What Does Written Reflection Reveal About Novice Teachers’ Knowledge, Beliefs, and Skills Related to Literacy Assessment?

Assessment of literacy learning has been a long-standing focus for future teachers in elementary education. Teacher educators use ongoing written reflection to promote learning before, during, and after coursework and field experiences. In this study, the researchers examined the effects of ongoing written reflection on two groups of novice teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and skills about literacy assessment in a semester-long graduate-level literacy assessment course with embedded fieldwork. First, the researchers conducted qualitative and descriptive analyses to examine what novice teachers reflected about in their ongoing written reflections. Second, they conducted comparative analyses to examine the extent to which the two groups differed in what they reflected about. Qualitative and descriptive analysis of written reflections revealed four prominent categories in which novice teachers reflected: (a) content knowledge related to literacy assessment, (b) beliefs about literacy assessment, (c) empathy and perspective-taking in the literacy assessment and instruction process, and (d) instructional planning and decision making. Comparative analyses revealed significant differences between the two groups of novice teachers in all four categories

Concurrent inhibition of oncogenic and wild-type RAS-GTP for cancer therapy

RAS oncogenes (collectively NRAS, HRAS and especially KRAS) are among the most frequently mutated genes in cancer, with common driver mutations occurring at codons 12, 13 and 611. Small molecule inhibitors of the KRAS(G12C) oncoprotein have demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with multiple cancer types and have led to regulatory approvals for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer2,3. Nevertheless, KRASG12C mutations account for only around 15% of KRAS-mutated cancers4,5, and there are no approved KRAS inhibitors for the majority of patients with tumours containing other common KRAS mutations. Here we describe RMC-7977, a reversible, tri-complex RAS inhibitor with broad-spectrum activity for the active state of both mutant and wild-type KRAS, NRAS and HRAS variants (a RAS(ON) multi-selective inhibitor). Preclinically, RMC-7977 demonstrated potent activity against RAS-addicted tumours carrying various RAS genotypes, particularly against cancer models with KRAS codon 12 mutations (KRASG12X). Treatment with RMC-7977 led to tumour regression and was well tolerated in diverse RAS-addicted preclinical cancer models. Additionally, RMC-7977 inhibited the growth of KRASG12C cancer models that are resistant to KRAS(G12C) inhibitors owing to restoration of RAS pathway signalling. Thus, RAS(ON) multi-selective inhibitors can target multiple oncogenic and wild-type RAS isoforms and have the potential to treat a wide range of RAS-addicted cancers with high unmet clinical need. A related RAS(ON) multi-selective inhibitor, RMC-6236, is currently under clinical evaluation in patients with KRAS-mutant solid tumours (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05379985)

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