Ecological study estimating melanoma overdiagnosis in the USA using the lifetime risk method.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the proportion of melanoma diagnoses (invasive and in situ) in the USA that might be overdiagnosed. DESIGN: In this ecological study, incidence and mortality data were collected from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results 9 registries database. DevCan software was used to calculate the cumulative lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma between 1975 and 2018, with adjustments made for changes in longevity and risk factors over the study period. SETTING: USA. PARTICIPANTS: White American men and women (1975-2018). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was excess lifetime risk of melanoma diagnosis between 1976 and 2018 (adjusted for year 2018 competing mortality and changes in risk factors), which was inferred as likely overdiagnosis. The secondary outcome was an excess lifetime risk of melanoma diagnosis in each year between 1976 and 2018 (adjusted and unadjusted). RESULTS: Between 1975 and 2018 the adjusted lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma (invasive and in situ) increased from 3.2% (1 in 31) to 6.4% (1 in 16) among white men, and from 1.6% (1 in 63) to 4.5% (1 in 22) among white women. Over the same period, the adjusted lifetime risk of being diagnosed with melanoma in situ increased from 0.17% (1 in 588) to 2.7% (1 in 37) in white men and 0.08% (1 in 1250) to 2.0% (1 in 50) in white women. An estimated 49.7% of melanomas diagnosed in white men and 64.6% in white women were overdiagnosed in 2018. Among people diagnosed with melanomas in situ, 89.4% of white men and 85.4% of white women were likely overdiagnosed in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Melanoma overdiagnosis among white Americans is significant and increasing over time with an estimated 44 000 overdiagnosed in men and 39 000 in women in 2018. A large proportion of overdiagnosed melanomas are in situ cancers, pointing to a potential focus for intervention.

Uterine atony prophylaxis with carbetocin versus oxytocin and the risk of major haemorrhage during caesarean section: A retrospective cohort study.

Carbetocin and oxytocin are commonly recommended agents for active management of the third stage of labour. Evidence is inconclusive whether either one more effectively reduces the occurrence of important postpartum haemorrhage outcomes at caesarean section. We examined whether carbetocin is associated with a lower risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage (blood loss ≥ 1000 ml) in comparison with oxytocin for the third stage of labour in women undergoing caesarean section. This was a retrospective cohort study among women undergoing scheduled or intrapartum caesarean section between 1 January 2010 and 2 July 2015 who received carbetocin or oxytocin for the third stage of labour. The primary outcome was severe postpartum haemorrhage. Secondary outcomes included blood transfusion, interventions, third stage complications and estimated blood loss. Outcomes were examined overall and by timing of birth, scheduled versus intrapartum, using propensity score-matched analysis. Among 21,027 eligible participants, 10,564 women who received carbetocin and 3836 women who received oxytocin at caesarean section were included in the analysis. Carbetocin was associated with a lower risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage overall (2.1% versus 3.3%; odds ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 0.79; P < 0.001). This reduction was apparent irrespective of timing of birth. Secondary outcomes also favoured carbetocin over oxytocin. In this retrospective cohort study, the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage associated with carbetocin was lower than that associated with oxytocin in women undergoing caesarean section. Randomised clinical trials are needed to further investigate these findings.

Histo-blood group antigen profile of Australian Aboriginal children and seropositivity following oral rotavirus vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Histo-blood group antigens (HBGAs) may influence immune responses to rotavirus vaccination. METHODS: HBGA phenotyping was determined by detection of antigens A, B, H and Lewis a and b in saliva using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Secretor status was confirmed by lectin antigen assay if A, B and H antigens were negative or borderline (OD ± 0.1 of threshold of detection). PCR-RFLP analysis was used to identify the FUT2 'G428A' mutation in a subset. Rotavirus seropositivity was defined as serum anti-rotavirus IgA ≥ 20 AU/mL. RESULTS: Of 156 children, 119 (76 %) were secretors, 129 (83 %) were Lewis antigen positive, and 105 (67 %) were rotavirus IgA seropositive. Eighty-seven of 119 (73 %) secretors were rotavirus seropositive, versus 4/9 (44 %) weak secretors and 13/27 (48 %) non-secretors. CONCLUSIONS: Most Australian Aboriginal children were secretor and Lewis antigen positive. Non-secretor children were less likely to be seropositive to rotavirus antibodies following vaccination, but this phenotype was less common. HBGA status is unlikely to fully explain underperformance of rotavirus vaccines among Australian Aboriginal children.

Characteristics of exceptionally good Doctors-A survey of public adults.

Background: Systematic reviews have found that doctors can have a substantial effect on patients' physical health, beyond what can be explained by known factors. In a previous qualitative study, 13 medical doctors were interviewed on their experiences of exceptionally good doctors, and all had met at least one such doctor. Objective: To determine how common it is for exceptionally good doctors to be encountered by patients and what are the characteristics of exceptionally good doctors. Design: Mixed methods cross-sectional survey of 580 Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. Questions included doctor and participant demographics, and 34 Likert questions on characteristics of exceptionally good and average doctors. Free-text questions allowed participants to describe exceptional doctors, record their experience, and provide survey feedback. Stratified sampling ensured gender parity and 33% of participants aged ≥55 years. Analysis included descriptive statistics, statistical modelling of associations between Likert scale scores and patient demographics, and factor analysis. Results: Of 580 responses, 505 (86%) were included in the analysis. Factor analysis confirmed internal validity. Most respondents (86%) had met at least two exceptionally good doctors, of whom 55% were specialists. 58% of respondents regarded doctors as exceptional based on an overall impression with multiple reasons. Doctors were most commonly considered exceptional based on one or more of their personality, diagnostic, or intervention ability. Respondents who reported the doctors "willingly listened to them to the end" scored their doctors higher on 33 of 34 Likert questions, except for popularity. They also rated average doctors lower throughout. Conclusions: Exceptionally good doctors appear to be commonly encountered by the adult public. Listening to patients willingly to the end is a highly rated and influential characteristic, suggesting that listening could be targeted for quality improvement.

Physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses.

BACKGROUND: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs.

Understanding African American vernacular English and reading achievement: Implications for the science of reading.

The purpose of this article is to discuss issues of language, specifically African American Vernacular English (AAVE), as it relates to the reading performance of African American children. Previous research on the science of reading provides a research-based framework that is a starting point for evidence-based research that can be used to improve the reading outcomes of African American children. School psychology literature is limited in its inclusion of issues posed by deficit perspectives of AAVE with Black children and reading achievement. Given that practicing school psychologists spend significant portions of their time conducting assessments related to identifying and remediating reading problems, an increased awareness on how AAVE can impact African American children's reading performance is necessary. Implications for research and practice will be discussed, such as inclusion of instruments to differentiate between reading difficulties and dialect differences (i.e., Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Characteristics of Exceptionally Good Doctors: A Protocol for a Cross-Sectional Survey of Adults.

Background: Doctors constitute a significant proportion of a very large number of medical interactions. They are known to vary in the quality of their work, with some having an exceptionally beneficial effect on patients' physical health. In a qualitative study, we interviewed medical doctors on their opinions and experiences of exceptionally good doctors. Their responses and the results from previous research are used as a basis for this proposed cross-sectional survey directed to members of the public on their encounters with exceptionally good doctors. The primary aim of this cross-sectional study is to describe the characteristics of exceptional doctors as reported by a large representative sample of adult patients. Methods and Analysis: A mixed qualitative and quantitative anonymous cross-sectional survey of 500 Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) respondents, who have met one or more exceptionally good doctors in their life, will be conducted. Information requested will include reasons for nominating a particular doctor; experience of how that doctor differs from other and average doctors; and 34 5-point Likert scale questions on the characteristics of that doctor and the same Likert questions for the average doctor. An opportunity to report their experience in free-text form will be provided. Sample size will be sufficient to obtain a margin of error of 4%. The authors will provide descriptive statistics, including graphs of the Likert scale question responses; conduct factor analysis for internal validity; investigate satisficing and logical inconsistencies; and explore whether there are multiple types of exceptionally good doctors. Discussion: Previous surveys of patients' perceptions of doctors exist though none have focused on exceptionally good doctors. The expected results will include a list of characteristics that are important to patients in determining exceptionally good doctors.

Qualitative Study of Medical Doctors on Their Experiences and Opinions of the Characteristics of Exceptionally Good Doctors.

Background: It is generally accepted that there is a therapist effect in psychotherapy, with master therapists being studied using qualitative methods. There are surgeons with exceptionally positive patients' physical health outcomes, and qualitative research on what makes good doctors. However, characteristics of exceptionally good doctors are less studied and understood. Objective: To qualitatively study the opinions of physicians on exceptionally good doctors. Methods: Thirteen semi-structured interviews of English-speaking medical doctors of any specialty were conducted. Recruitment was achieved through the authors' network; contacting authors of relevant research papers; and Bond University's General Practitioner recruitment program. Their opinion was sought on what makes an exceptionally good doctor, whether they have met such a person, what was their experience of that person, and whether they consider themselves as exceptionally good doctors. Analysis: A six-phase thematic analysis in an experiential framework, as per Braun and Clarke, was implemented to identify themes and their details in an inductive approach with a realist epistemological position, ie, assuming truthful knowledge on what makes exceptionally good doctors can be obtained. Results: Each interviewee had met and been inspired by exceptionally good doctors. Descriptions covered six themes: character traits; other characteristics; patient relationships; peer and health care system relations; education; and treatment examples. Exceptionally good doctors were found to have up-to-date extensive medical knowledge and skills, relate well with patients, and have excellent diagnostic abilities. They tend to be humble, approachable, inspiring, and are long-remembered role models. However, they may not always be appreciated by their peers and their health care system because of their exceptional abilities. Discussion and Conclusion: Exceptional doctors are beneficial for their peers, their patients, and their health care system. Identifying, acknowledging, and making such doctors more accessible to medical students and junior doctors could have a positive impact on medical practice.

Is There a Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health, Beyond the Intervention and All Known Factors? A Systematic Review.

Purpose: Despite billions of doctor visits worldwide each year, little is known on whether doctors themselves affect patients' physical health after accounting for intervention and confounders such as patients' and doctors' data, hospital effects, nor how strong that doctors' effect is. Knowledge of surgeons' and psychotherapists' effects exists, but not for 102 other medical specialties notwithstanding the importance of such knowledge. Methods: Eligibility Criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control, and cohort studies including medical doctors except surgeons for any intervention, reporting the proportion of variance in patients' outcomes owing to the doctors (random effects), or the fixed effects of grading doctors by outcomes, after multivariate adjustment. Exclusions: studies of <15 doctors or solely reporting doctors' effects for known variables. Sources: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, inception to June 2020. Manual search for papers referring/referred to by resulting studies. Risk of Bias: Using Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Despite all medical interventions bar surgery being eligible, only thirty cohort papers were found, covering 36,239 doctors, with 10 specialties, 21 interventions, 60 outcomes (17 unique). Studies reported doctors' effects by grading doctors from best to worst, or by diversely calculating the doctor-attributed percentage of patients' outcome variation, ie the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Sixteen studies presented fixed effects, 18 random effects, and 3 another approach. No RCTs found. Thirteen studies reported exceptionally good and/or poor performers with confidence intervals wholly outside the average performance. ICC range 0 to 33%, mean 3.9%. Highly diverse reporting, meta-analysis therefore not applicable. Conclusion: Doctors, on their own, can affect patients' physical health for many interventions and outcomes. Effects range from negligible to substantial, even after accounting for all known variables. Many published cohorts may reveal valuable information by reanalyzing their data for doctors' effects. Positive and negative doctor outliers appear regularly. Therefore, it can matter which doctor is chosen.

The Doctors' Effect on Patients' Physical Health Outcomes Beyond the Intervention: A Methodological Review.

Background: Previous research suggests that when a treatment is delivered, patients' outcomes may vary systematically by medical practitioner. Objective: To conduct a methodological review of studies reporting on the effect of doctors on patients' physical health outcomes and to provide recommendations on how this effect could be measured and reported in a consistent and appropriate way. Methods: The data source was 79 included studies and randomized controlled trials from a systematic review of doctors' effects on patients' physical health. We qualitatively assessed the studies and summarized how the doctors' effect was measured and reported. Results: The doctors' effects on patients' physical health outcomes were reported as fixed effects, identifying high and low outliers, or random effects, which estimate the variation in patient health outcomes due to the doctor after accounting for all available variables via the intra-class correlation coefficient. Multivariable multilevel regression is commonly used to adjust for patient risk, doctor experience and other demographics, and also to account for the clustering effect of hospitals in estimating both fixed and random effects. Conclusion: This methodological review identified inconsistencies in how the doctor's effect on patients' physical health outcomes is measured and reported. For grading doctors from worst to best performances and estimating random effects, specific recommendations are given along with the specific data points to report.

Is There a Surgeons' Effect on Patients' Physical Health, Beyond the Intervention, That Requires Further Investigation? A Systematic Review.

Objective: To find and review published papers researching surgeons' effects on patients' physical health. Clinical outcomes of surgery patients with similar prognoses cannot be fully explained by surgeon skill or experience. Just as there are "hospital" and "psychotherapist" effects, there may be "surgeons" effects that persist after controlling for known variables like patient health and operation riskiness. Methods: Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any surgical intervention, which, after multivariate adjustment, either showed proportion of variance in patients' physical health outcomes due to surgeons (random effects) or graded surgeons from best to worst (fixed effects). Studies with <15 surgeons or only ascribing surgeons' effects to known variables excluded. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were used for search until June 2020. Manual search for papers referring/referred by resulting studies. Risk of bias assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: Included studies: 52 cohort studies and three RCTs of 52,436+ surgeons covering 102 outcomes (33 unique). Studies either graded surgeons from best to worst or calculated the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), the percentage of patients' variation due to surgeons, in diverse ways. Sixteen studies showed exceptionally good and/or bad performers with confidence intervals wholly above or below the average performance. ICCs ranged from 0 to 47%, median 4.0%. There are no well-established reporting standards; highly heterogeneous reporting, therefore no meta-analysis. Discussion: Interpretation: There is a surgeons' effect on patients' physical health for many types of surgeries and outcomes, ranging from small to substantial. Surgeons with exceptional patient outcomes appear regularly even after accounting for all known confounding variables. Many existing cohort studies and RCTs could be reanalyzed for surgeons' effects especially after methodological reporting guidelines are published. Conclusion: In terms of patient outcomes, it can matter which surgeon is chosen. Surgeons with exceptional patient outcomes are worth studying further.

Protocol for a Qualitative Study on Doctors' Opinions on and Experiences of Exceptionally Good Doctors.

OBJECTIVE: Doctors have a varying effect on patients' physical health. This means that there are doctors that are more effective than others. Even though the doctor is a part of very many medical interactions, it is not known in which way exceptionally good doctors differ from their peers. After authoring two systematic and one methodological review on identifying exceptional doctors, the authors in this qualitative interview-based study take a bottom-up, inductive approach to answer the question of what makes an exceptionally good doctor. METHODS: About 10-15 semi-structured interviews of medical doctors of any specialty who speak English will be conducted. Recruitment will be through the authors' network and their referrals. Questions will be whether they have an opinion on what makes an exceptionally good doctor, whether they have met such a person and how did this doctor differ from other doctors. The interviews will be done by a 62-year old PhD student who is not a clinician but has extensive experience in having personal conversations as a financial adviser. This could be helpful as the interviewer is only aware that there are exceptionally good doctors but has no notion how exceptionally good doctors differ from their colleagues. ANALYSIS: A six-phase thematic analysis in an experiential framework as per Braun and Clarke will be implemented with the aim to find out what the doctors think and have experienced. This is an inductive approach using a realist epistemological position under the assumption that it is possible to acquire truthful knowledge on what makes exceptionally good doctors. DISCUSSION: Previous qualitative research on exceptionally good doctors consisted of interviewing author-selected exceptionally good doctors. This study takes a step back from this approach by asking the peers of exceptionally good doctors how they define being exceptionally good and how they experience such doctors.

Immunogenicity of a Third Scheduled Dose of Rotarix in Australian Indigenous Infants: A Phase IV, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Rotarix (GlaxoSmithKline) oral rotavirus vaccine is licensed as 2 doses in the first 6 months of life. In settings with high child mortality rates, clinical protection conferred by 2 doses of Rotarix is reduced. We assessed vaccine immune response when an additional dose of Rotarix was given to Australian Aboriginal children 6 to <12 months old. METHODS: ORVAC is a 2-stage, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Australian Aboriginal children 6 to <12 months old who had received 1 or 2 prior doses of Rotarix rotavirus vaccine were randomized 1:1 to receive an additional dose of Rotarix or matched placebo. The primary immunological end point was seroresponse defined as an anti-rotavirus immunoglobulin A level ≥20 AU/mL, 28-56 days after the additional dose of Rotarix or placebo. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and August 2020, a total of 253 infants were enrolled. Of these, 178 infants (70%) had analyzable serological results after follow-up; 89 were randomized to receive Rotarix, and 89 to receive placebo. The proportion with seroresponse was 85% after Rotarix compared with 72% after placebo. There were no occurrences of intussusception or any serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: An additional dose of Rotarix administered to Australian Aboriginal infants 6 to <12 months old increased the proportion with a vaccine seroresponse. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02941107.

Progression of Intracranial Hemorrhage After Chemical Prophylaxis Using Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin in Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Chemical prophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is considered a standard of care for venous thromboembolism in trauma patients. Our center performs a head computed tomography (CT) scan 24 hours after initiation with prophylactic LMWH in the setting of a known traumatic brain injury (TBI). The purpose was to determine the overall incidence of ICH progression after chemoprophylaxis in patients with a TBI. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed at a Level I trauma center, from 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2017. Study patients were drawn from the institution's trauma registry based on Abbreviated Injury Score codes. RESULTS: 778 patients met all inclusion criteria after initial chart review. The proportion of patients with an observed radiographic progression of intracranial hemorrhage after LMWH was 5.8%. 3.1% of patients had a change in clinical management. Observed radiographic progression after LMWH prophylaxis and the presence of SDH on initial CT, the bilateral absence of pupillary response in the emergency department, and a diagnosis of dementia were found to have statistically significant correlation with bleed progression after LMWH was initiated. CONCLUSION: Over a 4-year period, the use of CT to evaluate for radiographic progression of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage 24 hours after receiving LMWH resulted in a change in clinical management for 3.1% of patients. The odds of intracranial hemorrhage progression were approximately 6.5× greater in patients with subdural hemorrhage on initial CT, 3.1× greater in patients with lack of bilateral pupillary response in ED, and 4.2× greater in patients who had been diagnosed with dementia.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in heart transplant recipients: a systematic literature review of clinical outcomes and immunosuppression strategies.

The impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on heart transplant recipients is unknown. Literature is limited to case reports and series. The purpose of this study is to identify the clinical features, outcomes, and immunosuppression strategies of heart transplant recipients with COVID-19 infection. A systematic review was conducted using the search term "Coronavirus" or COVID," "SARS-CoV-2," "cardiac transplantation," and "heart transplant." Case reports and retrospective studies were gathered by searching Medline/PubMed, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science. Thirty-three articles were selected for review. We identified 74 cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in heart transplant and heart-kidney transplant recipients. The mean age was 60.5 ± 15.8 years, and 82.4% were males with median time from transplant of 6.5 years. Commonest symptoms were fever, cough, and dyspnea, but new left ventricular (LV) dysfunction was rare. Leukocytosis, lymphopenia, elevated inflammatory markers, and bilateral ground-glass opacities were common. Mortality was high, with particularly poor survival in patients who required intensive care unit (ICU) admission and older patients. Immunosuppression involved discontinuation of antimetabolites and steroids. COVID-19 infection in heart transplant (HT) recipients presents similarly to the general population, but new onset of LV dysfunction is uncommon. Immunosuppression strategies include increase in corticosteroids and discontinuation of antimetabolites.

Calcineurin-Inhibitor Induced Pain Syndrome in a Heart Transplant Patient.

Calcineurin-inhibitor induced pain syndrome (CIPS) also called the "symmetrical bone syndrome" is a condition describing reversible lower extremity pain in patients after organ transplantation who are receiving calcineurin inhibitors, especially tacrolimus. We present a case of CIPS after orthotopic heart transplant complicated with concurrent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We emphasize the presentation; diagnostic evaluation, and findings. We then discuss the proposed pathophysiologic mechanisms of CIPS and conclude with discussion of management strategies. Additionally, we present a table to guide clinicians in assessing posttransplant bone pain syndromes. To our knowledge, this is the first article to describe a case of CIPS with concurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Sleep Quality and Daytime Sleepiness in Prelicensure Baccalaureate Nursing Students.

BACKGROUND: Nursing students need to learn about sleep health to provide safe patient care. The purpose of this study was to investigate sleep in nursing students and describe factors that affect their sleep. METHOD: This study used a cross-sectional descriptive design with a convenience sample from baccalaureate nursing programs in a midwestern region of the United States. Data were collected using a demographic questionnaire, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, and Sleep Hygiene Index. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-four nursing students reported poor sleep quality, excessive daytime sleepiness, and maladaptive sleep hygiene, regardless of their year of study or enrollment status. Behavior of technology use into the night was the most frequent reason why students lost sleep. CONCLUSION: Learning the importance of sleep hygiene, good sleep quality, and the associated health benefits may assist nursing students with achieving optimal daytime functioning. Consideration should be given to sleep health content as a thread through nursing curriculum. [J Nurs Educ. 2021;60(4):196-202.].

Left Ventricular Impaired Relaxation and Interstitial Myocarditis Identified in Sepsis-Associated Cardiac Dysfunction: Use of a Rodent Model.

BACKGROUND Sepsis is a serious clinical problem that results from the systemic response of the body to infection. Left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction is increasingly appreciated as a contributor to morbidity and mortality in sepsis. Animal models may offer a method of studying diastolic dysfunction while controlling for many potential clinical confounders, such as sepsis duration, premorbid condition, and therapeutic interventions. This study sought to evaluate an endotoxemia (LPS) rodent model of sepsis, with regard to echocardiographic evidence, including tissue Doppler, of LV diastolic dysfunction and histopathology findings. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fourteen male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly allocated (1: 1) to LPS or saline (control). Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) was measured through cannulation of the carotid artery. After a 30-min stabilization, baseline assessment with echocardiography and blood collection was performed. Rats were administered 0.9% saline or LPS (10 mg/mL). Follow-up echocardiography and blood collection were performed after 2 h. Hearts were removed post-mortem and pathology studied using histology and immunohistochemistry. RESULTS LPS was associated with hypotension (MAP 81.86±31.67 mmHg; 124.29±20.16; p=0.02) and LV impaired relaxation (myocardial early diastolic velocity [e'] 0.06±0.02 m/s; 0.09±0.02; P=0.008). Histopathology and immunohistochemistry demonstrated evidence of interstitial myocarditis (hydropic changes and inflammation). CONCLUSIONS LPS was associated with both diastolic dysfunction (impaired relaxation) and interstitial myocarditis. These features may offer a link between the structural and functional changes that have previously been described separately in clinical sepsis. This may facilitate further studies focused upon the mechanism and potential benefit treatment of sepsis-associated cardiac dysfunction.