A randomised controlled trial of rosuvastatin for the prevention of aminoglycoside-induced kidney toxicity in children with cystic fibrosis

The PROteKT study tested the hypothesis that rosuvastatin can inhibit aminoglycoside-induced nephrotoxicity in children with Cystic Fibrosis (CF). This open label, parallel group, randomised controlled trial recruited children and young people aged 6 to 18 years with CF at 13 paediatric CF treatment centres in the UK. Participants were randomised equally to either receive oral rosuvastatin (10 mg once daily) or no intervention (control) throughout clinically indicated treatment with intravenous tobramycin. The primary outcome was the difference between the groups in mean fold-change in urinary Kidney Injury Molecule-1 (KIM-1). Fifty (rosuvastatin n = 23, control n = 27) participants were recruited between May 2015 and January 2017. Primary outcome data was available for 88% (rosuvastatin n = 20, control n = 24). The estimated mean treatment difference in the geometric mean-fold change of normalised KIM-1 was 1.08 (95% CI 0.87–1.35, p = 0.48). In total there were 12 adverse reactions, all mild, reported by five participants randomised to rosuvastatin, and one serious adverse event in each group. Whilst no protective effect of rosuvastatin was seen, there was a lower than expected level of nephrotoxicity in the cohort. Therefore, we can neither confirm nor refute the hypothesis that rosuvastatin protects against aminoglycoside nephrotoxicity

The Way to a Boy's Heart? New Mechanisms for Making Boys Better

This paper situates the current educational focus on boys in the wider context of a workplace culture of performativity and enterprise. The authors argue that the present focus on reclaiming boys’ emotions parallels important shifts in the corporate sector to privilege the ‘soft skills’ of service and social interaction over the hard skills of boss management. However, in a departure from an earlier generation of correspondence theorists, the authors do not understand this ‘correspondence’ of schooling and industry needs as merely repressive. The new work culture is a service culture, and boys are being expected to have the requisite skills (of social service) in order to have jobs in the future. The first part of the paper provides a critique of the new essentialism that appears to underpin many of the social and educational intervention programs being conducted on behalf of Australian boys. The second part of the paper explains how such programs work as part of a larger logic about the sort of skills necessary to the ‘globalised’ workplace. The argument is made here that, for better and worse, this work which teachers are being asked to do allows boys to be redeemed as victims of their biology rather than ‘behavioural problems’. In being re-formed from villain to victim, boys can be become ‘better’ and more productive at the same time