First report of Ilyocryptus paranaensis inarmatus Kotov, Elíaz-Gutiérrez & Gutiérrez-Aguirre, 2001 (Cladocera, Anomopoda, Ilyocryptidae) in South America

Em processament

ELECTRIC BREAKDOWN AS A PROBABILITY PROCESS

ImportanceRecent estimates suggest that more than 26 million people worldwide have heart failure. The syndrome is associated with major symptoms, significantly increased mortality, and extensive use of health care. Evidence-based treatments influence all these outcomes in a proportion of patients with heart failure. Current management also often includes advice to reduce dietary salt intake, although the benefits are uncertain. ObjectiveTo systematically review randomized clinical trials of reduced dietary salt in adult inpatients or outpatients with heart failure. Evidence ReviewSeveral bibliographic databases were systematically searched, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL. The methodologic quality of the studies was evaluated, and data associated with primary outcomes of interest (cardiovascular-associated mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events, such as stroke and myocardial infarction) and secondary outcomes (hospitalization, length of inpatient stay, change in New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class, adherence to dietary low-salt intake, and changes in blood pressure) were extracted. FindingsOf 2655 retrieved references, 9 studies involving 479 unique participants were included in the analysis. None of the studies included more than 100 participants. The risks of bias in the 9 studies were variable. None of the included studies provided sufficient data on the primary outcomes of interest. For the secondary outcomes of interest, 2 outpatient-based studies reported that NYHA functional class was not improved by restriction of salt intake, whereas 2 studies reported significant improvements in NYHA functional class. Conclusions and RelevanceLimited evidence of clinical improvement was available among outpatients who reduced dietary salt intake, and evidence was inconclusive for inpatients. Overall, a paucity of robust high-quality evidence to support or refute current guidance was available. This review suggests that well-designed, adequately powered studies are needed to reduce uncertainty about the use of this intervention.</p

Safety, Efficacy and Pharmacokinetics of AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) for Treatment of Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: 15-Month Final Analysis of the TACKLE Trial

Introduction: In the phase 3 TACKLE study, outpatient treatment with AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) was well tolerated and significantly reduced progression to severe disease or death through day 29 in adults with mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at the primary analysis. Here, we report data from the final analysis of the TACKLE study, performed after approximately 15 months’ follow-up. Methods: Eligible participants were randomized 1:1 and dosed within 7 days of symptom onset with 600 mg intramuscular AZD7442 (n = 456; 300 mg tixagevimab/300 mg cilgavimab) or placebo (n = 454). Results: Severe COVID-19 or death through day 29 occurred in 4.4% and 8.8% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 50.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 14.4, 71.3; p = 0.0096]; among participants dosed within 5 days of symptom onset, the RRR was 66.9% (95% CI 31.1, 84.1; p = 0.002). Death from any cause or hospitalization for COVID-19 complications or sequelae through day 169 occurred in 5.0% of participants receiving AZD7442 versus 9.7% receiving placebo, an RRR of 49.2% (95% CI 14.7, 69.8; p = 0.009). Adverse events occurred in 55.5% and 55.9% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, respectively, and were mostly mild or moderate in severity. Serious adverse events occurred in 10.2% and 14.4% of participants who received AZD7442 or placebo, respectively, and deaths occurred in 1.8% of participants in both groups. Serum concentration–time profiles recorded over 457 days were similar for AZD7442, tixagevimab, and cilgavimab, and were consistent with the extended half-life reported for AZD7442 (approx. 90 days). Conclusions: AZD7442 reduced the risk of progression to severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death, was well tolerated through 15 months, and exhibited predictable pharmacokinetics in outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19. These data support the long-term safety of using long-acting monoclonal antibodies to treat COVID-19. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04723394. (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04723394

Development of an international standard set of outcome measures for patients with atrial fibrillation: a report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) atrial fibrillation working group.

AIMS: As health systems around the world increasingly look to measure and improve the value of care that they provide to patients, being able to measure the outcomes that matter most to patients is vital. To support the shift towards value-based health care in atrial fibrillation (AF), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international Working Group (WG) of 30 volunteers, including health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of outcomes for benchmarking care delivery in clinical settings. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using an online-modified Delphi process, outcomes important to patients and health professionals were selected and categorized into (i) long-term consequences of disease outcomes, (ii) complications of treatment outcomes, and (iii) patient-reported outcomes. The WG identified demographic and clinical variables for use as case-mix risk adjusters. These included baseline demographics, comorbidities, cognitive function, date of diagnosis, disease duration, medications prescribed and AF procedures, as well as smoking, body mass index (BMI), alcohol intake, and physical activity. Where appropriate, and for ease of implementation, standardization of outcomes and case-mix variables was achieved using ICD codes. The standard set underwent an open review process in which over 80% of patients surveyed agreed with the outcomes captured by the standard set. CONCLUSION: Implementation of these consensus recommendations could help institutions to monitor, compare and improve the quality and delivery of chronic AF care. Their consistent definition and collection, using ICD codes where applicable, could also broaden the implementation of more patient-centric clinical outcomes research in AF

Cost-effectiveness analysis of use of a polypill versus usual care or best practice for primary prevention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease

Background Clinical trials suggest that use of fixed-dose combination therapy (‘polypills’) can improve adherence to medication and control of risk factors of people at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared to usual care, but cost-effectiveness is unknown. Objective To determine whether a polypill is cost-effective compared to usual care and optimal guideline-recommended treatment for primary prevention in people already on statins and/or blood pressure lowering therapy. Methods A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis with a one year time cycle and a 10 year time horizon to compare the polypill with usual care and optimal implementation of NICE Guidelines, using patient level data from a retrospective cross-sectional study. The model was run for ten age (40 years+) and gender-specific sub-groups on treatment for raised CVD risk with no history of CVD. Published sources were used to estimate impact of different treatment strategies on risk of CVD events. Results A polypill strategy was potentially cost-effective compared to other strategies for most sub-groups ranging from dominance to up to £18,811 per QALY depending on patient sub-group. Optimal implementation of guidelines was most cost-effective for women aged 40–49 and men aged 75+. Results were sensitive to polypill cost, and if the annual cost was less than £150, this approach was cost-effective compared to the other strategies. Conclusions For most people already on treatment to modify CVD risk, a polypill strategy may be cost-effective compared with optimising treatment as per guidelines or their current care, as long as the polypill cost is sufficiently low.This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (grant number: RP-PG-0606-1153)

Current and potential providers of blood pressure self-screening: a mixed methods study in Oxfordshire.

OBJECTIVES: To (1) establish the extent of opportunities for members of the public to check their own blood pressure (BP) outside of healthcare consultations (BP self-screening), (2) investigate the reasons for and against hosting such a service and (3) ascertain how BP self-screening data are used in primary care. DESIGN: A mixed methods, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Primary care and community locations in Oxfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 325 sites were surveyed to identify where and in what form BP self-screening services were available. 23 semistructured interviews were then completed with current and potential hosts of BP self-screening services. RESULTS: 18/82 (22%) general practices offered BP self-screening and 68/110 (62%) pharmacies offered professional-led BP screening. There was no evidence of permanent BP self-screening activities in other community settings.Healthcare professionals, managers, community workers and leaders were interviewed. Those in primary care generally felt that practice-based BP self-screening was a beneficial activity that increased the attainment of performance targets although there was variation in its perceived usefulness for patient care. The pharmacists interviewed provided BP checking as a service to the community but were unable to develop self-screening services without a clear business plan. Among potential hosts, barriers to providing a BP self-screening service included a perceived lack of healthcare commissioner and public demand, and a weak-if any-link to their core objectives as an organisation. CONCLUSIONS: BP self-screening currently occurs in a minority of general practices. Any future development of community BP self-screening programmes will require (1) public promotion and (2) careful consideration of how best to support-and reward-the community hosts who currently perceive little if any benefit

Thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events following second dose with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1: self-controlled case series analysis of the English national sentinel cohort

Thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia was a matter of concern post first and second doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, it is important to investigate the risk of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events following a second dose of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted a large-scale self-controlled case series analysis, using routine primary care data linked to hospital data, among 12.3 million individuals (16 years old and above) in England. We used the nationally representative Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) sentinel network database with baseline and risk periods between 8th December 2020 and 11th June 2022. We included individuals who received two vaccine (primary) doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and two vaccine doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our analyses. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis for each outcome using a conditional Poisson regression model with an offset for the length of risk period. We reported the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic (including arterial and venous events) and haemorrhagic events, in the period of 0-27 days after receiving a second dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccines compared to the baseline period (14 or more days prior to first dose, 28 or more days after the second dose and the time between 28 or more days after the first and 14 or more days prior to the second dose). We adjusted for a range of potential confounders, including age, sex, comorbidities and deprivation. Between December 8, 2020 and February 11, 2022, 6,306,306 individuals were vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 and 6,046,785 individuals were vaccinated with two doses of ChAdOx1. Compared to the baseline, our analysis show no increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) for both BNT162b2 (IRR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.770) and ChAdOx1 (IRR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-0.98); and similarly there was no increased risk for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) for both BNT162b2 (IRR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.41-1.85) and ChAdOx1 (IRR 1.73, 95% CI: 0.82-3.68). We additionally report no difference in IRR for pulmonary embolus, and deep vein thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, including idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), and haemorrhagic events post second dose for both BNT162b2. Reassuringly, we found no associations between increased risk of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events post vaccination with second dose for either of these vaccines. Data and Connectivity: COVID-19 Vaccines Pharmacovigilance study

Natriuretic peptide vs. clinical information for diagnosis of left ventricular systolic dysfunction in primary care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Screening of primary care patients at risk for left ventricular systolic dysfunction by a simple blood-test might reduce referral rates for echocardiography. Whether or not natriuretic peptide testing is a useful and cost-effective diagnostic instrument in primary care settings, however, is still a matter of debate.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels, clinical information, and echocardiographic data of left ventricular systolic function were collected in 542 family practice patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. We determined the diagnostic power of the NT-proBNP assessment in ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction and compared it to a risk score derived from a logistic regression model of easily acquired clinical information.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>23 of 542 patients showed left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Both NT-proBNP and the clinical risk score consisting of dyspnea at exertion and ankle swelling, coronary artery disease and diuretic treatment showed excellent diagnostic power for ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction. AUC of NT-proBNP was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92) with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.46 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.50). AUC of the clinical risk score was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.91) with a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI, 0.71 to 0.98) and a specificity of 0.64 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.67). 148 misclassifications using NT-proBNP and 55 using the clinical risk score revealed a significant difference (McNemar test; p < 0.001) that was based on the higher specificity of the clinical risk score.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The evaluation of clinical information is at least as effective as NT-proBNP testing in ruling out left ventricular systolic dysfunction in family practice patients at risk. If these results are confirmed in larger cohorts and in different samples, family physicians should be encouraged to rely on the diagnostic power of the clinical information from their patients.</p

Patient-level and practice-level factors associated with consultation duration: a cross-sectional analysis of over one million consultations in English primary care

OBJECTIVES: Consultation duration has previously been shown to be associated with patient, practitioner and practice characteristics. However, previous studies were conducted outside the UK, considered only small numbers of general practitioner (GP) consultations or focused primarily on practitioner-level characteristics. We aimed to determine the patient-level and practice-level factors associated with duration of GP and nurse consultations in UK primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional data were obtained from English general practices contributing to the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) linked to data on patient deprivation and practice staffing, rurality and Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) achievement. PARTICIPANTS: 218 304 patients, from 316 English general practices, consulting from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2014. ANALYSIS: Multilevel mixed-effects models described the association between consultation duration and patient-level and practice-level factors (patient age, gender, smoking status, ethnic group, deprivation and practice rurality, number of full-time equivalent GPs/nurses, list size, consultation rate, quintile of overall QOF achievement and training status). RESULTS: Mean duration of face-to-face GP consultations was 9.24 min and 5.32 min for telephone consultations. Nurse face-to-face and telephone consultations lasted 9.70 and 5.73 min on average, respectively. Longer GP consultation duration was associated with female patient gender, practice training status and older patient age. Shorter duration was associated with higher deprivation and consultation rate. Longer nurse consultation duration was associated with male patient gender, older patient age and ever smoking; and shorter duration with higher consultation rate. Observed differences in duration were small (eg, GP consultations with female patients compared with male patients were 8 s longer on average). CONCLUSIONS: Small observed differences in consultation duration indicate that patients are treated similarly regardless of background. Increased consultation duration may be beneficial for older or comorbid patients, but the benefits and costs of increased consultation duration require further study

Patients’ and clinicians’ views on the optimum schedules for self-monitoring of blood pressure

This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by the Royal College of General Practitioners.Background Self-monitoring of blood pressure is common but guidance on how it should be carried out varies and it is currently unclear how such guidance is viewed. Aim To explore patients' and health care professionals' (HCPs) views and experiences of the use of different self-monitoring regimes, to determine what is acceptable and feasible and to inform future recommendations. Design and Setting Thirteen focus groups plus four HCP interviews were held, total of 66 participants (41 patients, 25 HCPs) from primary and secondary care with and without experience of self-monitoring. Method Both standard and shortened self-monitoring protocols were considered. Focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by constant comparative method. Results Patients generally supported structured schedules but with sufficient flexibility to allow adaptation to individual routine. They preferred a shorter (3-day) schedule to longer (7-day) regimes. Whilst HCPs could describe benefits for patients of using a schedule, they were reluctant to recommend a specific schedule. Concerns surrounded the use of different schedules for diagnosis and subsequent monitoring. Appropriate education was seen as vital by all participants to enable a self-monitoring schedule to be followed at home. Conclusions There is not a 'one size fits all approach' to developing the optimum protocol from the perspective of users and those implementing it. An approach whereby patients are asked to complete the minimum number of readings required for accurate BP estimation in a flexible manner seems most likely to succeed. Informative advice and guidance should incorporate such flexibility for patients and professionals alike.This study was independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) as part of a Programme Grant for Applied Research “Optimising the diagnosis and management of hypertension in primary care through self-monitoring of blood pressure” (RP-PG-1209-10051). RJM receives funding from an NIHR Professorship (NIHR-RP-02-12-015). FDRH is part funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC), NIHR Oxford Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research (CLAHRC), and is supported by Harris Manchester College, Oxford. Sheila Greenfield is supported by the NIHR CLAHRC West Midlands initiative