Understanding excess body weight: New Zealand Health Survey

Explores the increase in obesity over a 36 year period to 2013 and investigates the impact of obesity on different birth cohorts. Summary Obesity is New Zealand’s leading modifiable risk factor for health loss. A number of diseases, including type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, ischaemic stroke and some cancers, are associated with excess body weight. Health loss can lead to premature death; life expectancy for the extremely obese is shortened by 8 to10 years. There has been a dramatic increase in the global prevalence of obesity. In 2012 New Zealand adults ranked third highest out of 15 OECD countries for measures of obesity; in 2010 New Zealand children (aged 5–17 years) ranked third highest out of 40 countries for overweight (including obesity). This publication explores the increase in obesity over a 36 year period to 2013 and investigates the impact of obesity on different birth cohorts. It reviews the current status of adult and child obesity in New Zealand, looking at the population groups that are affected most. The report also looks at the prevalence of extreme obesity, where health impacts on individuals are likely to be most pronounced

Dynamics of Dialogic Capital in Interorganizational Collaboration

I treat the dynamics of interorganizational collaboration from a dialogue perspective. This extends the ‘exploitative’ and ‘explorative’ approaches that currently define scholarship on interorganizational collaboration. A dialogue perspective is argued to be particularly useful in understanding interorganizational efforts to tackle systemic issues that are technically as well as behaviorally complex, e.g., global warming. The concept of ‘dialogic capital’ is then introduced to theorize how, and by whom, the interorganizational dialogue is shaped in a context in which there is little formal authority among the participants. The process of accrual, leverage and growth/decline of dialogic capital is presented and implications for empirical research offered

Relational Space: Creating a Context for Innovation in Collaborative Consortia

Corporations are collaborating to meet complex global challenges heretofore considered beyond the mandate of business leaders. These multi organizational consortia are not philanthropic efforts but operate within market parameters with limited input from Non Governmental Organizations. In order to examine some dynamics of successful collaborative processes, we pursue an in-depth multi-method case study of “The Sustainability Consortium,” which has convened numerous Fortune 50 senior managers since 1999. We uncover the primacy of “relational space” – a rich context of trust and inquiry – within which participants create innovative projects for doing business in a sustainable way. Our analysis uncovers the dynamics among relational space and the action projects that ensue. We also account for the stakeholder influences and governance that form the architecture of collaboration. We develop a process model and propositions for further research

Therapeutic efficacy of microtube-embedded chondroitinase ABC in a canine clinical model of spinal cord injury

Many hundreds of thousands of people around the world are living with the long-term consequences of spinal cord injury and they need effective new therapies. Laboratory research in experimental animals has identified a large number of potentially translatable interventions but transition to the clinic is not straightforward. Further evidence of efficacy in more clinically-relevant lesions is required to gain sufficient confidence to commence human clinical trials. Of the many therapeutic candidates currently available, intraspinally applied chondroitinase ABC has particularly well documented efficacy in experimental animals. In this study we measured the effects of this intervention in a double-blinded randomized controlled trial in a cohort of dogs with naturally-occurring severe chronic spinal cord injuries that model the condition in humans. First, we collected baseline data on a series of outcomes: forelimb-hindlimb coordination (the prespecified primary outcome measure), skin sensitivity along the back, somatosensory evoked and transcranial magnetic motor evoked potentials and cystometry in 60 dogs with thoracolumbar lesions. Dogs were then randomized 1:1 to receive intraspinal injections of heat-stabilized, lipid microtube-embedded chondroitinase ABC or sham injections consisting of needle puncture of the skin. Outcome data were measured at 1, 3 and 6 months after intervention; skin sensitivity was also measured 24 h after injection (or sham). Forelimb-hindlimb coordination was affected by neither time nor chondroitinase treatment alone but there was a significant interaction between these variables such that coordination between forelimb and hindlimb stepping improved during the 6-month follow-up period in the chondroitinase-treated animals by a mean of 23%, but did not change in controls. Three dogs (10%) in the chondroitinase group also recovered the ability to ambulate without assistance. Sensitivity of the dorsal skin increased at 24 h after intervention in both groups but subsequently decreased to normal levels. Cystometry identified a non-significant improvement of bladder compliance at 1 month in the chondroitinase-injected dogs but this did not persist. There were no overall differences between groups in detection of sensory evoked potentials. Our results strongly support a beneficial effect of intraspinal injection of chondroitinase ABC on spinal cord function in this highly clinically-relevant model of chronic severe spinal cord injury. There was no evidence of long-term adverse effects associated with this intervention. We therefore conclude that this study provides strong evidence in support of initiation of clinical trials of chondroitinase ABC in humans with chronic spinal cord injury

Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?

© 2020, The Author(s). Expertise in research integration and implementation is an essential but often overlooked component of tackling complex societal and environmental problems. We focus on expertise relevant to any complex problem, especially contributory expertise, divided into ‘knowing-that’ and ‘knowing-how.’ We also deal with interactional expertise and the fact that much expertise is tacit. We explore three questions. First, in examining ‘when is expertise in research integration and implementation required?,’ we review tasks essential (a) to developing more comprehensive understandings of complex problems, plus possible ways to address them, and (b) for supporting implementation of those understandings into government policy, community practice, business and social innovation, or other initiatives. Second, in considering ‘where can expertise in research integration and implementation currently be found?,’ we describe three realms: (a) specific approaches, including interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, systems thinking and sustainability science; (b) case-based experience that is independent of these specific approaches; and (c) research examining elements of integration and implementation, specifically considering unknowns and fostering innovation. We highlight examples of expertise in each realm and demonstrate how fragmentation currently precludes clear identification of research integration and implementation expertise. Third, in exploring ‘what is required to strengthen expertise in research integration and implementation?,’ we propose building a knowledge bank. We delve into three key challenges: compiling existing expertise, indexing and organising the expertise to make it widely accessible, and understanding and overcoming the core reasons for the existing fragmentation. A growing knowledge bank of expertise in research integration and implementation on the one hand, and accumulating success in addressing complex societal and environmental problems on the other, will form a virtuous cycle so that each strengthens the other. Building a coalition of researchers and institutions will ensure this expertise and its application are valued and sustained

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure (HOME BP) using a digital intervention in poorly controlled hypertension: randomised controlled trial

Objective: The HOME BP (Home and Online Management and Evaluation of Blood Pressure) trial aimed to test a digital intervention for hypertension management in primary care by combining self-monitoring of blood pressure with guided self-management. Design: Unmasked randomised controlled trial with automated ascertainment of primary endpoint. Setting: 76 general practices in the United Kingdom. Participants: 622 people with treated but poorly controlled hypertension (>140/90 mm Hg) and access to the internet. Interventions: Participants were randomised by using a minimisation algorithm to self-monitoring of blood pressure with a digital intervention (305 participants) or usual care (routine hypertension care, with appointments and drug changes made at the discretion of the general practitioner; 317 participants). The digital intervention provided feedback of blood pressure results to patients and professionals with optional lifestyle advice and motivational support. Target blood pressure for hypertension, diabetes, and people aged 80 or older followed UK national guidelines. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was the difference in systolic blood pressure (mean of second and third readings) after one year, adjusted for baseline blood pressure, blood pressure target, age, and practice, with multiple imputation for missing values. Results: After one year, data were available from 552 participants (88.6%) with imputation for the remaining 70 participants (11.4%). Mean blood pressure dropped from 151.7/86.4 to 138.4/80.2 mm Hg in the intervention group and from 151.6/85.3 to 141.8/79.8 mm Hg in the usual care group, giving a mean difference in systolic blood pressure of −3.4 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −6.1 to −0.8 mm Hg) and a mean difference in diastolic blood pressure of −0.5 mm Hg (−1.9 to 0.9 mm Hg). Results were comparable in the complete case analysis and adverse effects were similar between groups. Within trial costs showed an incremental cost effectiveness ratio of £11 ($15, €12; 95% confidence interval £6 to £29) per mm Hg reduction. Conclusions: The HOME BP digital intervention for the management of hypertension by using self-monitored blood pressure led to better control of systolic blood pressure after one year than usual care, with low incremental costs. Implementation in primary care will require integration into clinical workflows and consideration of people who are digitally excluded. Trial registration: ISRCTN13790648

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib or ravulizumab in adult patients with severe COVID-19 (TACTIC-R): a randomised, parallel-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial

Background From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence suggested a role for cytokine dysregulation and complement activation in severe disease. In the TACTIC-R trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2, and ravulizumab, a monoclonal inhibitor of complement C5 activation, as an adjunct to standard of care for the treatment of adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods TACTIC-R was a phase 4, randomised, parallel-arm, open-label platform trial that was undertaken in the UK with urgent public health designation to assess the potential of repurposing immunosuppressants for the treatment of severe COVID-19, stratified by a risk score. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 22 hospitals across the UK. Patients with a risk score indicating a 40% risk of admission to an intensive care unit or death were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to standard of care alone, standard of care with baricitinib, or standard of care with ravulizumab. The composite primary outcome was the time from randomisation to incidence (up to and including day 14) of the first event of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiovascular organ support, or renal failure. The primary interim analysis was triggered when 125 patient datasets were available up to day 14 in each study group and we included in the analysis all participants who were randomly assigned. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04390464). Findings Between May 8, 2020, and May 7, 2021, 417 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to standard of care alone (145 patients), baricitinib (137 patients), or ravulizumab (135 patients). Only 54 (39%) of 137 patients in the baricitinib group received the maximum 14-day course, whereas 132 (98%) of 135 patients in the ravulizumab group received the intended dose. The trial was stopped after the primary interim analysis on grounds of futility. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for reaching the composite primary endpoint was 1·11 (95% CI 0·62–1·99) for patients on baricitinib compared with standard of care alone, and 1·53 (0·88–2·67) for ravulizumab compared with standard of care alone. 45 serious adverse events (21 deaths) were reported in the standard-of-care group, 57 (24 deaths) in the baricitinib group, and 60 (18 deaths) in the ravulizumab group. Interpretation Neither baricitinib nor ravulizumab, as administered in this study, was effective in reducing disease severity in patients selected for severe COVID-19. Safety was similar between treatments and standard of care. The short period of dosing with baricitinib might explain the discrepancy between our findings and those of other trials. The therapeutic potential of targeting complement C5 activation product C5a, rather than the cleavage of C5, warrants further evaluation

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