38 research outputs found

    Pox Britannica: Smallpox Inoculation in Britain, 1721-1830

    Get PDF
    Inoculation has an important place in the history of medicine: not only was it the first form of preventive medicine but its history spans the so-called eighteenth century \u27medical revolution\u27. A study of the myriad of pamphlets, books and articles on the controversial practice casts new light on these fundamental changes in the medical profession and medical practice. Whereas historians have associated the abandonment of old humoural theories and individualised therapy in favour of standardised techniques with the emergence of new institutions in the second half of the century, inoculation suggests that changes began as early as the 1720s. Though inoculation was initially accompanied by a highly individualised preparation of diet and drugs, more routinised sequences of therapy appeared the 1740s and by the late 1760s all inoculated patients followed exactly the same preparative regimen. This in turn made possible the institutionalised provision of inoculation, first through the system of poor relief, later by dispensaries and charitable societies. In addition, debates over inoculation reveal the disintegration of the old professional order and the struggles of the physicians--whose authority was based in individualised practice--to retain their monopoly of inoculation and their status as authorities on the practice. By the 1770s, the intellectual and professional leadership of the profession passed to a new generation of practitioners. The thesis ends with an assessment of the impact of inoculation on population growth and finds that it was not widely practiced and had, at best, a marginal effect on mortality

    Global assessment of aquatic Isoëtes species ecology

    Get PDF
    1. Isoetes are iconic but understudied wetland plants, despite having suffered severe losses globally mainly because of alterations in their habitats. We therefore provide the first global ecological assessment of aquatic Isoetes to identify their environmental requirements and to evaluate if taxonomically related species differ in their ecology. 2. The assessment resulted in an extensive new database on aquatic Isoetes, ecological niche analyses, and descriptive species accounts. We compiled a global database that includes all known environmental data collected from 1935 to 2023 regarding aquatic Isoetes. We then evaluated the environmental drivers of 16 species using 2,179 global records. Additionally, we used hypervolume analysis to quantify the ecological niches of the two species with the greatest number of records, finding significant differences and evidence that Isoetes echinospora occupies a wider ecological niche than Isoetes lacustris. 3. Fifty-nine species (30% of the c. 200 Isoetes species known today) were categorised as aquatic and were mainly reported in the Americas and northern Europe. About 38% of the aquatic species are threatened with extinction or are endemic to a small region, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List in 2023. Many species were determined to be sensitive to certain water physical and chemical factors, generally preferring oligotrophic conditions such as low total phosphorus, moderate total nitrogen, moderate to low pH, and low conductivity. 4. This analysis includes ecological data in the assessment of rare/threatened aquatic plants globally. This new database and the ecological analyses completed defined the ecological requirements of several species and identified knowledge gaps, which can aid management actions and future research. 5. This paper highlights ecological significance and environmental sensitivities of aquatic Isoetes. The current level of knowledge is inadequate for a large proportion of known taxa. We affirm the extreme need to support global, collaborative initiatives on which to build future conservation strategies

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

    Get PDF
    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
    corecore