The city as a research object: A tour through urban studies on the metropolitan Area of Mendoza

Los estudios urbanos son un campo privilegiado en las investigaciones de ciencias sociales. Si bien para el Área Metropolitana de Mendoza encontramos una importante producción académica desde los años 70, ésta no se encuentra sistematizada en untrabajo de revisión bibliográfica. Es por ello que en este artículo nos proponemos realizar una revisión sobre las producciones académicas provenientes de las ciencias sociales que tienen como objeto de estudio a la ciudad y sus dinámicas urbanas. Realizamos una búsqueda de bibliografía a través de distintos medios y reunimos un importante corpus. Luego de una lectura crítica, logramos una síntesis sobre cuáles han sido las principales líneas de investigación, los/las referentes en cada eje, y cómo han variado a través del tiempo, así también identificamos vacíos o temas poco abordados. Este trabajo constituye un importante insumo para delinear futuras líneas de investigación que enriquezcan los estudios urbanos sobre el Área Metropolitana de Mendoza.Urban studies are an important field in the social science research. In the Metropolitan Area of Mendoza, there is an important academic production since the 70s but it is not systematized in a bibliographic revision work. For this reason, this article has been proposed to review the academic productions from the social sciences that have the city and its urban dynamics as their object of study. This study has been carried out by a bibliography search through different sources. It has been found what are the main lines of research have been, the referents in each axis, and how they have varied over time, as well as it has been identify gaps or issues that have not been addressed. This research aims to delineate future lines of research that enrich urban studies on the Metropolitan Area of Mendoza.Fil: Bernabeu, María Marta. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras; ArgentinaFil: Navarrete, María José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales; ArgentinaFil: Avila, Ana Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales; Argentin

Segregación y políticas urbanas : aportes desde el Área Metropolitana Mendoza

Las ciudades de América Latina muestran fuertes indicios de segregación. Desde fines del siglo pasado y principios de este, la conjunción de diversos procesos produjo cambios en los patrones de segregación, lo cual originó múltiples debates sobre sus consecuencias para la organización de las ciudades y las condiciones de vida de sectores vulnerables. En este trabajo presentamos una revisión de los principales debates sobre la segregación y sus consecuencias para la integración, para luego indagar cuál ha sido su abordaje en las políticas públicas urbanas. En específico, en el Área Metropolitana Mendoza analizamos cómo se aborda la segregación en las políticas de ordenamiento desplegadas desde la sanción de la Ley Nº 8051 de Ordenamiento Territorial y Usos del Suelo del año 2009, para esto examinamos los planes de ordenamiento territorial provinciales y municipales. Como primera conclusión, podemos decir que la segregación no es abordada como un problema específico en este conjunto de políticas.Fil: Navarrete, María José. CONICET. INCIHUSA (Instituto de Ciencias Sociales, Humanas y Ambientales)Fil: Bernabeu, María Marta. CONICET. INCIHUSA (Instituto de Ciencias Sociales, Humanas y Ambientales)Fil: Avila, Ana Laura. CONICET. INCIHUSA (Instituto de Ciencias Sociales, Humanas y Ambientales)Fil: Magallanes, Rodrigo Martín. CONICET (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas) - Universidad Nacional de Cuy

Clonal chromosomal mosaicism and loss of chromosome Y in elderly men increase vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) had an estimated overall case fatality ratio of 1.38% (pre-vaccination), being 53% higher in males and increasing exponentially with age. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, we found 133 cases (1.42%) with detectable clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations (mCA) and 226 males (5.08%) with acquired loss of chromosome Y (LOY). Individuals with clonal mosaic events (mCA and/or LOY) showed a 54% increase in the risk of COVID-19 lethality. LOY is associated with transcriptomic biomarkers of immune dysfunction, pro-coagulation activity and cardiovascular risk. Interferon-induced genes involved in the initial immune response to SARS-CoV-2 are also down-regulated in LOY. Thus, mCA and LOY underlie at least part of the sex-biased severity and mortality of COVID-19 in aging patients. Given its potential therapeutic and prognostic relevance, evaluation of clonal mosaicism should be implemented as biomarker of COVID-19 severity in elderly people. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, individuals with clonal mosaic events (clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations and/or loss of chromosome Y) showed an increased risk of COVID-19 lethality

Fronteras tradicionales y emergentes: un análisis sobre el regreso a la ciudad construida en Mendoza

Desde fines del siglo pasado, en las áreas centrales de ungran número de ciudades latinoamericanas, se produjo unapérdida de dinamismo y población a raíz de los procesosde crecimiento urbano de extensión periférica. Por esto, losgobiernos de estas ciudades comenzaron a realizar proyectos de renovación o revitalización para dichas áreas. Uno delos objetivos de estos proyectos era constituirlas en importantes oportunidades de negocios para el mercado inmobiliario. En este contexto, inversiones de capitales públicosy privados retornaron a las áreas centrales o pericentralesde las ciudades, así como también los discursos públicosvolvieron a ocuparse de ellas. Esto ha dado lugar a un fenómeno denominado como “regreso a la ciudad construida” (Díaz Parra, 2014, 2015). Entendemos que, en el marco de estos procesos, se hanincrementado las fronteras urbanas. Definimos las fronteras como una diversidad de entidades socialmente construidas, las cuales se encuentran espacial y temporalmentelocalizadas (Ghilardi y Benedetti, 2019). Según los autores, estas estructuran la ciudad como una unidad, pero también la fragmentan hacia su interior, inciden en la dinámicaurbana a largo plazo y en la cotidianeidad de sus habitantes. Desde esta perspectiva, es posible diferenciar dos tipos defronteras: por un lado, las fronteras tradicionales, relativas ala división centro-periferia, y, por otro, las fronteras emergentes, que pueden ser tanto materiales como simbólicas yse expresan en el desarrollo de torres countries, muros, dispositivos de seguridad, y normativas urbanas (Dalla Torrey Ghilardi, 2019). En el proceso de extensión periférica, las fronterastradicionales –la diferencia entre centro y periferias– sehicieron notorias. En esta forma de crecimiento, se realizaron nuevas inversiones en los alrededores de las ciudades(barrios privados, autopistas, centros comerciales, etc.), locual contribuyó a la conformación de periferias difusas, debaja densidad, fragmentadas y con fuertes indicios de segregación socioespacial. Mientras tanto, como mencionamos, las áreas centrales perdían actividades, población y dinamismo. Así, en buena parte de la literatura urbana, se asocióel incremento de fronteras con el crecimiento hacia las periferias. Sin embargo, entendemos que, cuando los capitalesvuelven a invertir en las áreas centrales, esto se refuerza conla aparición de más fronteras emergentes. Entonces,la hipótesisque haguiadonuestrotrabajoesque, en el Área Metropolitana de Mendoza (AMM), el proceso deregreso a la ciudad construida se caracteriza por una proliferación de fronteras emergentes que se sobreimprimen a las fronteras tradicionales de centro-periferia. En el desarrollo del trabajo, procedimos aidentificar ycaracterizar las fronteras emergentes que surgen en el regreso a la ciudad construida en el AMM. Nos centramos en el departamento de Capital durantelas dos primeras décadas del siglo XXI y analizamos tres casos: las torres country, los edificios de lujo o alta gama y el Código de Convivencia Ciudadana (CCC). La metodología implementada ha consistido en observaciones en terreno, análisis debibliografía especializada ydistintas fuentessecundarias–noticias periodísticas, datos censales y normativa urbana–.Fil: Avila, Ana Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales; ArgentinaFil: Navarrete, María José. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales; ArgentinaFil: Bernabeu, María Marta. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Mendoza. Instituto de Ciencias Humanas, Sociales y Ambientales; Argentin

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Sparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis. Methods PROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals. Interpretation Over 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function.</p