C-tactile afferents: Cutaneous mediators of oxytocin release during affiliative tactile interactions?

Low intensity, non-noxious, stimulation of cutaneous somatosensory nerves has been shown to trigger oxytocin release and is associated with increased social motivation, plus reduced physiological and behavioural reactivity to stressors. However, to date, little attention has been paid to the specific nature of the mechanosensory nerves which mediate these effects. In recent years, the neuroscientific study of human skin nerves (microneurography studies on single peripheral nerve fibres) has led to the identification and characterisation of a class of touch sensitive nerve fibres named C-tactile afferents. Neither itch nor pain receptive, these unmyelinated, low threshold mechanoreceptors, found only in hairy skin, respond optimally to low force/velocity stroking touch. Notably, the speed of stroking which c-tactile afferents fire most strongly to is also that which people perceive to be most pleasant. The social touch hypothesis posits that this system of nerves has evolved in mammals to signal the rewarding value of physical contact in nurturing and social interactions. In support of this hypothesis, in this paper we review the evidence that cutaneous stimulation directly targeted to optimally activate c-tactile afferents reduces physiological arousal, carries a positive affective value and, under healthy conditions, inhibits responses to painful stimuli. These effects mirror those, we also review, which have been reported following endogenous release and exogenous administration of oxytocin. Taken together this suggests C-tactile afferent stimulation may mediate oxytocin release during affiliative tactile interactions

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Group-based positive psychotherapy for people living with acquired brain injury: a protocol for a feasibility study

Abstract Background Acquired brain injury (ABI) and other chronic conditions are placing unprecedented pressure on healthcare systems. In the UK, 1.3 million people live with the effects of brain injury, costing the UK economy approximately £15 billion per year. As a result, there is an urgent need to adapt existing healthcare delivery to meet increasing current and future demands. A focus on wellbeing may provide an innovative opportunity to reduce the pressure on healthcare services while also supporting patients to live more meaningful lives. The overarching aims of the study are as follows: (1) evaluate the feasibility of conducting a positive psychotherapy intervention for individuals with ABI and (2) ascertain under what conditions such an intervention would merit a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared to a standard control group (TAU). Methods and analysis A randomised, two-arm feasibility trial involving allocation of patients to either a treatment group (positive psychotherapy) or control group (treatment as usual) group, according to a 1:1 ratio. A total of 60 participants at three sites will be recruited including 20 participants at each site. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, on completion of the 8-week intervention and 3 months following completion. These will include a range of questionnaire-based measures, psychophysiology and qualitative outcomes focusing on feasibility outcomes and participant experience. This study has been approved by the Wales Research Ethics Committee (IRAS project ID: 271,251, REC reference: 19/WA/0336). Discussion This study will be the first to examine the feasibility of an innovative, holistic positive psychotherapy intervention for people living with ABI, focused on individual, collective and planetary wellbeing, and will enable us to determine whether to proceed to a full randomised controlled trial. Trial registration ISRCTN12690685 , registered 11th November 2020

A renaissance for the pioneering 16S rRNA gene

Culture-independent molecular surveys using the 16S rRNA gene have become a mainstay for characterizing microbial community structure over the past quarter century. More recently this approach has been overshadowed by metagenomics, which provides a global overview of a community's functional potential rather than just an inventory of its inhabitants. However, the pioneering 16S rRNA gene is making a comeback in its own right thanks to a number of methodological advancements including higher resolution (more sequences), analysis of multiple related samples (e.g. spatial and temporal series) and improved metadata, and use of metadata. The standard conclusion that microbial ecosystems are remarkably complex and diverse is now being replaced by detailed insights into microbial ecology and evolution based only on this one historically important marker gene