MOLLI T1 mapping versus T2 W-SPAIR at 3T : myocardial area at risk measurements and the influence of microvascular obstruction

Funding Information: This study was supported by a Medical Research Council (UK) grant, as a sub-study of Nitrites in Acute Myocardial Infarction, NCT01388504.Peer reviewe

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Outcomes of telephone-delivered low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy (LiCBT) to community dwelling Australians with a recent hospital admission due to depression or anxiety: MindStep™

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were madeBackground In 2006, the British government launched ‘Improving Access to Psychological Therapies’ (IAPT), a low intensity cognitive behaviour therapy intervention (LiCBT) designed to manage people with symptoms of anxiety and depression in the community. The evidence of the effectiveness of IAPT has been demonstrated in multiple studies from the UK, USA, Australia and other countries. MindStep™ is the first adaptation of IAPT in Australia, delivered completely by telephone, targeting people with a recent history of a hospital admission for mental illnesses within the private health system. This paper reports on the outcome of the first 17 months of MindStep™ implemented across Australia from March 2016. Methods This prospective observational study investigated the MindStep™ program in a cohort of clients with a recent hospitalisation for mental illnesses. The study used quantitative methods to compare pre-post treatment clinical measures (N = 680) using Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7). This study also included in-depth interviews with participants (N = 14) and coaches (N = 4) to determine the feasibility and acceptability of the program. Results Of the 867 clients referred to MindStep™, 757 had initial assessments by phone making an enrolment rate of 87.3%. Following assessment, 680 commenced treatment and of them, 427 (62.7%) completed treatment. According to ‘per-protocol’ analysis (N = 427), there was a large effect size for post-treatment PHQ-9 (d = 1.03) and GAD-7 (d = 0.99) scores; reliable recovery rate was 62% (95% CI: 57–68%). For intent-to-treat analysis using multiple imputation (N = 680), effect sizes were also large for pre-post treatment change: PHQ-9 (d = 0.78) and GAD-7 (d = 0.76). The reliable recovery rate was 49% (95% CI: 45–54%). Qualitative findings supported these claims where participants were positive about MindStep™ and found the telephone delivery and use of mental health coaches highly acceptable. Conclusions MindStep™ has demonstrated encouraging outcomes that suggest LiCBT can be successfully delivered to people with a history of hospital admissions for anxiety and depressive disorders and achieve target recovery rates of > 50%. Other promising evaluation findings indicate the MindStep™ option is acceptable, feasible and safe within the stepped models of mental health care delivery in Australia

Habitat restoration benefits wild bees: A meta‐analysis

Pollinator conservation is of increasing interest in the light of managed honeybee (Apis mellifera) declines, and declines in some species of wild bees. Much work has gone into understanding the effects of habitat enhancements in agricultural systems on wild bee abundance, richness and pollination services. However, the effects of ecological restoration targeting “natural” ecological endpoints (e.g. restoring former agricultural fields to historic vegetation types or improving degraded natural lands) on wild bees have received relatively little attention, despite their potential importance for countering habitat loss.We conducted a meta‐analysis to evaluate the effects of ecological restoration on wild bee abundance and richness, focusing on unmanaged bee communities in lands restored and managed to increase habitat availability and quality. Specifically, we assessed bee abundance and/or richness across studies comparing restored vs. unrestored treatments and studies investigating effects of specific habitat restoration techniques, such as burning, grazing, invasive plant removal and seeding.We analysed 28 studies that met our selection criteria: these represented 11 habitat types and 7 restoration techniques. Nearly all restorations associated with these studies were performed without explicit consideration of habitat needs for bees or other pollinators. The majority of restorations targeted plant community goals, which could potentially have ancillary benefits for bees.Restoration had overall positive effects on wild bee abundance and richness across multiple habitat types. Specific restoration actions, tested independently, also tended to have positive effects on wild bee richness and abundance.Synthesis and applications. We found strong evidence that ecological restoration advances wild bee conservation. This is important given that habitat loss is recognized as a leading factor in pollinator decline. Pollinator responses to land management are rarely evaluated in non‐agricultural settings and so support for wild bees may be an underappreciated benefit of botanically focused management. Future restoration projects that explicitly consider the needs of wild bees could be more effective at providing nesting, foraging and other habitat resources. We encourage land managers to design and evaluate restoration projects with the habitat needs of wild bee species in mind.We found strong evidence that ecological restoration advances wild bee conservation. This is important given that habitat loss is recognized as a leading factor in pollinator decline. Pollinator responses to land management are rarely evaluated in non‐agricultural settings and so support for wild bees may be an underappreciated benefit of botanically focused management. Future restoration projects that explicitly consider the needs of wild bees could be more effective at providing nesting, foraging and other habitat resources. We encourage land managers to design and evaluate restoration projects with the habitat needs of wild bee species in mind.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142557/1/jpe13012-sup-0001-FigS1.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142557/2/jpe13012.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142557/3/jpe13012_am.pd

Staphylococcal Enterotoxins

Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) is a Gram positive bacterium that is carried by about one third of the general population and is responsible for common and serious diseases. These diseases include food poisoning and toxic shock syndrome, which are caused by exotoxins produced by S. aureus. Of the more than 20 Staphylococcal enterotoxins, SEA and SEB are the best characterized and are also regarded as superantigens because of their ability to bind to class II MHC molecules on antigen presenting cells and stimulate large populations of T cells that share variable regions on the β chain of the T cell receptor. The result of this massive T cell activation is a cytokine bolus leading to an acute toxic shock. These proteins are highly resistant to denaturation, which allows them to remain intact in contaminated food and trigger disease outbreaks. A recognized problem is the emergence of multi-drug resistant strains of S. aureus and these are a concern in the clinical setting as they are a common cause of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in hospitalized patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the current understanding of these proteins

T₁ mapping for assessment of myocardial injury and microvascular obstruction at one week post myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVES: To compare 3T T1 mapping to conventional T2-weighted (T2W) imaging for delineating myocardial oedema one week after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and to explore the confounding effects of microvascular obstruction (MVO) on each technique.  METHODS: T2W spectral attenuated inversion recovery and native T1 mapping were applied in 10 healthy volunteers and 62 STEMI patients, and late gadolinium enhancement was included for infarct localisation at 1 week and at 6 months post-STEMI. Segmental T1 values and T2W signal intensity ratios were calculated; oedema volumes and salvage indices were determined in patients using image thresholding-a receiver operator characteristic (ROC) derived T1 threshold, and a 2SD T2W threshold; and the results were compared between patients with/without MVO (n=35/27).  RESULTS: Native T1 mapping delineated oedema with significantly better discriminatory power than T2W-as indicated by ROC analysis (area-under-the-curve, AUC=0.89 versus 0.83, p=0.009; and sensitivity/specificity=83/83% versus 73/73%). The optimal ROC threshold derived for T1 mapping was 1241ms, which gave significantly larger oedema volumes than 2SD T2W (p=0.006); with this threshold, patients with and without MVO showed similar oedema volumes, but patients with MVO had significantly poorer salvage indices (p<0.05) than those without. Neither method was significantly affected by MVO, the volume of which was seen to increase exponentially with infarct size.  CONCLUSIONS: Native T1 mapping at 3T can delineate oedema one week post-STEMI, showing larger oedema volumes and better discriminatory power than T2W imaging, and it is suitable for quantitative thresholding. Both techniques are robust against MVO-related magnetic susceptibility

The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems) project

© 2016 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The PREDICTS project—Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity In Changing Terrestrial Systems (www.predicts.org.uk)—has collated from published studies a large, reasonably representative database of comparable samples of biodiversity from multiple sites that differ in the nature or intensity of human impacts relating to land use. We have used this evidence base to develop global and regional statistical models of how local biodiversity responds to these measures. We describe and make freely available this 2016 release of the database, containing more than 3.2 million records sampled at over 26,000 locations and representing over 47,000 species. We outline how the database can help in answering a range of questions in ecology and conservation biology. To our knowledge, this is the largest and most geographically and taxonomically representative database of spatial comparisons of biodiversity that has been collated to date; it will be useful to researchers and international efforts wishing to model and understand the global status of biodiversity

Two-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

AIMS: The relationship between outcomes and time after diagnosis for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is poorly defined, especially beyond the first year. METHODS AND RESULTS: GARFIELD-AF is an ongoing, global observational study of adults with newly diagnosed NVAF. Two-year outcomes of 17 162 patients prospectively enrolled in GARFIELD-AF were analysed in light of baseline characteristics, risk profiles for stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and antithrombotic therapy. The mean (standard deviation) age was 69.8 (11.4) years, 43.8% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.3 (1.6); 60.8% of patients were prescribed anticoagulant therapy with/without antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 27.4% AP monotherapy, and 11.8% no antithrombotic therapy. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding had occurred at a rate (95% confidence interval) of 3.83 (3.62; 4.05), 1.25 (1.13; 1.38), and 0.70 (0.62; 0.81) per 100 person-years, respectively. Rates for all three major events were highest during the first 4 months. Congestive heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, sudden/unwitnessed death, malignancy, respiratory failure, and infection/sepsis accounted for 65% of all known causes of death and strokes for <10%. Anticoagulant treatment was associated with a 35% lower risk of death. CONCLUSION: The most frequent of the three major outcome measures was death, whose most common causes are not known to be significantly influenced by anticoagulation. This suggests that a more comprehensive approach to the management of NVAF may be needed to improve outcome. This could include, in addition to anticoagulation, interventions targeting modifiable, cause-specific risk factors for death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362