Histopathological Assessment of Microvascular Invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Resection Specimens and its Correlation with Tumor Size and Grade

OBJECTIVES To determine the histopathological assessment of microvascular invasion in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Resection Specimens and its correlation with tumour size and grade. METHODOLOGY This retrospective cross-sectional study included the biopsy-proven Hepatocellular (HCC) case with microvascular invasion (MVI) noted in the resected specimens evaluated by two independent consultants Histopathologists. The exclusion criteria were; all patients below 18 years, unfixed autolyzed samples, and incomplete requisition-filled forms. Numerical data, i.e., patient age and tumour size, are presented as mean with standard deviation. Categorical variables, i.e., tumour size, grade, and presence or absence of MVI, were submitted as numbers with percentages. Continuous variables, i.e., tumour size and differentiation grade, were assessed using the Chi-square test. A p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTSMost patients, 34.4%, fall into the age group of 47-70. Most patients were males, 63.6%, and microvascular invasion was noted in 49.09% of cases. Most cases were of moderate to poorly differentiated tumours, 80.0%. MVI was statistically significant with the grade of the tumour. CONCLUSION Microvascular invasion is an important prognostic marker noted in a surgical resection specimen. Although the exact definition and risk stratification is unclear, survival studies have proven that MVI is associated with poor outcomes

Antidepressants for the prevention of depression following first-episode psychosis (ADEPP): study protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background: Depressive episodes are common after first-episode psychosis (FEP), affecting more than 40% of people, adding to individual burden, poor outcomes, and healthcare costs. If the risks of developing depression were lower, this could have a beneficial effect on morbidity and mortality, as well as improving outcomes. Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and a common first-line medication for the treatment of depression in adults. It has been shown to be safe when co-prescribed with antipsychotic medication, and there is evidence that it is an effective treatment for depression in established schizophrenia. We present a protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial called ADEPP that aims to investigate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of sertraline in preventing depression after FEP. Methods: The recruitment target is 452 participants between the ages of 18 and 65 years who are within 12 months of treatment initiation for FEP. Having provided informed consent, participants will be randomised to receive either 50 mg of sertraline daily or matched placebo for 6 months, in addition to treatment as usual. The primary outcome measure will be a comparison of the number of new cases of depression between the treatment and placebo arms over the 6-month intervention phase. Secondary outcomes include suicidal behaviour, anxiety, rates of relapse, functional outcome, quality of life, and resource use. Discussion: The ADEPP trial will test whether the addition of sertraline following FEP is a clinically useful, acceptable, and cost-effective way of improving outcomes following FEP. Trial registration: ISRCTN12682719 registration date 24/11/2020

Effects of antibiotic resistance, drug target attainment, bacterial pathogenicity and virulence, and antibiotic access and affordability on outcomes in neonatal sepsis: an international microbiology and drug evaluation prospective substudy (BARNARDS)

Background Sepsis is a major contributor to neonatal mortality, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). WHO advocates ampicillin–gentamicin as first-line therapy for the management of neonatal sepsis. In the BARNARDS observational cohort study of neonatal sepsis and antimicrobial resistance in LMICs, common sepsis pathogens were characterised via whole genome sequencing (WGS) and antimicrobial resistance profiles. In this substudy of BARNARDS, we aimed to assess the use and efficacy of empirical antibiotic therapies commonly used in LMICs for neonatal sepsis. Methods In BARNARDS, consenting mother–neonates aged 0–60 days dyads were enrolled on delivery or neonatal presentation with suspected sepsis at 12 BARNARDS clinical sites in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Rwanda, and South Africa. Stillborn babies were excluded from the study. Blood samples were collected from neonates presenting with clinical signs of sepsis, and WGS and minimum inhibitory concentrations for antibiotic treatment were determined for bacterial isolates from culture-confirmed sepsis. Neonatal outcome data were collected following enrolment until 60 days of life. Antibiotic usage and neonatal outcome data were assessed. Survival analyses were adjusted to take into account potential clinical confounding variables related to the birth and pathogen. Additionally, resistance profiles, pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic probability of target attainment, and frequency of resistance (ie, resistance defined by in-vitro growth of isolates when challenged by antibiotics) were assessed. Questionnaires on health structures and antibiotic costs evaluated accessibility and affordability. Findings Between Nov 12, 2015, and Feb 1, 2018, 36 285 neonates were enrolled into the main BARNARDS study, of whom 9874 had clinically diagnosed sepsis and 5749 had available antibiotic data. The four most commonly prescribed antibiotic combinations given to 4451 neonates (77·42%) of 5749 were ampicillin–gentamicin, ceftazidime–amikacin, piperacillin–tazobactam–amikacin, and amoxicillin clavulanate–amikacin. This dataset assessed 476 prescriptions for 442 neonates treated with one of these antibiotic combinations with WGS data (all BARNARDS countries were represented in this subset except India). Multiple pathogens were isolated, totalling 457 isolates. Reported mortality was lower for neonates treated with ceftazidime–amikacin than for neonates treated with ampicillin–gentamicin (hazard ratio [adjusted for clinical variables considered potential confounders to outcomes] 0·32, 95% CI 0·14–0·72; p=0·0060). Of 390 Gram-negative isolates, 379 (97·2%) were resistant to ampicillin and 274 (70·3%) were resistant to gentamicin. Susceptibility of Gram-negative isolates to at least one antibiotic in a treatment combination was noted in 111 (28·5%) to ampicillin–gentamicin; 286 (73·3%) to amoxicillin clavulanate–amikacin; 301 (77·2%) to ceftazidime–amikacin; and 312 (80·0%) to piperacillin–tazobactam–amikacin. A probability of target attainment of 80% or more was noted in 26 neonates (33·7% [SD 0·59]) of 78 with ampicillin–gentamicin; 15 (68·0% [3·84]) of 27 with amoxicillin clavulanate–amikacin; 93 (92·7% [0·24]) of 109 with ceftazidime–amikacin; and 70 (85·3% [0·47]) of 76 with piperacillin–tazobactam–amikacin. However, antibiotic and country effects could not be distinguished. Frequency of resistance was recorded most frequently with fosfomycin (in 78 isolates [68·4%] of 114), followed by colistin (55 isolates [57·3%] of 96), and gentamicin (62 isolates [53·0%] of 117). Sites in six of the seven countries (excluding South Africa) stated that the cost of antibiotics would influence treatment of neonatal sepsis

Exploring the research needs, barriers and facilitators to the collection of biological data in adolescence for mental health research:a scoping review protocol paper

Introduction: While research into adolescent mental health has developed a considerable understanding of environmental and psychosocial risk factors, equivalent biological evidence is lacking and is not representative of economic, social and ethnic diversity in the adolescent population. It is important to understand the possible barriers and facilitators to conduct this research. This will then allow us to improve our understanding of how biology interacts with environmental and psychosocial risk factors during adolescence. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and understand the needs, barriers and facilitators related to the collection of biological data in adolescent mental health research. Methods and analysis: Reviewers will conduct a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, ERIC, EMBASE, ProQuest, EBSCO Global Health electronic databases, relevant publications and reference lists to identify studies published in the English language at any time. This scoping review will identify published studies exploring mental health/psychopathology outcomes, with biological measures, in participants between the ages of 11 and 18 and examine the reported methodology used for data collection. Data will be summarised in tabular form with narrative synthesis and will use the methodology of Levac et al, supplemented by subsequent recommendations from the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review Methodology. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. The scoping review will be conducted with input from patient and public involvement, specifically including young people involved in our study (‘Co-producing a framework of guiding principles for Engaging representative and diverse cohorts of young peopLE in Biological ReseArch in menTal hEalth’—www.celebrateproject.co.uk) Youth Expert Working Group. Dissemination will include publication in peer-reviewed journals, academic presentations and on the project website

Exploring the research needs, barriers and facilitators to the collection of biological data in adolescence for mental health research:a scoping review protocol paper

Introduction: While research into adolescent mental health has developed a considerable understanding of environmental and psychosocial risk factors, equivalent biological evidence is lacking and is not representative of economic, social and ethnic diversity in the adolescent population. It is important to understand the possible barriers and facilitators to conduct this research. This will then allow us to improve our understanding of how biology interacts with environmental and psychosocial risk factors during adolescence. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and understand the needs, barriers and facilitators related to the collection of biological data in adolescent mental health research. Methods and analysis: Reviewers will conduct a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, ERIC, EMBASE, ProQuest, EBSCO Global Health electronic databases, relevant publications and reference lists to identify studies published in the English language at any time. This scoping review will identify published studies exploring mental health/psychopathology outcomes, with biological measures, in participants between the ages of 11 and 18 and examine the reported methodology used for data collection. Data will be summarised in tabular form with narrative synthesis and will use the methodology of Levac et al, supplemented by subsequent recommendations from the Joanna Briggs Institute Scoping Review Methodology. Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review. The scoping review will be conducted with input from patient and public involvement, specifically including young people involved in our study (‘Co-producing a framework of guiding principles for Engaging representative and diverse cohorts of young peopLE in Biological ReseArch in menTal hEalth’—www.celebrateproject.co.uk) Youth Expert Working Group. Dissemination will include publication in peer-reviewed journals, academic presentations and on the project website