Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard

MOLECULAR IDENTIFICATION OF Bartonella henselae IN A SERONEGATIVE CAT SCRATCH DISEASE PATIENT WITH AIDS IN RIO DE JANEIRO, BRAZIL

Bartonella henselae is associated with a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations, including cat scratch disease, endocarditis and meningoencephalitis, in immunocompetent and immunocompromised patients. We report the first molecularly confirmed case of B. henselae infection in an AIDS patient in state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Although DNA sequence of B. henselae has been detected by polymerase chain reaction in a lymph node biopsy, acute and convalescent sera were nonreactive

Long-term safety and efficacy of patisiran for hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy: 12-month results of an open-label extension study

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Background: Hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis is a rare, inherited, progressive disease caused by mutations in the transthyretin (TTR) gene. We assessed the safety and efficacy of long-term treatment with patisiran, an RNA interference therapeutic that inhibits TTR production, in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Methods: This multicentre, open-label extension (OLE) trial enrolled patients at 43 hospitals or clinical centres in 19 countries as of Sept 24, 2018. Patients were eligible if they had completed the phase 3 APOLLO or phase 2 OLE parent studies and tolerated the study drug. Eligible patients from APOLLO (patisiran and placebo groups) and the phase 2 OLE (patisiran group) studies enrolled in this global OLE trial and received patisiran 0·3 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 3 weeks with plans to continue to do so for up to 5 years. Efficacy assessments included measures of polyneuropathy (modified Neuropathy Impairment Score +7 [mNIS+7]), quality of life, autonomic symptoms, nutritional status, disability, ambulation status, motor function, and cardiac stress, with analysis by study groups (APOLLO-placebo, APOLLO-patisiran, phase 2 OLE patisiran) based on allocation in the parent trial. The global OLE is ongoing with no new enrolment, and current findings are based on the interim analysis of the patients who had completed 12-month efficacy assessments as of the data cutoff. Safety analyses included all patients who received one or more dose of patisiran up to the data cutoff. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02510261. Findings: Between July 13, 2015, and Aug 21, 2017, of 212 eligible patients, 211 were enrolled: 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group. At the data cutoff on Sept 24, 2018, 126 (92%) of 137 patients from the APOLLO-patisiran group, 38 (78%) of 49 from the APOLLO-placebo group, and 25 (100%) of 25 from the phase 2 OLE patisiran group had completed 12-month assessments. At 12 months, improvements in mNIS+7 with patisiran were sustained from parent study baseline with treatment in the global OLE (APOLLO-patisiran mean change -4·0, 95 % CI -7·7 to -0·3; phase 2 OLE patisiran -4·7, -11·9 to 2·4). Mean mNIS+7 score improved from global OLE enrolment in the APOLLO-placebo group (mean change from global OLE enrolment -1·4, 95% CI -6·2 to 3·5). Overall, 204 (97%) of 211 patients reported adverse events, 82 (39%) reported serious adverse events, and there were 23 (11%) deaths. Serious adverse events were more frequent in the APOLLO-placebo group (28 [57%] of 49) than in the APOLLO-patisiran (48 [35%] of 137) or phase 2 OLE patisiran (six [24%] of 25) groups. The most common treatment-related adverse event was mild or moderate infusion-related reactions. The frequency of deaths in the global OLE was higher in the APOLLO-placebo group (13 [27%] of 49), who had a higher disease burden than the APOLLO-patisiran (ten [7%] of 137) and phase 2 OLE patisiran (0 of 25) groups. Interpretation: In this interim 12-month analysis of the ongoing global OLE study, patisiran appeared to maintain efficacy with an acceptable safety profile in patients with hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis with polyneuropathy. Continued long-term follow-up will be important for the overall assessment of safety and efficacy with patisiran.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used