A global map of saltmarshes

Background Saltmarshes are extremely valuable but often overlooked ecosystems, contributing to livelihoods locally and globally through the associated ecosystem services they provide, including fish production, carbon storage and coastal protection. Despite their importance, knowledge of the current spatial distribution (occurrence and extent) of saltmarshes is incomplete. In light of increasing anthropogenic and environmental pressures on coastal ecosystems, global data on the occurrence and extent of saltmarshes are needed to draw attention to these critical ecosystems and to the benefits they generate for people. Such data can support resource management, strengthen decision-making and facilitate tracking of progress towards global conservation targets set by multilateral environmental agreements, such as the Aichi Biodiversity Targets of the United Nations' (UN's) Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, the Sustainable Development Goals of the UN's 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Ramsar Convention. New information Here, we present the most complete dataset on saltmarsh occurrence and extent at the global scale. This dataset collates 350,985 individual occurrences of saltmarshes and presents the first global estimate of their known extent. The dataset captures locational and contextual data for saltmarsh in 99 countries worldwide. A total of 5,495,089 hectares of mapped saltmarsh across 43 countries and territories are represented in a Geographic Information Systems polygon shapefile. This estimate is at the relatively low end of previous estimates (2.2-40 Mha), however, we took the conservative approach in the mapping exercise and there are notable areas in Canada, Northern Russia, South America and Africa where saltmarshes are known to occur that require additional spatial data. Nevertheless, the most extensive saltmarsh worldwide are found outside the tropics, notably including the low-lying, ice-free coasts, bays and estuaries of the North Atlantic which are well represented in our global polygon dataset. Therefore, despite the gaps, we believe that, while incomplete, our global polygon data cover many of the important areas in Europe, the USA and Australia

Epirubicin dose and sequential hormonal therapy-Mature results of the HMFEC randomised phase III trial in premenopausal patients with node positive early breast cancer.

Background The hormonal manipulation 5-Fluoro-uracil Epirubicin Cyclophosphamide (HMFEC) trial was developed at a time of uncertainty around the dose intensity of chemotherapy given to premenopausal patients with node positive breast cancer and to the benefits of tailored endocrine therapy in such patients.Patients and methods HMFEC was a multi-centre, phase III, open label, randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were premenopausal with node positive early breast cancer; significant cardiac disease or uncontrolled hypertension was exclusion criterion. Patients were allocated to receive either eight cycles of FE50C or FE75C (given 3 weekly) with or without hormone manipulation (HM; tamoxifen or luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists according to residual hormone levels at the end of chemotherapy) irrespective of ER status. The primary end-point was disease free survival (DFS). Principal analyses were by intention to treat (ITT); however, to reflect contemporary practice, subgroup analyses according to ER status were also conducted. The mature follow-up now available from this modest sized trial enables presentation of definitive results.Results Between 1992 and 2000 a total of 785 patients were randomised into the HMFEC trial (203 FE50C-HM, 191 FE50C+HM, 198 FE75C-HM, 193 FE75C+HM). At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 245 DFS events have been reported (92 ER-, 153 ER+/unknown). The effects on DFS were not statistically significantly different according to epirubicin dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.06; p = 0.13 FE75C versus FE50C); however, FE75C appeared to induce more alopecia and neutropenia. No statistically significant evidence was observed to support an improvement in DFS in patients allocated HM either overall (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.68-1.13; p = 0.32) or in patients with ER+/unknown disease (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.62-1.17; p = 0.32) although effect sizes are consistent with worthwhile clinical effects. Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in survival between any of the four treatment groups of the trial.Conclusion Higher doses of epirubicin cause more adverse events in the absence of clear improvement in overall survival. Endocrine therapy with either tamoxifen or goserelin provided no significant added benefit to cytotoxic chemotherapy in this group of patients.Trial registration number ISRCTN98335268

COSNET-a coherent optical subscriber network

A complete coherent multichannel system, designed for application in the local loop, is presented. The concept of a uni- and bidirectional system and its technical realization in a laboratory demonstrator are described. The network control, including frequency management of the bidirectional channels, and network security are discussed. Attention is paid to the scenario for evolution from a narrowband to a complete broadband system. All aspects are integrated in a demonstrator, which is capable of supporting a large number of narrowband and broadband distributive and communicative services. Novel technical solutions for frequency management, data induced polarization switching (DIPS), high-speed encryption, and network signaling are presented

Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19:an international, open science, cohort analysis

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension.Methods: In this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296.Findings: Among 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of &gt;40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons.Interpretation: No clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.</p

The Movember Foundation's GAP3 cohort: a profile of the largest global prostate cancer active surveillance database to date

OBJECTIVES: The Movember Foundation launched the Global Action Plan Prostate Cancer Active Surveillance (GAP3) initiative to create a global consensus on the selection and monitoring of men with low‐risk prostate cancer (PCa) on active surveillance (AS). The aim of this study is to present data on inclusion and follow‐up for AS in this unique global AS database. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 2014 and 2016, the database was created by combining patient data from 25 established AS cohorts worldwide (USA, Canada, Australasia, UK and Europe). Data on a total of 15 101 patients were included. Descriptive statistics were used to report patients' clinical and demographic characteristics at the time of PCa diagnosis, clinical follow‐up, discontinuation of AS and subsequent treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were used to report discontinuation rates over time. RESULTS: At diagnosis, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) patient age was 65 (60–70) years and the median prostate‐specific antigen level was 5.4 (4.0–7.3) ng/mL. Most patients had clinical stage T1 disease (71.8%), a biopsy Gleason score of 6 (88.8%) and one tumour‐positive biopsy core (60.3%). Patients on AS had a median follow‐up time of 2.2 (1.0–5.0) years. After 5, 10 and 15 years of follow‐up, respectively, 58%, 39% and 23% of patients were still on AS. The current version of GAP3 has limited data on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), quality of life and genomic testing. CONCLUSIONS: GAP3 is the largest worldwide collaboration integrating patient data from men with PCa on AS. The results will allow individual patients and clinicians to have greater confidence in the personalized decision to either delay or proceed with active treatment. Longer follow‐up and the evaluation of MRI, new genomic markers and patient‐related outcomes will result in even more valuable data and eventually in better patient outcomes