Professional learning needs in using video calls identified through workshops

BACKGROUND: Most people want to die at home but only half do. Supporting patients in rural locations is challenging. Video calls such as Skype, might help but are not routinely used; we should consider learning needs to increase uptake and ensure effective use. We aimed to identify learning needs of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in using video calls to support patients (and their carers) to die at home. METHODS: Face-to-face workshops were held in five Southwest England locations. Participants discussed advantages, disadvantages, scenarios for use, and the learning needs of video call users. Ideas were documented on flipcharts and discussions audio-recorded. The 116 participants included nurses, allied HCPs, doctors and previously bereaved volunteers. Lists of advantages, disadvantages, scenarios and learning needs were compiled and circulated to participants. In a subsequent online workshop, 21 participants ranked seven groups of learning needs in priority order. RESULTS: Most participants thought video calls could be used to advantage in many end-of-life scenarios, especially in rural areas. Seven themes, covering 59 learning needs for HCPs, were identified (in priority order): (i) confidence and technical ability in using video calls; (ii) being aware of how video calls fit into clinical practice; (iii) managing video calls; (iv) communication skills on ‘camera’; (v) understanding how patients and families may be affected by video call use; (vi) presenting video calls as an option to patients and families to assess their readiness; (vii) normal professional skills that become essential for effective video calls. CONCLUSIONS: Although almost ubiquitous, video call software is not routinely and effectively used in British clinical practice. Supporting patients and families at end-of-life is one example where it could be used to advantage, but clinicians need to plan and practise before using it in real situations. Learning needs were identified that could be developed into learning modules and/or courses. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-016-0657-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

First-in-Human Clinical Trial of Oral ONC201 in Patients with Refractory Solid Tumors

Purpose: ONC201 is a small-molecule selective antagonist of the G protein–coupled receptor DRD2 that is the founding member of the imipridone class of compounds. A first-in-human phase I study of ONC201 was conducted to determine its recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Experimental Design: This open-label study treated 10 patients during dose escalation with histologically confirmed advanced solid tumors. Patients received ONC201 orally once every 3 weeks, defined as one cycle, at doses from 125 to 625 mg using an accelerated titration design. An additional 18 patients were treated at the RP2D in an expansion phase to collect additional safety, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic information. Results: No grade \u3e 1 drug-related adverse events occurred, and the RP2D was defined as 625 mg. Pharmacokinetic analysis revealed a Cmax of 1.5 to 7.5 μg/mL (∼3.9–19.4 μmol/L), mean half-life of 11.3 hours, and mean AUC of 37.7 h·μg/L. Pharmacodynamic assays demonstrated induction of caspase-cleaved keratin 18 and prolactin as serum biomarkers of apoptosis and DRD2 antagonism, respectively. No objective responses by RECIST were achieved; however, radiographic regression of several individual metastatic lesions was observed along with prolonged stable disease (\u3e 9 cycles) in prostate and endometrial cancer patients. Conclusions: ONC201 is a selective DRD2 antagonist that is well tolerated, achieves micromolar plasma concentrations, and is biologically active in advanced cancer patients when orally administered at 625 mg every 3 weeks

Fatal Pediatric COVID-19 Case With Seizures and Fulminant Cerebral Edema

The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, can present with a wide range of neurological manifestations, in both adult and pediatric populations. We describe here the case of a previously healthy 8-year-old girl who presented with seizures, encephalopathy, and rapidly progressive, diffuse, and ultimately fatal cerebral edema in the setting of acute COVID-19 infection. CSF analysis, microbiological testing, and neuropathology yielded no evidence of infection or acute inflammation within the central nervous system. Acute fulminant cerebral edema (AFCE) is an often fatal pediatric clinical entity consisting of fever, encephalopathy, and new-onset seizures followed by rapid, diffuse, and medically-refractory cerebral edema. AFCE occurs as a rare complication of a variety of common pediatric infections and a CNS pathogen is identified in only a minority of cases, suggesting a para-infectious mechanism of edema. This report suggests that COVID-19 infection can precipitate AFCE, and highlights the need for high suspicion and early recognition thereof

Molnupiravir Plus Usual Care Versus Usual Care Alone as Early Treatment for Adults with COVID-19 at Increased Risk of Adverse Outcomes (PANORAMIC): Preliminary Analysis from the United Kingdom Randomised, Controlled Open-Label, Platform Adaptive Trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, in patients in the community who are multiply-vaccinated and at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, has not been established. We aimed to determine whether molnupiravir added to usual care reduced hospital admissions/deaths among people at higher risk from COVID-19, and here report our preliminary analyses. Methods: Participants in this UK multicentre, open-label, adaptive, multi-arm, platform, randomised controlled trial were aged ≥50, or ≥18 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤5 days with confirmed COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care or usual care plus molnupiravir (800mg twice daily for 5 days). The primary outcome measure was all-cause hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The main secondary outcome measure was time to first self-reported recovery. A sub-set of participants in each group were assessed for the virology primary outcome measure of day seven SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031 Findings: Between December 8, 2021 and April 27, 2022, 25783 participants were randomised to molnupiravir plus usual care (n=12821) or usual care alone (n=12962). Mean (range) age of participants was 56·6 years (18 to 99), 58·6% were female, and 99% had at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomisation was two days (IQR 1 – 3), the median number of days from symptom onset to starting to take the medication was three days (IQR 3 – 4), 87% (11109/11997) received their medication within five days of symptom onset, and 95·4% (n=11857) of participants randomised to molnupiravir reported taking molnupiravir for five days. Primary outcome measure data were available in 25000 (97%) participants and included in this analysis. 103/12516 (0·8%) hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the molnupiravir group versus 96/12484 (0·8%) in usual care alone with a posterior probability of superiority of 0·34 (adjusted odds ratio 1·061 (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]) 0·80 to 1·40). Estimates were similar for all subgroups. The observed median (IQR) time-to-first-recovery from randomisation was 9 (5–23) days in molnupiravir and 15 (7–not reached) days in usual care. There was an estimated benefit of 4·2 (95% BCI: 3·8 – 4·6) days in time-to-first-recovery (TTR) giving a posterior probability of superiority of >0·999 (estimated median TTR 10·3 [10·2 – 10·6] days vs 14·5 [14·2 – 14·9] days respectively; hazard ratio [95% BCI], 1·36 [1·3–1·4] days), which met the pre-specified superiority threshold. On day 7, SARS-CoV-2 virus was below detection levels in 7/34 (21%) of the molnupiravir group, versus 1/39 (3%) in the usual care group (p=0.039), and mean viral load was lower in the molnupiravir group compared with those receiving usual care [(SD) of log10(viral load) 3·82 (1·40) in the molnupiravir group and 4.93 (1·38) in the usual care group, (P<0·001)]. 59 (0·4%) participants experienced serious adverse events in the molnupiravir group and 52 (0·4%) in usual care. Interpretation: In this preliminary analysis, we found that molnupiravir did not reduce already low hospitalisations/deaths among higher risk, vaccinated adults with COVID-19 in the community, but resulted in faster time to recovery, and reduced viral detection and load. Funding: This project is funded by the NIHR (NIHR135366). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care

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

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (&lt;50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.MethodsPANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.FindingsBetween Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.InterpretationMolnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Symptomatic Intrathecal Hematoma following an Epidural Blood Patch for an Obstetric Patient with Postdural Puncture Headache: A Case Report and Synthesis of the Literature

Epidural blood patch (EBP), generally considered a low-risk procedure, can potentially lead to significant neurological complications. We report the case of a parturient who underwent an uneventful EBP for postdural puncture headache (PDPH) and subsequently presented with progressively worsening radicular symptoms. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) revealed an intrathecal hematoma, and conservative management with steroids led to complete recovery. Our case highlights the possibility of this rare complication following an uneventful procedure and the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment to prevent serious adverse outcomes. Literature review, EBP alternatives, and strategies to minimize complications following blood patch will be discussed in this report

A phase Ib study of interleukin-2 plus pembrolizumab for patients with advanced melanoma.

INTRODUCTION: High-dose interleukin-2 (HD IL-2) and pembrolizumab are each approved as single agents by the U.S. F.D.A. for the treatment of metastatic melanoma. There is limited data using the agents concurrently. The objectives of this study were to characterize the safety profile of IL-2 in combination with pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. METHODS: In this Phase Ib study, patients received pembrolizumab (200 mg IV every 3 weeks) and escalating doses of IL-2 (6,000 or 60,000 or 600,000 IU/kg IV bolus every 8 hours up to 14 doses per cycle) in cohorts of 3 patients. Prior treatment with a PD-1 blocking antibody was allowed. The primary endpoint was the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IL-2 when co-administered with pembrolizumab. RESULTS: Ten participants were enrolled, and 9 participants were evaluable for safety and efficacy. The majority of the evaluable participants (8/9) had been treated with PD-1 blocking antibody prior to enrollment. Patients received a median of 42, 22, and 9 doses of IL-2 in the low, intermediate, and high dose cohorts, respectively. Adverse events were more frequent with increasing doses of IL-2. No dose limiting toxicities were observed. The MTD of IL-2 was not reached. One partial response occurred in 9 patients (11%). The responding patient, who had received treatment with an anti-PD-1 prior to study entry, was treated in the HD IL-2 cohort. DISCUSSION: Although the sample size was small, HD IL-2 therapy in combination with pembrolizumab appears feasible and tolerable. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02748564