Goal-orientated cognitive rehabilitation for dementias associated with Parkinson's disease―A pilot randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To examine the appropriateness and feasibility of cognitive rehabilitation for people with dementias associated with Parkinson's in a pilot randomised controlled study. METHODS: This was a single-blind pilot randomised controlled trial of goal-oriented cognitive rehabilitation for dementias associated with Parkinson's. After goal setting, participants were randomised to cognitive rehabilitation (n = 10), relaxation therapy (n = 10), or treatment-as-usual (n = 9). Primary outcomes were ratings of goal attainment and satisfaction with goal attainment. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, mood, cognition, health status, everyday functioning, and carers' ratings of goal attainment and their own quality of life and stress levels. Assessments were at 2 and 6 months following randomisation. RESULTS: At 2 months, cognitive rehabilitation was superior to treatment-as-usual and relaxation therapy for the primary outcomes of self-rated goal attainment (d = 1.63 and d = 1.82, respectively) and self-rated satisfaction with goal attainment (d = 2.04 and d = 1.84). At 6 months, cognitive rehabilitation remained superior to treatment-as-usual (d = 1.36) and relaxation therapy (d = 1.77) for self-rated goal attainment. Cognitive rehabilitation was superior to treatment as usual and/or relaxation therapy in a number of secondary outcomes at 2 months (mood, self-efficacy, social domain of quality of life, carers' ratings of participants' goal attainment) and at 6 months (delayed recall, health status, quality of life, carer ratings of participants' goal attainment). Carers receiving cognitive rehabilitation reported better quality of life, health status, and lower stress than those allocated to treatment-as-usual. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive rehabilitation is feasible and potentially effective for dementias associated with Parkinson's disease

Goal Setting for Cognitive Rehabilitation in Mild to Moderate Parkinson’s Disease Dementia and Dementia with Lewy Bodies

This is the final version of the article. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.Alongside the physical symptoms associated with Parkinson’s disease dementia and dementia with Lewy bodies, health services must also address the cognitive impairments that accompany these conditions. There is growing interest in the use of nonpharmacological approaches to managing the consequences of cognitive disorder. Cognitive rehabilitation is a goal-orientated behavioural intervention which aims to enhance functional independence through the use of strategies specific to the individual’s needs and abilities. Fundamental to this therapy is a person’s capacity to set goals for rehabilitation. To date, no studies have assessed goal setting in early-stage Parkinson’s disease dementia or dementia with Lewy bodies. Semistructured interviews were carried out with 29 participants from an ongoing trial of cognitive rehabilitation for people with these conditions. Here, we examined the goal statements provided by these participants using qualitative content analysis, exploring the types and nature of the goals set. Participants’ goals reflected their motivations to learn new skills or improve performance in areas such as technology-use, selfmanagement and orientation, medication management, and social and leisure activities. These results suggest that goal setting is achievable for these participants, provide insight into the everyday cognitive difficulties that they experience, and highlight possible domains as targets for intervention. The trial is registered with ISRCTN16584442 (DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN16584442 13/04/2015)This work is supported by Health and Care Research Wales (formerly the National Institute for Health & Social Care Research) Grant no. RFPPB-2042-1020. The authors wish to thank Dr. Pam Martin-Forbes, Aaron Pritchard, Tori Garvey, Claire Watkins, and the staff based at BCUHB clinics for their ongoing assistance with participant screening and recruitment. The authors also thank Professor Kris Krippendorff for his advice regarding the interrater analysis and both Professor Krippendorff and Dr. Richard Craggs for use of their software program to perform this analysis

Using a Human Challenge Model of Infection to Measure Vaccine Efficacy: A Randomised, Controlled Trial Comparing the Typhoid Vaccines M01ZH09 with Placebo and Ty21a

Background Typhoid persists as a major cause of global morbidity. While several licensed vaccines to prevent typhoid are available, they are of only moderate efficacy and unsuitable for use in children less than two years of age. Development of new efficacious vaccines is complicated by the human host-restriction of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (S. Typhi) and lack of clear correlates of protection. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the protective efficacy of a single dose of the oral vaccine candidate, M01ZH09, in susceptible volunteers by direct typhoid challenge. Methods and Findings We performed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in healthy adult participants at a single centre in Oxford (UK). Participants were allocated to receive one dose of double-blinded M01ZH09 or placebo or 3-doses of open-label Ty21a. Twenty-eight days after vaccination, participants were challenged with 104CFU S. Typhi Quailes strain. The efficacy of M01ZH09 compared with placebo (primary outcome) was assessed as the percentage of participants reaching pre-defined endpoints constituting typhoid diagnosis (fever and/or bacteraemia) during the 14 days after challenge. Ninety-nine participants were randomised to receive M01ZH09 (n = 33), placebo (n = 33) or 3-doses of Ty21a (n = 33). After challenge, typhoid was diagnosed in 18/31 (58.1% [95% CI 39.1 to 75.5]) M01ZH09, 20/30 (66.7% [47.2 to 87.2]) placebo, and 13/30 (43.3% [25.5 to 62.6]) Ty21a vaccine recipients. Vaccine efficacy (VE) for one dose of M01ZH09 was 13% [95% CI -29 to 41] and 35% [-5 to 60] for 3-doses of Ty21a. Retrospective multivariable analyses demonstrated that pre-existing anti-Vi antibody significantly reduced susceptibility to infection after challenge; a 1 log increase in anti-Vi IgG resulting in a 71% decrease in the hazard ratio of typhoid diagnosis ([95% CI 30 to 88%], p = 0.006) during the 14 day challenge period. Limitations to the study included the requirement to limit the challenge period prior to treatment to 2 weeks, the intensity of the study procedures and the high challenge dose used resulting in a stringent model. Conclusions Despite successfully demonstrating the use of a human challenge study to directly evaluate vaccine efficacy, a single-dose M01ZH09 failed to demonstrate significant protection after challenge with virulent Salmonella Typhi in this model. Anti-Vi antibody detected prior to vaccination played a major role in outcome after challenge

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Proportion of participants reporting each solicited symptom during the 7-days after receipt of (first) vaccine dose.

<p>(A) Placebo, (B) M01ZH09, and (C) Ty21a vaccine recipient groups. Maximum severity score per participant for each symptom was used; grade 1: symptom reported but no interference with daily activity; grade 2: some interference with normal daily activities; grade 3: significant symptoms preventing normal daily activity; grade 4: potentially life-threatening (see <b><a href="http://www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0004926#pntd.0004926.s003" target="_blank">S1 Protocol</a></b>).</p

Summary of stool shedding by participants between Day 0 (including pre-challenge) until completion of challenge, according to vaccine group allocation, challenge outcome and phase of shedding.

<p>Summary of stool shedding by participants between Day 0 (including pre-challenge) until completion of challenge, according to vaccine group allocation, challenge outcome and phase of shedding.</p

Cumulative incidence of typhoid infection after <i>S</i>. Typhi challenge at Time = 0.

<p>Time to infection, measured from challenge agent ingestion to development of first fever ≥38°C or first positive blood culture sampling. Non-diagnosed participants censored at 348 hours (dashed line). P value from log-rank test comparing all three groups.</p

Participant characteristics by enrolled vaccine group.

<p>Participant characteristics by enrolled vaccine group.</p

Analysis of covariance comparisons for increase in ASC titres against LPS, flagellin (H) and Vi between prevaccination (Day -28) and Day -21, between each active vaccine group (1. M01ZH09 and 2. Ty21a) and placebo.

<p>Analyses were performed with the dependent variable log(change from baseline) with adjustment for log(pre-vaccination) values. GMR, geometric mean ratio compared to placebo.</p

Study profile.

<p>During the screening process, participant exclusions were made either during initial telephone screening or at/after the study centre screening visit. ‘Other’ reasons for exclusions were: contact with young children (3), contact with vulnerable individuals (9), food-related occupation (5), previously resident in typhoid-endemic area for >6 months (15), unable to contact (6) & unknown (8).</p