One-Bone Forearm Procedure for Acquired Pseudoarthrosis of the Ulna Combined with Radial Head Dislocation in a Child: A Case with 20 Years Follow-Up

This report describes a 6 year-old boy who was treated with one-bone forearm procedure for acquired pseudoarthrosis of the ulna combined with radial head dislocation after radical ulna debridement for osteomyelitis. At more than 20 years of follow-up, the patient had a nearly full range of elbow movements with a few additional surgical procedures. Pronation and supination was restricted by 45°, but the patient had near-normal elbow and hand functions without the restriction of any daily living activity. This case shows that one-bone forearm formation is a reasonable option for forearm stability in longstanding pseudoarthrosis of the ulna with radial head dislocation in a child

Improving outcomes in adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability (EpAID) using a nurse-led intervention: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In adults with intellectual disability (ID) and epilepsy there are suggestions that improvements in management may follow introduction of epilepsy nurse-led care. However, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial and results cannot be generalised from general population studies as epilepsy tends to be more severe and to involve additional clinical comorbidities in adults with ID. This trial investigates whether nurses with expertise in epilepsy and ID, working proactively to a clinically defined role, can improve clinical and quality of life outcomes in the management of epilepsy within this population, compared to treatment as usual. The trial also aims to establish whether any perceived benefits represent good value for money. METHODS/DESIGN: The EpAID clinical trial is a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of nurse-led epilepsy management versus treatment as usual. This trial aims to obtain follow-up data from 320 participants with ID and drug-resistant epilepsy. Participants are randomly assigned either to a 'treatment as usual' control or a 'defined epilepsy nurse role' active arm, according to the cluster site at which they are treated. The active intervention utilises the recently developed Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework for adults with ID. Participants undergo 4 weeks of baseline data collection, followed by a minimum of 20 weeks intervention (novel treatment or treatment as usual), followed by 4 weeks of follow-up data collection. The primary outcome is seizure severity, including associated injuries and the level of distress manifest by the patient in the preceding 4 weeks. Secondary outcomes include cost-utility analysis, carer strain, seizure frequency and side effects. Descriptive measures include demographic and clinical descriptors of participants and clinical services in which they receive their epilepsy management. Qualitative study of clinical interactions and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and participants' carers are also undertaken. DISCUSSION: The EpAID clinical trial is the first cluster randomised controlled trial to test possible benefits of a nurse-led intervention in adults with epilepsy and ID. This research will have important implications for ID and epilepsy services. The challenges of undertaking such a trial in this population, and the approaches to meeting these are discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN96895428 version 1.1. Registered on 26 March 2013.Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation TrustThis is the final version of the article. It first appeared from BioMed Central via https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1429-

Training nurses in a competency framework to support adults with epilepsy and intellectual disability: the EpAID cluster RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with an intellectual (learning) disability (ID) and epilepsy have an increased seizure frequency, higher frequencies of multiple antiepileptic drug (AED) use and side effects, higher treatment costs, higher mortality rates and more behavioural problems than the rest of the population with epilepsy. The introduction of nurse-led care may lead to improvements in outcome for those with an ID and epilepsy; however, this has not been tested in a definitive clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether or not ID nurses, using a competency framework developed to optimise nurse management of epilepsy in people with an ID, can cost-effectively improve clinical and quality-of-life outcomes in the management of epilepsy compared with treatment as usual. DESIGN: Cluster-randomised two-arm trial. SETTING: Community-based secondary care delivered by members of community ID teams. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were adults aged 18-65 years with an ID and epilepsy under the care of a community ID team and had had at least one seizure in the 6 months before the trial. INTERVENTIONS: The experimental intervention was the Learning Disability Epilepsy Specialist Nurse Competency Framework. This provides guidelines describing a structure and goals to support the delivery of epilepsy care and management by ID-trained nurses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the seizure severity scale from the Epilepsy and Learning Disabilities Quality of Life questionnaire. Measures of mood, behaviour, AED side effects and carer strain were also collected. A cost-utility analysis was undertaken along with a qualitative examination of carers' views of participants' epilepsy management. RESULTS: In total, 312 individuals were recruited into the study from 17 research clusters. Using an intention-to-treat analysis controlling for baseline individual-level and cluster-level variables there was no significant difference in seizure severity score between the two arms. Altogether, 238 complete cases were included in the non-imputed primary analysis. Analyses of the secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences between arms. A planned subgroup analysis identified a significant interaction between treatment arm and level of ID. There was a suggestion in those with mild to moderate ID that the competency framework may be associated with a small reduction in concerns over seizure severity (standard error 2.005, 95% confidence interval -0.554 to 7.307;p = 0.092). However, neither subgroup showed a significant intervention effect individually. Family members' perceptions of nurses' management depended on the professional status of the nurses, regardless of trial arm. Economic analysis suggested that the competency framework intervention was likely to be cost-effective, primarily because of a reduction in the costs of supporting participants compared with treatment as usual. LIMITATIONS: The intervention could not be delivered blinded. Treatment as usual varied widely between the research sites. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, for adults with an ID and epilepsy, the framework conferred no clinical benefit compared with usual treatment. The economic analysis suggested that there may be a role for the framework in enhancing the cost-effectiveness of support for people with epilepsy and an ID. Future research could explore the specific value of the competency framework for those with a mild to moderate ID and the potential for greater long-term benefits arising from the continuing professional development element of the framework. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96895428. FUNDING: This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.This trial was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programm

A randomised study of rituximab and belimumab sequential therapy in PR3 ANCA-associated vasculitis (COMBIVAS): design of the study protocol

Background: Sequential B cell-targeted immunotherapy with BAFF antagonism (belimumab) and B cell depletion (rituximab) may enhance B cell targeting in ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV) through several mechanisms. Methods: Study design: COMBIVAS is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the mechanistic effects of sequential therapy of belimumab and rituximab in patients with active PR3 AAV. The recruitment target is 30 patients who meet the criteria for inclusion in the per-protocol analysis. Thirty-six participants have been randomised to one of the two treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio: either rituximab plus belimumab or rituximab plus placebo (both groups with the same tapering corticosteroid regimen), and recruitment is now closed (final patient enrolled April 2021). For each patient, the trial will last for 2 years comprising a 12-month treatment period followed by a 12-month follow-up period. Participants: Participants have been recruited from five of seven UK trial sites. Eligibility criteria were age ≥ 18 years and a diagnosis of AAV with active disease (newly diagnosed or relapsing disease), along with a concurrent positive test for PR3 ANCA by ELISA. Interventions: Rituximab 1000 mg was administered by intravenous infusions on day 8 and day 22. Weekly subcutaneous injections of 200 mg belimumab or placebo were initiated a week before rituximab on day 1 and then weekly through to week 51. All participants received a relatively low prednisolone (20 mg/day) starting dose from day 1 followed by a protocol-specified corticosteroid taper aiming for complete cessation by 3 months. Outcomes: The primary endpoint of this study is time to PR3 ANCA negativity. Key secondary outcomes include change from baseline in naïve, transitional, memory, plasmablast B cell subsets (by flow cytometry) in the blood at months 3, 12, 18 and 24; time to clinical remission; time to relapse; and incidence of serious adverse events. Exploratory biomarker assessments include assessment of B cell receptor clonality, B cell and T cell functional assays, whole blood transcriptomic analysis and urinary lymphocyte and proteomic analysis. Inguinal lymph node and nasal mucosal biopsies have been performed on a subgroup of patients at baseline and month 3. Discussion: This experimental medicine study provides a unique opportunity to gain detailed insights into the immunological mechanisms of belimumab-rituximab sequential therapy across multiple body compartments in the setting of AAV. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03967925. Registered on May 30, 2019

The Bayesian boom: good thing or bad?

A series of high-profile critiques of Bayesian models of cognition have recently sparked controversy. These critiques question the contribution of rational, normative considerations in the study of cognition. The present article takes central claims from these critiques and evaluates them in light of specific models. Closer consideration of actual examples of Bayesian treatments of different cognitive phenomena allows one to defuse these critiques showing that they cannot be sustained across the diversity of applications of the Bayesian framework for cognitive modeling. More generally, there is nothing in the Bayesian framework that would inherently give rise to the deficits that these critiques perceive, suggesting they have been framed at the wrong level of generality. At the same time, the examples are used to demonstrate the different ways in which consideration of rationality uniquely benefits both theory and practice in the study of cognition

Sometimes it does hurt to ask: The constructive role of articulating impressions

Decisions can sometimes have a constructive role, so that the act of, for example, choosing one option over another creates a preference for that option (e.g., Ariely and Norton, 2008, Payne et al., 1993, Sharot et al., 2010 and Sherman, 1980). In this work we explore the constructive role of just articulating an impression, for a presented visual stimulus, as opposed to making a choice (specifically, the judgments we employ are affective evaluations). Using quantum probability theory, we outline a cognitive model formalizing such a constructive process. We predict a simple interaction, in relation to how a second image is evaluated, following the presentation of a first image, depending on whether there is a rating for the first image or not. The interaction predicted by the quantum model was confirmed across three experiments and a variety of control manipulations. The advantages of using quantum probability theory to model the present results, compared with existing models of sequence order effects in judgment (e.g., Hogarth & Einhorn, 1992) or other theories of constructive processes when a choice is made (e.g., Festinger, 1957 and Sharot et al., 2010) are discussed

2012 American College of Rheumatology guidelines for management of gout. Part 2: Therapy and antiinflammatory prophylaxis of acute gouty arthritis

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93765/1/21773_ftp.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/93765/2/ACR_21773_sm_SupplFig1.pd

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): Survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

It is time to talk about people: a human-centered healthcare system

Examining vulnerabilities within our current healthcare system we propose borrowing two tools from the fields of engineering and design: a) Reason's system approach [1] and b) User-centered design [2,3]. Both approaches are human-centered in that they consider common patterns of human behavior when analyzing systems to identify problems and generate solutions. This paper examines these two human-centered approaches in the context of healthcare. We argue that maintaining a human-centered orientation in clinical care, research, training, and governance is critical to the evolution of an effective and sustainable healthcare system

Imaging biomarker roadmap for cancer studies.

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) are integral to the routine management of patients with cancer. IBs used daily in oncology include clinical TNM stage, objective response and left ventricular ejection fraction. Other CT, MRI, PET and ultrasonography biomarkers are used extensively in cancer research and drug development. New IBs need to be established either as useful tools for testing research hypotheses in clinical trials and research studies, or as clinical decision-making tools for use in healthcare, by crossing 'translational gaps' through validation and qualification. Important differences exist between IBs and biospecimen-derived biomarkers and, therefore, the development of IBs requires a tailored 'roadmap'. Recognizing this need, Cancer Research UK (CRUK) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) assembled experts to review, debate and summarize the challenges of IB validation and qualification. This consensus group has produced 14 key recommendations for accelerating the clinical translation of IBs, which highlight the role of parallel (rather than sequential) tracks of technical (assay) validation, biological/clinical validation and assessment of cost-effectiveness; the need for IB standardization and accreditation systems; the need to continually revisit IB precision; an alternative framework for biological/clinical validation of IBs; and the essential requirements for multicentre studies to qualify IBs for clinical use.Development of this roadmap received support from Cancer Research UK and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grant references A/15267, A/16463, A/16464, A/16465, A/16466 and A/18097), the EORTC Cancer Research Fund, and the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking (grant agreement number 115151), resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) and European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) companies' in kind contribution