Explore the vast range of titles available.

Short-term low intensity parent implemented intervention studies for toddlers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) have found it difficult to demonstrate significantly improved developmental scores or autism severity compared to community treatment. We conducted a randomized comparative intent-to-treat study of a parent implemented intervention to (1) test the effects of an enhanced version on parent and child learning, and (2) evaluate the sensitivity to change of proximal versus distal measures of child behavior. We randomized 45 children with ASD, 12–30 months of age, into one of two versions of parent-implemented Early Start Denver Model (P-ESDM), the basic model, in which we delivered 1.5 h of clinic-based parent coaching weekly, and an enhanced version that contained three additions: motivational interviewing, multimodal learning tools, and a weekly 1.5-h home visit. We delivered the intervention for 12 weeks and measured child and parent change frequently in multiple settings. We found a time-by-group interaction: parents in the enhanced group demonstrated significantly greater gains in interaction skills than did parents in the non-enhanced group. Both interventions were associated with significant developmental acceleration; however, child outcomes did not differ by group. We found a significant relationship between degree of change in parental interaction skill and rate of children’s improvement on our proximal measure. Parents in both groups reported satisfaction with the intervention. These findings suggest that parent skills improved more in the enhanced group than the comparison group. Children in the two groups showed similar improvements. Rate of individual parent learning was associated with greater individual child progress on a measure quite proximal to the treatment, though not on standardized assessments.

Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. HIP ATTACK was an international, randomised, controlled trial done at 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were aged 45 years or older were eligible. Research personnel randomly assigned patients (1:1) through a central computerised randomisation system using randomly varying block sizes to either accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 h of diagnosis) or standard care. The coprimary outcomes were mortality and a composite of major complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Patients, health-care providers, and study staff were aware of treatment assignment, but outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02027896). Between March 14, 2014, and May 24, 2019, 27 701 patients were screened, of whom 7780 were eligible. 2970 of these were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive accelerated surgery (n=1487) or standard care (n=1483). The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 h (IQR 4–9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 h (10–42) in the standard-care group (p<0·0001). 140 (9%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 (10%) assigned to standard care died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·91 (95% CI 0·72 to 1·14) and absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 1% (−1 to 3; p=0·40). Major complications occurred in 321 (22%) patients assigned to accelerated surgery and 331 (22%) assigned to standard care, with an HR of 0·97 (0·83 to 1·13) and an ARR of 1% (−2 to 4; p=0·71). Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared with standard care. Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

High-quality early childhood programs have been shown to have substantial benefits in reducing crime, raising earnings, and promoting education. Much less is known about their benefits for adult health. We report on the long-term health effects of one of the oldest and most heavily cited early childhood interventions with long-term follow-up evaluated by the method of randomization: the Carolina Abecedarian Project (ABC). Using recently collected biomedical data, we find that disadvantaged children randomly assigned to treatment have significantly lower prevalence of risk factors for cardiovascular and metabolic diseases in their mid-30s. The evidence is especially strong for males. The mean systolic blood pressure among the control males is 143 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg), whereas it is only 126 mm Hg among the treated. One in four males in the control group is affected by metabolic syndrome, whereas none in the treatment group are affected. To reach these conclusions, we address several statistical challenges. We use exact permutation tests to account for small sample sizes and conduct a parallel bootstrap confidence interval analysis to confirm the permutation analysis. We adjust inference to account for the multiple hypotheses tested and for nonrandom attrition. Our evidence shows the potential of early life interventions for preventing disease and promoting health.

Convalescent plasma (CP), despite limited evidence on its efficacy, is being widely used as a compassionate therapy for hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of early CP therapy in COVID-19 progression. The study was an open-label, single-center randomized clinical trial performed in an academic medical center in Santiago, Chile, from May 10, 2020, to July 18, 2020, with final follow-up until August 17, 2020. The trial included patients hospitalized within the first 7 days of COVID-19 symptom onset, presenting risk factors for illness progression and not on mechanical ventilation. The intervention consisted of immediate CP (early plasma group) versus no CP unless developing prespecified criteria of deterioration (deferred plasma group). Additional standard treatment was allowed in both arms. The primary outcome was a composite of mechanical ventilation, hospitalization for >14 days, or death. The key secondary outcomes included time to respiratory failure, days of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, mortality at 30 days, and SARS-CoV-2 real-time PCR clearance rate. Of 58 randomized patients (mean age, 65.8 years; 50% male), 57 (98.3%) completed the trial. A total of 13 (43.3%) participants from the deferred group received plasma based on clinical aggravation. We failed to find benefit in the primary outcome (32.1% versus 33.3%, odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.32-2.84, p > 0.999) in the early versus deferred CP group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.17 p = 0.246), mechanical ventilation 17.9% versus 6.7% (OR 3.04, 95% CI 0.54-17.17, p = 0.246), and prolonged hospitalization 21.4% versus 30.0% (OR 0.64, 95% CI, 0.19-2.10, p = 0.554) in the early versus deferred CP group, respectively. The viral clearance rate on day 3 (26% versus 8%, p = 0.204) and day 7 (38% versus 19%, p = 0.374) did not differ between groups. Two patients experienced serious adverse events within 6 hours after plasma transfusion. The main limitation of this study is the lack of statistical power to detect a smaller but clinically relevant therapeutic effect of CP, as well as not having confirmed neutralizing antibodies in donor before plasma infusion. In the present study, we failed to find evidence of benefit in mortality, length of hospitalization, or mechanical ventilation requirement by immediate addition of CP therapy in the early stages of COVID-19 compared to its use only in case of patient deterioration. NCT04375098.

Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir for the treatment of high-risk outpatients with COVID-19 in developing countries are needed. To determine whether hydroxychloroquine or lopinavir-ritonavir reduces hospitalization among high-risk patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. This randomized clinical trial was conducted in Brazil. Recently symptomatic adults diagnosed with respiratory symptoms from SARS-CoV-2 infection were enrolled between June 2 and September 30, 2020. The planned sample size was 1476 patients, with interim analyses planned after 500 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped after the interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 685 patients. Statistical analysis was performed in December 2020. Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (800 mg loading dose, then 400 mg daily for 9 days), lopinavir-ritonavir (loading dose of 800 mg and 200 mg, respectively, every 12 hours followed by 400 mg and 100 mg, respectively, every 12 hours for the next 9 days), or placebo. The primary outcomes were COVID-19-associated hospitalization and death assessed at 90 days after randomization. COVID-19-associated hospitalization was analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model. The trial included the following secondary outcomes: all-cause hospitalization, viral clearance, symptom resolution, and adverse events. Of 685 participants, 632 (92.3%) self-identified as mixed-race, 377 (55.0%) were women, and the median (range) age was 53 (18-94) years. A total of 214 participants were randomized to hydroxychloroquine; 244, lopinavir-ritonavir; and 227, placebo. At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group. We found no significant differences between interventions for COVID-19-associated hospitalization (hydroxychloroquine: hazard ratio [HR], 0.76 [95% CI, 0.30-1.88]; lopinavir-ritonavir: HR, 1.16 [95% CI, 0.53-2.56] as well as for the secondary outcome of viral clearance through day 14 (hydroxychloroquine: odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.82-1.02]; lopinavir-ritonavir: OR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.94-1.16]). At the end of the trial, there were 3 fatalities recorded, 1 in the placebo group and 2 in the lopinavir-ritonavir intervention group. In this randomized clinical trial, neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed any significant benefit for decreasing COVID-19-associated hospitalization or other secondary clinical outcomes. This trial suggests that expedient clinical trials can be implemented in low-income settings even during the COVID-19 pandemic. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04403100.

To evaluate clinical remission with subcutaneous abatacept plus methotrexate (MTX) and abatacept monotherapy at 12 months in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and maintenance of remission following the rapid withdrawal of all RA treatment. In the Assessing Very Early Rheumatoid arthritis Treatment phase 3b trial, patients with early active RA were randomised to double-blind, weekly, subcutaneous abatacept 125 mg plus MTX, abatacept 125 mg monotherapy, or MTX for 12 months. Patients with low disease activity (Disease Activity Score (DAS)28 (C reactive protein (CRP)) <3.2) at month 12 entered a 12-month period of withdrawal of all RA therapy. The coprimary endpoints were the proportion of patients with DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 at month 12 and both months 12 and 18, for abatacept plus MTX versus MTX. Patients had <2 years of RA symptoms, DAS28 (CRP) ≥3.2, anticitrullinated peptide-2 antibody positivity and 95.2% were rheumatoid factor positive. For abatacept plus MTX versus MTX, DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 was achieved in 60.9% versus 45.2% (p=0.010) at 12 months, and following treatment withdrawal, in 14.8% versus 7.8% (p=0.045) at both 12 and 18 months. DAS28 (CRP) <2.6 was achieved for abatacept monotherapy in 42.5% (month 12) and 12.4% (both months 12 and 18). Both abatacept arms had a safety profile comparable with MTX alone. Abatacept plus MTX demonstrated robust efficacy compared with MTX alone in early RA, with a good safety profile. The achievement of sustained remission following withdrawal of all RA therapy suggests an effect of abatacept's mechanism on autoimmune processes. NCT01142726.

Early intervention in psychosis (EIP) services improve outcomes for young people, but approximately 30% disengage. To test whether a new motivational engagement intervention would prolong engagement and whether it was cost-effective. We conducted a multicentre, single-blind, parallel-group, cluster randomised controlled trial involving 20 EIP teams at five UK National Health Service (NHS) sites. Teams were randomised using permuted blocks stratified by NHS trust. Participants were all young people (aged 14-35 years) presenting with a first episode of psychosis between May 2019 and July 2020 ( = 1027). We compared the novel Early Youth Engagement (EYE-2) intervention plus standardised EIP (sEIP) with sEIP alone. The primary outcome was time to disengagement over 12-26 months. Economic outcomes were mental health costs, societal costs and socio-occupational outcomes over 12 months. Assessors were masked to treatment allocation for primary disengagement and cost-effectiveness outcomes. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. The trial was registered at ISRCTN51629746. Disengagement was low at 15.9% overall in standardised stand-alone services. The adjusted hazard ratio for EYE-2 + sEIP ( = 652) versus sEIP alone ( = 375) was 1.07 (95% CI 0.76-1.49; = 0.713). The health economic evaluation indicated lower mental healthcare costs linked to reductions in unplanned mental healthcare with no compromise of clinical outcomes, as well as some evidence for lower societal costs and more days in education, training, employment and stable accommodation in the EYE-2 group. We found no evidence that EYE-2 increased time to disengagement, but there was some evidence for its cost-effectiveness. This is the largest study to date reporting positive engagement, health and cost outcomes in a total EIP population sample. Limitations included high loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and low completion of societal and socio-occupational data. COVID-19 affected fidelity and implementation. Future engagement research should target engagement to those in greatest need, including in-patients and those with socio-occupational goals.

Purpose We designed a novel, manualized intervention called Emotion And Symptom-focused Engagement (EASE) for acute leukemia (AL) and report here on a phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) to assess its feasibility and preliminary efficacy. Methods Patients were recruited within 1 month of hospital admission and randomized to EASE plus usual care (UC) or UC alone. EASE includes (1) EASE-psy, a tailored psychotherapy delivered over 8 weeks, and (2) EASE-phys, weekly physical symptom screening over 8 weeks to trigger early palliative care. The primary outcome was traumatic stress symptoms; secondary outcomes included physical symptom burden and quality of life. Assessments were conducted at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Between-group differences were evaluated using multilevel modeling. Results Forty-two patients were randomized to EASE ( n  = 22) or UC ( n  = 20), with 76% retention at 12 weeks. Predefined feasibility outcomes were met: 86% (19/22) of EASE participants completed ≥ 50% of EASE-psy sessions (goal ≥ 64%); 100% received Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS, modified for AL) screenings, 64% (14/22) of whom completed ≥ 50% of planned screenings (goal ≥50%); and 100% with scores ≥ 4/10 on any physical ESAS-AL item had ≥ 1 meeting with the EASE-phys team (goal 100%). Significant treatment-group differences favoring EASE were observed in traumatic stress symptoms at 4 and 12 weeks, and pain intensity and interference at 12 weeks (all p  < .05). Conclusions EASE is feasible in patients newly diagnosed with AL and shows promise of effectiveness. These results warrant a larger RCT to provide evidence for its more routine use as a standard of care.

Evidence indicates that the positive effects of 2-year early intervention services for psychosis are not maintained after service withdrawal. Optimal duration of early intervention in sustaining initial improved outcomes remains to be determined. To examine the sustainability of the positive effects of an extended, 3-year, early intervention programme for patients with first-episode psychosis (FEP) after transition to standard care. A total of 160 patients, who had received a 2-year early intervention programme for FEP, were enrolled to a 12-month randomised-controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01202357) comparing a 1-year extension of the early intervention (3-year specialised treatment) with step-down care (2-year specialised treatment). Participants were followed up and reassessed 2 and 3 years after inclusion to the trial. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in outcomes on functioning, symptom severity and service use during the post-trial follow-up period. The therapeutic benefits achieved by the extended, 3-year early intervention were not sustainable after termination of the specialised service.

Concerning gaps in the HIV care continuum compromise individual and population health. We evaluated a combination intervention strategy (CIS) targeting prevalent barriers to timely linkage and sustained retention in HIV care in Mozambique. In this cluster-randomized trial, 10 primary health facilities in the city of Maputo and Inhambane Province were randomly assigned to provide the CIS or the standard of care (SOC). The CIS included point-of-care CD4 testing at the time of diagnosis, accelerated ART initiation, and short message service (SMS) health messages and appointment reminders. A pre-post intervention 2-sample design was nested within the CIS arm to assess the effectiveness of CIS+, an enhanced version of the CIS that additionally included conditional non-cash financial incentives for linkage and retention. The primary outcome was a combined outcome of linkage to care within 1 month and retention at 12 months after diagnosis. From April 22, 2013, to June 30, 2015, we enrolled 2,004 out of 5,327 adults ≥18 years of age diagnosed with HIV in the voluntary counseling and testing clinics of participating health facilities: 744 (37%) in the CIS group, 493 (25%) in the CIS+ group, and 767 (38%) in the SOC group. Fifty-seven percent of the CIS group achieved the primary outcome versus 35% in the SOC group (relative risk [RR]CIS vs SOC = 1.58, 95% CI 1.05-2.39). Eighty-nine percent of the CIS group linked to care on the day of diagnosis versus 16% of the SOC group (RRCIS vs SOC = 9.13, 95% CI 1.65-50.40). There was no significant benefit of adding financial incentives to the CIS in terms of the combined outcome (55% of the CIS+ group achieved the primary outcome, RRCIS+ vs CIS = 0.96, 95% CI 0.81-1.16). Key limitations include the use of existing medical records to assess outcomes, the inability to isolate the effect of each component of the CIS, non-concurrent enrollment of the CIS+ group, and exclusion of many patients newly diagnosed with HIV. The CIS showed promise for making much needed gains in the HIV care continuum in our study, particularly in the critical first step of timely linkage to care following diagnosis. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01930084.