Long-term brain health profiles following exposure to repetitive head impacts and/or concussions in contact sports are a public health focus and the subject of a national debate. The true prevalence rates of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or neurobehavioural dysregulation are unknown in the nearly 20 000 current/living former professional football players. Here, we describe the procedures and methodology of the prevalence study of cognitive function in former professional football players from the Brain Health Initiative at the University of Pittsburgh. The objective is to define the prevalence of normal cognitive function versus neurodegeneration in former professional football players through clinical, neuroimaging and biomarker assessments.

Participants include former professional football players aged 29–59 years at study onset who played a minimum of three professional football games in three professional seasons and non-exposed controls. Participants are recruited by two mechanisms, a random and non-random sample. The full study protocol includes a 3–4-day, multidomain assessment (eg, neurological, neurocognitive, psychiatric, sleep, vestibular, orthopaedic and cardiovascular) for neurodegenerative disease and overall health and function, including MRI, positron emission tomography scans, analysis of blood plasma and cerebrospinal fluid, neurocognitive assessments, applanation tonometry, overnight sleep study and informant interview. A multidisciplinary clinical panel conducts a blinded diagnostic consensus conference to adjudicate the presence of MCI and/or traumatic encephalopathy syndrome, which serve as the study’s primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Point prevalence of these for both the exposed and unexposed cohorts will be calculated as the primary statistical analysis.

The University of Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board approved the study prior to recruiting human subjects (protocol numbers STUDY19010008: sIRB - Brain Health Initiative (Part 1) and STUDY19030211: sIRB - Brain Health Initiative (Part 2)). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and as presentations at national and international scientific conferences.

The primary objective of this clinical trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of psychoeducation and emotional stabilisation (PES), together with eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) plus treatment-as-usual (TAU) in reducing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among adults with intellectual disabilities compared with TAU. Secondary objectives include: (1) determining whether PES/EMDR plus TAU is superior to TAU in improving mental health problems and quality of life (QoL) among adults with intellectual disabilities who had a diagnosis of PTSD and (2) completing a process evaluation to examine intervention implementation and acceptability.

This is a two-arm parallel single-blind randomised controlled trial comparing PES-EMDR+TAU to TAU including an internal pilot phase. Outcome data will be captured prior to randomisation, and at 4 (after PES), 8 (after EMDR) and 14 months postrandomisation by masked assessors. 144 adults with intellectual disabilities with a diagnosis of PTSD will be allocated (1:1) randomly using minimisation from National Health Service (NHS) community and inpatients services for adults with intellectual disabilities in England. Participants are eligible to take part in this trial if: (1) they are aged 18 or older, but younger than 66, (2) have a Full Scale IQ

The primary outcome will be assessed using an intention-to-treat analysis. Baseline characteristics will be compared between arms to determine whether any potentially influential imbalance occurred. The primary outcome will be analysed by analysis of covariance, adjusting for baseline values of the outcome and any variables used in the randomisation process. Secondary outcomes will be analysed using linear or logistic regression models as appropriate reflecting the distribution of the outcome variable. The treatment effect will be estimated as an adjusted difference between sample means, presented with 95% CIs and p values. A complier average causal effect analysis will be considered should the data availability be sufficient to estimate the impact of non-compliance. A series of subgroup analyses on the primary outcomes will be considered considering differences in the Impact of Event Scale–Intellectual Disabilities scores at 14 months for (1) differing levels of general intellectual functioning and (2) PTSD versus complex PTSD.

This clinical trial was designed to allow for conclusions about whether PES/EMDR+TAU is efficacious in reducing symptoms of PTSD, relative to TAU, for adults with intellectual disabilities. A favourable ethical opinion has been received from an NHS ethics committee in the UK. The findings from this trial will be published within peer-reviewed journals and shared at national and international conferences. We will also aim to record and distribute podcasts detailing our findings together with our partners.

ISRCTN35167485.

Growing evidence suggests that vaccines targeting respiratory pathogens have non-specific and broader effects. We aimed to investigate the non-specific effects of respiratory vaccines on acute lower respiratory infection (ALRI) hospitalisations and associated outcomes in children

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We searched online databases including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Clinical Trials.gov from inception to 24 January 2024.

We included human studies involving non-specific/off-target effects of respiratory vaccines (including maternal, infant and childhood vaccines) and excluded studies investigating the Bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine and non-pathogen-confirmed outcomes following pneumococcal conjugate vaccination (PCV).

We used Research Screener, a machine learning tool, to semi-automate the abstract screening process and Covidence, a management and streamlining software for full-text reviews and data extraction. A meta-analysis was conducted if four or more studies reported on the same outcome and the same exposure vaccine.

After removing duplicates, 9727 articles were identified. After screening and full-text reviews, 20 articles were eligible. Of those, four met the requirements for a meta-analysis which showed a 21% vaccine effectiveness (VE) (95% CI 8.0% to 32.0%) of maternal influenza vaccine against all-cause ALRI hospitalisations in infants

Our review demonstrated both protective and neutral non-specific effects of respiratory vaccines against ALRI-hospitalisations and related outcomes in young children. Such effects should be considered as part of the full value of a vaccine and how vaccine investments are prioritised. Further research on the impact of respiratory vaccines on antibiotic prescribing rates is essential as consistent reductions may help contribute to reducing the global burden of antimicrobial resistance.

CRD 42023476038.

VALTIVE1 is a multi-centre, single-arm, non-interventional biomarker study for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Plasma samples (Tie2 concentration) are collected to detect vascular control in tumours during standard treatment with chemotherapy and bevacizumab. This qualitative study embedded in VALTIVE1 aimed to assess the acceptability and feasibility of a potential VALTIVE2 trial. It explored the participants’ perceptions of the study and treatments and how they might feel if bevacizumab were discontinued based on the results from the biomarker test.

This qualitative study used semi-structured telephone interviews, which were analysed using deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

Cancer treatment sites in the UK.

Participants recruited to VALTIVE1 were invited to take part in qualitative interviews. 11 female participants took part from four clinical sites.

Participants reported that they experienced side effects attributed to bevacizumab, including stiffness, pain, fatigue, nose bleeds and muscle aches. Participants felt that combining chemotherapy and bevacizumab may have increased the severity of the side effects they experienced. Most participants felt that it was acceptable, if not preferable, to be allocated to a group in a future VALTIVE2 study where bevacizumab may be discontinued according to the results from the biomarker test. A clear preference of participants was to be informed of the biomarker test results, health status and treatment side effects.

A future trial should consider ensuring all participants have access to test results, as participants indicated a preference to know whether bevacizumab was working and to discontinue bevacizumab if it had not prevented tumour growth based on the biomarker results. Comprehensive and ongoing information and support regarding treatment side effects should be provided to all participants throughout their cancer pathways and trials.

NCT04523116.