A Phase I Trial Evaluating the Addition of Lenalidomide to Patients with Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma Progressing on Ruxolitinib and Methylprednisolone.

BACKGROUND: Ruxolitinib (RUX), an orally administered selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor, has received approval for the treatment of myelofibrosis, polycythemia vera, and graft-versus-host disease. We have previously demonstrated the anti-multiple myeloma effects of RUX alone and in combination with the immunomodulatory agent lenalidomide (LEN) and glucocorticosteroids both pre-clinically and clinically. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate whether LEN can achieve clinical activity among patients with multiple myeloma progressing on the combination of RUX and methylprednisolone (MP). METHODS: In this part of a phase I, multicenter, open-label study, we evaluated the safety and efficacy of RUX and MP for patients with multiple myeloma with progressive disease who had previously received a proteasome inhibitor, LEN, glucocorticosteroids, and at least three prior regimens; we also determined the safety and efficacy of adding LEN at the time of disease progression from the initial doublet treatment. Initially, all subjects received oral RUX 15 mg twice daily and oral MP 40 mg every other day. Those patients who developed progressive disease according to the International Myeloma Working Group criteria then received LEN 10 mg once daily on days 1-21 within a 28-day cycle in addition to RUX and MP, which were administered at the same doses these patients were receiving at the time progressive disease developed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine subjects (median age 64 years; 18 [62%] male) were enrolled in this part of the study and initially received the two-drug combination of RUX and MP. The median number of prior therapies was six (range 3-12). The overall response rate from this two-drug combination was 31% and the clinical benefit rate was 34%. The best responses were 1 very good partial response, 8 partial responses, 1 minor response, 12 stable disease, and 7 progressive disease. The median progression-free survival was 3.5 months (range  0.5-36.2 months). The median time to response was 3.0 months. The median duration of response was 12.5 months (range 2.8-36.2 months). Twenty (69%) patients who showed progressive disease had LEN added to RUX and MP; all patients had prior exposure to LEN and all but one patient was refractory to their last LEN-containing regimen. After the addition of LEN, the overall response rate was 30% and the clinical benefit rate was 40%. The best responses of patients following the addition of LEN were 2 very good partial responses, 4 partial responses, 2 minor responses, 8 stable disease, and 4 progressive disease. The median time to response was 2.6 months (range 0.7-15.0 months). The median duration of response was not reached. The median progression-free survival following the addition of LEN was 3.5 months (range 0.3-25.9 months). CONCLUSIONS: For patients with multiple myeloma, treatment with RUX and MP is effective and well tolerated, and LEN can be used to extend the benefit of this RUX-based treatment. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03110822, and is ongoing.

Barriers and motivators to undertaking physical activity in adults over 70-a systematic review of the quantitative literature.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity (PA) has multiple benefits for older adults (≥70 years old). Despite this many older adults do not undertake the World Health Organisation guideline recommended amount of PA. This systematic review examines barriers and motivators to PA in adults aged ≥70 years. METHODS: We analysed the quantitative literature, including observational studies and baseline data from randomised controlled trials. Studies examining specific diseases (e.g. cognitive impairment), or care home residents were excluded. Database searches of ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO and Web of Science were undertaken on 7 March 2023. Quality assessment was performed using the ROBANS tool. We synthesised the results using the socioecological model. The protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021160503). RESULTS: We identified 37 papers, n = 26,961, age 70-101 years (median 78), 62% female. We undertook a narrative review; meta-analysis was not possible. Overall risk of bias was low. A total of 23 studies addressed barriers, seven motivators, seven both. The most cited barriers were: concern about physical health/fitness (14 studies), lack of motivation/interest (13 studies), fear of falls/history of falling (11 studies) and environmental barriers (10 studies). Key motivators were: support from family/friends (five studies), social interaction (five studies), personal benefits (five studies) and outside facilities (five studies). Results varied across gender, age, functional ability and geographical location. DISCUSSION: To maximise PA in older adults, important modifiable factors identified in this review should be targeted: support from healthcare professionals; reducing fear of falls; and prioritising ease of access and safety of outdoor facilities. When considering future policy, a person-centred, age group appropriate approach will have the most impact.

Effectiveness of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection among U.S. Healthcare personnel, September 2022-May 2023.

BACKGROUND: Bivalent mRNA vaccines were recommended since September 2022. However, coverage with a recent vaccine dose has been limited, and there are few robust estimates of bivalent VE against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19). We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA vaccine dose against COVID-19 among eligible U.S. healthcare personnel who had previously received monovalent mRNA vaccine doses. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study in 22 U.S. states, and enrolled healthcare personnel with COVID-19 (case-participants) or without COVID-19 (control-participants) during September 2022-May 2023. Participants were considered eligible for a bivalent mRNA dose if they had received 2-4 monovalent (ancestral-strain) mRNA vaccine doses, and were ≥67 days after the most recent vaccine dose. We estimated VE of a bivalent mRNA dose using conditional logistic regression, accounting for matching by region and four-week calendar period. We adjusted estimates for age group, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, underlying health conditions, community COVID-19 exposure, prior SARS-CoV-2 infection, and days since the last monovalent mRNA dose. RESULTS: Among 3,647 healthcare personnel, 1,528 were included as case-participants and 2,119 as control-participants. Participants received their last monovalent mRNA dose a median of 404 days previously; 1,234 (33.8%) also received a bivalent mRNA dose a median of 93 days previously. Overall, VE of a bivalent dose was 34.1% (95% CI, 22.6%-43.9%) against COVID-19 and was similar by product, days since last monovalent dose, number of prior doses, age group, and presence of underlying health conditions. However, VE declined from 54.8% (95% CI, 40.7%-65.6%) after 7-59 days to 21.6% (95% CI 5.6%-34.9%) after ≥60 days. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalent mRNA COVID-19 vaccines initially conferred approximately 55% protection against COVID-19 among U.S. healthcare personnel. However, protection waned after two months. These findings indicate moderate initial protection against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection by remaining up-to-date with COVID-19 vaccines.

Higher-Dose Fluvoxamine and Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: The ACTIV-6 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effect of higher-dose fluvoxamine in reducing symptom duration among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19 remains uncertain. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of fluvoxamine, 100 mg twice daily, compared with placebo, for treating mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-6 platform randomized clinical trial aims to evaluate repurposed medications for mild to moderate COVID-19. Between August 25, 2022, and January 20, 2023, a total of 1175 participants were enrolled at 103 US sites for evaluating fluvoxamine; participants were 30 years or older with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and at least 2 acute COVID-19 symptoms for 7 days or less. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive fluvoxamine, 50 mg twice daily on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily for 12 additional days (n = 601), or placebo (n = 607). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery (defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms). Secondary outcomes included time to death; time to hospitalization or death; a composite of hospitalization, urgent care visit, emergency department visit, or death; COVID-19 clinical progression scale score; and difference in mean time unwell. Follow-up occurred through day 28. Results: Among 1208 participants who were randomized and received the study drug, the median (IQR) age was 50 (40-60) years, 65.8% were women, 45.5% identified as Hispanic/Latino, and 76.8% reported receiving at least 2 doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Among 589 participants who received fluvoxamine and 586 who received placebo included in the primary analysis, differences in time to sustained recovery were not observed (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.89-1.09]; P for efficacy = .40]). Additionally, unadjusted median time to sustained recovery was 10 (95% CI, 10-11) days in both the intervention and placebo groups. No deaths were reported. Thirty-five participants reported health care use events (a priori defined as death, hospitalization, or emergency department/urgent care visit): 14 in the fluvoxamine group compared with 21 in the placebo group (HR, 0.69 [95% credible interval, 0.27-1.21]; P for efficacy = .86) There were 7 serious adverse events in 6 participants (2 with fluvoxamine and 4 with placebo) but no deaths. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with fluvoxamine does not reduce duration of COVID-19 symptoms. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Effectiveness of a Messenger RNA Vaccine Booster Dose Against Coronavirus Disease 2019 Among US Healthcare Personnel, October 2021-July 2022.

Background: Protection against symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (coronavirus disease 2019 [COVID-19]) can limit transmission and the risk of post-COVID conditions, and is particularly important among healthcare personnel. However, lower vaccine effectiveness (VE) has been reported since predominance of the Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant. Methods: We evaluated the VE of a monovalent messenger RNA (mRNA) booster dose against COVID-19 from October 2021 to June 2022 among US healthcare personnel. After matching case-participants with COVID-19 to control-participants by 2-week period and site, we used conditional logistic regression to estimate the VE of a booster dose compared with completing only 2 mRNA doses >150 days previously, adjusted for multiple covariates. Results: Among 3279 case-participants and 3998 control-participants who had completed 2 mRNA doses, we estimated that the VE of a booster dose against COVID-19 declined from 86% (95% confidence interval, 81%-90%) during Delta predominance to 65% (58%-70%) during Omicron predominance. During Omicron predominance, VE declined from 73% (95% confidence interval, 67%-79%) 14-60 days after the booster dose, to 32% (4%-52%) ≥120 days after a booster dose. We found that VE was similar by age group, presence of underlying health conditions, and pregnancy status on the test date, as well as among immunocompromised participants. Conclusions: A booster dose conferred substantial protection against COVID-19 among healthcare personnel. However, VE was lower during Omicron predominance, and waning effectiveness was observed 4 months after booster dose receipt during this period. Our findings support recommendations to stay up to date on recommended doses of COVID-19 vaccines for all those eligible.

What makes a multidisciplinary medication review and deprescribing intervention for older people work well in primary care? A realist review and synthesis.

BACKGROUND: A third of older people take five or more regular medications (polypharmacy). Conducting medication reviews in primary care is key to identify and reduce/ stop inappropriate medications (deprescribing). Recent recommendations for effective deprescribing include shared-decision making and a multidisciplinary approach. Our aim was to understand when, why, and how interventions for medication review and deprescribing in primary care involving multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) work (or do not work) for older people. METHODS: A realist synthesis following the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards guidelines was completed. A scoping literature review informed the generation of an initial programme theory. Systematic searches of different databases were conducted, and documents screened for eligibility, with data extracted based on a Context, Mechanisms, Outcome (CMO) configuration to develop further our programme theory. Documents were appraised based on assessments of relevance and rigour. A Stakeholder consultation with 26 primary care health care professionals (HCPs), 10 patients and three informal carers was conducted to test and refine the programme theory. Data synthesis was underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory to identify key mechanisms to enhance the implementation of MDT medication review and deprescribing in primary care. FINDINGS: A total of 2821 abstracts and 175 full-text documents were assessed for eligibility, with 28 included. Analysis of documents alongside stakeholder consultation outlined 33 CMO configurations categorised under four themes: 1) HCPs roles, responsibilities and relationships; 2) HCPs training and education; 3) the format and process of the medication review 4) involvement and education of patients and informal carers. A number of key mechanisms were identified including clearly defined roles and good communication between MDT members, integration of pharmacists in the team, simulation-based training or team building training, targeting high-risk patients, using deprescribing tools and drawing on expertise of other HCPs (e.g., nurses and frailty practitioners), involving patents and carers in the process, starting with 'quick wins', offering deprescribing as 'drug holidays', and ensuring appropriate and tailored follow-up plans that allow continuity of care and management. CONCLUSION: We identified key mechanisms that could inform the design of future interventions and services that successfully embed deprescribing in primary care.

Factors that influence older adults' participation in physical activity: a systematic review of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: Despite the advantages of physical activity (PA), older adults are often insufficiently active to maximise health. Understanding factors that influence PA engagement will support well-designed interventions for older people. Our aim was to review the qualitative evidence exploring the factors affecting older adults' engagement in PA. METHODS: We searched six electronic databases for studies of community-dwelling older adults (≥70 years) including qualitative methods. We excluded studies of a single-disease group, individuals with cognitive impairment and care home residents. Methodological rigour was assessed with the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and framework synthesis was applied using the Capability Opportunity Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model, which hypothesises that behaviour is influenced by three factors: capability, opportunity and motivation. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in the review (N = 4,978; mean 79 years) and 32 themes were identified. Older adults' capability was influenced by functional capacity (e.g. strength) and perceived risk of injury from PA (e.g. falls). Opportunity was impacted by the environment 'fit' (e.g. neighbourhood safety), the availability of social interaction and socio-cultural ageing stereotypes. PA was motivated by identifying as an 'exerciser', health gains and experiencing positive emotions (e.g. enjoyment), whereas negative sensations (e.g. pain) reduced motivation. CONCLUSIONS: The qualitative synthesis showcased a complex web of interacting factors influencing PA between the sub-domains of COM-B, pinpointing directions for intervention, including a focus on whole systems approaches. There was a lack of research exploring PA influences in the oldest old and in low-income countries. Future research should seek to involve under-served groups, including a wider diversity of older people.

Estimating vaccine coverage in conflict settings using geospatial methods: a case study in Borno state, Nigeria.

Reliable estimates of subnational vaccination coverage are critical to track progress towards global immunisation targets and ensure equitable health outcomes for all children. However, conflict can limit the reliability of coverage estimates from traditional household-based surveys due to an inability to sample in unsafe and insecure areas and increased uncertainty in underlying population estimates. In these situations, model-based geostatistical (MBG) approaches offer alternative coverage estimates for administrative units affected by conflict. We estimated first- and third-dose diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine coverage in Borno state, Nigeria, using a spatiotemporal MBG modelling approach, then compared these to estimates from recent conflict-affected, household-based surveys. We compared sampling cluster locations from recent household-based surveys to geolocated data on conflict locations and modelled spatial coverage estimates, while also investigating the importance of reliable population estimates when assessing coverage in conflict settings. These results demonstrate that geospatially-modelled coverage estimates can be a valuable additional tool to understand coverage in locations where conflict prevents representative sampling.

Observational study of organisational responses of 17 US hospitals over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has required significant modifications of hospital care. The objective of this study was to examine the operational approaches taken by US hospitals over time in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective observational study of 17 geographically diverse US hospitals from February 2020 to February 2021. OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS: We identified 42 potential pandemic-related strategies and obtained week-to-week data about their use. We calculated descriptive statistics for use of each strategy and plotted percent uptake and weeks used. We assessed the relationship between strategy use and hospital type, geographic region and phase of the pandemic using generalised estimating equations (GEEs), adjusting for weekly county case counts. RESULTS: We found heterogeneity in strategy uptake over time, some of which was associated with geographic region and phase of pandemic. We identified a body of strategies that were both commonly used and sustained over time, for example, limiting staff in COVID-19 rooms and increasing telehealth capacity, as well as those that were rarely used and/or not sustained, for example, increasing hospital bed capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in resource intensity, uptake and duration of use. Such information may be valuable to health systems during the ongoing pandemic and future ones.

Kymriah® (tisagenlecleucel) - An overview of the clinical development journey of the first approved CAR-T therapy.

The emergence of cell and gene therapies has dramatically changed the treatment paradigm in oncology and other therapeutic areas. Kymriah® (tisagenlecleucel), a CD19-directed genetically modified autologous T-cell immunotherapy, is currently approved in major markets for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (r/r) pediatric and young adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia, r/r diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, and r/r follicular lymphoma. This article presents a high-level overview of the clinical development journey of tisagenlecleucel, including its efficacy outcomes and safety considerations.

Frail2Fit study protocol: a feasibility and acceptability study of a virtual multimodal intervention delivered by volunteers to improve functional outcomes in older adults with frailty after discharge from hospital.

INTRODUCTION: Physical activity (PA) and replete nutritional status are key to maintaining independence and improving frailty status among frail older adults. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare has increasingly turned to virtual modes of delivery and there is interest in the use of trained volunteers to deliver PA and nutrition interventions. We aim to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of training hospital volunteers to deliver an online intervention, comprising exercise, behaviour change and nutrition support, to older people with frailty after discharge from hospital. METHODS: We will use a quasi-experimental mixed methods approach. Hospital volunteers (n=6) will be trained to deliver an online, 3-month, multimodal intervention to frail (Clinical Frailty Scale ≥5) adults ≥65 years (n=30) after discharge from hospital. Feasibility will be assessed by determining the number of volunteers recruited, trained and retained at the end of the study; the proportion of intervention sessions delivered; participant recruitment, retention and adherence to the intervention. To determine the acceptability of the intervention, interviews will be conducted among a purposive sample of older adults, and volunteers. Secondary outcomes will include physical function, appetite, well-being, quality of life, anxiety and depression, self-efficacy for managing chronic disease and PA. Outcomes will be measured at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics will be used to describe feasibility and adherence to the intervention. Secondary outcomes at baseline will be compared at 3 and 6 months. Interviews will be transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Health Research Authority ethical approval was obtained on 30 May 2022 (reference: 22/WA/0155). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles, volunteer organisations, National Health Service communication systems and social media platforms. A toolkit will be developed to facilitate roll out of volunteer training. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05384730.

Effect of Higher-Dose Ivermectin for 6 Days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin at a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo, for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ongoing Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines 6 (ACTIV-6) platform randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants older than 30 years with confirmed COVID-19 experiencing at least 2 symptoms of acute infection for less than or equal to 7 days were enrolled at 93 sites in the US from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n = 602) daily, or placebo (n = 604) for 6 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, the median (IQR) age was 48 (38-58) years, 713 (59.1%) were women, and 1008 (83.5%) reported receiving at least 2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. The median (IQR) time to sustained recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (95% credible interval, 0.92-1.13; P = .68). Among those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 1.0 [95% credible interval, 0.6-1.5]; P = .53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to sustained recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530.

Healthcare resource use and reimbursement amount by site of care in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy - a retrospective cohort study using CMS 100% Medicare claims database.

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) infusion settings may impact healthcare resource use (HRU) and reimbursement amounts. Adults with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma receiving CAR-T therapy were identified from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 100% fee-for-service Medicare database and stratified into inpatient (IP; n = 380) and outpatient (OP; n = 50) cohorts based on CAR-T infusion setting. During the first month post-infusion, OP cohort had significantly fewer IP visits, IP days, intensive care unit (ICU) stays, ICU days, and significantly more OP, emergency room (ER) visits, than IP cohort. In subsequent months, HRU became comparable between cohorts. Medicare reimbursement amounts during the first month post-infusion were nominally higher in the OP vs. IP cohort and comparable in subsequent months. The reimbursement amounts did not reflect the reduced HRU with OP infusions, potentially due to differences in Medicare payment policies for OP vs. IP services.

Ruxolitinib and methylprednisolone for treatment of patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Although Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors have demonstrated efficacy for treating autoimmune disorders and myeloproliferative neoplasms, their efficacy in treating other types of cancer has not been clearly demonstrated. We evaluated oral ruxolitinib (15 mg twice daily) with oral methylprednisolone (40 mg every other day) for multiple myeloma (MM) patients with progressive disease who had received a proteasome inhibitor, lenalidomide, glucocorticosteroids and three or more prior regimens. All of the planned 29 patients had been enrolled with follow-up until 28 April 2022. Median lines of prior therapy were 6 (range 3-12). Cytogenetics and fluorescent in situ hybridization were evaluable in 28 patients; 9 (32%) and 17 (70%) patients showed high-risk cytogenetics and/or 1q+, respectively. The overall response rate was 31%. The median duration of response was 13.1 (range 2.8-22.0) months. Median progression-free survival rate was 3.4 (range 0.5-24.6) months, Overall, the treatment was well tolerated. The combination of ruxolitinib and methylprednisolone demonstrated significant clinical activity among previously heavily-treated MM patients, and responses were achieved among patients who had high-risk cytogenetics. This is the first clinical study to show activity of JAK inhibitors in combination with steroids for MM patients and expands the potential use of these drugs to those with cancers other than myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Take notes, not photos: Mind-wandering mediates the impact of note-taking strategies on video-recorded lecture learning performance.

In two experiments (N = 200), we compared the effects of longhand note-taking, photographing lecture materials with a smartphone camera, and not taking any notes on video-recorded lecture learning. Experiment 1 revealed a longhand-superiority effect: Longhand note-takers outperformed photo-takers and control learners on a recall test, notwithstanding an equal opportunity to review their learning material right before being tested, and even when photo-takers and control participants reviewed an exact transcript of the lecture slides via their photos or printouts, whereas longhand note-takers accessed only a fraction of the content as captured in their handwritten notes. Photo-takers performed comparably to learners who had not taken any notes at all. Experiment 2 further showed that mind-wandering mediates the mnemonic benefits of longhand note-taking: Relative to learners who took photos or did not take any notes, longhand note-takers mind-wandered less and, in turn, demonstrated superior retention of the lecture content. Yet, across both experiments, learners were not cognizant of the advantages of longhand note-taking, but misjudged all three techniques to be equally effective. These findings point to key attentional differences between longhand note-taking and photo-taking that impact learning-knowledge that is easily and conveniently acquired in a snap may not be better remembered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Effect of Ivermectin 600 µg/kg for 6 days vs Placebo on Time to Sustained Recovery in Outpatients with Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Whether ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg, shortens symptom duration or prevents hospitalization among outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of ivermectin, dosed at 600 µg/kg, daily for 6 days compared with placebo for the treatment of early mild to moderate COVID-19. Methods: ACTIV-6, an ongoing, decentralized, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, platform trial, was designed to evaluate repurposed therapies in outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19. A total of 1206 participants age ≥30 years with confirmed COVID-19, experiencing ≥2 symptoms of acute infection for ≤7 days, were enrolled from February 16, 2022, through July 22, 2022, with follow-up data through November 10, 2022, at 93 sites in the US. Participants were randomized to ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg (n=602), daily vs. placebo daily (n=604) for 6 days. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery, defined as at least 3 consecutive days without symptoms. The 7 secondary outcomes included a composite of hospitalization, death, or urgent/emergent care utilization by day 28. Results: Among 1206 randomized participants who received study medication or placebo, median (interquartile range) age was 48 (38-58) years; 713 (59%) were women; and 1008 (84%) reported ≥2 SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses. Median time to recovery was 11 (11-12) days in the ivermectin group and 11 (11-12) days in the placebo group. The hazard ratio (HR) (95% credible interval [CrI], posterior probability of benefit) for improvement in time to recovery was 1.02 (0.92-1.13; P[HR>1]=0.68). In those receiving ivermectin, 34 (5.7%) were hospitalized, died, or had urgent or emergency care visits compared with 36 (6.0%) receiving placebo (HR 1.0, 0.6- 1.5; P[HR<1]=0.53). In the ivermectin group, 1 participant died and 4 were hospitalized (0.8%); 2 participants (0.3%) were hospitalized in the placebo group and there were no deaths. Adverse events were uncommon in both groups. Conclusions: Among outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with ivermectin, with a maximum targeted dose of 600 µg/kg daily for 6 days, compared with placebo did not improve time to recovery. These findings do not support the use of ivermectin in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04885530 .

Detecting low-intake dehydration using bioelectrical impedance analysis in older adults in acute care settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dehydration is a frequent cause of excess morbidity and poor health outcomes, particularly in older adults who have an increased risk of fluid loss due to renal senescence, comorbidities, and polypharmacy. Detecting dehydration is key to instigating treatment to resolve the problem and prevent further adverse consequences; however, current approaches to diagnosis are unreliable and, as a result, under-detection remains a widespread problem. This systematic review sought to explore the value of bioelectrical impedance in detecting low-intake dehydration among older adults admitted to acute care settings. METHODS: A literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was undertaken from inception till May 2022 and led to the eventual evaluation of four studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool for observational studies; three studies had a high risk of bias, and one had a low risk. Data were extracted using systematic proofs. Due to insufficient reporting, the data were analysed using narrative synthesis. RESULTS: One study showed that the sensitivity and specificity of bioelectrical impedance in detecting low-intake dehydration varied considerably depending on the total body water percentage threshold used to ascertain dehydration status. Other included studies supported the technique's utility when compared to conventional measures of hydration status. CONCLUSIONS: Given the scarcity of literature and inconsistency between findings, it is not possible to ascertain the value of bioelectrical impedance for detecting low-intake dehydration in older inpatients.

Engagement in research during specialist geriatric medicine training: results of a national trainee survey.

INTRODUCTION: Meaningful ageing research across the UK is dependent on a network of engaged geriatricians. The research in geriatric specialty training (RGST) survey aimed to establish current research opportunities available to geriatric medicine specialty trainees in the UK. METHODS: The RGST survey was disseminated to UK higher specialist trainees in geriatric medicine in 2019 via the Geriatric Medicine Research Collaborative network. RESULTS: Among the 36.9% (192/521) of respondents, 44% (83/188) reported previous research involvement and 7% (n=8) held a PhD or MD. Of the respondents with no research experience to date, 59.0% (n=49) reported a desire to undertake a period of research. One-third (31%) of geriatric registrars surveyed felt that they had gained sufficient research experience during their training. Perceived encouragement and support to undertake research was low (30.7%). Enablers and barriers to research engagement were identified. CONCLUSION: Research opportunity and engagement in geriatric medicine training is lacking. This could jeopardise the future workforce of research-active geriatricians in the UK and limit patient access to emerging research and innovation. Interventions to promote research engagement among geriatric medicine trainees are needed to facilitate integration of research into routine clinical practice to improve the health and care of older people.