An Observational Overview of Solar Flares

We present an overview of solar flares and associated phenomena, drawing upon a wide range of observational data primarily from the RHESSI era. Following an introductory discussion and overview of the status of observational capabilities, the article is split into topical sections which deal with different areas of flare phenomena (footpoints and ribbons, coronal sources, relationship to coronal mass ejections) and their interconnections. We also discuss flare soft X-ray spectroscopy and the energetics of the process. The emphasis is to describe the observations from multiple points of view, while bearing in mind the models that link them to each other and to theory. The present theoretical and observational understanding of solar flares is far from complete, so we conclude with a brief discussion of models, and a list of missing but important observations.Comment: This is an article for a monograph on the physics of solar flares, inspired by RHESSI observations. The individual articles are to appear in Space Science Reviews (2011

Epidemiological Differences between Localized and Nonlocalized Low Back Pain

Study Design. A cross-sectional survey with a longitudinal follow-up. Objectives. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites Summary of Background Data. Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain. Methods. We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries. Results. Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group. Conclusion. Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations

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

Background: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effects of tocilizumab in adult patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 with both hypoxia and systemic inflammation. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. Those trial participants with hypoxia (oxygen saturation <92% on air or requiring oxygen therapy) and evidence of systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein ≥75 mg/L) were eligible for random assignment in a 1:1 ratio to usual standard of care alone versus usual standard of care plus tocilizumab at a dose of 400 mg–800 mg (depending on weight) given intravenously. A second dose could be given 12–24 h later if the patient's condition had not improved. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between April 23, 2020, and Jan 24, 2021, 4116 adults of 21 550 patients enrolled into the RECOVERY trial were included in the assessment of tocilizumab, including 3385 (82%) patients receiving systemic corticosteroids. Overall, 621 (31%) of the 2022 patients allocated tocilizumab and 729 (35%) of the 2094 patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0·85; 95% CI 0·76–0·94; p=0·0028). Consistent results were seen in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including those receiving systemic corticosteroids. Patients allocated to tocilizumab were more likely to be discharged from hospital within 28 days (57% vs 50%; rate ratio 1·22; 1·12–1·33; p<0·0001). Among those not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, patients allocated tocilizumab were less likely to reach the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (35% vs 42%; risk ratio 0·84; 95% CI 0·77–0·92; p<0·0001). Interpretation: In hospitalised COVID-19 patients with hypoxia and systemic inflammation, tocilizumab improved survival and other clinical outcomes. These benefits were seen regardless of the amount of respiratory support and were additional to the benefits of systemic corticosteroids. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

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

Background: Many patients with COVID-19 have been treated with plasma containing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma therapy in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Methods: This randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]) is assessing several possible treatments in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 177 NHS hospitals from across the UK. Eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either usual care alone (usual care group) or usual care plus high-titre convalescent plasma (convalescent plasma group). The primary outcome was 28-day mortality, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936. Findings: Between May 28, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 11558 (71%) of 16287 patients enrolled in RECOVERY were eligible to receive convalescent plasma and were assigned to either the convalescent plasma group or the usual care group. There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality between the two groups: 1399 (24%) of 5795 patients in the convalescent plasma group and 1408 (24%) of 5763 patients in the usual care group died within 28 days (rate ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·93–1·07; p=0·95). The 28-day mortality rate ratio was similar in all prespecified subgroups of patients, including in those patients without detectable SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at randomisation. Allocation to convalescent plasma had no significant effect on the proportion of patients discharged from hospital within 28 days (3832 [66%] patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 3822 [66%] patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·94–1·03; p=0·57). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at randomisation, there was no significant difference in the proportion of patients meeting the composite endpoint of progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death (1568 [29%] of 5493 patients in the convalescent plasma group vs 1568 [29%] of 5448 patients in the usual care group; rate ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·93–1·05; p=0·79). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, high-titre convalescent plasma did not improve survival or other prespecified clinical outcomes. Funding: UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council) and National Institute of Health Research

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2,3,4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

Health expectancy and its uses

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre- DSC:OP-95/MISC / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Effect of denosumab on trabecular bone score in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis.

Trabecular bone score (TBS) assesses bone quality in the lumbar spine using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans. In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab significantly improved TBS independently of bone mineral density (BMD). This practical technique may have a role in managing patients with osteoporosis. TBS, a gray-level texture index determined from lumbar spine DXA scans, correlates with bone microarchitecture and enhances assessment of vertebral fracture risk independently of BMD. In the FREEDOM study, denosumab increased BMD and reduced new vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. This retrospective analysis explored the effect of denosumab on TBS and the association between TBS and BMD in FREEDOM. Postmenopausal women with lumbar spine or total hip BMD T-score <-2.5 and -4.0 or higher at both sites received placebo or denosumab 60 mg subcutaneously every 6 months. TBS indices were determined from DXA scans at baseline and months 12, 24, and 36 in a subset of 285 women (128 placebo, 157 denosumab) who had TBS values at baseline and ≥1 postbaseline visit. Baseline characteristics were comparable between treatment groups; mean (SD) lumbar spine BMD T-score was -2.79 (0.64), and mean (standard deviation [SD]) TBS was 1.200 (0.101) overall. In the placebo group, BMD and TBS increased by ≤0.2% or decreased from baseline at each visit. In the denosumab group, progressive increases from baseline at 12, 24, and 36 months were observed for BMD (5.7, 7.8, and 9.8%) and TBS (1.4, 1.9, and 2.4%). Percentage changes in TBS were statistically significant compared with baseline (p < 0.001) and placebo (p ≤ 0.014). TBS was largely unrelated to BMD, regardless of treatment, either at baseline or for annual changes from baseline (all r <sup>2</sup>  ≤ 0.06). In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab significantly improved TBS independently of BMD

In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab significantly improved trabecular bone score (TBS), an index of trabecular microarchitecture

Background/Purpose: The trabecular bone score (TBS), a novel graylevel texture index determined from lumbar spine DXA scans, correlates with 3D parameters of trabecular bone microarchitecture known to predict fracture. TBS may enhance the identification of patients at increased risk for vertebral fracture independently of bone mineral density (BMD) (Boutroy JBMR 2010; Hans JBMR 2011). Denosumab treatment for 36 months decreased bone turnover, increased BMD, and reduced new vertebral fractures in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis (Cummings NEJM 2009). We explored the effect of denosumab on TBS over 36 months and evaluated the association between TBS and lumbar spine BMD in women who had DXA scans obtained from eligible scanners for TBS evaluation in FREEDOM. Methods: FREEDOM was a 3-year, randomized, double-blind trial that enrolled postmenopausal women with a lumbar spine or total hip DXA T-score __2.5, but not __4.0 at both sites. Women received placebo or 60 mg denosumab every 6 months. A subset of women in FREEDOM participated in a DXA substudy where lumbar spine DXA scans were obtained at baseline and months 1, 6, 12, 24, and 36. We retrospectively applied, in a blinded-to-treatment manner, a novel software program (TBS iNsightR v1.9, Med-Imaps, Pessac, France) to the standard lumbar spine DXA scans obtained in these women to determine their TBS indices at baseline and months 12, 24, and 36. From previous studies, a TBS _1.35 is considered as normal microarchitecture, a TBS between 1.35 and _1.20 as partially deteriorated, and 1.20 reflects degraded microarchitecture. Results: There were 285 women (128 placebo, 157 denosumab) with a TBS value at baseline and _1 post-baseline visit. Their mean age was 73, their mean lumbar spine BMD T-score was _2.79, and their mean lumbar spine TBS was 1.20. In addition to the robust gains in DXA lumbar spine BMD observed with denosumab (9.8% at month 36), there were consistent, progressive, and significant increases in TBS compared with placebo and baseline (Table & Figure). BMD explained a very small fraction of the variance in TBS at baseline (r2_0.07). In addition, the variance in the TBS change was largely unrelated to BMD change, whether expressed in absolute or percentage changes, regardless of treatment, throughout the study (all r2_0.06); indicating that TBS provides distinct information, independently of BMD. Conclusion: In postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, denosumab significantly improved TBS, an index of lumbar spine trabecular microarchitecture, independently of BMD

Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: development history and design and participant characteristics of LOFT, the Long-Term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (vol 26, pg 699, 2015)

Diabetes mellitus: pathophysiological changes and therap