Perceptual and instrumental assessments of orofacial muscle tone in dysarthric and normal speakers

Clinical assessment of orofacial muscle tone is of interest for differential diagnosis of the dysarthrias, but standardized procedures and normative data are lacking. In this study, perceptual ratings of tone were compared with instrumental measures of tissue stiffness for facial, lingual, and masticatory muscles in 70 individuals with dysarthria. Perceptual and instrumental tone data were discordant and failed to discriminate between five dysarthria types. These results raised concerns about the validity of Myoton-3 stiffness measures in the orofacial muscles. Therefore, a second study evaluated contracted and relaxed orofacial muscles in 10 neurotypical adults. Results for the cheek, masseter, and lateral tongue surface followed predictions, with significantly higher tissue stiffness during contraction. In contradiction, stiffness measures from the superior surface of the tongue were lower during contraction. Superior-to-inferior tongue thickness was notably increased during contraction. A third study revealed that tissue thickness up to ~10 mm significantly affected Myoton-3 measures. Altered tissue thickness due to neuromuscular conditions like spasticity and atrophy may have undermined the detection of group differences in the original sample of dysarthric speakers. These experiments underscore the challenges of assessing orofacial muscle tone and identify considerations for quantification of tone-related differences across dysarthria groups in future studies

Perceptual and instrumental assessments of orofacial muscle tone in dysarthric and normal speakers

Clinical assessment of orofacial muscle tone is of interest for differential diagnosis of the dysarthrias, but standardized procedures and normative data are lacking. In this study, perceptual ratings of tone were compared with instrumental measures of tissue stiffness for facial, lingual, and masticatory muscles in 70 individuals with dysarthria. Perceptual and instrumental tone data were discordant and failed to discriminate between five dysarthria types. These results raised concerns about the validity of Myoton-3 stiffness measures in the orofacial muscles. Therefore, a second study evaluated contracted and relaxed orofacial muscles in 10 neurotypical adults. Results for the cheek, masseter, and lateral tongue surface followed predictions, with significantly higher tissue stiffness during contraction. In contradiction, stiffness measures from the superior surface of the tongue were lower during contraction. Superior-to-inferior tongue thickness was notably increased during contraction. A third study revealed that tissue thickness up to ~10 mm significantly affected Myoton-3 measures. Altered tissue thickness due to neuromuscular conditions like spasticity and atrophy may have undermined the detection of group differences in the original sample of dysarthric speakers. These experiments underscore the challenges of assessing orofacial muscle tone and identify considerations for quantification of tone-related differences across dysarthria groups in future studies

Indeterminate and discrepant rapid HIV test results in couples' HIV testing and counselling centres in Africa

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many HIV voluntary testing and counselling centres in Africa use rapid antibody tests, in parallel or in sequence, to establish same-day HIV status. The interpretation of indeterminate or discrepant results between different rapid tests on one sample poses a challenge. We investigated the use of an algorithm using three serial rapid HIV tests in cohabiting couples to resolve unclear serostatuses.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Heterosexual couples visited the Rwanda Zambia HIV Research Group testing centres in Kigali, Rwanda, and Lusaka, Zambia, to assess HIV infection status. Individuals with unclear HIV rapid antibody test results (indeterminate) or discrepant results were asked to return for repeat testing to resolve HIV status. If either partner of a couple tested positive or indeterminate with the screening test, both partners were tested with a confirmatory test. Individuals with indeterminate or discrepant results were further tested with a tie-breaker and monthly retesting. HIV-RNA viral load was determined when HIV status was not resolved by follow-up rapid testing. Individuals were classified based on two of three initial tests as "Positive", "Negative" or "Other". Follow-up testing and/or HIV-RNA viral load testing determined them as "Infected", "Uninfected" or "Unresolved".</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 45,820 individuals tested as couples, 2.3% (4.1% of couples) had at least one discrepant or indeterminate rapid result. A total of 65% of those individuals had follow-up testing and of those individuals initially classified as "Negative" by three initial rapid tests, less than 1% were resolved as "Infected". In contrast, of those individuals with at least one discrepant or indeterminate result who were initially classified as "Positive", only 46% were resolved as "Infected", while the remainder was resolved as "Uninfected" (46%) or "Unresolved" (8%). A positive HIV serostatus of one of the partners was a strong predictor of infection in the other partner as 48% of individuals who resolved as "Infected" had an HIV-infected spouse.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In more than 45,000 individuals counselled and tested as couples, only 5% of individuals with indeterminate or discrepant rapid HIV test results were HIV infected. This represented only 0.1% of all individuals tested. Thus, algorithms using screening, confirmatory and tie-breaker rapid tests are reliable with two of three tests negative, but not when two of three tests are positive. False positive antibody tests may persist. HIV-positive partner serostatus should prompt repeat testing.</p

Predictors of rapid aortic root dilation and referral for aortic surgery in Marfan syndrome

Few data exist regarding predictors of rapid aortic root dilation and referral for aortic surgery in Marfan syndrome (MFS). To identify independent predictors of the rate of aortic root (AoR) dilation and referral for aortic surgery, we investigated the data from the Pediatric Heart Network randomized trial of atenolol versus losartan in young patients with MFS. Data were analyzed from the echocardiograms at 0, 12, 24, and 36months read in the core laboratory of 608 trial subjects, aged 6months to 25 years, who met original Ghent criteria and had an AoR z-score (AoRz)>3. Repeated measures linear and logistic regressions were used to determine multivariable predictors of AoR dilation. Receiver operator characteristic curves were used to determine cut-points in AoR dilation predicting referral for aortic surgery. Multivariable analysis showed rapid AoR dilation as defined by change in AoRz/year>90th percentile was associated with older age, higher sinotubular junction z-score, and atenolol use (R-2=0.01) or by change in AoR diameter (AoRd)/year>90th percentile with higher sinotubular junction z-score and non-white race (R-2=0.02). Referral for aortic root surgery was associated with higher AoRd, higher ascending aorta z-score, and higher sinotubular junction diameter:ascending aorta diameter ratio (R-2=0.17). Change in AoRz of 0.72 SD units/year had 42% sensitivity and 92% specificity and change in AoRd of 0.34cm/year had 38% sensitivity and 95% specificity for predicting referral for aortic surgery. In this cohort of young patients with MFS, no new robust predictors of rapid AoR dilation or referral for aortic root surgery were identified. Further investigation may determine whether generalized proximal aortic dilation and effacement of the sinotubular junction will allow for better risk stratification. Rate of AoR dilation cut-points had high specificity, but low sensitivity for predicting referral for aortic surgery, limiting their clinical use. Clinical Trial Number ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00429364

Variants in ADRB1 and CYP2C9: Association with Response to Atenolol and Losartan in Marfan Syndrome

Objective: To test whether variants in ADRB1 and CYP2C9 genes identify subgroups of individuals with differential response to treatment for Marfan syndrome through analysis of data from a large, randomized trial. Study design: In a subset of 250 white, non-Hispanic participants with Marfan syndrome in a prior randomized trial of atenolol vs losartan, the common variants rs1801252 and rs1801253 in ADRB1 and rs1799853 and rs1057910 in CYP2C9 were analyzed. The primary outcome was baseline-adjusted annual rate of change in the maximum aortic root diameter z-score over 3 years, assessed using mixed effects models. Results: Among 122 atenolol-assigned participants, the 70 with rs1801253 CC genotype had greater rate of improvement in aortic root z-score compared with 52 participants with CG or GG genotypes (Time × Genotype interaction P = .005, mean annual z-score change ± SE -0.20 ± 0.03 vs -0.09 ± 0.03). Among participants with the CC genotype in both treatment arms, those assigned to atenolol had greater rate of improvement compared with the 71 of the 121 assigned to losartan (interaction P = .002; -0.20 ± 0.02 vs -0.07 ± 0.02; P < .001). There were no differences in atenolol response by rs1801252 genotype or in losartan response by CYP2C9 metabolizer status. Conclusions: In this exploratory study, ADRB1-rs1801253 was associated with atenolol response in children and young adults with Marfan syndrome. If these findings are confirmed in future studies, ADRB1 genotyping has the potential to guide therapy by identifying those who are likely to have greater therapeutic response to atenolol than losartan

Determinants of enhanced vulnerability to coronavirus disease 2019 in UK patients with cancer: a European study

Despite high contagiousness and rapid spread, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to heterogeneous outcomes across affected nations. Within Europe (EU), the United Kingdom (UK) is the most severely affected country, with a death toll in excess of 100,000 as of January 2021. We aimed to compare the national impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the risk of death in UK patients with cancer versus those in continental EU. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the OnCovid study database, a European registry of patients with cancer consecutively diagnosed with COVID-19 in 27 centres from 27th February to 10th September 2020. We analysed case fatality rates and risk of death at 30 days and 6 months stratified by region of origin (UK versus EU). We compared patient characteristics at baseline including oncological and COVID-19-specific therapy across UK and EU cohorts and evaluated the association of these factors with the risk of adverse outcomes in multivariable Cox regression models. Findings: Compared with EU (n = 924), UK patients (n = 468) were characterised by higher case fatality rates (40.38% versus 26.5%, p < 0.0001) and higher risk of death at 30 days (hazard ratio [HR], 1.64 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.36-1.99]) and 6 months after COVID-19 diagnosis (47.64% versus 33.33%; p < 0.0001; HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.33-1.88]). UK patients were more often men, were of older age and have more comorbidities than EU counterparts (p < 0.01). Receipt of anticancer therapy was lower in UK than in EU patients (p < 0.001). Despite equal proportions of complicated COVID-19, rates of intensive care admission and use of mechanical ventilation, UK patients with cancer were less likely to receive anti-COVID-19 therapies including corticosteroids, antivirals and interleukin-6 antagonists (p < 0.0001). Multivariable analyses adjusted for imbalanced prognostic factors confirmed the UK cohort to be characterised by worse risk of death at 30 days and 6 months, independent of the patient's age, gender, tumour stage and status; number of comorbidities; COVID-19 severity and receipt of anticancer and anti-COVID-19 therapy. Rates of permanent cessation of anticancer therapy after COVID-19 were similar in the UK and EU cohorts. Interpretation: UK patients with cancer have been more severely impacted by the unfolding of the COVID-19 pandemic despite societal risk mitigation factors and rapid deferral of anticancer therapy. The increased frailty of UK patients with cancer highlights high-risk groups that should be prioritised for anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Continued evaluation of long-term outcomes is warranted

SARS-CoV-2 omicron (B.1.1.529)-related COVID-19 sequelae in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients with cancer: results from the OnCovid registry

Background COVID-19 sequelae can affect about 15% of patients with cancer who survive the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection and can substantially impair their survival and continuity of oncological care. We aimed to investigate whether previous immunisation affects long-term sequelae in the context of evolving variants of concern of SARS-CoV-2. Methods OnCovid is an active registry that includes patients aged 18 years or older from 37 institutions across Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and a history of solid or haematological malignancy, either active or in remission, followed up from COVID-19 diagnosis until death. We evaluated the prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae in patients who survived COVID-19 and underwent a formal clinical reassessment, categorising infection according to the date of diagnosis as the omicron (B.1.1.529) phase from Dec 15, 2021, to Jan 31, 2022; the alpha (B.1.1.7)-delta (B.1.617.2) phase from Dec 1, 2020, to Dec 14, 2021; and the pre-vaccination phase from Feb 27 to Nov 30, 2020. The prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae was compared according to SARS-CoV-2 immunisation status and in relation to post-COVID-19 survival and resumption of systemic anticancer therapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04393974. Findings At the follow-up update on June 20, 2022, 1909 eligible patients, evaluated after a median of 39 days (IQR 24-68) from COVID-19 diagnosis, were included (964 [ 50 center dot 7%] of 1902 patients with sex data were female and 938 [49 center dot 3%] were male). Overall, 317 (16 center dot 6%; 95% CI 14 center dot 8-18 center dot 5) of 1909 patients had at least one sequela from COVID-19 at the first oncological reassessment. The prevalence of COVID-19 sequelae was highest in the prevaccination phase (191 [19 center dot 1%; 95% CI 16 center dot 4-22 center dot 0] of 1000 patients). The prevalence was similar in the alpha-delta phase (110 [16 center dot 8%; 13 center dot 8- 20 center dot 3] of 653 patients, p=0 center dot 24), but significantly lower in the omicron phase (16 [6 center dot 2%; 3 center dot 5-10 center dot 2] of 256 patients, p<0 center dot 0001). In the alpha- delta phase, 84 (18 center dot 3%; 95% CI 14 center dot 6-22 center dot 7) of 458 unvaccinated patients and three (9 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 9- 27 center dot 3) of 32 unvaccinated patients in the omicron phase had sequelae. Patients who received a booster and those who received two vaccine doses had a significantly lower prevalence of overall COVID-19 sequelae than unvaccinated or partially vaccinated patients (ten [7 center dot 4%; 95% CI 3 center dot 5-13 center dot 5] of 136 boosted patients, 18 [9 center dot 8%; 5 center dot 8-15 center dot 5] of 183 patients who had two vaccine doses vs 277 [ 18 center dot 5%; 16 center dot 5-20 center dot 9] of 1489 unvaccinated patients, p=0 center dot 0001), respiratory sequelae (six [4 center dot 4%; 1 center dot 6-9 center dot 6], 11 [6 center dot 0%; 3 center dot 0-10 center dot 7] vs 148 [9 center dot 9%; 8 center dot 4- 11 center dot 6], p= 0 center dot 030), and prolonged fatigue (three [2 center dot 2%; 0 center dot 1-6 center dot 4], ten [5 center dot 4%; 2 center dot 6-10 center dot 0] vs 115 [7 center dot 7%; 6 center dot 3-9 center dot 3], p=0 center dot 037)