Prevalence of peripheral neuropathy in pre-diabetes: a systematic review

There is growing evidence of excess peripheral neuropathy in pre-diabetes. We aimed to determine its prevalence, including the impact of diagnostic methodology on prevalence rates, through a systematic review conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 1, 2020. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. An evaluation was undertaken by method of neuropathy assessment. After screening 1784 abstracts and reviewing 84 full-text records, 29 studies (9351 participants) were included. There was a wide range of prevalence estimates (2%–77%, IQR: 6%–34%), but the majority of studies (n=21, 72%) reported a prevalence ≥10%. The three highest prevalence estimates of 77% (95% CI: 54% to 100%), 71% (95% CI: 55% to 88%) and 66% (95% CI: 53% to 78%) were reported using plantar thermography, multimodal quantitative sensory testing and nerve conduction tests, respectively. In general, studies evaluating small nerve fiber parameters yielded a higher prevalence of peripheral neuropathy. Due to a variety of study populations and methods of assessing neuropathy, there was marked heterogeneity in the prevalence estimates. Most studies reported a higher prevalence of peripheral neuropathy in pre-diabetes, primarily of a small nerve fiber origin, than would be expected in the background population. Given the marked rise in pre-diabetes, further consideration of targeting screening in this population is required. Development of risk-stratification tools may facilitate earlier interventions

Diagnostic utility of electrocardiogram for screening of cardiac injury on cardiac magnetic resonance in post-hospitalised COVID-19 patients: a prospective multicenter study

BACKGROUND: The role of ECG in ruling out myocardial complications on cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is unclear. We examined the clinical utility of ECG in screening for cardiac abnormalities on CMR among post-hospitalised COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Post-hospitalised patients (n = 212) and age, sex and comorbidity-matched controls (n = 38) underwent CMR and 12‑lead ECG in a prospective multicenter follow-up study. Participants were screened for routinely reported ECG abnormalities, including arrhythmia, conduction and R wave abnormalities and ST-T changes (excluding repolarisation intervals). Quantitative repolarisation analyses included corrected QT (QTc), corrected QT dispersion (QTc disp), corrected JT (JTc) and corrected T peak-end (cTPe) intervals. RESULTS: At a median of 5.6 months, patients had a higher burden of ECG abnormalities (72.2% vs controls 42.1%, p = 0.001) and lower LVEF but a comparable cumulative burden of CMR abnormalities than controls. Patients with CMR abnormalities had more ECG abnormalities and longer repolarisation intervals than those with normal CMR and controls (82% vs 69% vs 42%, p < 0.001). Routinely reported ECG abnormalities had poor discriminative ability (area-under-the-receiver-operating curve: AUROC) for abnormal CMR, AUROC 0.56 (95% CI 0.47–0.65), p = 0.185; worse among female than male patients. Adding JTc and QTc disp improved the AUROC to 0.64 (95% CI 0.55–0.74), p = 0.002, the sensitivity of the ECG increased from 81.6% to 98.0%, negative predictive value from 84.7% to 96.3%, negative likelihood ratio from 0.60 to 0.13, and reduced sex-dependence variabilities of ECG diagnostic parameters. CONCLUSION: Post-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have more ECG abnormalities than controls. Normal ECGs, including normal repolarisation intervals, reliably exclude CMR abnormalities in male and female patients

Predictors of incident diabetes in two populations: framingham heart study and hispanic community health study / study of latinos

Background Non-genetic factors contribute to differences in diabetes risk across race/ethnic and socioeconomic groups, which raises the question of whether effects of predictors of diabetes are similar across populations. We studied diabetes incidence in the primarily non-Hispanic White Framingham Heart Study (FHS, N = 4066) and the urban, largely immigrant Hispanic Community Health Study/Study of Latinos (HCHS/SOL, N = 6891) Please check if the affiliations are captured and presented correctly. Methods Clinical, behavioral, and socioeconomic characteristics were collected at in-person examinations followed by seven-day accelerometry. Among individuals without diabetes, Cox proportional hazards regression models (both age- and sex-adjusted, and then multivariable-adjusted for all candidate predictors) identified predictors of incident diabetes over a decade of follow-up, defined using clinical history or laboratory assessments. Results Four independent predictors were shared between FHS and HCHS/SOL. In each cohort, the multivariable-adjusted hazard of diabetes increased by approximately 50% for every ten-year increment of age and every five-unit increment of body mass index (BMI), and was 50–70% higher among hypertensive than among non-hypertensive individuals (all P &lt; 0.01). Compared with full-time employment status, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for part-time employment was 0.61 (0.37,1.00) in FHS and 0.62 (0.41,0.95) in HCHS/SOL. Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) was an additional predictor in common observed in age- and sex-adjusted models, which did not persist after adjustment for other covariates (compared with MVPA ≤ 5 min/day, HR for MVPA level ≥ 30 min/day was 0.48 [0.31,0.74] in FHS and 0.74 [0.56,0.97] in HCHS/SOL). Additional predictors found in sex- and age-adjusted analyses among the FHS participants included male gender and lower education, but these predictors were not found to be independent of others in multivariable adjusted models, nor were they associated with diabetes risk among HCHS/SOL adults. Conclusions The same four independent predictors – age, body mass index, hypertension and employment status – were associated with diabetes risk across two disparate US populations. While the reason for elevated diabetes risk in full-time workers is unclear, the findings suggest that diabetes may be part of the work-related burden of disease. Our findings also support prior evidence that differences by gender and socioeconomic position in diabetes risk are not universally present across populations

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

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

Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p&lt;0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p&lt;0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p&lt;0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP &gt;5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

Whole genome protein microarrays for serum profiling of immunodominant antigens of Bacillus anthracis

A commercial Bacillus anthracis (Anthrax) whole genome protein microarray has been used to identify immunogenic Anthrax proteins using sera from groups of donors with (a) confirmed B. anthracis naturally acquired cutaneous infection, (b) confirmed B. anthracis intravenous drug use-acquired infection (c) occupational exposure in a wool-sorters factory (d) humans and rabbits vaccinated with the UK Anthrax protein vaccine and compared to naïve unexposed controls. Anti-IAP responses were observed for both IgG and IgA in the challenged groups; however the anti-IAP IgG response was more evident in the vaccinated group and the anti-IAP IgA response more evident in the B. anthracis-infected groups. Infected individuals appeared somewhat suppressed for their general IgG response, compared with other challenged groups.Immunogenic protein antigens were identified in all groups, some of which were shared between groups whilst others were specific for individual groups. The toxin proteins were immunodominant in all vaccinated, infected or other challenged groups. However a number of other chromosomally-located and plasmid encoded open reading frames were also recognised by infected or exposed groups in comparison to controls. Some of these antigens e.g. BA4182 are not recognised by vaccinated individuals, suggesting that there are proteins more specifically expressed by live Anthrax spores in vivo and are not currently found in the UK licensed Anthrax Vaccine (AVP). These may perhaps be preferentially expressed during infection and represent expression of alternative pathways in the B. anthracis ‘infectome’. These may make highly attractive candidates for diagnostic and vaccine biomarker development as they may be more specifically associated with the infectious phase of the pathogen. A number of B. anthracis small hypothetical protein targets have been synthesised, tested in mouse immunogenicity studies and validated in parallel using human sera from the same study

Criminal liability of drivers who fall asleep causing motor vehicle crashes resulting in death or other serious injury: Jiminez - final report

Potential legislative or procedural changes needed to be made to address the criminal liability of drivers who fall asleep and cause motor vehicle crashes are examined in this report. It follows from an Issues Paper released by the Tasmania Law Reform Institute (TLRI) in September 2007. The Institute received 13 responses to the Issues Paper. Ten recommendations are included in this report. While the TLRI does not recommend that any changes be made to the substantive law, it does suggest that some changes be made to police practices and procedures in relation to suspected fall asleep cases. In particular, this report recommends that the collection of evidence and the interviewing of the driver and any other witnesses be carried out by members of Tasmania Police with training in the legal principles set out by the High Court\u27s decision in Jiminez. This report also recommends a review of the current community education programs about the dangers of driving while drowsy or affected by a lack of sleep. Another recommendation of this report is that negligent driving causing death or grievous bodily harm should be specified as alternatives to the charges of dangerous driving causing death or grievous bodily harm. The Institute also recommends that, in conformity with other driving offences, dangerous driving causing death or grievous bodily harm should be prescribed offences for a youth who is 17 years old under the definition contained in the Youth Justices Act. This would mean that a youth charged with a prescribed offence is dealt with as an adult, their matter is heard in open court and they are sentenced under the Sentencing Act 1997 as an adult