A perceived gap between invasive species research and stakeholder priorities

Information from research has an important role to play in shaping policy and management responses to biological invasions but concern has been raised that research focuses more on furthering knowledge than on delivering practical solutions. We collated 449 priority areas for science and management from 160 stakeholders including practitioners, researchers and policy makers or advisors working with invasive species, and then compared them to the topics of 789 papers published in eight journals over the same time period (2009–2010). Whilst research papers addressed most of the priority areas identified by stakeholders, there was a difference in geographic and biological scales between the two, with individual studies addressing multiple priority areas but focusing on specific species and locations. We hypothesise that this difference in focal scales, combined with a lack of literature relating directly to management, contributes to the perception that invasive species research is not sufficiently geared towards delivering practical solutions. By emphasising the practical applications of applied research, and ensuring that pure research is translated or synthesised so that the implications are better understood, both the management of invasive species and the theoretical science of invasion biology can be enhanced

K2-140b - An eccentric 6.57 d transiting hot Jupiter in Virgo

We present the discovery of K2-140b, a P = 6.57 d Jupiter-mass (MP = 1.019 ± 0.070MJup) planet transiting a V = 12.5 (G5-spectral type) star in an eccentric orbit (e = 0.120-0.046 +0.056) detected using a combination of K2 photometry and ground-based observations. With a radius of 1.095 ± 0.018 RJup, the planet has a bulk density of 0.726 ± 0.062 ρJup. The host star has a [Fe/H] of 0.12 ± 0.045, and from the K2 light curve, we find a rotation period for the star of 16.3 ± 0.1 d. This discovery is the 9th hot Jupiter from K2 and highlights K2's ability to detect transiting giant planets at periods slightly longer than traditional, ground-based surveys. This planet is slightly inflated, but much less than others with similar incident fluxes. These are of interest for investigating the inflation mechanism of hot Jupiters

The reliability of evidence review methodology in environmental science and conservation

Given the proliferation of primary research articles, the importance of reliable environmental evidence reviews for informing policy and management decisions is increasing. Although conducting reviews is an efficient method of synthesising the fragmented primary evidence base, reviews that are of poor methodological reliability have the potential to misinform by not accurately reflecting the available evidence base. To assess the current value of evidence reviews for decision-making we appraised a systematic sample of articles published in early 2015 (N = 92) using the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool (CEESAT). CEESAT assesses the methodology of policy-relevant evidence reviews according to elements important for objectivity, transparency and comprehensiveness. Overall, reviews performed poorly with a median score of 2.5/39 and a modal score of zero (range 0–30, mean 5.8), and low scores were ubiquitous across subject areas. In general, reviews that applied meta-analytical techniques achieved higher scores than narrative syntheses (median 18.3 and 2.0 respectively), as a result of the latter consistently failing to adequately report methodology or how conclusions were drawn. However, some narrative syntheses achieved high scores, illustrating that the reliability of reviews should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Given the potential importance of reviews for informing management and policy, as well as research, it is vital that overall methodological reliability is improved. Although the increasing number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses highlight that some progress is being made, our findings suggest little or no improvement in the last decade. To motivate progress, we recommend that an annual assessment of the methodological reliability of evidence reviews be conducted. To better serve the environmental policy and management communities we identify a requirement for independent critical appraisal of review methodology thus enabling decision-makers to select reviews that are most likely to accurately reflect the evidence base

HD 213885b: a transiting 1-d-period super-Earth with an Earth-like composition around a bright (V = 7.9) star unveiled by TESS

We report the discovery of the 1.008-d, ultrashort period (USP) super-Earth HD 213885b (TOI-141b) orbiting the bright (V = 7.9) star HD 213885 (TOI-141, TIC 403224672), detected using photometry from the recently launched TESS mission. Using FEROS, HARPS, and CORALIE radial velocities, we measure a precise mass of 8.8 ± 0.6 M⊕ for this 1.74 ± 0.05 R⊕ exoplanet, which provides enough information to constrain its bulk composition – similar to Earth’s but enriched in iron. The radius, mass, and stellar irradiation of HD 213885b are, given our data, very similar to 55 Cancri e, making this exoplanet a good target to perform comparative exoplanetology of short period, highly irradiated super-Earths. Our precise radial velocities reveal an additional 4.78-d signal which we interpret as arising from a second, non-transiting planet in the system, HD 213885c, whose minimum mass of 19.9 ± 1.4 M⊕ makes it consistent with being a Neptune-mass exoplanet. The HD 213885 system is very interesting from the perspective of future atmospheric characterization, being the second brightest star to host an USP transiting super-Earth (with the brightest star being, in fact, 55 Cancri). Prospects for characterization with present and future observatories are discussed

Comorbidities and the referral pathway to access joint replacement surgery: an exploratory qualitative study

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.The research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care North Thames (CLAHRC) at Barts Health NHS Trust

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib or ravulizumab in adult patients with severe COVID-19 (TACTIC-R): a randomised, parallel-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial

Background From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence suggested a role for cytokine dysregulation and complement activation in severe disease. In the TACTIC-R trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2, and ravulizumab, a monoclonal inhibitor of complement C5 activation, as an adjunct to standard of care for the treatment of adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods TACTIC-R was a phase 4, randomised, parallel-arm, open-label platform trial that was undertaken in the UK with urgent public health designation to assess the potential of repurposing immunosuppressants for the treatment of severe COVID-19, stratified by a risk score. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 22 hospitals across the UK. Patients with a risk score indicating a 40% risk of admission to an intensive care unit or death were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to standard of care alone, standard of care with baricitinib, or standard of care with ravulizumab. The composite primary outcome was the time from randomisation to incidence (up to and including day 14) of the first event of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiovascular organ support, or renal failure. The primary interim analysis was triggered when 125 patient datasets were available up to day 14 in each study group and we included in the analysis all participants who were randomly assigned. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04390464). Findings Between May 8, 2020, and May 7, 2021, 417 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to standard of care alone (145 patients), baricitinib (137 patients), or ravulizumab (135 patients). Only 54 (39%) of 137 patients in the baricitinib group received the maximum 14-day course, whereas 132 (98%) of 135 patients in the ravulizumab group received the intended dose. The trial was stopped after the primary interim analysis on grounds of futility. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for reaching the composite primary endpoint was 1·11 (95% CI 0·62–1·99) for patients on baricitinib compared with standard of care alone, and 1·53 (0·88–2·67) for ravulizumab compared with standard of care alone. 45 serious adverse events (21 deaths) were reported in the standard-of-care group, 57 (24 deaths) in the baricitinib group, and 60 (18 deaths) in the ravulizumab group. Interpretation Neither baricitinib nor ravulizumab, as administered in this study, was effective in reducing disease severity in patients selected for severe COVID-19. Safety was similar between treatments and standard of care. The short period of dosing with baricitinib might explain the discrepancy between our findings and those of other trials. The therapeutic potential of targeting complement C5 activation product C5a, rather than the cleavage of C5, warrants further evaluation

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