Breast cancer survivors have an increased risk for chronic fatigue and altered gut microbiota composition, both with negative health and quality of life affects. Exercise modestly improves fatigue and is linked to gut microbial diversity and production of beneficial metabolites. Studies suggest that gut microbiota composition is a potential mechanism underlying fatigue response to exercise. Randomised controlled trials testing the effects of exercise on the gut microbiome are limited and there is a scarcity of findings specific to breast cancer survivors. The objective of this study is to determine if fitness-related modifications to gut microbiota occur and, if so, mediate the effects of aerobic exercise on fatigue response.

The research is a randomised controlled trial among breast cancer survivors aged 18–74 with fatigue. The primary aim is to determine the effects of aerobic exercise training compared with an attention control on gut microbiota composition. The secondary study aims are to test if exercise training (1) affects the gut microbiota composition directly and/or indirectly through inflammation (serum cytokines), autonomic nervous system (heart rate variability) or hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis mediators (hair cortisol assays), and (2) effects on fatigue are direct and/or indirect through changes in the gut microbiota composition. All participants receive a standardised controlled diet. Assessments occur at baseline, 5 weeks, 10 weeks and 15 weeks (5 weeks post intervention completion). Faecal samples collect the gut microbiome and 16S gene sequencing will identify the microbiome. Fatigue is measured by a 13-item multidimensional fatigue scale.

The University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved this study on 15 May 2019, UAB IRB#30000320. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board convenes annually or more often if indicated. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04088708.

As part of the ‘Suicidality: Treatment Occurring in Paediatrics (STOP)’ study, we developed and performed psychometric validation of an electronic-clinical-outcome-assessment (eCOA), which included a patient-reported-outcome (ePRO), an observer-rated-outcome (eObsRO) for parents/carers and a clinician-reported-outcome (eClinRO) that allows identification and monitoring of medication-related suicidality (MRS) in adolescents.

STOP: Prospective study: A two phase validation study to assess the impact of medication on suicidal ideations.

Six participating countries: Netherlands, UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy that were part of the Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 261411.

Cohort 1 consisted of 41 adolescent-completions, 50 parent-completions and 56 clinician-completions. Cohort 2 consisted of 244 adolescent-completions, 198 parent-completions and 240 clinician-completions from across the six countries. The scale was administered only to participants who have screened positive for the STOP-Suicidality Assessment Scale (STOP-SAS).

A total of 24 items for the development of the STOP-Medication Suicidality Side Effects Scale (STOP-MS³) were identified and three versions (for patients, parents and clinicians) of the STOP-MS³ were developed and validated in two separate study cohorts comprising of adolescents, their parents and clinicians. Cronbach’s α coefficients were above 0.85 for all domains. The inter-rater reliability of the STOP-MS³ was good and significant for the adolescent (ePRO), clinician (eClinRO) (r=0.613), parent (eObsRO) versions of the scale (r=0.394) and parent and clinician (r=0.347). Exploratory factor analysis identified a 3-factor model across 24 items for the adolescent and parent version of the scale: (1) Emotional Dysregulation, (2) Somatic Dysregulation and (3) Behavioural Dysregulation. For the clinician version, a 4-factor model defined the scale structure: (1) Somatic Dysregulation, (2) Emotional Dysregulation, (3) Behavioural Dysregulation and (4) Mood Dysregulation.

These findings suggest that the STOP-MS³ scale, a web-based eCOA, allows identification and monitoring of MRS in the adolescent population and shows good reliability and validity.

The aim of this multicentre COVID-PREDICT study (a nationwide observational cohort study that aims to better understand clinical course of COVID-19 and to predict which COVID-19 patients should receive which treatment and which type of care) was to determine the association between atrial fibrillation (AF) and mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, complications and discharge destination in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

Data from a historical cohort study in eight hospitals (both academic and non-academic) in the Netherlands between January 2020 and July 2021 were used in this study.

3064 hospitalised COVID-19 patients >18 years old.

The primary outcome was the incidence of new-onset AF during hospitalisation. Secondary outcomes were the association between new-onset AF (vs prevalent or non-AF) and mortality, ICU admissions, complications and discharge destination, performed by univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Of the 3064 included patients (60.6% men, median age: 65 years, IQR 55–75 years), 72 (2.3%) patients had prevalent AF and 164 (5.4%) patients developed new-onset AF during hospitalisation. Compared with patients without AF, patients with new-onset AF had a higher incidence of death (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.71, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.59) an ICU admission (aOR 5.45, 95% CI 3.90 to 7.61). Mortality was non-significantly different between patients with prevalent AF and those with new-onset AF (aOR 0.97, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.76). However, new-onset AF was associated with a higher incidence of ICU admission and complications compared with prevalent AF (OR 6.34, 95% CI 2.95 to 13.63, OR 3.04, 95% CI 1.67 to 5.55, respectively).

New-onset AF was associated with an increased incidence of death, ICU admission, complications and a lower chance to be discharged home. These effects were far less pronounced in patients with prevalent AF. Therefore, new-onset AF seems to represent a marker of disease severity, rather than a cause of adverse outcomes.