The Farm-Community Nexus: Metrics for Social, Economic, and Environmental Sustainability of Agritourism and Direct Farm Sales in Vermont

Viable working landscapes, vibrant communities, and healthy ecosystems are the building blocks of sustainable food systems. Small and medium farms are connective tissue, creating a system that is greater than the sum of its parts by linking consumers to producers and promoting environmental stewardship. Our approach considers sustainability through connections between farms, their communities, and visitors within an agritourism framework, including on-farm experiences, direct sales of agricultural products, and farmer-consumer interactions at markets. The goal is to contribute to the understanding, operationalization, and integration of metrics built on the ideals that viable, sustainable, and resilient food systems must support social, economic and environmental goals. The approach presented in this white paper: 1. Applied a sustainability framework to identify metrics relevant for social, economic, and environmental dimensions across farm, household, community, and statewide scales. 2. Identified existing data sets and current data gaps. 3. Identified linkages and impacts between social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability across scales and different frameworks. 4. Considered sustainability applied to direct sales and agritourism, with particular emphasis on the social floor required to promote individual, farmer, and community well-being, while protecting the environment by respecting our planetary boundaries. We categorized priority metrics under primary sustainability dimensions: Environmental – Open Space, Farm Products, Stewardship, and the Vermont Brand Economic – Economic Impacts, Consumer Spending, Farm Profitability, Farm Labor, and Farmland Social – Cultural Ecosystem Services, Labor Opportunities and Conditions, Social and Informational Infrastructure, Sense of Community, Demographic and Cultural Diversity, Good Governance, and Health, Safety, and Wellbeing Based on our assessment of existing and needed metrics summarized in this white paper, key recommendations to the UVM-ARS Center include: 1. Catalyze and synergize efforts and resources in Vermont to holistically address sustainability. 2. Explore and identify ways the Vermont brand—an important component of the state’s social, ecological and economic identity and culture—supports sustainability. 3. Focus on informational and data needs that are central to understanding and ensuring sustainability in Vermont, including longitudinal producer and consumer surveys. 4. Support a deep convergence of social and natural sciences in addressing sustainability. The goal is to provide an essential foundation for future research that will place the UVM-ARS Center for Food Systems Research at the forefront of this critical transdisciplinary area

The neonicotinoid insecticide Imidacloprid repels pollinating flies and beetles at field-realistic concentrations

Neonicotinoids are widely used systemic insecticides which, when applied to flowering crops, are translocated to the nectar and pollen where they may impact upon pollinators. Given global concerns over pollinator declines, this potential impact has recently received much attention. Field exposure of pollinators to neonicotinoids depends on the concentrations present in flowering crops and the degree to which pollinators choose to feed upon them. Here we describe a simple experiment using paired yellow pan traps with or without insecticide to assess whether the commonly used neonicotinoid imidacloprid repels or attracts flying insects. Both Diptera and Coleoptera exhibited marked avoidance of traps containing imidacloprid at a field-realistic dose of 1 μg L-1, with Diptera avoiding concentrations as low as 0.01 μg L-1. This is to our knowledge the first evidence for any biological activity at such low concentrations, which are below the limits of laboratory detection using most commonly available techniques. Catch of spiders in pan traps was also slightly reduced by the highest concentrations of imidacloprid used (1 μg L-1), but catch was increased by lower concentrations. It remains to be seen if the repellent effect on insects occurs when neonicotinoids are present in real flowers, but if so then this could have implications for exposure of pollinators to neonicotinoids and for crop pollination. © 2013 Easton, Goulson

Dysfunctional BMPR2 signaling drives an abnormal endothelial requirement for glutamine in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is increasingly recognized as a systemic disease driven by alteration in the normal functioning of multiple metabolic pathways affecting all of the major carbon substrates, including amino acids. We found that human pulmonary hypertension patients (WHO Group I, PAH) exhibit systemic and pulmonary-specific alterations in glutamine metabolism, with the diseased pulmonary vasculature taking up significantly more glutamine than that of controls. Using cell culture models and transgenic mice expressing PAH-causing BMPR2 mutations, we found that the pulmonary endothelium in PAH shunts significantly more glutamine carbon into the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle than wild-type endothelium. Increased glutamine metabolism through the TCA cycle is required by the endothelium in PAH to survive, to sustain normal energetics, and to manifest the hyperproliferative phenotype characteristic of disease. The strict requirement for glutamine is driven by loss of sirtuin-3 (SIRT3) activity through covalent modification by reactive products of lipid peroxidation. Using 2-hydroxybenzylamine, a scavenger of reactive lipid peroxidation products, we were able to preserve SIRT3 function, to normalize glutamine metabolism, and to prevent the development of PAH in BMPR2 mutant mice. In PAH, targeting glutamine metabolism and the mechanisms that underlie glutamine-driven metabolic reprogramming represent a viable novel avenue for the development of potentially disease-modifying therapeutics that could be rapidly translated to human studies

Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 mortality in patients admitted to hospital in the United States: cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: All 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion. RESULTS: Of 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission

Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation for prevention of COVID-19 mortality: a nationwide cohort study of hospitalized patients in the United States.

Importance: Deaths among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are partially attributed to venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboses. Anticoagulants prevent thrombosis formation, possess anti-inflammatory and anti-viral properties, and may be particularly effective for treating patients with COVID-19. Objective: To evaluate whether initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission is associated with decreased risk of death among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. Participants: All patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection March 1 to July 31, 2020, without a history of therapeutic anticoagulation. Exposures: Prophylactic doses of subcutaneous heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or direct oral anticoagulants. Main Outcomes and Measures: 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: inpatient mortality and initiating therapeutic anticoagulation. Results: Of 4,297 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 3,627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3,600) received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. We observed 622 deaths within 30 days of admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospitalization. In inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, cumulative adjusted incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% CI 13.1-15.5) among those receiving prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (95% CI 15.1-22.9) among those who did not. Compared to patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30-day mortality (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.66-0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiating therapeutic anticoagulation. Quantitative bias analysis demonstrated that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% CI 1.77). Results persisted in a number of sensitivity analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 was associated with a decreased risk of mortality. These findings provide strong real-world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial therapy for COVID-19 patients upon hospital admission

Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine (NVX-CoV2373) co-administered with seasonal influenza vaccines: an exploratory substudy of a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Safety and immunogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines when co-administered with influenza vaccines have not yet been reported. Methods: A sub-study on influenza vaccine co-administration was conducted as part of the phase 3 randomised trial of NVX-CoV2373’s safety and efficacy; ~400 participants meeting main study entry criteria, with no contraindications to influenza vaccination, were enroled. After randomisation to receive NVX-CoV2373 or placebo, sub-study participants received an open-label influenza vaccine at the same time as the first dose of NVX-CoV2373. Reactogenicity was evaluated for 7 days post-vaccination plus monitoring for unsolicited adverse events (AEs), medically-attended AEs (MAAEs), and serious AEs (SAEs). Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was assessed. Findings: Sub-study participants were younger (median age 39; 6.7 % ≥65 years), more racially diverse, and had fewer comorbid conditions than main study participants. Reactogenicity events more common in co-administration group included tenderness (70.1% vs 57.6%) or pain (39.7% vs 29.3%) at injection site, fatigue (27.7% vs 19.4%), and muscle pain (28.3% vs 21.4%). Rates of unsolicited AEs, MAAEs, and SAEs were low and balanced between the two groups. Co-administration resulted in no change to influenza vaccine immune response, while a reduction in antibody responses to the NVX-CoV2373 vaccine was noted. Vaccine efficacy against COVID-19 was 87.5% (95% CI: -0.2, 98.4) in those 18-<65 years in the sub-study while efficacy in the main study was 89.8% (95% CI: 79.7, 95.5).  Interpretation: This is the first study to demonstrate safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of a COVID-19 vaccine when co-administered with influenza vaccines

Efficacy and safety of autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation versus alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab or cladribine in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (StarMS): protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Introduction: Autologous haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) is increasingly used as treatment for patients with active multiple sclerosis (MS), typically after failure of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). A recent phase III trial, ‘Multiple Sclerosis International Stem Cell Transplant, MIST’, showed that aHSCT resulted in prolonged time to disability progression compared with DMTs in patients with relapsing remitting MS (RRMS). However, the MIST trial did not include many of the current high-efficacy DMTs (alemtuzumab, ocrelizumab, ofatumumab or cladribine) in use in the UK within the control arm, which are now offered to patients with rapidly evolving severe MS (RES-MS) who are treatment naïve. There remain, therefore, unanswered questions about the relative efficacy and safety of aHSCT over these high-efficacy DMTs in these patient groups. The StarMS trial (Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation versus Alemtuzumab, Ocrelizumab, Ofatumumab or Cladribine in Relapsing Remitting Multiple Sclerosis) will assess the efficacy, safety and long-term impact of aHSCT compared with high-efficacy DMTs in patients with highly active RRMS despite the use of standard DMTs or in patients with treatment naïve RES-MS. Methods and analysis: StarMS is a multicentre parallel-group rater-blinded randomised controlled trial with two arms. A total of 198 participants will be recruited from 19 regional neurology secondary care centres in the UK. Participants will be randomly allocated to the aHSCT arm or DMT arm in a 1:1 ratio. Participants will remain in the study for 2 years with follow-up visits at 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months postrandomisation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who achieve ‘no evidence of disease activity’ during the 2-year postrandomisation follow-up period in an intention to treat analysis. Secondary outcomes include efficacy, safety, cost-effectiveness and immune reconstitution of aHSCT and the four high-efficacy DMTs. Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the Yorkshire and Humber—Leeds West Research Ethics Committee (20/YH/0061). Participants will provide written informed consent prior to any study specific procedures. The study results will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and abstracts will be submitted to relevant national and international conferences. Trial registration number: ISRCTN88667898

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication