A practical perspective on the potential of rechargeable Mg batteries

Emerging energy storage systems based on abundant and cost-effective materials are key to overcome the global energy and climate crisis of the 21st century. Rechargeable Magnesium Batteries (RMB), based on Earth-abundant magnesium, can provide a cheap and environmentally responsible alternative to the benchmark Li-ion technology, especially for large energy storage applications. Currently, RMB technology is the subject of intense research efforts at laboratory scale. However, these emerging approaches must be placed in a real-world perspective to ensure that they satisfy key technological requirements. In an attempt to bridge the gap between laboratory advancements and industrial development demands, herein, we report the first non-aqueous multilayer RMB pouch cell prototypes and propose a roadmap for a new advanced RMB chemistry. Through this work, we aim to show the great unrealized potential of RMBs.This work was funded by European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the FET Proactive call with grant agreement no 824066 via the “E-MAGIC” project

A practical perspective on the potential of rechargeable Mg batteries

Emerging energy storage systems based on abundant and cost-effective materials are key to overcome the global energy and climate crisis of the 21st century. Rechargeable Magnesium Batteries (RMB), based on Earth-abundant magnesium, can provide a cheap and environmentally responsible alternative to the benchmark Li-ion technology, especially for large energy storage applications. Currently, RMB technology is the subject of intense research efforts at laboratory scale. However, these emerging approaches must be placed in a real-world perspective to ensure that they satisfy key technological requirements. In an attempt to bridge the gap between laboratory advancements and industrial development demands, herein, we report the first non-aqueous multilayer RMB pouch cell prototypes and propose a roadmap for a new advanced RMB chemistry. Through this work, we aim to show the great unrealized potential of RMBs

Immediate versus delayed short-term integrated palliative care for advanced long-term neurological conditions: the OPTCARE Neuro RCT

BackgroundPalliative care is recommended to help meet the needs of patients with progressive non-cancer conditions, such as long-term neurological conditions. However, few trials have tested palliative care in this population.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of short-term integrated palliative care in improving symptoms, improving patient- and caregiver-reported outcomes and reducing hospital use for people severely affected by long-term neurological conditions.DesignPragmatic, randomised controlled, multicentre, fast-track trial, with an embedded qualitative component and surveys.SettingSeven UK centres (South London, Nottingham, Liverpool, Cardiff, Brighton, Ashford and Sheffield) with multiprofessional palliative care teams and neurology services.ParticipantsPeople living with multiple sclerosis, idiopathic Parkinson’s disease, motor neurone disease, multiple system atrophy or progressive supranuclear palsy, with unresolved symptoms and/or complex psychosocial needs. The qualitative study involved patients, caregivers and health-care staff.InterventionsParticipants were randomised to receive short-term integrated palliative care, delivered by multiprofessional teams, immediately or after a 12-week wait (standard care group).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was a combined score of eight symptoms measured by the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale for Neurological conditions 8 symptom subscale (IPOS Neuro-S8) at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included patients’ other physical and psychological symptoms, quality of life (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version), care satisfaction, caregiver burden, service use and cost, and harms. Data were analysed using multiple imputation, generalised linear mixed models, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (threshold was the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year) and cost-effectiveness planes. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.ResultsWe recruited 350 patients and 229 caregivers. There were no significant between-group differences for primary or secondary outcomes. Patients receiving short-term integrated palliative care had a significant improvement, from baseline to 12 weeks, on the primary outcome IPOS Neuro-S8 (–0.78, 95% confidence interval –1.29 to –0.26) and the secondary outcome of 24 physical symptoms (–1.95, 99.55% confidence interval –3.60 to –0.30). This was not seen in the control group, in which conversely, care satisfaction significantly reduced from baseline to 12 weeks (–2.89, 99.55% confidence interval –5.19 to –0.59). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were smaller than the set threshold (EuroQol-5 Dimensions index score –£23,545; IPOS Neuro-S8 –£1519), indicating that the intervention provided cost savings plus better outcomes. Deaths, survival and hospitalisations were similar between the two groups. Qualitative data suggested that the impact of the intervention encompassed three themes: (1) adapting to losses and building resilience, (2) attending to function, deficits and maintaining stability, and (3) enabling caregivers to care.ConclusionsOur results indicate that short-term integrated palliative care provides improvements in patient-reported physical symptoms at a lower cost and without harmful effects when compared with standard care.LimitationsOutcome measures may not have been sensitive enough to capture the multidimensional changes from the intervention. Our surveys found that the control/standard and intervention services were heterogeneous.Future workRefining short-term integrated palliative care and similar approaches for long-term neurological conditions, focusing on better integration of existing services, criteria for referral and research to improve symptom management

A prospective prostate cancer screening programme for men with pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes (IMPACT): initial results from an international prospective study.

Funder: Victorian Cancer AgencyFunder: NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Cancer Research UKFunder: Cancer Council TasmaniaFunder: Instituto de Salud Carlos IIIFunder: Cancer AustraliaFunder: NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Fundación Científica de la Asociación Española Contra el CáncerFunder: Cancer Council South AustraliaFunder: Swedish Cancer SocietyFunder: NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreFunder: Institut Català de la SalutFunder: Cancer Council VictoriaFunder: Prostate Cancer Foundation of AustraliaFunder: National Institutes of HealthBACKGROUND: Lynch syndrome is a rare familial cancer syndrome caused by pathogenic variants in the mismatch repair genes MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, or PMS2, that cause predisposition to various cancers, predominantly colorectal and endometrial cancer. Data are emerging that pathogenic variants in mismatch repair genes increase the risk of early-onset aggressive prostate cancer. The IMPACT study is prospectively assessing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in men with germline mismatch repair pathogenic variants. Here, we report the usefulness of PSA screening, prostate cancer incidence, and tumour characteristics after the first screening round in men with and without these germline pathogenic variants. METHODS: The IMPACT study is an international, prospective study. Men aged 40-69 years without a previous prostate cancer diagnosis and with a known germline pathogenic variant in the MLH1, MSH2, or MSH6 gene, and age-matched male controls who tested negative for a familial pathogenic variant in these genes were recruited from 34 genetic and urology clinics in eight countries, and underwent a baseline PSA screening. Men who had a PSA level higher than 3·0 ng/mL were offered a transrectal, ultrasound-guided, prostate biopsy and a histopathological analysis was done. All participants are undergoing a minimum of 5 years' annual screening. The primary endpoint was to determine the incidence, stage, and pathology of screening-detected prostate cancer in carriers of pathogenic variants compared with non-carrier controls. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the number of cases, cancer incidence, and positive predictive values of the PSA cutoff and biopsy between carriers and non-carriers and the differences between disease types (ie, cancer vs no cancer, clinically significant cancer vs no cancer). We assessed screening outcomes and tumour characteristics by pathogenic variant status. Here we present results from the first round of PSA screening in the IMPACT study. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00261456, and is now closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between Sept 28, 2012, and March 1, 2020, 828 men were recruited (644 carriers of mismatch repair pathogenic variants [204 carriers of MLH1, 305 carriers of MSH2, and 135 carriers of MSH6] and 184 non-carrier controls [65 non-carriers of MLH1, 76 non-carriers of MSH2, and 43 non-carriers of MSH6]), and in order to boost the sample size for the non-carrier control groups, we randomly selected 134 non-carriers from the BRCA1 and BRCA2 cohort of the IMPACT study, who were included in all three non-carrier cohorts. Men were predominantly of European ancestry (899 [93%] of 953 with available data), with a mean age of 52·8 years (SD 8·3). Within the first screening round, 56 (6%) men had a PSA concentration of more than 3·0 ng/mL and 35 (4%) biopsies were done. The overall incidence of prostate cancer was 1·9% (18 of 962; 95% CI 1·1-2·9). The incidence among MSH2 carriers was 4·3% (13 of 305; 95% CI 2·3-7·2), MSH2 non-carrier controls was 0·5% (one of 210; 0·0-2·6), MSH6 carriers was 3·0% (four of 135; 0·8-7·4), and none were detected among the MLH1 carriers, MLH1 non-carrier controls, and MSH6 non-carrier controls. Prostate cancer incidence, using a PSA threshold of higher than 3·0 ng/mL, was higher in MSH2 carriers than in MSH2 non-carrier controls (4·3% vs 0·5%; p=0·011) and MSH6 carriers than MSH6 non-carrier controls (3·0% vs 0%; p=0·034). The overall positive predictive value of biopsy using a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 51·4% (95% CI 34·0-68·6), and the overall positive predictive value of a PSA threshold of 3·0 ng/mL was 32·1% (20·3-46·0). INTERPRETATION: After the first screening round, carriers of MSH2 and MSH6 pathogenic variants had a higher incidence of prostate cancer compared with age-matched non-carrier controls. These findings support the use of targeted PSA screening in these men to identify those with clinically significant prostate cancer. Further annual screening rounds will need to confirm these findings. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The Ronald and Rita McAulay Foundation, the National Institute for Health Research support to Biomedical Research Centres (The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust; Oxford; Manchester and the Cambridge Clinical Research Centre), Mr and Mrs Jack Baker, the Cancer Council of Tasmania, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Cancer Council of Victoria, Cancer Council of South Australia, the Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Australia, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer (AECC), the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), the Institut Català de la Salut, Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute, Swedish Cancer Society, General Hospital in Malmö Foundation for Combating Cancer

Psychosocial impact of undergoing prostate cancer screening for men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

OBJECTIVES: To report the baseline results of a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the IMPACT study, a multi-national investigation of targeted prostate cancer (PCa) screening among men with a known pathogenic germline mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. PARTICPANTS AND METHODS: Men enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a questionnaire at collaborating sites prior to each annual screening visit. The questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics and the following measures: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Impact of Event Scale (IES), 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer, Cancer Worry Scale-Revised, risk perception and knowledge. The results of the baseline questionnaire are presented. RESULTS: A total of 432 men completed questionnaires: 98 and 160 had mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, respectively, and 174 were controls (familial mutation negative). Participants' perception of PCa risk was influenced by genetic status. Knowledge levels were high and unrelated to genetic status. Mean scores for the HADS and SF-36 were within reported general population norms and mean IES scores were within normal range. IES mean intrusion and avoidance scores were significantly higher in BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers than in controls and were higher in men with increased PCa risk perception. At the multivariate level, risk perception contributed more significantly to variance in IES scores than genetic status. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report the psychosocial profile of men with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations undergoing PCa screening. No clinically concerning levels of general or cancer-specific distress or poor quality of life were detected in the cohort as a whole. A small subset of participants reported higher levels of distress, suggesting the need for healthcare professionals offering PCa screening to identify these risk factors and offer additional information and support to men seeking PCa screening