Explore the vast range of titles available.

Lifestyle interventions for weight loss are generally ineffective in achieving clinically meaningful long-term reductions in body weight and may contribute to negative behavior such as weight cycling or disordered eating. Negative focus on high weight may also contribute to weight stigma. Weight stigma includes negative attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people with big bodies and can result in psychological stress and unfavorable health outcomes. Taken together, it is possible that the potential harms of lifestyle-based weight loss interventions may exceed the potential benefits. Weight-neutral health (WNH) has emerged as an alternative strategy advocating for size diversity, intuitive eating, and joyful physical movement, all without placing emphasis on weight reduction. This protocol outlines the study design for the co-design process of developing a WNH complex intervention, engaging relevant stakeholders in Denmark. We base our understanding of WNH on the principles from Health at Every Size: body acceptance, joyful movement, intuitive eating, and weight stigma reduction. The co-design development process is based on the Medical Research Council's framework for complex interventions and applies methods from human-centered design through 4 iterative design phases of engaging stakeholders-discover: search existing literature, and conduct interviews with Danish municipal stakeholders working with WNH and other expert stakeholders; define: coproduction of seminars with health professionals (HPs) with knowledge of WNH, and semistructured interviews with people with BMI≥30 kg/m2 who have participated in existing WNH interventions; design: content-creating workshops with HPs and people with BMI≥30 kg/m2; and validate: evaluate seminars, plan feasibility, and produce materials. The data will be analyzed thematically to build a scaffold for the intervention activities and components. In further analysis, we will explore how health is performed, meaning the actions and dialogues that arise when dealing with health guidelines, the societal body, weight, and health expectations, in the context of the intervention. The project is fully funded. As of August 2024, the co-design process was in the closing phase. In total, 15 HPs were included, some of whom have larger body sizes. This provides a dual perspective, combining their personal experiences of living with a high BMI with their professional expertise. In total, 16 people with BMI≥30 kg/m2 have generously shared their experiences with WNH programs, including the difficulties of moving away from external demands and personal wishes for weight loss. Their contributions have nuanced and unfolded our understanding of the principles of WNH in a Danish setting. The intervention designed in and from the co-design process will be tested for feasibility in 2025. The findings from the feasibility study will inform a future randomized controlled trial and present novel findings in the field of health management. The long-term goal is to implement the intervention in a Danish municipal setting free of charge.

Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

PurposeWe compared dexamethasone 12 versus 6 mg daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia in the international, randomised, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial. In the primary, conventional analyses, the predefined statistical significance thresholds were not reached. We conducted a pre-planned Bayesian analysis to facilitate probabilistic interpretation.MethodsWe analysed outcome data within 90 days in the intention-to-treat population (data available in 967 to 982 patients) using Bayesian models with various sensitivity analyses. Results are presented as median posterior probabilities with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and probabilities of different effect sizes with 12 mg dexamethasone.ResultsThe adjusted mean difference on days alive without life support at day 28 (primary outcome) was 1.3 days (95% CrI −0.3 to 2.9; 94.2% probability of benefit). Adjusted relative risks and probabilities of benefit on serious adverse reactions was 0.85 (0.63 to 1.16; 84.1%) and on mortality 0.87 (0.73 to 1.03; 94.8%) at day 28 and 0.88 (0.75 to 1.02; 95.1%) at day 90. Probabilities of benefit on days alive without life support and days alive out of hospital at day 90 were 85 and 95.7%, respectively. Results were largely consistent across sensitivity analyses, with relatively low probabilities of clinically important harm with 12 mg on all outcomes in all analyses.ConclusionWe found high probabilities of benefit and low probabilities of clinically important harm with dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg daily in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia on all outcomes up to 90 days.

PurposeWe assessed long-term outcomes of dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg given daily for up to 10 days in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and severe hypoxaemia.MethodsWe assessed 180-day mortality and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) in the international, stratified, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial, which randomised 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 26 hospitals in Europe and India. In the HRQoL analyses, higher values indicated better outcomes, and deceased patients were given a score of zero.ResultsWe obtained vital status at 180 days for 963 of 982 patients (98.1%) in the intention-to-treat population, EQ-5D-5L index value data for 922 (93.9%) and EQ VAS data for 924 (94.1%). At 180 days, 164 of 486 patients (33.7%) had died in the 12 mg group versus 184 of 477 (38.6%) in the 6 mg group [adjusted risk difference − 4.3%; 99% confidence interval (CI) − 11.7–3.0; relative risk 0.89; 0.72–1.09; P = 0.13]. The adjusted mean differences between the 12 mg and the 6 mg groups in EQ-5D-5L index values were 0.06 (99% CI − 0.01 to 0.12; P = 0.10) and in EQ VAS scores 4 (− 3 to 10; P = 0.22).ConclusionAmong patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia, dexamethasone 12 mg compared with 6 mg did not result in statistically significant improvements in mortality or HRQoL at 180 days, but the results were most compatible with benefit from the higher dose.

Obesity as well as job strain is increasing, and job strain might contribute to weight gain. The objective of the current study was to examine associations between longitudinal alterations in the components of job strain and subsequent weight gain. The study was designed as a prospective cohort study with three questionnaire surveys enabling measurement of job-strain alterations over 6 years and subsequent measurements of weight gain after further 10 years of follow-up. ANCOVA and trend analyses were conducted. Job demands were measured as job busyness and speed, and control as amount of influence. Employed nurses in Denmark. We included a sub-sample of 6188 female nurses from the Danish Nurse Cohort, which consisted of the nurses who participated in surveys in 1993, 1999 and 2009. A linear trend in weight gain was seen in nurses who were often busy in 1999 between those who were rarely v. sometimes v. often busy in 1993 (P=0·03), with the largest weight gain in individuals with sustained high busyness in both years. Loss of influence between 1993 and 1999 was associated with larger subsequent weight gain than sustained high influence (P=0·003) or sustained low influence (P=0·02). For speed, no associations were found. Busyness, speed and influence differed in their relationship to subsequent weight gain. A decrease in job influence and a sustained burden of busyness were most strongly related to subsequent weight gain. Focus on job strain reduction and healthy diet is essential for public health.

PurposeTo assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial.MethodsWe conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function.ResultsAmong 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) − 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI − 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, − 0.65 for EQ VAS (− 5.40 to 4.08), and − 0.14 for Mini MoCA (− 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups.ConclusionsAmong adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.