Search

Chirag B Rao,1 John C Peatfield,2 Keith PWJ McAdam,3 Andrew J Nunn,4 Dimana P Georgieva5 1UCL Medical School, University College London, London, UK; 2The Department of English Language and Literature, University College London, London, UK; 3London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK; 4Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at UCL, Institute of Clinical Trials & Methodology, London, UK; 5Music for my Mind, Harpenden, UKCorrespondence: Chirag B RaoUCL Medical School, University College London, London, WC1E 6DE, UKTel +447850674672Email chiragbrao@gmail.comPurpose: Music and memory are inextricably linked, and the recollection of music varies according to age. In order to create personalized music playlists tailored for people living with dementia, this study aimed to determine the age at which healthy individuals could best recall music that was popular at the time.Methods: A survey was designed asking participants to identify the number of songs they recalled from a random selection of 10 from the 100 most popular songs from each year, presented in random order of years, from 1945 to 2015. Of the 311 individuals born between 1929 and 2002, who responded to the survey, 157 met the inclusion criteria.Results: The median peak of recollection was between the ages of 13 and 19 across all age-cohorts, with participants recalling a maximum median number of 6– 8 songs in all of the age-cohorts. There was no evidence of a difference in the peak age of recollection between those who recognized seven or more songs in at least 1 year and those who recognized fewer than seven songs in all years.Conclusion: The peak of recollection of popular music occurs in the teenage years, regardless of era of birth. Music from this “reminiscence bump” provides a rich source of retained music that should be tapped when creating playlists of meaningful music for people living with dementia.Keywords: music therapy, neurocognitive disorders, memory, quality of life

BackgroundThe STREAM trial demonstrated that a 9-11-month "short" regimen had non-inferior efficacy and comparable safety to a 20+ month "long" regimen for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. Imbalance in the components of the composite primary outcome merited further investigation.MethodsFirstly, the STREAM primary outcomes were mapped to alternatives in current use, including WHO programmatic outcome definitions and other recently proposed modifications for programmatic or research purposes. Secondly, the outcomes were re-classified according to the likelihood that it was a Failure or Relapse (FoR) event on a 5-point Likert scale: Definite, Probable, Possible, Unlikely, and Highly Unlikely. Sensitivity analyses were employed to explore the impact of informative censoring. The protocol-defined modified intention-to-treat (MITT) analysis population was used for all analyses.ResultsCure on the short regimen ranged from 75.1 to 84.2% across five alternative outcomes. However, between-regimens results did not exceed 1.3% in favor of the long regimen (95% CI upper bound 10.1%), similar to the primary efficacy results from the trial. Considering only Definite or Probable FoR events, there was weak evidence of a higher risk of FoR in the short regimen, HR 2.19 (95%CI 0.90, 5.35), p = 0.076; considering only Definite FoR events, the evidence was stronger, HR 3.53 (95%CI 1.05, 11.87), p = 0.030. Cumulative number of grade 3-4 AEs was the strongest predictor of censoring. Considering a larger effect of informative censoring attenuated treatment differences, although 95% CI were very wide.ConclusionFive alternative outcome definitions gave similar overall results. The risk of failure or relapse (FoR) may be higher in the short regimen than in the long regimen, highlighting the importance of how loss to follow-up and other censoring is accounted for in analyses. The outcome of time to FoR should be considered as a primary outcome for future drug-sensitive and drug-resistant TB treatment trials, provided sensitivity analyses exploring the impact of departures from independent censoring are also included.

BackgroundChest radiographs are used for diagnosis and severity assessment in tuberculosis (TB). The extent of disease as determined by smear grade and cavitation as a binary measure can predict 2-month smear results, but little has been done to determine whether radiological severity reflects the bacterial burden at diagnosis.MethodsPre-treatment chest x-rays from 1837 participants with smear-positive pulmonary TB enrolled into the REMoxTB trial (Gillespie et al., N Engl J Med 371:1577-87, 2014) were retrospectively reviewed. Two clinicians blinded to clinical details using the Ralph scoring system performed separate readings. An independent reader reviewed discrepant results for quality assessment and cavity presence. Cavitation presence was plotted against time to positivity (TTP) of sputum liquid cultures (MGIT 960). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed to calculate the difference in average TTP for these groups. The average lung field affected was compared to log 10 TTP by linear regression. Baseline markers of disease severity and patient characteristics were added in univariable regression analysis against radiological severity and a multivariable regression model was created to explore their relationship.ResultsFor 1354 participants, the median TTP was 117 h (4.88 days), being 26 h longer (95% CI 16-30, p

Drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) is a growing public health problem, and for the first time in decades, new drugs for the treatment of this disease have been developed. These new drugs have prompted strengthened efforts in DR-TB clinical trials research, and there are now multiple ongoing and planned DR-TB clinical trials. To facilitate comparability and maximise policy impact, a common set of core research definitions is needed, and this paper presents a core set of efficacy and safety definitions as well as other important considerations in DR-TB clinical trials work. To elaborate these definitions, a search of clinical trials registries, published manuscripts and conference proceedings was undertaken to identify groups conducting trials of new regimens for the treatment of DR-TB. Individuals from these groups developed the core set of definitions presented here. Further work is needed to validate and assess the utility of these definitions but they represent an important first step to ensure there is comparability in clinical trials on multidrug-resistant TB.

Tuberculosis cases in children (aged under 15 years) in the National Surveys rose from 308 (rate: 3.3 per 100 000) in 1988 to 408 (4.2 per 100 000) in 1993 [...]

Background: Intrapleural fibrinolytic agents are used in the drainage of infected pleural-fluid collections. This use is based on small trials that did not have the statistical power to evaluate accurately important clinical outcomes, including safety. We conducted a trial to clarify the therapeutic role of intrapleural streptokinase.Methods: In this double-blind trial, 454 patients with pleural infection (defined by the presence of purulent pleural fluid or pleural fluid with a pH below 7.2 with signs of infection or by proven bacterial invasion of the pleural space) were randomly assigned to receive either intrapleural streptokinase (250,000 IU twice daily for three days) or placebo. Patients received antibiotics and underwent chest-tube drainage, surgery, and other treatment as part of routine care. The number of patients in the two groups who had died or needed surgical drainage at three months was compared (the primary end point); secondary end points were the rates of death and of surgery (analyzed separately), the radiographic outcome, and the length of the hospital stay.Results: The groups were well matched at baseline. Among the 427 patients who received streptokinase or placebo, there was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of patients who died or needed surgery (with streptokinase: 64 of 206 patients [31 percent]; with placebo: 60 of 221 [27 percent]; relative risk, 1.14 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.85 to 1.54; P=0.43), a result that excluded a clinically significant benefit of streptokinase. There was no benefit to streptokinase in terms of mortality, rate of surgery, radiographic outcomes, or length of the hospital stay. Serious adverse events (chest pain, fever, or allergy) were more common with streptokinase (7 percent, vs. 3 percent with placebo; relative risk, 2.49 [95 percent confidence interval, 0.98 to 6.36]; P=0.08).Conclusions: The intrapleural administration of streptokinase does not improve mortality, the rate of surgery, or the length of the hospital stay among patients with pleural infection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: STREAM stage 2 showed that two bedaquiline-containing regimens (a 9-month all-oral regimen and a 6-month regimen with 8 weeks of aminoglycoside) had superior efficacy to a 9-month injectable-containing regimen for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis up to 76 weeks after randomisation. Our objective in this follow-up analysis was to assess the durability of efficacy and safety, including mortality, at 132 weeks., Methods: We report the long-term outcomes from STREAM stage 2, a randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority (10% margin) trial in participants (aged ≥15 years) with rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis without fluoroquinolone or aminoglycoside resistance at 13 clinical sites in seven countries (Ethiopia, Georgia, India, Moldova, Mongolia, South Africa, and Uganda). Participants were randomly assigned 1:2:2:2 (via permuted blocks and stratified by site and HIV status plus CD4 cell count) to the 2011 WHO long regimen (terminated early), a 9-month control regimen, a 9-month oral regimen with bedaquiline (primary comparison), or a 6-month regimen with bedaquiline and 8 weeks of an injectable antituberculous drug. Participants and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignments, but laboratory staff were masked. The primary outcome, reported previously, was favourable status (negative cultures for Mycobacterium tuberculosis without a preceding unfavourable outcome; any death, bacteriological failure or recurrence, and major treatment change were considered unfavourable) at week 76. Here we report efficacy outcomes at week 132, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. Safety assessments continued to 132 weeks and were in all participants who received at least one dose of the study regimen. All comparisons used concurrently randomised participants. This trial is registered on ISRCTN (ISRCTN18148631) and is now completed., Findings: Between March 28, 2016, and Jan 28, 2020, 588 participants were randomly assigned to the long (n=32), control (n=202), oral (n=211), or 6-month (n=143) treatment regimens; 352 (60%) were male and 236 (40%) were female. Of the 556 participants on the three shorter regimens, 517 were included in the mITT population (187 in control group, 196 in oral group, and 134 in 6-month group) and 465 in the per-protocol analyses. Six additional participants had an unfavourable outcome that occurred between week 76 and the end of efficacy follow-up (one in control group, four in oral group, one in 6-month group). In the mITT population, the proportion of patients with an unfavourable outcome at the end of follow-up was 19·6% (95% CI 14·3 to 24·9) in the oral group and 29·3% (23·3 to 36·5) in the control group (-9·7 percentage points difference [95% CI -18·7 to -1·8]; p superiority =0·024). An estimated 9·8% (95% CI 4·6 to 14·9) of participants on the 6-month regimen had an unfavourable outcome, which was significantly lower than for those concurrently on the control regimen (32·5% [23·7 to 40·2]; p superiority <0·0001) or the oral regimen (23·8% [16·9 to 31·1]; p superiority =0·013). Few serious or severe adverse events were reported after week 76, with no indication of a difference between the regimens. At week 132, treatment-emergent hearing loss was recorded in significantly fewer participants on the oral regimen (7/205; 3%) than the control regimen (16/198; 8%; p=0.041); there was no significant difference in severe hearing loss between the oral regimen (6/139; 4%) and the 6-month regimen (5/143; 4%; p=0·72). Death rates were low: 1·01 (95% CI 0·48 to 2·12) per 100 person-years in participants allocated to bedaquiline (ie, oral and 6-month regimen, n=287) compared with 1·52 (0·63 to 3·66) in participants on the control regimen (n=140; p=0·49)., Interpretation: Both of the bedaquiline-containing regimens maintained superiority to the control regimen, without evidence of increased mortality, providing two additional evidence-based treatment options for patients; previous mortality concerns for bedaquiline were not substantiated., Funding: US Agency for International Development and Janssen Research & Development., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MR sat on the South African Bedaquiline, Pretomanid and Linezolid Clinical Access Program data monitoring committee and the BEAT Tuberculosis Trial data monitoring committee. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

(1) Background: The World Health Organisation (WHO) categorises moxifloxacin and levofloxacin as Group A drugs, which should be prioritised in the treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. We compare their relative efficacy and safety using data from the STREAM trial; (2) Methods: Marginal structural models were used to balance differences in the baseline characteristics of participants receiving the STREAM control regimen containing either moxifloxacin or levofloxacin as this was not a randomised comparison. The difference in proportions between regimens was estimated for favourable outcome, any grade 3/4 adverse event, QTcF increase to ≥500 ms, QTcF increase from baseline by at least 60 ms, and any grade 3/4 adverse event excluding QT events, using weighted analyses; (3) Results: In efficacy analyses ( n = 123), the weighted risk difference (moxifloxacin-levofloxacin, wRD) for a favourable outcome was -0.045 (-0.213, 0.123), p = 0.60. Similarly, estimates from the safety analyses ( n = 127) showed no evidence of a difference between the fluoroquinolones, other than a suggestion of fewer QTcF increases from baseline on levofloxacin (wRD 0.160 (-0.026, 0.346), p = 0.091); (4) Conclusions: In this small dataset, we found no statistically significant difference in key efficacy or safety outcomes between the moxifloxacin- and levofloxacin-containing regimens; there was a suggestion that QTcF increases from baseline were fewer on levofloxacin.