed focal epilepsy: an open-label, non-inferiority, multicentre, phase 4, randomised controlled trial

Background: Levetiracetam and zonisamide are licensed as monotherapy for patients with focal epilepsy, but there is uncertainty as to whether they should be recommended as first-line treatments because of insufficient evidence of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. We aimed to assess the long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of levetiracetam and zonisamide compared with lamotrigine in people with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Methods: This randomised, open-label, controlled trial compared levetiracetam and zonisamide with lamotrigine as first-line treatment for patients with newly diagnosed focal epilepsy. Adult and paediatric neurology services across the UK recruited participants aged 5 years or older (with no upper age limit) with two or more unprovoked focal seizures. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1:1) using a minimisation programme with a random element utilising factor to receive lamotrigine, levetiracetam, or zonisamide. Participants and investigators were not masked and were aware of treatment allocation. SANAD II was designed to assess non-inferiority of both levetiracetam and zonisamide to lamotrigine for the primary outcome of time to 12-month remission. Anti-seizure medications were taken orally and for participants aged 12 years or older the initial advised maintenance doses were lamotrigine 50 mg (morning) and 100 mg (evening), levetiracetam 500 mg twice per day, and zonisamide 100 mg twice per day. For children aged between 5 and 12 years the initial daily maintenance doses advised were lamotrigine 1·5 mg/kg twice per day, levetiracetam 20 mg/kg twice per day, and zonisamide 2·5 mg/kg twice per day. All participants were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. The per-protocol (PP) analysis excluded participants with major protocol deviations and those who were subsequently diagnosed as not having epilepsy. Safety analysis included all participants who received one dose of any study drug. The non-inferiority limit was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·329, which equates to an absolute difference of 10%. A HR greater than 1 indicated that an event was more likely on lamotrigine. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, 30294119 (EudraCt number: 2012-001884-64). Findings: 990 participants were recruited between May 2, 2013, and June 20, 2017, and followed up for a further 2 years. Patients were randomly assigned to receive lamotrigine (n=330), levetiracetam (n=332), or zonisamide (n=328). The ITT analysis included all participants and the PP analysis included 324 participants randomly assigned to lamotrigine, 320 participants randomly assigned to levetiracetam, and 315 participants randomly assigned to zonisamide. Levetiracetam did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis of time to 12-month remission versus lamotrigine (HR 1·18; 97·5% CI 0·95–1·47) but zonisamide did meet the criteria for non-inferiority in the ITT analysis versus lamotrigine (1·03; 0·83–1·28). The PP analysis showed that 12-month remission was superior with lamotrigine than both levetiracetam (HR 1·32 [97·5% CI 1·05 to 1·66]) and zonisamide (HR 1·37 [1·08–1·73]). There were 37 deaths during the trial. Adverse reactions were reported by 108 (33%) participants who started lamotrigine, 144 (44%) participants who started levetiracetam, and 146 (45%) participants who started zonisamide. Lamotrigine was superior in the cost-utility analysis, with a higher net health benefit of 1·403 QALYs (97·5% central range 1·319–1·458) compared with 1·222 (1·110–1·283) for levetiracetam and 1·232 (1·112, 1·307) for zonisamide at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness was based on differences between treatment groups in costs and QALYs. Interpretation: These findings do not support the use of levetiracetam or zonisamide as first-line treatments for patients with focal epilepsy. Lamotrigine should remain a first-line treatment for patients with focal epilepsy and should be the standard treatment in future trials. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

Suicides In Rhodesia

Suicide rates are often used as one index of community mental health and may be of use in planning mental health services

Amplification as gloss in two twelfth-century texts: Robert de Boron's Joseph d'Arimathie and Renault de Beaujeu's Li Biaus Descouneüs

Where does a literary text originate and how is it formed? What are the influences at work on the writer as he produces his work and can these be perceived by the audience or reader? The focus of this study is the literary process which took place when a medieval writer wrote. This is conducted with reference to two texts representative of the period around the end of the twelfth century to the beginning of the thirteenth century: Robert de Boron's Joseph d'Arimathie and Renaut de Beaujeu's Li Biaus Descouneüs. The vocabulary which I have chosen in order to approach these questions, notably antancion, gloser la lettre and the technique of amplification, highlight the awareness of fiction, or fictional creation, called for by these writers. Both Robert and Renaut are builders of stories, elucidating and expanding the material at their disposal. The original idea is conceived in the poet's mind. This is then the starting point for a construction which relies on the combination of learned literary tradition with its patterns and codes and the wealth of material derived from antecedent sources. This study demonstrates that this seemingly artificial construct is individualised through the application of poetic antancïon. Despite evidence of extensive borrowing from a number of different sources, both Robert and Renaut can be credited with producing texts which exhibit an authorial perspective which departs from the original source and take a new direction. The way in which they achieve this is the subject of my research