Advancing global & regional reanalyses

This report outlines the structure of and summarizes the recommendations made at the 5th International Conference on Reanalysis (ICR5), attended by 259 participants from 37 countries, in Rome (Italy), on 13-17 November 2017. It first summarizes the conference structure. Then, the key recommendations of ICR5 are given for the five main conference topics: production; observations (data rescue and preparation); data assimilation methods; quality assurance of reanalysis; and applications in science, services, and policymaking. Lastly, five high-level recommendations are proposed to managing agencies on how best to advance the field of reanalyses, which serves tens of thousands of users, via enhanced research, development, and operations

SPARC Reanalysis Intercomparison Project (S-RIP) Final Report

The S-RIP activity focuses predominantly on reanalyses, although some chapters include diagnostics from operational analyses when appropriate. Many of the chapters focus primarily on newer reanalysis systems that assimilate upper-air measurements and produce data at relatively high resolution (i.e., ERA-Interim, JRA55, MERRA, MERRA-2, and CFSR). The ERA5 reanalysis, which was released during the latter stages of the activity, is not fully evaluated but is included in some intercomparisons. Selected long-term reanalyses that assimilate only surface meteorological observations (e.g., NOAA-CIRES 20CR, ERA-20C, and CERA-20C) are also evaluated where appropriate. Some chapters include comparisons with older reanalyses (NCEP-NCAR R1, NCEP-DOE R2, ERA-40, and JRA-25/JCDAS), because these products have been extensively used in the past and are still being used for some studies, and because such comparisons can provide insight into the potential shortcomings of past research results. Other chapters only include a subset of these reanalysis data sets, since some reanalyses have already been shown to perform poorly for certain diagnostics or do not extend high enough (e.g., pressures less than 10hPa) in the atmosphere. At the beginning of each chapter an explanation is given as to why specific reanalysis data sets were included or excluded. The minimum intercomparison period is 1980-2010. This period starts with the availability of MERRA-2 shortly after the advent of high-frequency remotely sensed data in late 1978 and ends with the transition between CFSR and CFSv2. Some chapters also consider the pre-satellite era before 1979 and/or include results for more recent years. Some chapters use shorter intercomparison periods for some diagnostics due to limitations in the observational record available for comparison and/or computational resources

Long-term safety and efficacy of alogliptin, a DPP-4 inhibitor, in patients with type 2 diabetes: a 3-year prospective, controlled, observational study (J-BRAND Registry)

Introduction Given an increasing use of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the real-world setting, we conducted a prospective observational study (Japan-based Clinical Research Network for Diabetes Registry: J-BRAND Registry) to elucidate the safety and efficacy profile of long-term usage of alogliptin.Research design and methods We registered 5969 patients from April 2012 through September 2014, who started receiving alogliptin (group A) or other classes of oral hypoglycemic agents (OHAs; group B), and were followed for 3 years at 239 sites nationwide. Safety was the primary outcome. Symptomatic hypoglycemia, pancreatitis, skin disorders of non-extrinsic origin, severe infections, and cancer were collected as major adverse events (AEs). Efficacy assessment was the secondary outcome and included changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, fasting insulin and urinary albumin.Results Of the registered, 5150 (group A: 3395 and group B: 1755) and 5096 (3358 and 1738) were included for safety and efficacy analysis, respectively. Group A patients mostly (>90%) continued to use alogliptin. In group B, biguanides were the primary agents, while DPP-4 inhibitors were added in up to ~36% of patients. The overall incidence of AEs was similar between the two groups (42.7% vs 42.2%). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed the incidence of cancer was significantly higher in group A than in group B (7.4% vs 4.8%, p=0.040), while no significant incidence difference was observed in the individual cancer. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that the imbalanced patient distribution (more elderly patients in group A than in group B), but not alogliptin usage per se, contributed to cancer development. The incidence of other major AE categories was with no between-group difference. Between-group difference was not detected, either, in the incidence of microvascular and macrovascular complications. HbA1c and fasting glucose decreased significantly at the 0.5-year visit and nearly plateaued thereafter in both groups.Conclusions Alogliptin as a representative of DPP-4 inhibitors was safe and durably efficacious when used alone or with other OHAs for patients with type 2 diabetes in the real world setting