We examined longitudinal changes in cognitive and physical function and associations between change in function and falls in people with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

Prospective cohort study with assessments every 2 years (for up to 6 years).

Community, Sydney, Australia.

Four hundred and eighty one people were classified into three groups: those with MCI at baseline and MCI or dementia at follow-up assessments (n = 92); those who fluctuated between cognitively normal and MCI throughout follow-up (cognitively fluctuating) (n = 157), and those who were cognitively normal at baseline and all reassessments (n = 232).

Cognitive and physical function measured over 2–6 years follow-up. Falls in the year following participants’ final assessment.

In summary, 27.4%, 38.5%, and 34.1% of participants completed 2, 4, and 6 years follow-up of cognitive and physical performance, respectively. The MCI and cognitive fluctuating groups demonstrated cognitive decline, whereas the cognitively normal group did not. The MCI group had worse physical function than the cognitively normal group at baseline but decline over time in physical performance was similar across all groups. Decline in global cognitive function and sensorimotor performance were associated with multiple falls in the cognitively normal group and decline in mobility (timed-up-and-go test) was associated with multiple falls across the whole sample.

Cognitive declines were not associated with falls in people with MCI and fluctuating cognition. Declines in physical function were similar between groups and decline in mobility was associated with falls in the whole sample. As exercise has multiple health benefits including maintaining physical function, it should be recommended for all older people. Programs aimed at mitigating cognitive decline should be encouraged in people with MCI.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is an etiologically nonspecific diagnosis including a broad spectrum of cognitive decline between normal aging and dementia. Several large-scale cohort studies have found sex effects on neuropsychological test performance in MCI. The primary aim of the current project was to examine sex differences in neuropsychological profiles in a clinically diagnosed MCI sample using clinical and research diagnostic criteria.

The current study includes archival data from 349 patients (age M = 74.7; SD = 7.7) who underwent an outpatient neuropsychological evaluation and were diagnosed with MCI. Raw scores were converted to z-scores using normative datasets. Sex differences in neurocognitive profiles including severity, domain-specific composites (memory, executive functioning/information processing speed, and language), and modality-specific learning curves (verbal, visual) were examined using Analysis of Variance, Chi-square analyses, and linear mixed models. Post hoc analyses examined whether sex effects were uniform across age and education brackets.

Females exhibit worse non-memory domain and test-specific cognitive performances compared to males with otherwise comparable categorical MCI criteria and global cognition measured via screening and composite scores. Analysis of learning curves showed additional sex-specific advantages (visual Males>Females; verbal Females >Males) not captured by MCI subtypes.

Our results highlight sex differences in a clinical sample with MCI. The emphasis of verbal memory in the diagnosis of MCI may result in diagnosis at more advanced stages for females. Additional investigation is needed to determine whether these profiles confer greater risk for progressing to dementia or are confounded by other factors (e.g., delayed referral, medical comorbidities).

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to increased pressure on health services, which, combined with variable social restrictions, led to decreased referrals for head and neck cancer. This study assessed whether there were lasting changes to head and neck cancer referrals during different stages of the pandemic response in 2020 and 2021.

A retrospective review was conducted of all cases referred for suspected head and neck cancer to our institution in January 2020, April 2020, April 2021 and June 2021.

There was a rebound 91 per cent increase in referrals between April 2020 and April 2021 following the 59 per cent decrease in referrals between January 2020 and April 2020. Males made up 47.1 per cent of referrals in January 2020, 40 per cent in April 2020 and 37.82 per cent in April 2021.

Further research is recommended to investigate the reasons why there is a continued decline in male referrals and the effect this has on their outcomes.

To evaluate the clinical impact of the BioFire FilmArray Pneumonia Panel (PNA panel) in critically ill patients.

Single-center, preintervention and postintervention retrospective cohort study.

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Adult ICU patients.

Patients with quantitative bacterial cultures obtained by bronchoalveolar lavage or tracheal aspirate either before (January–March 2021, preintervention period) or after (January–March 2022, postintervention period) implementation of the PNA panel were randomly screened until 25 patients per study month (75 in each cohort) who met the study criteria were included. Antibiotic use from the day of culture collection through day 5 was compared.

The primary outcome of median time to first antibiotic change based on microbiologic data was 50 hours before the intervention versus 21 hours after the intervention (P = .0006). Also, 56 postintervention regimens (75%) were eligible for change based on PNA panel results; actual change occurred in 30 regimens (54%). Median antibiotic days of therapy (DOTs) were 8 before the intervention versus 6 after the intervention (P = .07). For the patients with antibiotic changes made based on PNA panel results, the median time to first antibiotic change was 10 hours. For patients who were initially on inadequate therapy, time to adequate therapy was 67 hours before the intervention versus 37 hours after the intervention (P = .27).

The PNA panel was associated with decreased time to first antibiotic change and fewer antibiotic DOTs. Its impact may have been larger if a higher percentage of potential antibiotic changes had been implemented. The PNA panel is a promising tool to enhance antibiotic stewardship.

Admission laboratory screening for asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been utilized to mitigate healthcare-associated severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission. An understanding of the impact of such testing across a variety of patient populations is needed.

SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification admission testing results for all asymptomatic patients across 4 distinct inpatient facilities between April 20, 2020, and June 14, 2021, were analyzed. Positivity rates and the number needed to test (NNT) to identify 1 asymptomatic infected patient were calculated. Admission results were compared to COVID-19 community incidence rates for the system’s surrounding metropolitan service area. Using a national survey of hospital epidemiologists, a clinically meaningful NNT of 1:100 was identified.

In total, 51,187 tests were collected (positivity rate, 1.8%). During periods of high transmission, the NNT met the clinically relevant threshold in all populations. The NNT approached or met the threshold for most locations during periods of lower transmission. For all transmission levels, the NNT for fully vaccinated patients did not meet the threshold.

Implementing an asymptomatic patient admission testing program can provide clinically relevant data based on the NNT, even during periods of lower transmission and among different patient populations. Limiting admission testing to non–fully vaccinated patients during periods of lower transmission may be a strategy to address resource concerns around this practice. Although the impact of such testing on healthcare-associated COVID-19 among patients and healthcare workers could not be clearly determined, these data provide important information as facilities weigh the costs and benefits of such testing.

Intracerebral abscess is a life-threatening condition for which there are no current, widely accepted neurosurgical management guidelines. The purpose of this study was to investigate Canadian practice patterns for the medical and surgical management of primary, recurrent, and multiple intracerebral abscesses.

A self-administered, cross-sectional, electronic survey was distributed to active staff and resident members of the Canadian Neurosurgical Society and Canadian Neurosurgery Research Collaborative. Responses between subgroups were analyzed using the Chi-square test.

In total, 101 respondents (57.7%) completed the survey. The majority (60.0%) were staff neurosurgeons working in an academic, adult care setting (80%). We identified a consensus that abscesses >2.5 cm in diameter should be considered for surgical intervention. The majority of respondents were in favor of excising an intracerebral abscess over performing aspiration if located superficially in non-eloquent cortex (60.4%), located in the posterior fossa (65.4%), or causing mass effect leading to herniation (75.3%). The majority of respondents were in favor of reoperation for recurrent abscesses if measuring greater than 2.5 cm, associated with progressive neurological deterioration, the index operation was an aspiration and did not include resection of the abscess capsule, and if the recurrence occurred despite prior surgery combined with maximal antibiotic therapy. There was no consensus on the use of topical intraoperative antibiotics.

This survey demonstrated heterogeneity in the medical and surgical management of primary, recurrent, and multiple brain abscesses among Canadian neurosurgery attending staff and residents. 1

Healthcare workers (HCWs) have faced considerable pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic. For some, this has resulted in mental health distress and disorder. Although interventions have sought to support HCWs, few have been evaluated.

We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the ‘Foundations’ application (app) on general (non-psychotic) psychiatric morbidity.

We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled trial of HCWs at 16 NHS trusts (trial registration number: EudraCT: 2021-001279-18). Participants were randomly assigned to the app or wait-list control group. Measures were assessed at baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks. The primary outcome was general psychiatric morbidity (using the General Health Questionnaire). Secondary outcomes included: well-being; presenteeism; anxiety; depression and insomnia. The primary analysis used mixed-effects multivariable regression, presented as adjusted mean differences (aMD).

Between 22 March and 3 June 2021, 1002 participants were randomised (500:502), and 894 (89.2%) followed-up. The sample was predominately women (754/894, 84.3%), with a mean age of 44⋅3 years (interquartile range (IQR) 34–53). Participants randomised to the app had a reduction in psychiatric morbidity symptoms (aMD = −1.39, 95% CI −2.05 to −0.74), improvement in well-being (aMD = 0⋅54, 95% CI 0⋅20 to 0⋅89) and reduction in insomnia (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0⋅36, 95% CI 0⋅21 to 0⋅60). No other significant findings were found, or adverse events reported.

The app had an effect in reducing psychiatric morbidity symptoms in a sample of HCWs. Given it is scalable with no adverse effects, the app may be used as part of an organisation's tiered staff support package. Further evidence is needed on long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

The diagnosis of neurodegenerative and psychiatric disorders (NPDs) in primary care can suffer from inefficiencies resulting in misdiagnoses and delayed diagnosis, limiting effective treatment options. The development of speech and language-based profiling biomarkers could aid in achieving earlier motor diagnosis for PD for instance, or more accurate diagnosis of clinically similar or late presenting NPDs.

RHAPSODY aims to investigate the feasibility of the remote administration of a battery of speech tasks in eliciting continuous narrative speech across a range of NPDs. The project also aims to determine the feasibility of using acoustic and linguistic biomarkers from speech data to support the clinical assessment and disambiguation of common NPDs

All participants (n=250) will take part in a single virtual telemedicine video conference with a researcher in which they are screened and complete a battery of speech tasks, in addition to cohort-specific screening measures. Over the following month, participants will be asked to complete a series of short, self-administered speech assessments via a smartphone application.

The speech tasks will be audio-recorded and analysed on Novoic’s technology platform. Objectives will be analysed using measures including average length of speech elicitation for speech tasks, intra- and inter-subject variance, differences in linguistic patterns, and response rates to speech assessments.

The analyses could help to identify and validate speech-derived clinical biomarkers to support clinicians in detecting and disambiguating between NPDs with heterogeneous presentations. This should further support earlier intervention, improved treatment options and improved quality of life.

In terms of significant financial interest and relationships, it is emphasised that the private organisation Novoic, who aim to develop speech algorithms for diagnostic use, is the study’s sponsor and employees or former employees of this company comprise

Researchers have begun to change their approach to training in the biomedical sciences through the development of communities of practice (CoPs). CoPs share knowledge across clinical and laboratory contexts to promote the progress of clinical and translational science. The Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs’ (CDMRP) Ovarian Cancer Academy (OCA) was designed as a virtual CoP to promote interactions among early career investigators (ECIs) and their mentors with the goal of eliminating ovarian cancer.

A mixed-methods approach (surveys and interviews) was used to evaluate the effectiveness of the OCA for the eight ECIs and five mentors. Quantitative analysis included internal reliability of scales and descriptive statistics for each measure, as well as paired sample t-tests for Time 1 and Time 2. Qualitative data were analyzed for themes to discern which aspects of the program were useful and where more attention is needed.

Preliminary analyses reveal several trends, including the importance of training in grant writing to the ECI’s productivity, as well as the value of peer mentorship.

The results show that the OCA was an innovative and effective way to create a CoP with broad implications for the field of ovarian cancer research, as well as for the future of biomedical research training.