40 research outputs found
The North American tree-ring fire-scar network
Fire regimes in North American forests are diverse and modern fire records are often too short to capture important patterns, trends, feedbacks, and drivers of variability. Tree-ring fire scars provide valuable perspectives on fire regimes, including centuries-long records of fire year, season, frequency, severity, and size. Here, we introduce the newly compiled North American tree-ring fire-scar network (NAFSN), which contains 2562 sites, >37,000 fire-scarred trees, and covers large parts of North America. We investigate the NAFSN in terms of geography, sample depth, vegetation, topography, climate, and human land use. Fire scars are found in most ecoregions, from boreal forests in northern Alaska and Canada to subtropical forests in southern Florida and Mexico. The network includes 91 tree species, but is dominated by gymnosperms in the genus Pinus. Fire scars are found from sea level to >4000-m elevation and across a range of topographic settings that vary by ecoregion. Multiple regions are densely sampled (e.g., >1000 fire-scarred trees), enabling new spatial analyses such as reconstructions of area burned. To demonstrate the potential of the network, we compared the climate space of the NAFSN to those of modern fires and forests; the NAFSN spans a climate space largely representative of the forested areas in North America, with notable gaps in warmer tropical climates. Modern fires are burning in similar climate spaces as historical fires, but disproportionately in warmer regions compared to the historical record, possibly related to under-sampling of warm subtropical forests or supporting observations of changing fire regimes. The historical influence of Indigenous and non-Indigenous human land use on fire regimes varies in space and time. A 20th century fire deficit associated with human activities is evident in many regions, yet fire regimes characterized by frequent surface fires are still active in some areas (e.g., Mexico and the southeastern United States). These analyses provide a foundation and framework for future studies using the hundreds of thousands of annually- to sub-annually-resolved tree-ring records of fire spanning centuries, which will further advance our understanding of the interactions among fire, climate, topography, vegetation, and humans across North America
Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study
BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure
Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF Therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study
Implications for sequencing of biologic therapy and choice of second anti-TNF in patients with inflammatory bowel disease:results from the IMmunogenicity to Second Anti-TNF therapy (IMSAT) therapeutic drug monitoring study
BACKGROUND: Anti-drug antibodies are associated with treatment failure to anti-TNF agents in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).AIM: To assess whether immunogenicity to a patient's first anti-TNF agent would be associated with immunogenicity to the second, irrespective of drug sequence METHODS: We conducted a UK-wide, multicentre, retrospective cohort study to report rates of immunogenicity and treatment failure of second anti-TNF therapies in 1058 patients with IBD who underwent therapeutic drug monitoring for both infliximab and adalimumab. The primary outcome was immunogenicity to the second anti-TNF agent, defined at any timepoint as an anti-TNF antibody concentration ≥9 AU/ml for infliximab and ≥6 AU/ml for adalimumab.RESULTS: In patients treated with infliximab and then adalimumab, those who developed antibodies to infliximab were more likely to develop antibodies to adalimumab, than patients who did not develop antibodies to infliximab (OR 1.99, 95%CI 1.27-3.20, p = 0.002). Similarly, in patients treated with adalimumab and then infliximab, immunogenicity to adalimumab was associated with subsequent immunogenicity to infliximab (OR 2.63, 95%CI 1.46-4.80, p < 0.001). For each 10-fold increase in anti-infliximab and anti-adalimumab antibody concentration, the odds of subsequently developing antibodies to adalimumab and infliximab increased by 1.73 (95% CI 1.38-2.17, p < 0.001) and 1.99 (95%CI 1.34-2.99, p < 0.001), respectively. Patients who developed immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to infliximab were more likely to develop immunogenicity with undetectable drug levels to adalimumab (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.19, p < 0.001). Commencing an immunomodulator at the time of switching to the second anti-TNF was associated with improved drug persistence in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic failure.CONCLUSION: Irrespective of drug sequence, immunogenicity to the first anti-TNF agent was associated with immunogenicity to the second, which was mitigated by the introduction of an immunomodulator in patients with immunogenic, but not pharmacodynamic treatment failure
Recommended from our members
New developments in neuroscience: neural transplants and nerve regeneration technologies: ethical issues: final draft
The focal point of this report is elaboration of the metaphysical and ethical issues raised by neural transplants