Explore the vast range of titles available.

Most U.S. K-12 schools have adopted safety tactics and policies like arming teachers and installing metal detectors, to address intentional school gun violence. However, there is minimal research on their effectiveness. Furthermore, sociodemographic factors may influence their implementation. Controlled studies are necessary to investigate their impact on gun violence and related disciplinary outcomes. The paper outlines the protocol for a case-control study examining gun violence prevention policies in U.S. K-12 schools. The study aims to investigate if there is an association between the total number and type of specific safety tactics and policies and the occurrence of intentional shootings in K-12 public schools, student disciplinary outcomes, and if urbanicity, economic, and racial factors modify these associations. We will create a nationally representative dataset for this study and ascertain a full census of case schools (schools that experienced intentional gunfire on the campus during school hours since 2015) through national school shooting databases. Matched control schools will be randomly selected from U.S. Department of Education's national database of all public schools. We will analyze 27 school safety strategies organized into seven key exposure groupings. Supported by the National Institutes for Child Health and Development (R01HD108027-01) and having received Institutional Review Board approval, our study is currently in the data collection phase. Our analytical plan will determine the association between the number and type of school safety tactics and policies with the occurrence of intentional shootings and suspensions and expulsions in a national sample of approximately 650 K-12 public schools. Additional analyses will investigate the effect modification of specific covariates. As the first national, controlled study, its results will provide novel and needed data on the effectiveness of school safety tactics and policies in preventing intentional shootings at K-12 public schools.

With population aging, an increase in total life expectancy at birth (TLE) should ideally be accompanied by an equal increase in health span (HS), or by a trend in increasing HS/TLE ratio. Hong Kong has one of the longest life expectancies in the world; however, there is a trend of declining HS/TLE ratio, such that the absolute number of people with dependencies is increasing. To address this challenge, the World Health Organization proposed the model of integrated care for older people (ICOPE) that combines both health and social elements in community care, using the measurement of intrinsic capacity (IC) as a metric for monitoring the performance in different countries. The use of technology is essential in achieving a wide coverage of the population in assessing IC, followed by an individually tailored plan of action. This model can be adapted to different health and social care systems in different countries. Hong Kong has an extensive network of community centers, where the basic assessment may be based, followed by further assessments and personalized activities, and referral to medical professionals may only be needed in the presence of disease. Conversely, the medical sector may refer patients to the community for activities designed to optimize the various domains of IC. Such a model of care has the potential to address manpower shortage and mitigate inequalities in healthy aging, as well as enable the monitoring of physiological systems in community-dwelling adults using digital biomarkers as a metric of IC.

Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is routinely utilized as a measure of renal function. While creatinine-based eGFR (eGFRcr) is widely used in clinical practice, the use of cystatin-C to estimate GFR (eGFRcys) has demonstrated superior risk prediction in various populations. Prior studies that derived eGFR formulas have infrequently included high proportions of elderly, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Our objective as to compare mortality risk prediction using eGFRcr and eGFRcys in an elderly, race/ethnically diverse population. The Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) is a multiethnic prospective cohort of elderly stroke-free individuals consisting of a total of 3,298 participants recruited between 1993 and 2001, with a median follow-up of 18 years. We included all Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) participants with concurrent measured creatinine and cystatin-C. The eGFRcr was calculated using the CKD-EPI 2009 equation. eGFRcys was calculated using the CKD-EPI 2012 equations. The performance of each eGFR formula in predicting mortality risk was tested using receiver-operating characteristics, calibration and reclassification. Net reclassification improvement (NRI) was calculated based on the Reynolds 10 year risk score from adjusted Cox models with mortality as an outcome. The primary hypothesis was that eGFRcys would better predict mortality than eGFRcr. Participants (n = 2988) had a mean age of 69±10.2 years and were predominantly Hispanic (53%), overweight (69%), and current or former smokers (53% combined). The mean eGFRcr (74.68±18.8 ml/min/1.73m2) was higher than eGFRcys (51.72±17.2 ml/min/1.73m2). During a mean of 13.0±5.6 years of follow-up, 53% of the cohort had died. The AUC of eGFRcys (0.73) was greater than for eGFRcr (0.67, p for difference<0.0001). The proportions of correct reclassification (NRI) based on 10 year mortality for the model with eGFRcys compared to the model with eGFRcr were 4.2% (p = 0.002). In an elderly, race/ethnically diverse cohort low eGFR is associated with risk of all-cause mortality. Estimated GFR based on serum cystatin-C, in comparison to serum creatinine, was a better predictor of all-cause mortality.

Sample size calculation is an important element of research design that investigators need to consider in the planning stage of the study. Funding agencies and research review panels request a power analysis, for example, to determine the minimum number of subjects needed for an experiment to be informative. Calculating the right sample size is crucial to gaining accurate information and ensures that research resources are used efficiently and ethically. The simple question “How many subjects do I need?” does not always have a simple answer. Before calculating the sample size requirements, a researcher must address several aspects, such as purpose of the research (descriptive or comparative), type of samples (one or more groups), and data being collected (continuous or categorical). In this article, we describe some of the most frequent methods for calculating the sample size with examples from nuclear cardiology research, including for t tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), non-parametric tests, correlation, Chi-squared tests, and survival analysis. For the ease of implementation, several examples are also illustrated via user-friendly free statistical software.

The recent outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) provided an opportunity to study the antibody response of infected individuals to the causative virus, SARS coronavirus. We examined serum samples obtained from 46 patients with SARS, 40 patients with non-SARS pneumonia, and 38 healthy individuals, by use of Western blotting (WB), enzyme-linked immunoassay (ELISA), and immunofluorescence assay, using both native and bacterially produced antigens of the virus. We found a highly restricted, immunoglobulin G-dominated antibody response in patients with SARS, directed most frequently (89% by ELISA) and predominantly at the nucleocapsid. Almost all of the subjects without SARS had no antinucleocapsid antibodies. The spike protein was the next most frequently targeted, but only 63% of the patients (by ELISA) responded. Other targets of the response identified by use of WB included antigens of 80 and 60 kDa. Several nonstructural proteins cloned were not antigenic, and the culture-derived nucleocapsid appeared to be specifically degraded.

Introduction/aims Muscle cramps are a common and often disabling symptom in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a devastating and incurable neurodegenerative disorder. To date, there are no medications specifically approved for the treatment of muscle cramps. Ameliorating muscle cramps in ALS may improve and sustain quality of life. A widely prescribed traditional Japanese (Kampo) medicine against muscle cramps, shakuyakukanzoto (TJ-68), has been studied in advanced liver disease, spinal stenosis, kidney failure, and diabetic neuropathy. The Japanese ALS Management Guideline mentions TJ-68 for difficult muscle cramps in ALS. Therefore, the rationale of our trial is to investigate the safety and effectiveness of TJ-68 in treating painful and disabling muscle cramps in people with ALS outside of Japan. Accordingly, we are conducting a randomized clinical trial to test the safety and efficacy of TJ-68 in participants with ALS reporting frequent muscle cramps using an innovative, personalized N-of-1 design. If successful, TJ-68 may be used for muscle cramps in a broader population of people with ALS. Methods This is a two-site, double-blind, randomized personalized N-of-1 early clinical trial with TJ-68. At least 22 participants with ALS and daily muscle cramps will receive drug or placebo for 2 weeks (one treatment period) followed by a 1-week washout in a four-period cross-over design. While the primary objective is to evaluate the safety of TJ-68, the study has 85% power to detect a one-point shift on the Visual Analog Scale for Muscle Cramps Affecting Overall Daily Activity of the Columbia Muscle Cramp Scale (MCS). Secondary outcomes include the full MCS score, a Cramp Diary, Clinical Global Impression of Changes, Goal Attainment Scale, quality of life scale and ALS functional rating scale-revised (ALSFRS-R). Discussion The study is underway. A personalized N-of-1 trial design is an efficient approach to testing medications that alleviate muscle cramps in rare disorders. If TJ-68 proves safe and efficacious then it may be used to treat cramps in ALS, and help to improve and sustain quality of life. Trial registration This clinical trial has been registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04998305), 8/9/2021.

Accurate glomerular filtration rate estimation informs drug dosing and risk stratification. Body composition heterogeneity influences creatinine production and the precision of creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFRcr) in the elderly. We compared chronic kidney disease (CKD) categorization using eGFRcr and cystatin C-based estimated GFR (eGFRcys) in an elderly, racially/ethnically diverse cohort to determine their concordance. The Northern Manhattan Study (NOMAS) is a predominantly elderly, multi-ethnic cohort with a primary aim to study cardiovascular disease epidemiology. We included participants with concurrently measured creatinine and cystatin C. eGFRcr was calculated using the CKD-EPI 2009 equation. eGFRcys was calculated using the CKD-EPI 2012 equation. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of factors associated with reclassification from eGFRcr≥60ml/min/1.73m2 to eGFRcys<60ml/min/1.73m2. Participants (n = 2988, mean age 69±10yrs) were predominantly Hispanic, female, and overweight/obese. eGFRcys was lower than eGFRcr by mean 23mL/min/1.73m2. 51% of participants' CKD status was discordant, and only 28% maintained the same CKD stage by both measures. Most participants (78%) had eGFRcr≥60mL/min/1.73m2; among these, 64% had eGFRcys<60mL/min/1.73m2. Among participants with eGFRcr≥60mL/min/1.73m2, eGFRcys-based reclassification was more likely in those with age >65 years, obesity, current smoking, white race, and female sex. In a large, multiethnic, elderly cohort, we found a highly discrepant prevalence of CKD with eGFRcys versus eGFRcr. Determining the optimal method to estimate GFR in elderly populations needs urgent further study to improve risk stratification and drug dosing.

Background Cancer treatments are associated with a multitude of adverse events (AEs). While both nurses and physicians are involved in patient care delivery and AE assessment, very few studies have examined the differences between nurses’ and physicians’ reporting and perception of AEs. An approach was recently proposed to assess treatment burden based on reported AEs from the physician’s perspective. In this paper, we use this approach to evaluate nurses’ perception of burden, and compare nurses’ and physicians’ assessment of the overall and relative burden of AEs. Methods AE records for 334 cancer patients from a randomized clinical trial conducted by the SWOG Cancer Research Network were evaluated by 14 nurses at Columbia University Medical Center. Two nurses were randomly selected to assign a burden score from 0 to 10 based on their impression of the global burden of the captured AEs. These nurses did not interact directly with the patients. Scores were compared to previously obtained physicians scores using paired T-test and Kappa statistic. Severity scores for individual AEs were obtained using mixed-effects models with nurses assessments, and were qualitatively compared to physicians’. Results Given the same AEs, nurses’ and physicians’ perception of the burden of AEs differed. While nurses generally perceived the overall burden of AEs to be only slightly worse compared to physicians (mean average VAS score of 5.44 versus 5.14), there was poor agreement in the perception of AEs that were in mild to severe range. The percent agreement for a moderate or worse AE was 64% with a Kappa of 0.34. Nurses also assigned higher severity scores to symptomatic AEs compared to physicians ( p  < 0.05), such as gastrointestinal (4.77 versus 4.14), hemorrhage (5.07 versus 4.14), and pain (5.17 versus 4.14). Conclusions These differences in the perception of burden of AEs can lead to different treatment decisions and symptom management strategies. Thus, having provider consistency, training, or a collaborative approach in follow-up care between nurses and physicians is important to ensure continuity in care delivery. Moreover, estimating overall burden from both physicians’ and nurses’ perspective, and comparing them may be useful for deciding when collaborations are warranted.

Objectives The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of human anti-SARS-CoV-2 convalescent plasma in hospitalized adults with severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial Design This is a prospective, single-center, phase 2, randomized, controlled trial that is blinded to participants and clinical outcome assessor. Participants Eligible participants include adults (≥ 18 years) with evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection by PCR test of nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swab within 14 days of randomization, evidence of infiltrates on chest radiography, peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤ 94% on room air, and/or need for supplemental oxygen, non-invasive mechanical ventilation, or invasive mechanical ventilation, who are willing and able to provide written informed consent prior to performing study procedures or who have a legally authorized representative available to do so. Exclusion criteria include participation in another clinical trial of anti-viral agent(s)* for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), receipt of any anti-viral agent(s)* with possible activity against SARS-CoV-2 <24 hours prior to plasma infusion, mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]) for ≥ 5 days, severe multi-organ failure, history of allergic reactions to transfused blood products per NHSN/CDC criteria, known IgA deficiency, and pregnancy. Included participants will be hospitalized at the time of randomization and plasma infusion. *Use of remdesivir as treatment for COVID-19 is permitted. The study will be undertaken at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, USA. Intervention and comparator The investigational treatment is anti-SARS-CoV-2 human convalescent plasma. To procure the investigational treatment, volunteers who recovered from COVID-19 will undergo testing to confirm the presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody to the spike trimer at a 1:400 dilution. Donors will also be screened for transfusion-transmitted infections (e.g. HIV, HBV, HCV, WNV, HTLV-I/II, T. cruzi, ZIKV). If donors have experienced COVID-19 symptoms within 28 days, they will be screened with a nasopharyngeal swab to confirm they are SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative. Plasma will be collected using standard apheresis technology by the New York Blood Center. Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive one unit (200 – 250 mL) of anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus one unit (200 – 250 mL) of the earliest available control plasma. The control plasma cannot be tested for presence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody prior to the transfusion, but will be tested for anti- SARS-CoV-2 antibody after the transfusion to allow for a retrospective per-protocol analysis. Main outcomes The primary endpoint is time to clinical improvement. This is defined as time from randomization to either discharge from the hospital or improvement by one point on the following seven-point ordinal scale, whichever occurs first. 1. Not hospitalized with resumption of normal activities 2. Not hospitalized, but unable to resume normal activities 3. Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen 4. Hospitalized, requiring supplemental oxygen 5. Hospitalized, requiring high-flow oxygen therapy or non-invasive mechanical ventilation 6. Hospitalized, requiring ECMO, invasive mechanical ventilation, or both 7. Death This scale, designed to assess clinical status over time, was based on that recommended by the World Health Organization for use in determining efficacy end-points in clinical trials in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A recent clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of lopinavir- ritonavir for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 used a similar ordinal scale, as have recent clinical trials of novel therapeutics for severe influenza, including a post-hoc analysis of a trial evaluating immune plasma. The primary safety endpoints are cumulative incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events and cumulative incidence of serious adverse events during the study period. Randomization Study participants will be randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive anti-SARS-CoV-2 plasma versus control plasma using a web-based randomization platform. Treatment assignments will be generated using randomly permuted blocks of different sizes to minimize imbalance while also minimizing predictability. Blinding (masking) The study participants and the clinicians who will evaluate post-treatment outcomes will be blinded to group assignment. The blood bank and the clinical research team will not be blinded to group assignment. Numbers to be randomized (sample size) We plan to enroll 129 participants, with 86 in the anti-SARS-CoV-2 arm, and 43 in the control arm. Among the participants, we expect ~70% or n = 72 will achieve clinical improvement. This will yield an 80% power for a one-sided Wald test at 0.15 level of significance under the proportional hazards model with a hazard ratio of 1.5. Trial Status Protocol AAAS9924, Version 17APR2020, 4/17/2020 Start of recruitment: April 20, 2020 Recruitment is ongoing. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04359810 Date of trial registration: April 24, 2020 Retrospectively registered Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1 ). In the interest of expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Being physically active is critical to successful aging, but most middle-aged and older adults do not move enough. Research has shown that even small increases in activity can have a significant impact on risk reduction and improve quality of life. Some behavior change techniques (BCTs) can increase activity, but prior studies on their effectiveness have primarily tested them in between-subjects trials and in aggregate. These design approaches, while robust, fail to identify those BCTs most influential for a given individual. In contrast, a personalized, or N-of-1, trial design can assess a person's response to each specific intervention. This study is designed to test the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of a remotely delivered personalized behavioral intervention to increase low-intensity physical activity (ie, walking) in adults aged 45 to 75 years. The intervention will be administered over 10 weeks, starting with a 2-week baseline period followed by 4 BCTs (goal-setting, self-monitoring, feedback, and action planning) delivered one at a time, each for 2 weeks. In total, 60 participants will be randomized post baseline to 1 of 24 intervention sequences. Physical activity will be continuously measured by a wearable activity tracker, and intervention components and outcome measures will be delivered and collected by email, SMS text messages, and surveys. The effect of the overall intervention on step counts relative to baseline will be examined using generalized linear mixed models with an autoregressive model that accounts for possible autocorrelation and linear trends for daily steps across time. Participant satisfaction with the study components and attitudes and opinions toward personalized trials will be measured at the intervention's conclusion. Pooled change in daily step count will be reported between baseline and individual BCTs and baseline versus overall intervention. Self-efficacy scores will be compared between baseline and individual BCTs and between baseline and the overall intervention. Mean and SD will be reported for survey measures (participant satisfaction with study components and attitudes and opinions toward personalized trials). Assessing the feasibility and acceptability of delivering a personalized, remote physical activity intervention for middle-aged and older adults will inform what steps will be needed to scale up to a fully powered and within-subjects experimental design remotely. Examining the effect of each BCT in isolation will allow for their unique impact to be assessed and support design of future behavioral interventions. In using a personalized trial design, the heterogeneity of individual responses for each BCT can be quantified and inform later National Institutes of Health stages of intervention development trials. clinicaltrials.gov NCT04967313; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04967313. RR1-10.2196/43418.