Ecological impact and cost-effectiveness of wildlife crossings in a highly fragmented landscape:A multi-method approach

Context: Road infrastructure construction is integral to economic development, but negatively affects biodiversity. To mitigate the negative impacts of infrastructure, various types of wildlife crossings are realized worldwide, but little is known about their effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness. Objective: The paper contributes to the methodological and empirical discussion on the effectiveness of wildlife crossings for enhancing the quality of surrounding nature and its cost-effectiveness by analyzing a large-scale wildlife-crossings program in the Netherlands. Method: A multi-criteria cost–benefit analysis is applied, comprised of monetary and non-monetary measures, and a mixed-method approach is used to determine ecological effects. Ecological effects are expressed in the standardized weighted hectare measurement of threat-weighted ecological quality area (1 T-EQA = 1 ha of 100% ecological quality, averagely threatened). Cost-effectiveness is calculated comparing the monetary costs of intervention with ecological benefits (Euro costs/T-EQA), for different types of wildlife crossings and for two other nature policies. Results: The Dutch habitat defragmentation program has induced an increase in nature value of 1734 T-EQA at a cost of Euro 283 million. Ecological gains per hierarchically ordered groups of measures differ strongly: The most effective are ecoducts (wildlife crossing bridges) followed by shared-use viaducts and large fauna tunnels. Ecoducts generated the largest gain in nature value, but were also the most costly measures. In terms of cost-effectiveness, both large fauna tunnels and shared-use viaducts for traffic and animals outperformed ecoducts. Conclusions: Ecoducts deliver ecologically, but their cost-effectiveness appears modest. Purchasing agricultural land for restoration of nature appears more cost-effective than building wildlife crossings. Yet, reducing environmental pressures or their effects on existing nature areas is likely to be most cost-effective.</p

Decreased Survival and Lung Function in Progressive Pulmonary Fibrosis

Background and Objectives: Progressive pulmonary fibrosis (PPF) is a recently described term reserved for patients with fibrotic ILD other than idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) with fast clinical deterioration. Here, survival and prognostic biomarkers at the time of diagnosis for PPF are investigated in a fibrotic ILD other than IPF cohort (non-IPF). Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed during the period of 2012-2018 at the ILD Center of Excellence (St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands) with a fibrotic ILD were included in this study. The presence of PPF was investigated using the criteria from the updated IPF/PPF guideline during the first year after diagnosis. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine risk factors for PPF. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test was conducted to analyze survival in patients with and without PPF. Results: This study included 304 non-IPF patients and, for comparison, 379 IPF patients. In non-IPF patients, 146 (46%) fulfilled ≥2 criteria for PPF. These patients had a median transplant-free survival rate of 2.9 ± 0.4 years, which was worse than non-IPF patients without PPF (10.1 ± 1.8 years, p < 0.001). The risk for PPF was increased in patients with FVC < 50% (odds ratio (OR) of 2.50, 95% CI = 1.01-6.17, p = 0.047) or DLCOc ≤ 35% (OR = 2.57, 95% CI = 1.24-5.35, p = 0.011). In the first 3 years after diagnosis, survival in PPF and IPF is the same, while in the following years IPF has a significantly worse survival. Conclusions: The non-IPF cohort with PPF had a significantly worse transplant-free survival compared with the non-IPF cohort without PPF. Independent risk factors for PPF in non-IPF were FVC < 50% and DLCOc ≤ 35%

Study protocol for a multicenter randomised controlled trial on the (cost)effectiveness of biopsy combined with same-session MR-guided LITT versus biopsy alone in patients with primary irresectable glioblastoma (EMITT trial)

Background: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary, malignant brain tumour with a 5-year survival of 5%. If possible, a glioblastoma is resected and further treated with chemoradiation therapy (CRT), but resection is not feasible in about 30% of cases. Current standard of care in these cases is a biopsy followed by CRT. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) has been suggested as a minimally invasive alternative when surgery is not feasible. However, high-quality evidence directly comparing LITT with standard of care is lacking, precluding any conclusions on (cost-)effectiveness. We therefore propose a multicenter randomized controlled study to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of MR-guided LITT as compared to current standard of care (EMITT trial). Methods and analysis: The EMITT trial will be a multicenter pragmatic randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. Seven Dutch hospitals will participate in this study. In total 238 patients will be randomized with 1:1 allocation to receive either biopsy combined with same-session MR-guided LITT therapy followed by CRT or the current standard of care being biopsy followed by CRT. The primary outcomes will be health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) (non-inferiority) using EORTC QLQ-C30 + BN20 scores at 5 months after randomization and overall survival (superiority). Secondary outcomes comprise cost-effectiveness (healthcare and societal perspective) and HR-QoL of life over an 18-month time horizon, progression free survival, tumour response, disease specific survival, longitudinal effects, effects on adjuvant treatment, ablation percentage and complication rates. Discussion: The EMITT trial will be the first RCT on the effectiveness of LITT in patients with glioblastoma as compared with current standard of care. Together with the Dutch Brain Tumour Patient association, we hypothesize that LITT may improve overall survival without substantially affecting patients’ quality of life. Trial registration: This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05318612)

Prevalence and clinical associations of myositis antibodies in a large cohort of interstitial lung diseases

Background Serologic testing for autoantibodies is recommended in interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), as connective tissue diseases (CTDs) are an important secondary cause. Myositis antibodies are associated with CTD-ILD, but clinical associations with other ILDs are unclear. In this study, associations of myositis antibodies in various ILDs were evaluated. Methods 1463 ILD patients and 116 healthy subjects were screened for myositis antibodies with a line-blot assay on serum available at time of diagnosis. Additionally, bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALf) was analysed. Results A total of 394 patients demonstrated reactivity to at least one antibody, including anti-Ro52 (36.0%), anti-Mi-2β (17.3%) and anti-Jo-1 (10.9%). Anti-Jo-1 (OR 6.4; p<0.100) and anti- Ro52 (OR 6.0; p<0.001) were associated with CTD-ILD. Interestingly, anti-Mi-2β was associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF; OR 5.3; p = 0.001) and hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP; OR 5.9; p<0.001). Furthermore, anti-Mi-2β was strongly associated with a histological usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) pattern (OR 6.5; p < 0.001). Moreover, anti- Mi-2β reactivity was identified in BALf and correlated with serum anti-Mi-2β (r = 0.64; p = 0.002). No differences were found in survival rates between ILD patients with and without serum Mi-2β reactivity (hazard ratio 0.835; 95% CI 0.442-1.575; p = 0.577). Conclusion In conclusion, novel associations of antibody Mi-2β with fibrotic ILD were found. Furthermore, serum anti-Mi-2β was associated with a histological UIP pattern and presence of anti- Mi-2β in BALf. Possibly, anti-Mi-2β could be implemented as a future diagnostic biomarker for fibrotic ILD

Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

Background Individuals with a unilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss, or single-sided deafness, report difficulty with listening in many everyday situations despite having access to well-preserved acoustic hearing in one ear. The standard of care for single-sided deafness available on the UK National Health Service is a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid which transfers sounds from the impaired ear to the non-impaired ear. This hearing aid has been found to improve speech understanding in noise when the signal-to-noise ratio is more favourable at the impaired ear than the non-impaired ear. However, the indiscriminate routing of signals to a single ear can have detrimental effects when interfering sounds are located on the side of the impaired ear. Recent published evidence has suggested that cochlear implantation in individuals with a single-sided deafness can restore access to the binaural cues which underpin the ability to localise sounds and segregate speech from other interfering sounds. Methods/Design The current trial was designed to assess the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid in restoring binaural hearing in adults with acquired single-sided deafness. Patients are assessed at baseline and after receiving a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid. A cochlear implant is then provided to those patients who do not receive sufficient benefit from the hearing aid. This within-subject longitudinal design reflects the expected care pathway should cochlear implantation be provided for single-sided deafness on the UK National Health Service. The primary endpoints are measures of binaural hearing at baseline, after provision of a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid, and after cochlear implantation. Binaural hearing is assessed in terms of the accuracy with which sounds are localised and speech is perceived in background noise. The trial is also designed to measure the impact of the interventions on hearing- and health-related quality of life. Discussion This multi-centre trial was designed to provide evidence for the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to the contra-lateral routing of signals. A purpose-built sound presentation system and established measurement techniques will provide reliable and precise measures of binaural hearing. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN33301739 (05/JUL/2013