Sync or sink? Interpersonal synchrony impacts self-esteem

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Coordination Matters : Interpersonal Synchrony Influences Collaborative Problem-Solving

The authors thank Martha von Werthern and Caitlin Taylor for their assistance with data collection, Cathy Macpherson for her assistance with the preparation of the manuscript, and Mike Richardson, Alex Paxton, and Rick Dale for providing MATLAB code to assist with data analysis. The research was funded by the British Academy (SG131613).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

The path to approvals: Facilitating access to healthcare data via a local Governance Forum.

Objectives Research using unconsented healthcare data has the potential to have significant public benefit in terms of improved health outcomes. However, due to the sensitive nature of this data, appropriate governance, approvals, and mitigations are crucial to ensure that patient confidentiality and public trust are maintained. Approach As the permissions process can be a barrier to research, we established a local Governance Forum with the aim to streamline processes, increase transparency, and document approval requirements. Governance Forum membership includes representatives from the relevant health board and university departments (e.g., the regional Safe Haven, Information Governance, Ethics Committee, Data Protection, Research and Development). To achieve the Forum’s objectives, the regional Safe Haven raises current and potential project scenarios at quarterly meetings to confirm requirements and help develop a clear understanding of the approval pathway, with specific topics discussed with the relevant members out with these meetings as required. Results The Forum has strengthened communication and collaboration with Forum members which has enabled the Safe Haven to better support researchers. Outputs have included a permission pathway guidance document for researchers. This initial guidance document outlines approval requirements and provides relevant advice and support, with work currently ongoing to build on and improve this. In addition, as channels have been established for onboarding new project types and novel datasets, the diversity of datasets available for research is increasing and the route to approvals is now clearer for both researchers and internal teams. The Governance Forum activity has the potential to facilitate future research which may lead to academic publications and research funding, as well as improved health outcomes and policy change in the longer-term. Conclusion Although the progress so far has had significant impacts, the approval processes remain challenging for certain projects. Therefore, it will be imperative that sufficient resources are available in the future to ensure that further progress can be made via the Governance Forum as well as national initiatives

A National Network of Safe Havens:A Scottish Perspective

For over a decade, Scotland has implemented and operationalized a system of Safe Havens, which provides secure analytics platforms for researchers to access linked, deidentified electronic health records (EHRs) while managing the risk of unauthorized reidentification. In this paper, a perspective is provided on the state-of-the-art Scottish Safe Haven network, including its evolution, to define the key activities required to scale the Scottish Safe Haven network’s capability to facilitate research and health care improvement initiatives. A set of processes related to EHR data and their delivery in Scotland have been discussed. An interview with each Safe Haven was conducted to understand their services in detail, as well as their commonalities. The results show how Safe Havens in Scotland have protected privacy while facilitating the reuse of the EHR data. This study provides a common definition of a Safe Haven and promotes a consistent understanding among the Scottish Safe Haven network and the clinical and academic research community. We conclude by identifying areas where efficiencies across the network can be made to meet the needs of population-level studies at scale

Protective Immunity Induced with the RTS,S/AS Vaccine Is Associated with IL-2 and TNF-α Producing Effector and Central Memory CD4+ T Cells

A phase 2a RTS,S/AS malaria vaccine trial, conducted previously at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, conferred sterile immunity against a primary challenge with infectious sporozoites in 40% of the 80 subjects enrolled in the study. The frequency of Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein (CSP)-specific CD4+ T cells was significantly higher in protected subjects as compared to non-protected subjects. Intrigued by these unique vaccine-related correlates of protection, in the present study we asked whether RTS,S also induced effector/effector memory (TE/EM) and/or central memory (TCM) CD4+ T cells and whether one or both of these sub-populations is the primary source of cytokine production. We showed for the first time that PBMC from malaria-non-exposed RTS,S-immunized subjects contain both TE/EM and TCM cells that generate strong IL-2 responses following re-stimulation in vitro with CSP peptides. Moreover, both the frequencies and the total numbers of IL-2-producing CD4+ TE/EM cells and of CD4+ TCM cells from protected subjects were significantly higher than those from non-protected subjects. We also demonstrated for the first time that there is a strong association between the frequency of CSP peptide-reactive CD4+ T cells producing IL-2 and the titers of CSP-specific antibodies in the same individual, suggesting that IL-2 may be acting as a growth factor for follicular Th cells and/or B cells. The frequencies of CSP peptide-reactive, TNF-α-producing CD4+ TE/EM cells and of CD4+ TE/EM cells secreting both IL-2 and TNF-α were also shown to be higher in protected vs. non-protected individuals. We have, therefore, demonstrated that in addition to TNF-α, IL-2 is also a significant contributing factor to RTS,S/AS vaccine induced immunity and that both TE/EM and TCM cells are major producers of IL-2

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)

Mutations in the histone methyltransferase gene KMT2B cause complex early-onset dystonia.

Histone lysine methylation, mediated by mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL) proteins, is now known to be critical in the regulation of gene expression, genomic stability, cell cycle and nuclear architecture. Despite MLL proteins being postulated as essential for normal development, little is known about the specific functions of the different MLL lysine methyltransferases. Here we report heterozygous variants in the gene KMT2B (also known as MLL4) in 27 unrelated individuals with a complex progressive childhood-onset dystonia, often associated with a typical facial appearance and characteristic brain magnetic resonance imaging findings. Over time, the majority of affected individuals developed prominent cervical, cranial and laryngeal dystonia. Marked clinical benefit, including the restoration of independent ambulation in some cases, was observed following deep brain stimulation (DBS). These findings highlight a clinically recognizable and potentially treatable form of genetic dystonia, demonstrating the crucial role of KMT2B in the physiological control of voluntary movement.Funding for the project was provided by the Wellcome Trust for UK10K (WT091310) and DDD Study. The DDD study presents independent research commissioned by the Health Innovation Challenge Fund [grant number HICF-1009-003] - see www.ddduk.org/access.html for full acknowledgement. This work was supported in part by the Intramural Research Program of the National Human Genome Research Institute and the Common Fund, NIH Office of the Director. This work was supported in part by the German Ministry of Research and Education (grant nos. 01GS08160 and 01GS08167; German Mental Retardation Network) as part of the National Genome Research Network to A.R. and D.W. and by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (AB393/2-2) to A.R. Brain expression data was provided by the UK Human Brain Expression Consortium (UKBEC), which comprises John A. Hardy, Mina Ryten, Michael Weale, Daniah Trabzuni, Adaikalavan Ramasamy, Colin Smith and Robert Walker, affiliated with UCL Institute of Neurology (J.H., M.R., D.T.), King’s College London (M.R., M.W., A.R.) and the University of Edinburgh (C.S., R.W.)