Proportion of infiltrating IgG-binding immune cells predict for tumour hypoxia

Macrophages can account for up to 50% of tumour mass and secrete many angiogenic factors. Furthermore, tumour hypoxia is thought to play a major role in the activation of macrophages and the regulation of angiogenesis. In this paper, we demonstrate a strong correlation between hypoxia and the recruitment of immune cells binding to IgG in 8 experimental tumours. We provide evidence that IgG binding immune cells in 3 tumour lines are predominately composed of macrophages. Reduced oxygenation may act as a stimulus for recruitment of immune cells to the tumour mass, and the detection of either IgG-positive host cells or macrophages may offer an alternative method for monitoring tumour hypoxia. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.co

What lies beneath? The role of informal and hidden networks in the management of crises

Crisis management research traditionally focuses on the role of formal communication networks in the escalation and management of organisational crises. Here, we consider instead informal and unobservable networks. The paper explores how hidden informal exchanges can impact upon organisational decision-making and performance, particularly around inter-agency working, as knowledge distributed across organisations and shared between organisations is often shared through informal means and not captured effectively through the formal decision-making processes. Early warnings and weak signals about potential risks and crises are therefore often missed. We consider the implications of these dynamics in terms of crisis avoidance and crisis management

The vulnerability of public spaces: challenges for UK hospitals under the 'new' terrorist threat

This article considers the challenges for hospitals in the United Kingdom that arise from the threats of mass-casualty terrorism. Whilst much has been written about the role of health care as a rescuer in terrorist attacks and other mass-casualty crises, little has been written about health care as a victim within a mass-emergency setting. Yet, health care is a key component of any nation's contingency planning and an erosion of its capabilities would have a significant impact on the generation of a wider crisis following a mass-casualty event. This article seeks to highlight the nature of the challenges facing elements of UK health care, with a focus on hospitals both as essential contingency responders under the United Kingdom's civil contingencies legislation and as potential victims of terrorism. It seeks to explore the potential gaps that exist between the task demands facing hospitals and the vulnerabilities that exist within them

The Laboratory-Based Intermountain Validated Exacerbation (LIVE) Score Identifies Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients at High Mortality Risk.

Background: Identifying COPD patients at high risk for mortality or healthcare utilization remains a challenge. A robust system for identifying high-risk COPD patients using Electronic Health Record (EHR) data would empower targeting interventions aimed at ensuring guideline compliance and multimorbidity management. The purpose of this study was to empirically derive, validate, and characterize subgroups of COPD patients based on routinely collected clinical data widely available within the EHR. Methods: Cluster analysis was used in 5,006 patients with COPD at Intermountain to identify clusters based on a large collection of clinical variables. Recursive Partitioning (RP) was then used to determine a preferred tree that assigned patients to clusters based on a parsimonious variable subset. The mortality, COPD exacerbations, and comorbidity profile of the identified groups were examined. The findings were validated in an independent Intermountain cohort and in external cohorts from the United States Veterans Affairs (VA) and University of Chicago Medicine systems. Measurements and Main Results: The RP algorithm identified five LIVE Scores based on laboratory values: albumin, creatinine, chloride, potassium, and hemoglobin. The groups were characterized by increasing risk of mortality. The lowest risk, LIVE Score 5 had 8% 4-year mortality vs. 56% in the highest risk LIVE Score 1 (p < 0.001). These findings were validated in the VA cohort (n = 83,134), an expanded Intermountain cohort (n = 48,871) and in the University of Chicago system (n = 3,236). Higher mortality groups also had higher COPD exacerbation rates and comorbidity rates. Conclusions: In large clinical datasets across different organizations, the LIVE Score utilizes existing laboratory data for COPD patients, and may be used to stratify risk for mortality and COPD exacerbations

Some distorted thoughts about ketamine as a psychedelic and a novel hypothesis based on NMDA receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity.

Ketamine, a channel blocking NMDA receptor antagonist, is used off-label for its psychedelic effects, which may arise from a combination of several inter-related actions. Firstly, reductions of the contribution of NMDA receptors to afferent information from external and internal sensory inputs may distort sensations and their processing in higher brain centres. Secondly, reductions of NMDA receptor-mediated excitation of GABAergic interneurons can result in glutamatergic overactivity. Thirdly, limbic cortical disinhibition may indirectly enhance dopaminergic and serotonergic activity. Fourthly, inhibition of NMDA receptor mediated synaptic plasticity, such as short-term potentiation (STP) and long-term potentiation (LTP), could lead to distorted memories. Here, for the first time, we compared quantitatively the effects of ketamine on STP and LTP. We report that ketamine inhibits STP in a double sigmoidal fashion with low (40 nM) and high (5.6 μM) IC50 values. In contrast, ketamine inhibits LTP in a single sigmoidal manner (IC50 value ∼ 15 μM). A GluN2D-subunit preferring NMDA receptor antagonist, UBP145, has a similar pharmacological profile. We propose that the psychedelic effects of ketamine may involve the inhibition of STP and, potentially, associated forms of working memory. This article is part of the Special Issue entitled 'Psychedelics: New Doors, Altered Perceptions'

Risks, alternative knowledge strategies and democratic legitimacy: the conflict over co-incineration of hazardous industrial waste in Portugal.

The decision to incinerate hazardous industrial waste in cement plants (the socalled ‘co-incineration’ process) gave rise to one of the most heated environmental conflicts ever to take place in Portugal. The bitterest period was between 1997 and 2002, after the government had made a decision. Strong protests by residents, environmental organizations, opposition parties, and some members of the scientific community forced the government to backtrack and to seek scientific legitimacy for the process through scientific expertise. The experts ratified the government’s decision, stating that the risks involved were socially acceptable. The conflict persisted over a decade and ended up clearing the way for a more sustainable method over which there was broad social consensus – a multifunctional method which makes it possible to treat, recover and regenerate most wastes. Focusing the analysis on this conflict, this paper has three aims: (1) to discuss the implications of the fact that expertise was ‘confiscated’ after the government had committed itself to the decision to implement co-incineration and by way of a reaction to the atmosphere of tension and protest; (2) to analyse the uses of the notions of ‘risk’ and ‘uncertainty’ in scientific reports from both experts and counter-experts’ committees, and their different assumptions about controllability and criteria for considering certain practices to be sufficiently safe for the public; and (3) to show how the existence of different technical scientific and political attitudes (one more closely tied to government and the corporate interests of the cement plants, the other closer to the environmental values of reuse and recycling and respect for the risk perception of residents who challenged the facilities) is closely bound up with problems of democratic legitimacy. This conflict showed how adopting more sustainable and lower-risk policies implies a broader view of democratic legitimacy, one which involves both civic movements and citizens themselves

Beyond counting climate consensus

Several studies have been using quantified consensus within climate science as an argument to foster climate policy. Recent efforts to communicate such scientific consensus attained a high public profile but it is doubtful if they can be regarded successful. We argue that repeated efforts to shore up the scientific consensus on minimalist claims such as ‘humans cause global warming’ are distractions from more urgent matters of knowledge, values, policy framing and public engagement.  Such efforts to force policy progress through communicating scientific consensus misunderstand the relationship between scientific knowledge, publics and policymakers. More important is to focus on genuinely controversial issues within climate policy debates where expertise might play a facilitating role. Mobilising expertise in policy debates calls for judgment, context and attention to diversity, rather than deferring to formal quantifications of narrowly scientific claims

The ethics of uncertainty for data subjects

Modern health data practices come with many practical uncertainties. In this paper, I argue that data subjects’ trust in the institutions and organizations that control their data, and their ability to know their own moral obligations in relation to their data, are undermined by significant uncertainties regarding the what, how, and who of mass data collection and analysis. I conclude by considering how proposals for managing situations of high uncertainty might be applied to this problem. These emphasize increasing organizational flexibility, knowledge, and capacity, and reducing hazard

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care

Background/aims: Serious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials. Methods: The recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures. Results: The recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers. Conclusions: There is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety. Trial registration: ACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014). Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017)

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care

Background/aims: Serious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials. Methods: The recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures. Results: The recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers. Conclusions: There is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety. Trial registration: ACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014). Namaste trial registra