The Salmonella Mutagenicity Assay: The Stethoscope of Genetic Toxicology for the 21st Century

Objectives: According to the 2007 National Research Council report Toxicology for the Twenty-First Century, modern methods (e.g., "omics," in vitro assays, high-throughput testing, computational methods) will lead to the emergence of a new approach to toxicology. The Salmonella mammalian microsome mutagenicity assay has been central to the field of genetic toxicology since the 1970s. Here we document the paradigm shifts engendered by the assay, the validation and applications of the assay, and how the assay is a model for future in vitro toxicology assays. Data sources: We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge using key words relevant to the Salmonella assay and additional genotoxicity assays. Data extraction: We merged the citations, removing duplicates, and categorized the papers by year and topic. Data synthesis: The Salmonella assay led to two paradigm shifts: that some carcinogens were mutagens and that some environmental samples (e.g., air, water, soil, food, combustion emissions) were mutagenic. Although there are > 10,000 publications on the Salmonella assay, covering tens of thousands of agents, data on even more agents probably exist in unpublished form, largely as proprietary studies by industry. The Salmonella assay is a model for the development of 21st century in vitro toxicology assays in terms of the establishment of standard procedures, ability to test various agents, transferability across laboratories, validation and testing, and structure-activity analysis. Conclusions: Similar to a stethoscope as a first-line, inexpensive tool in medicine, the Salmonella assay can serve a similar, indispensable role in the foreseeable future of 21st century toxicology

PEEP-ZEEP technique: cardiorespiratory repercussions in mechanically ventilated patients submitted to a coronary artery bypass graft surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The PEEP-ZEEP technique is previously described as a lung inflation through a positive pressure enhancement at the end of expiration (PEEP), followed by rapid lung deflation with an abrupt reduction in the PEEP to 0 cmH₂O (ZEEP), associated to a manual bilateral thoracic compression.</p> <p>Aim</p> <p>To analyze PEEP-ZEEP technique's repercussions on the cardio-respiratory system in immediate postoperative artery graft bypass patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>15 patients submitted to a coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) were enrolled prospectively, before, 10 minutes and 30 minutes after the technique. Patients were curarized, intubated, and mechanically ventilated. To perform PEEP-ZEEP technique, saline solution was instilled into their orotracheal tube than the patient was reconnected to the ventilator. Afterwards, the PEEP was increased to 15 cmH₂O throughout 5 ventilatory cycles and than the PEEP was rapidly reduced to 0 cmH₂O along with manual bilateral thoracic compression. At the end of the procedure, tracheal suction was accomplished.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The inspiratory peak and plateau pressures increased during the procedure (p < 0.001) compared with other pressures during the assessment periods; however, they were within lung safe limits. The expiratory flow before the procedure were 33 ± 7.87 L/min, increasing significantly during the procedure to 60 ± 6.54 L/min (p < 0.001), diminishing to 35 ± 8.17 L/min at 10 minutes and to 36 ± 8.48 L/min at 30 minutes. Hemodynamic and oxygenation variables were not altered.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The PEEP-ZEEP technique seems to be safe, without alterations on hemodynamic variables, produces elevated expiratory flow and seems to be an alternative technique for the removal of bronchial secretions in patients submitted to a CABG.</p

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship

Cost-Effectiveness of Genotypic Antiretroviral Resistance Testing in HIV-Infected Patients with Treatment Failure

BACKGROUND: Genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing (GRT) in HIV infection with drug resistant virus is recommended to optimize antiretroviral therapy, in particular in patients with virological failure. We estimated the clinical effect, cost and cost-effectiveness of using GRT as compared to expert opinion in patients with antiretroviral treatment failure. METHODS: We developed a mathematical model of HIV disease to describe disease progression in HIV-infected patients with treatment failure and compared the incremental impact of GRT versus expert opinion to guide antiretroviral therapy. The analysis was conducted from the health care (discount rate 4%) and societal (discount rate 2%) perspective. Outcome measures included life-expectancy, quality-adjusted life-expectancy, health care costs, productivity costs and cost-effectiveness in US Dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Clinical and economic data were extracted from the large Swiss HIV Cohort Study and clinical trials. RESULTS: Patients whose treatment was optimized with GRT versus expert opinion had an increase in discounted life-expectancy and quality-adjusted life-expectancy of three and two weeks, respectively. Health care costs with and without GRT were $US 421,000 and$US 419,000, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $US 35,000 per QALY gained. In the analysis from the societal perspective, GRT versus expert opinion led to an increase in discounted life-expectancy and quality-adjusted life-expectancy of three and four weeks, respectively. Health care costs with and without GRT were$US 551,000 and $US 549,000, respectively. When productivity changes were included in the analysis, GRT was cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: GRT for treatment optimization in HIV-infected patients with treatment failure is a cost-effective use of scarce health care resources and beneficial to the society at large

Discounting in Economic Evaluations

Appropriate discounting rules in economic evaluations have received considerable attention in the literature and in national guidelines for economic evaluations. Rightfully so, as discounting can be quite influential on the outcomes of economic evaluations. The most prominent controversies regarding discounting involve the basis for and height of the discount rate, whether costs and effects should be discounted at the same rate, and whether discount rates should decline or stay constant over time. Moreover, the choice for discount rules depends on the decision context one adopts as the most relevant. In this article, we review these issues and debates, and describe and discuss the current discounting recommendations of the countries publishing their national guidelines. We finish the article by proposing a research agenda

A multicentre, randomised, parallel group, superiority study to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of external frame versus internal locking plate for complete articular pilon fracture fixation in adults: protocol for the ACTIVE randomised controlled trial

Aims A pilon fracture is a severe ankle joint injury caused by high-energy trauma, typically affecting men of working age. Although relatively uncommon (5-7% of all tibial fractures), this injury causes amongst the worst functional and health outcomes of any skeletal injury, with a high risk of serious complications and long-term disability, and with devastating consequences on patients’ quality of life and financial prospects. Robust evidence to guide treatment is currently lacking. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of two surgical interventions that are most commonly used to treat pilon fractures. Methods A randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 334 adult patients diagnosed with a closed type C pilon fracture will be conducted. Internal locking plate fixation will be compared with external frame fixation. The primary outcome and endpoint will be the Disability Rating Index (a patient selfreported assessment of physical disability) at 12 months. This will also be measured at baseline, 3, 6 and 24 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include the Olerud and Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), the EQ-5D-5L score, complications (including bone healing), resource use, work impact and patient treatment preference. The acceptability of the treatments and study design to patients and health care professionals will be explored through qualitative methods. Discussion The two treatments being compared are the most commonly used for this injury, however there is uncertainty over which is most clinically and cost-effective. ACTIVE is a sufficiently powered and rigorously designed study to inform clinical decisions for the treatment of adults with this injury. Clinical relevance of the paper Recent reviews of the literature and NICE treatment guidance have identified the need for robust RCTs to assess whether internal or external fixation is better for management of pilon fractures. The outcome of this study will directly influence clinical decision-making and health policy by informing international and United Kingdom national guidance, improve outcomes for patients and reduce the financial burden associated with the injury. A systematic review by NICE identified no economic evaluations, which this study is addressing