Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear un derstanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5–7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8–11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world’s most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepre sented in biodiversity databases.13–15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may elim inate pieces of the Amazon’s biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological com munities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple or ganism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region’s vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most ne glected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lostinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Pervasive gaps in Amazonian ecological research

Biodiversity loss is one of the main challenges of our time,1,2 and attempts to address it require a clear understanding of how ecological communities respond to environmental change across time and space.3,4 While the increasing availability of global databases on ecological communities has advanced our knowledge of biodiversity sensitivity to environmental changes,5,6,7 vast areas of the tropics remain understudied.8,9,10,11 In the American tropics, Amazonia stands out as the world's most diverse rainforest and the primary source of Neotropical biodiversity,12 but it remains among the least known forests in America and is often underrepresented in biodiversity databases.13,14,15 To worsen this situation, human-induced modifications16,17 may eliminate pieces of the Amazon's biodiversity puzzle before we can use them to understand how ecological communities are responding. To increase generalization and applicability of biodiversity knowledge,18,19 it is thus crucial to reduce biases in ecological research, particularly in regions projected to face the most pronounced environmental changes. We integrate ecological community metadata of 7,694 sampling sites for multiple organism groups in a machine learning model framework to map the research probability across the Brazilian Amazonia, while identifying the region's vulnerability to environmental change. 15%–18% of the most neglected areas in ecological research are expected to experience severe climate or land use changes by 2050. This means that unless we take immediate action, we will not be able to establish their current status, much less monitor how it is changing and what is being lost

Implementation of a Brazilian Cardioprotective Nutritional (BALANCE) Program for improvement on quality of diet and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: A randomized, multicenter trial

Background: Appropriate dietary recommendations represent a key part of secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease (CVD). We evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation of a nutritional program on quality of diet, cardiovascular events, and death in patients with established CVD. Methods: In this open-label, multicenter trial conducted in 35 sites in Brazil, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 45 years or older to receive either the BALANCE Program (experimental group) or conventional nutrition advice (control group). The BALANCE Program included a unique nutritional education strategy to implement recommendations from guidelines, adapted to the use of affordable and regional foods. Adherence to diet was evaluated by the modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, stroke, myocardial revascularization, amputation, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Secondary end points included biochemical and anthropometric data, and blood pressure levels. Results: From March 5, 2013, to Abril 7, 2015, a total of 2534 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either the BALANCE Program group (n = 1,266) or the control group (n = 1,268) and were followed up for a median of 3.5 years. In total, 235 (9.3%) participants had been lost to follow-up. After 3 years of follow-up, mean modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index (scale 0-70) was only slightly higher in the BALANCE group versus the control group (26.2 ± 8.4 vs 24.7 ± 8.6, P <.01), mainly due to a 0.5-serving/d greater intake of fruits and of vegetables in the BALANCE group. Primary end point events occurred in 236 participants (18.8%) in the BALANCE group and in 207 participants (16.4%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI 0.95-1.38; P =.15). Secondary end points did not differ between groups after follow-up. Conclusions: The BALANCE Program only slightly improved adherence to a healthy diet in patients with established CVD and had no significant effect on the incidence of cardiovascular events or death. © 2019 The Author

A Survey of Empirical Results on Program Slicing

International audienceBACKGROUND:Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications.METHODS:This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.FINDINGS:Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043).INTERPRETATION:Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding

Apixaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack: A subgroup analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial

Background: In the ARISTOTLE trial, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was reduced by apixaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients with AF and previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) have a high risk of stroke. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin in prespecified subgroups of patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. Methods: Between Dec 19, 2006, and April 2, 2010, patients were enrolled in the ARISTOTLE trial at 1034 clinical sites in 39 countries. 18 201 patients with AF or atrial flutter were randomly assigned to receive apixaban 5 mg twice daily or warfarin (target international normalised ratio 2·0-3·0). The median duration of follow-up was 1·8 years (IQR 1·4-2·3). The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, analysed by intention to treat. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding in the on-treatment population. All participants, investigators, and sponsors were masked to treatment assignments. In this subgroup analysis, we estimated event rates and used Cox models to compare outcomes in patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. The ARISTOTLE trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NTC00412984. Findings: Of the trial population, 3436 (19%) had a previous stroke or TIA. In the subgroup of patients with previous stroke or TIA, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 2·46 per 100 patient-years of follow-up in the apixaban group and 3·24 in the warfarin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·56 to 1·03); in the subgroup of patients without previous stroke or TIA, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 1·01 per 100 patient-years of follow-up with apixaban and 1·23 with warfarin (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·03; p for interaction=0·71). The absolute reduction in the rate of stroke and systemic embolism with apixaban versus warfarin was 0·77 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI -0·08 to 1·63) in patients with and 0·22 (-0·03 to 0·47) in those without previous stroke or TIA. The difference in major bleeding with apixaban compared with warfarin was 1·07 per 100 patient-years (95% CI 0·09-2·04) in patients with and 0·93 (0·54-1·32) in those without previous stroke or TIA. Interpretation: The effects of apixaban versus warfarin were consistent in patients with AF with and without previous stroke or TIA. Owing to the higher risk of these outcomes in patients with previous stroke or TIA, the absolute benefits of apixaban might be greater in this population. Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd