Individual Risk Assessment (ERIN)

Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) prevention has become a global phenomenon and nowadays is one of the main challenges that ergonomics and work safety professionals face. The evaluation of risk factors exposition related to the WMSDs is one of the main activities that are performed for prevention. In order to accomplish it, many ergonomic assessment methods have been developed. In this chapter, an ergonomic observational individual risk assessment (ERIN) method is presented, which is distinguished for being easy to learn, apply, and it needs short training time. Results on the reliability, validity, and usability studies of ERIN are included too, as well as an example of how it can be used in the workplace intervention process.

Infranuclear Eye Movement Disorders

Infranuclear motility disorders are such of the cranial nerves, the extraocular muscles or changes in the orbit but definitely peripheral to the nuclei of the cranial nerves. Characteristic are movement deficits, a compensatory head posture and the pattern of incomitancy. The secondary angle of deviation is usually larger than the primary. Combined pareses suggest a lesion in the cavernous sinus, orbital apex or a multilocular event. It is essential to rule out supranuclear disorders, especially if the motility deficit is atypical. For clarification, an individual risk assessment is recommended, paying particular attention to risk factors.

The Ratio of CD86+/CD163+ Macrophages Predicts Postoperative Recurrence in Stage II-III Colorectal Cancer

Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) are pivotal for tumor progression and metastasis. We investigated the stromal CD86+TAM/CD163+TAM (CD86/CD163) ratio as a novel prognostic biomarker for stage II-III colorectal cancer (CRC). Two independently clinical cohorts of stage II-III CRC were retrospectively enrolled in this study. TAMs were detected using immunohistochemical staining for CD86 and CD163. The stromal CD86/CD163 ratio was calculated as a prognostic biomarker for recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). Patients with a low CD86/CD163 ratio had shorter RFS (HR=0.193, p<0.001) and OS (HR=0.180, p<0.001) than patients with a high CD86/CD163 ratio in the training cohort. CD86/CD163 ratio may be an independent predictor for RFS (HR=0.233, p<0.001) and OS (HR=0.224, p<0.001) in the training cohort. We obtained equivalent results in the validation cohort. The CD86/CD163 ratio tends to have better predictive values than tumor stage in the training (AUC: 0.682 vs 0.654, p=0.538) and validation (AUC: 0.697 vs 0.659, p=0.586) cohorts. CD86/CD163 ratio effectively predicts RFS for stage II (HR=0.203, p<0.001) and stage III CRC (HR=0.302, p<0.001). CD86/CD163 ratio also effectively predicts RFS in CRC patients with adjutant chemotherapy (HR=0.258, p<0.001) and without adjutant chemotherapy (HR=0.205, p<0.001). The stromal CD86/CD163 ratio could be used for individual risk assessment of recurrence and mortality for stage II-III CRC. Together with tumor stage, this ratio will aid in the personal treatment.

Using the biopsychosocial model for identifying subgroups of detained juveniles at different risk of re-offending in practice: a latent class regression analysis approach

Background Juvenile delinquents constitute a heterogeneous group, which complicates decision-making based on risk assessment. Various psychosocial factors have been used to define clinically relevant subgroups of juvenile offenders, while neurobiological variables have not yet been integrated in this context. Moreover, translation of neurobiological group differences to individual risk assessment has proven difficult. We aimed to identify clinically relevant subgroups associated with differential youth offending outcomes, based on psychosocial and neurobiological characteristics, and to test whether the resulting model can be used for risk assessment of individual cases. Methods A group of 223 detained juveniles from juvenile justice institutions was studied. Latent class regression analysis was used to detect subgroups associated with differential offending outcome (recidivism at 12 month follow-up). As a proof of principle, it was tested in a separate group of 76 participants whether individual cases could be assigned to the identified subgroups, using a prototype ‘tool’ for calculating class membership. Results Three subgroups were identified: a ‘high risk—externalizing’ subgroup, a ‘medium risk—adverse environment’ subgroup, and a ‘low risk—psychopathic traits’ subgroup. Within these subgroups, both autonomic nervous system and neuroendocrinological measures added differentially to the prediction of subtypes of reoffending (no, non-violent, violent). The ‘tool’ for calculating class membership correctly assigned 92.1% of participants to a class and reoffending risk. Conclusions The LCRA approach appears to be a useful approach to integrate neurobiological and psychosocial risk factors to identify subgroups with different re-offending risk within juvenile justice institutions. This approach may be useful in the development of a biopsychosocial assessment tool and may eventually help clinicians to assign individuals to those subgroups and subsequently tailor intervention based on their re-offending risk.

Risk of reactivation of hepatitis B virus (HBV) and tuberculosis (TB) and complications of hepatitis C virus (HCV) following Tocilizumab therapy: A systematic review to inform risk assessment in the COVID era

Tocilizumab (TCZ), an IL-6 receptor antagonist, is used in the treatment of COVID. However, this agent carries a 'black box' warning for infection complications, which may include reactivation of tuberculosis (TB) or hepatitis B virus (HBV), or worsening of hepatitis C virus (HCV). Due to the pace of clinical research during the COVID pandemic, prospective evaluation of these risks has not been possible. We undertook a systematic review, generating mean cumulative incidence estimates for reactivation of HBV and TB at 3.3% and 4.3%. We could not generate estimates for HCV. These data derive from heterogeneous studies pre-dating the COVID outbreak, with differing epidemiology and varied approaches to screening and prophylaxis. We underline the need for careful individual risk assessment prior to TCZ prescription, and present an algorithm for clinical stratification. There is an urgent need for ongoing collation of safety data as TCZ therapy is used in COVID.

Recommendations for Face Coverings While Exercising During the COVID-19 Pandemic

In an effort to reduce transmission and number of infections of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) virus, governments and official bodies around the world have produced guidelines on the use of face masks and face coverings. While there is a growing body of recommendations for healthcare professionals and the wider population to use facial protection in “enclosed spaces” where minimal distancing from other individuals is not possible, there is a dearth of clear guidelines for individuals undertaking exercise and sporting activity. The present viewpoint aims to propose recommendations for face coverings while exercising during the COVID-19 pandemic that consider physical distancing, the environment, the density of active cases associated with the specific sports activity, and the practical use of face coverings in order to reduce potential viral transmission. Recommendations are provided on the basis of very limited available evidence in conjunction with the extensive collective clinical experience of the authors and acknowledging the need to consider the likelihood of the presence of the SARS-CoV-2 in the general population. We recommend that face coverings should be used in any environment considered to be of a high or moderate transmission risk, where tolerated and after individual risk assessment. In addition, as national caseloads fluctuate, individual sporting bodies should consider up to date guidance on the use of face coverings during sport and exercise, alongside other preventative measures.

Accuracy of four lateral flow immunoassays for anti SARS-CoV-2 antibodies: a head-to-head comparative study

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 antibody tests are used for population surveillance and might have a future role in individual risk assessment. Lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs) can deliver results rapidly and at scale, but have widely varying accuracy.MethodsIn a laboratory setting, we performed head-to-head comparisons of four LFIAs: the Rapid Test Consortium’s AbC-19™ Rapid Test, OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19 Rapid Test Cassette, and Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test. We analysed blood samples from 2,847 key workers and 1,995 pre-pandemic blood donors with all four devices.FindingsWe observed a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity: the IgG band of the SureScreen device and the AbC-19™ device had higher specificities but OrientGene and Biomerica higher sensitivities. Based on analysis of pre-pandemic samples, SureScreen IgG band had the highest specificity (98.9%, 95% confidence interval 98.3 to 99.3%), which translated to the highest positive predictive value across any pre-test probability: for example, 95.1% (95%CI 92.6, 96.8%) at 20% pre-test probability. All four devices showed higher sensitivity at higher antibody concentrations (“spectrum effects”), but the extent of this varied by device.InterpretationThe estimates of sensitivity and specificity can be used to adjust for test error rates when using these devices to estimate the prevalence of antibody. If tests were used to determine whether an individual has SARS-CoV-2 antibodies, in an example scenario in which 20% of individuals have antibodies we estimate around 5% of positive results on the most specific device would be false positives.FundingPublic Health England.Research in contextEvidence before this studyWe searched for evidence on the accuracy of the four devices compared in this study: OrientGene COVID IgG/IgM Rapid Test Cassette, SureScreen COVID-19™ Rapid Test Cassette, Biomerica COVID-19 IgG/IgM Rapid Test and the UK Rapid Test Consortium’s AbC-19™ Rapid Test. We searched Ovid MEDLINE (In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily), PubMed, MedRxiv/BioRxiv and Google Scholar from January 2020 to 16th January 2021. Search terms included device names AND ((SARS-CoV-2) OR (covid)). Of 303 records assessed, data were extracted from 24 studies: 18 reporting on the accuracy of the OrientGene device, 7 SureScreen, 2 AbC-19™ and 1 Biomerica. Only three studies compared the accuracy of two or more of the four devices. With the exception of our previous report on the accuracy of the AbC-19™ device, which the current manuscript builds upon, sample size ranged from 7 to 684. For details, see Supplementary Materials.The largest study compared OrientGene, SureScreen and Biomerica. SureScreen was estimated to have the highest specificity (99.8%, 95% CI 98.9 to 100%) and OrientGene the highest sensitivity (92.6%), but with uncertainty about the latter result due to small sample sizes. The other two comparative studies were small (n = 65, n = 67) and therefore provide very uncertain results.We previously observed spectrum effects for the AbC-19™ device, such that sensitivity is upwardly biased if estimated only from PCR-confirmed cases. The vast majority of previous studies estimated sensitivity in this way.Added value of this studyWe performed a large scale (n = 4,842), head-to-head laboratory-based evaluation and comparison of four lateral flow devices, which were selected for evaluation by the UK Department of Health and Social Care’s New Tests Advisory Group, on the basis of a survey of test and performance data available. We evaluated the performance of diagnosis based on both IgG and IgM bands, and the IgG band alone. We found a clear trade-off between sensitivity and specificity across devices, with the SureScreen and AbC-19™ devices being more specific and OrientGene and Biomerica more sensitive. Based on analysis of 1,995 pre-pandemic blood samples, we are 99% confident that SureScreen (IgG band reading) has the highest specificity of the four devices (98.9%, 95% CI 98.3, 99.3%).We found evidence that all four devices have reduced sensitivity at lower antibody indices, i.e. spectrum effects. However, the extent of this varies by device and appears to be less for other devices than for AbC-19.Our estimates of sensitivity and specificity are likely to be higher than would be observed in real use of these devices, as they were based on majority readings of three trained laboratory personnel.Implications of all the available evidenceWhen used in epidemiological studies of antibody prevalence, the estimates of sensitivity and specificity provided in this study can be used to adjust for test errors. Increased precision in error rates will translate to increased precision in seroprevalence estimates. If lateral flow devices were used for individual risk assessment, devices with maximum specificity would be preferable. However, if, for an example, 20% of the tested population had antibodies, we estimate that around 1 in 20 positive results on the most specific device would be incorrect.

Using the Biopsychosocial Model for Identifying Subgroups of Detained Juveniles at Different Risk of Re-offending in Practice: a Latent Class Regression Analysis Approach

Background: Juvenile delinquents constitute a heterogeneous group, which complicates decision-making based on risk assessment. Various psychosocial factors have been used to define clinically relevant subgroups of juvenile offenders, while neurobiological variables have not yet been integrated in this context. Moreover, translation of neurobiological group differences to individual risk assessment has proven difficult. We aimed to identify clinically relevant subgroups associated with differential youth offending outcomes, based on psychosocial and neurobiological characteristics, and to test whether the resulting model can be used for risk assessment of individual cases. Methods: A group of 263 detained juveniles from juvenile justice institutions was studied. Latent class regression analysis was used to detect subgroups associated with differential offending outcome (recidivism at 12 month follow-up). As a proof of principle, it was tested in a separate group of 76 participants whether individual cases could be assigned to the identified subgroups, using a prototype ‘tool’ for calculating class membership. Results: Three subgroups were identified: a ‘high risk – externalizing’ subgroup, a ‘medium risk – adverse environment’ subgroup, and a ‘low risk – psychopathic traits’ subgroup. Within these subgroups, both autonomic nervous system and neuroendocrinological measures added differentially to the prediction of subtypes of reoffending (no, non-violent, violent). The ‘tool’ for calculating class membership correctly assigned 92.1% of participants to a class and reoffending risk. Conclusions: The LCRA approach appears to be a useful approach to integrate neurobiological and psychosocial risk factors to identify subgroups with different re-offending risk within juvenile justice institutions. This approach may be useful in the development of a biopsychosocial assessment tool and may eventually help clinicians to assign individuals to those subgroups and subsequently tailor treatment based on their re-offending risk.