Conversational Patterns of Aphasic, Closed-head-injured, and Normal Speakers

TB

Conservationists’ perspectives on poverty: an empirical study

1. Biodiversity conservation interventions have long confronted challenges of human poverty. The ethical foundations of international conservation, including conservation’s relationship with poverty, are currently being interrogated in animated debates about the future of conservation. However, while some commentary exists, empirical analysis of conservation practitioner perspectives on poverty, and their ethical justification, has been lacking thus far. 2. We used Q methodology complemented by more detailed qualitative analysis to examine empirically perspectives on poverty and conservation within the conservation movement, and compare these empirical discourses to positions within the literature. We sampled conservation practitioners in western headquartered organisations, and in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda, thereby giving indications of these perspectives in Latin America, Asia and Africa. 3. While there are some elements of consensus, for instance the principle that the poor should not shoulder the costs of conserving a global public good, the three discourses elicited diverge in a number of ways. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism differentiate the perspectives, but beyond this, there are two distinct framings of poverty which conservation practitioners variously adhere to. 4. The first prioritises welfare, needs and sufficientarianism, and is more strongly associated with the China, Nepal and Uganda case studies. The second framing of poverty focuses much more on the need for ‘do no harm’ principles and safeguards, and follows an internationalised human rights-oriented discourse. 5. There are also important distinctions between discourses about whether poverty is characterised as a driver of degradation, or more emphasis is placed on overconsumption and affluence in perpetuating conservation threats. This dimension particularly illuminates shifts in thinking in the 30 or so years since the Brundtland report, and reflecting new global realities. 6. This analysis serves to update, parse and clarify differing perspectives on poverty within the conservation, and broader environmental movement, in order to illuminate consensual aspects between perspectives, and reveal where critical differences remain

Longitudinal Assessment of Narrative Discourse in a Mildly Aphasic Adult

TB

Multiplex Real-Time PCR Assay Using TaqMan Probes for the Identification of Trypanosoma cruzi DTUs in Biological and Clinical Samples

Background: Trypanosoma cruzi has been classified into six Discrete Typing Units (DTUs), designated as TcI–TcVI. In order to effectively use this standardized nomenclature, a reproducible genotyping strategy is imperative. Several typing schemes have been developed with variable levels of complexity, selectivity and analytical sensitivity. Most of them can be only applied to cultured stocks. In this context, we aimed to develop a multiplex Real-Time PCR method to identify the six T. cruzi DTUs using TaqMan probes (MTq-PCR).Methods/Principal Findings: The MTq-PCR has been evaluated in 39 cultured stocks and 307 biological samples from vectors, reservoirs and patients from different geographical regions and transmission cycles in comparison with a multi-locus conventional PCR algorithm. The MTq-PCR was inclusive for laboratory stocks and natural isolates and sensitive for direct typing of different biological samples from vectors, reservoirs and patients with acute, congenital infection or Chagas reactivation. The first round SL-IR MTq-PCR detected 1 fg DNA/reaction tube of TcI, TcII and TcIII and 1 pg DNA/reaction tube of TcIV, TcV and TcVI reference strains. The MTq-PCR was able to characterize DTUs in 83% of triatomine and 96% of reservoir samples that had been typed by conventional PCR methods. Regarding clinical samples, 100% of those derived from acute infected patients, 62.5% from congenitally infected children and 50% from patients with clinical reactivation could be genotyped. Sensitivity for direct typing of blood samples from chronic Chagas disease patients (32.8% from asymptomatic and 22.2% from symptomatic patients) and mixed infections was lower than that of the conventional PCR algorithm.Conclusions/Significance: Typing is resolved after a single or a second round of Real-Time PCR, depending on the DTU. This format reduces carryover contamination and is amenable to quantification, automation and kit production.This work received financial support from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Argentina [PICT 2011-0207 to AGS] and the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Argentina (CONICET) [PIP 112 2011-010-0974 to AGS]. Work related to evaluation of biological samples was partially sponsored by the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) [Small Grants Program PAHO-TDR]; the Drugs and Neglected Diseases Initiative (DNDi, Geneva, Switzerland), Wellcome Trust (London, United Kingdom), SANOFI-AVENTIS (Buenos Aires, Argentina) and the National Council for Science and Technology in Mexico (CONACYT) [FONSEC 161405 to JMR]

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Response to “Phrase truncation in PubMed searches”

Response to Shanman R. Phrase truncation in PubMed searches [letter to the editor]. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Oct;105(4). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.252. Comment on Duffy S, de Kock S, Misso K, Noake C, Ross J, Stirk L. Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016 Oct;104(4):309–12. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.011

Supplementary searches of PubMed to improve currency of MEDLINE and MEDLINE In-Process searches via Ovid

Objective: The research investigated whether conducting a supplementary search of PubMed in addition to the main MEDLINE (Ovid) search for a systematic review is worthwhile and to ascertain whether this PubMed search can be conducted quickly and if it retrieves unique, recently published, and ahead-of-print studies that are subsequently considered for inclusion in the final systematic review. Methods: Searches of PubMed were conducted after MEDLINE (Ovid) and MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid) searches had been completed for seven recent reviews. The searches were limited to records not in MEDLINE or MEDLINE In-Process (Ovid). Results: Additional unique records were identified for all of the investigated reviews. Search strategies were adapted quickly to run in PubMed, and reviewer screening of the results was not time consuming. For each of the investigated reviews, studies were ordered for full screening; in six cases, studies retrieved from the supplementary PubMed searches were included in the final systematic review. Conclusion: Supplementary searching of PubMed for studies unavailable elsewhere is worthwhile and improves the currency of the systematic reviews