2003, UMaine News Press Releases

This is a catalog of press releases put out by the University of Maine Division of Marketing and Communications between January 21, 2003 and September 15, 2003

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Maine Lobster Fishermen: An Interview with Richard Black

An interview with Richard Black in Bass Harbor, Maine, conducted February 6, 2003

Maine Lobster Fishermen: An Interview with Jim and Betty Knott

An interview with lobster fishermen Jim and Betty Knott of Falmouth, Maine. No date; circa 2000

Maine Lobster Fishermen: An Interview with Robert and Matt Joyce

An interview with Robert Joyce and Matt Joyce of Swans Island, Maine. No date; circa 2000

Maine Lobster Fishermen: An Interview with Al McNeilly

An interview with Maine lobster fisherman Al McNeilly of Owls Head, Maine, conducted June 30, 2004

Maine Lobster Fishermen: An Interview with Alison Bishop

An interview with lobster fisherman Alison Bishop of Prospect Harbor, Maine. Not dated; circa 2000

Maine Lobster Fishermen: An Interview with Harvey Crowley

An interview conducted with Maine lobster fisherman Harvey Crowley of Corea, Maine, August 9, 2000

Internal Colony--Are You Sure? Defining, Theorizing, Organizing Appalachia

Despite its critics, the internal colony framework has shown remarkable resilience over the years. Successive generations of activists and scholars have targeted “outside interests” as the chief culprits in regional impoverishment, exploitation, and stereotyping. The concentration of land, for example, in the hands of those who reside outside the region seems by definition to represent a form of dispossession that must account for the poverty of many who live here. But is the fact that owners (of land, capital, major media outlets, etc.) are typically not from Appalachia the decisive factor that explains regional degradation? As the need for major economic transitions within Appalachia, perhaps especially the coalfields, becomes more widely accepted, questions about how to define and theorize the past in order to overcome its legacies and organize towards brighter futures become more urgent. Does “internal colony” adequately clarify the context and aims of our struggle? Is ridding the region of outsider ownership and control our central organizing goal? If not, what is? This roundtable explores such questions in the hope of contributing to insights about Appalachia’s past as well as its future