Evolutionary patterns in sound production across fishes

Published versio

BSE infectivity in jejunum, ileum and ileocaecal junction of incubating cattle

To establish bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) public health protection measures it is important to precisely define the cattle tissues considered as specified risk materials (SRM). To date, in pre-clinical BSE infected cattle, no evidence of the BSE agent had been found in the gut outside of the ileal Peyer's Patches. This study was undertaken to determine when and where the pathological prion protein (PrPSc) and/or BSE infectivity can be found in the small intestine of cattle 4 to 6 months of age, orally challenged with BSE. Samples of the jejunum, the ileum and the ileocaecal junction from 46 BSE infected cattle, culled from 1 up to 44 months post infection (mpi) were examined by immunohistochemistry. Samples from cattle 8 mpi to 20 mpi were additionally studied by PTA Western blot, rapid tests, and by mouse (TgbovXV) bioassay. In doing so nearly all of the cattle, from 4 up to 44 mpi, had detectable amounts of PrPSc and/or infectivity in the distal ileum. In the distal ileum clear time-dependent variations were visible concerning the amount of PrPSc, the tissue structures affected, and the cells involved. BSE infectivity was found not only in the ileum and ileocaecal junction but also in the jejunum. The systematic approach of this study provides new data for qualitative and quantitative risk assessments and allows defining bovine SRM more precisely

Aerial dissemination of Clostridium difficile spores

Background: Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD) is a frequently occurring healthcare-associated infection, which is responsible for significant morbidity and mortality amongst elderly patients in healthcare facilities. Environmental contamination is known to play an important contributory role in the spread of CDAD and it is suspected that contamination might be occurring as a result of aerial dissemination of C. difficile spores. However previous studies have failed to isolate C. difficile from air in hospitals. In an attempt to clarify this issue we undertook a short controlled pilot study in an elderly care ward with the aim of culturing C. difficile from the air. Methods: In a survey undertaken during February (two days) 2006 and March (two days) 2007, air samples were collected using a portable cyclone sampler and surface samples collected using contact plates in a UK hospital. Sampling took place in a six bedded elderly care bay (Study) during February 2006 and in March 2007 both the study bay and a four bedded orthopaedic bay (Control). Particulate material from the air was collected in Ringer's solution, alcohol shocked and plated out in triplicate onto Brazier's CCEY agar without egg yolk, but supplemented with 5 mg/L of lysozyme. After incubation, the identity of isolates was confirmed by standard techniques. Ribotyping and REP-PCR fingerprinting were used to further characterise isolates. Results: On both days in February 2006, C. difficile was cultured from the air with 23 samples yielding the bacterium (mean counts 53 – 426 cfu/m3 of air). One representative isolate from each of these was characterized further. Of the 23 isolates, 22 were ribotype 001 and were indistinguishable on REP-PCR typing. C. difficile was not cultured from the air or surfaces of either hospital bay during the two days in March 2007. Conclusion: This pilot study produced clear evidence of sporadic aerial dissemination of spores of a clone of C. difficile, a finding which may help to explain why CDAD is so persistent within hospitals and difficult to eradicate. Although preliminary, the findings reinforce concerns that current C. difficile control measures may be inadequate and suggest that improved ward ventilation may help to reduce the spread of CDAD in healthcare facilities

Assessment of an Intervention to Reduce Aspirin Prescribing for Patients Receiving Warfarin for Anticoagulation

Importance: For some patients receiving warfarin, adding aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) increases bleeding risk with unclear treatment benefit. Reducing excess aspirin use could be associated with improved clinical outcomes. Objective: To assess changes in aspirin use, bleeding, and thrombosis event rates among patients treated with warfarin. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pre-post observational quality improvement study was conducted from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, at a 6-center quality improvement collaborative in Michigan among 6738 adults taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without an apparent indication for concomitant aspirin. Statistical analysis was conducted from November 26, 2020, to June 14, 2021. Intervention: Primary care professionals for patients taking aspirin were asked whether an ongoing combination aspirin and warfarin treatment was indicated. If not, then aspirin was discontinued with the approval of the managing clinician. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were assessed before and after intervention for the primary analysis and before and after 24 months before the intervention (when rates of aspirin use first began to decrease) for the secondary analysis. Outcomes included the rate of aspirin use, bleeding, and thrombotic outcomes. An interrupted time series analysis assessed cumulative monthly event rates over time. Results: A total of 6738 patients treated with warfarin (3160 men [46.9%]; mean [SD] age, 62.8 [16.2] years) were followed up for a median of 6.7 months (IQR, 3.2-19.3 months). Aspirin use decreased slightly from a baseline mean use of 29.4% (95% CI, 28.9%-29.9%) to 27.1% (95% CI, 26.1%-28.0%) during the 24 months before the intervention (P \u3c .001 for slope before and after 24 months before the intervention) with an accelerated decrease after the intervention (mean aspirin use, 15.7%; 95% CI, 14.8%-16.8%; P = .001 for slope before and after intervention). In the primary analysis, the intervention was associated with a significant decrease in major bleeding events per month (preintervention, 0.31%; 95% CI, 0.27%-0.34%; postintervention, 0.21%; 95% CI, 0.14%-0.28%; P = .03 for difference in slope before and after intervention). No change was observed in mean percentage of patients having a thrombotic event from before to after the intervention (0.21% vs 0.24%; P = .34 for difference in slope). In the secondary analysis, reducing aspirin use (starting 24 months before the intervention) was associated with decreases in mean percentage of patients having any bleeding event (2.3% vs 1.5%; P = .02 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), mean percentage of patients having a major bleeding event (0.31% vs 0.25%; P = .001 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), and mean percentage of patients with an emergency department visit for bleeding (0.99% vs 0.67%; P = .04 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention), with no change in mean percentage of patients with a thrombotic event (0.20% vs 0.23%; P = .36 for change in slope before and after 24 months before the intervention). Conclusions and Relevance: This quality improvement intervention was associated with an acceleration of a preexisting decrease in aspirin use among patients taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolism without a clear indication for aspirin therapy. Reductions in aspirin use were associated with reduced bleeding. This study suggests that an anticoagulation clinic-based aspirin deimplementation intervention can improve guideline-concordant aspirin use

Outcomes of Direct Oral Anticoagulants with Aspirin Versus Warfarin with Aspirin for Atrial Fibrillation and/or Venous Thromboembolic Disease

Introduction: The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) including apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban are increasingly utilized for the management of venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) and/or non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Adding aspirin (ASA) to warfarin or DOAC therapy increases bleeding risk. Patients on combination therapy with ASA and an anticoagulant were not well represented in clinical trials comparing DOACs to warfarin. We sought to compare bleeding and thrombotic outcomes with DOACs and ASA compared to warfarin and ASA in a non-trial setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective registry-based cohort study of adults on DOAC or warfarin therapy for VTE and/or NVAF. Warfarin treated patients were followed by six anticoagulation clinics. Four out of the six clinics contributed data on their patients that were on DOACs in the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI 2) from January 2009 to June 2021. Patients were excluded if they had a history of heart valve replacement, recent myocardial infarction, or less than 3 months of follow-up. Two propensity matched cohorts (warfarin+ASA vs DOAC+ASA) of patients were analyzed based on ASA use at the time of study enrollment. The primary outcome was any new bleeding event. Secondary outcomes included new episodes of arterial or venous thrombosis, bleeding event type (major, fatal, life threatening, central nervous system, and non-major bleeding), emergency room visits, hospitalizations, transfusions, and death. Random chart audits were done to confirm the accuracy of the abstracted data. Event rates were compared using Poisson regression. Results: We identified a total of 1,139 patients on DOACs plus ASA and 4,422 patients on warfarin plus ASA. After propensity matching, we compared two groups of 1,114 matched patients. DOAC treated patients were predominately on apixaban (62.3%) and rivaroxaban (30.4%), most often at therapeutic doses (Table 1). Patients were largely (90.5%) on low dose ASA (≤ 100 mg). Patient demographics, co-morbidities, indication for anticoagulation, history of bleeding or clotting, medications, and duration of follow-up were well-balanced after matching. Patients were followed for a median of 11.7 months (interquartile range 4.4 and 34 months). Patients treated with DOAC+ASA had 2.4 thrombotic events per 100 patient years compared to 2.2 thrombotic events per 100 patient years with warfarin+ASA (P=0.78). There were no significant differences observed between groups by thrombotic subtype (stroke, transient ischemic attack, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, table 1). Bleeding was also similar with 30.1 bleeding events per 100 patient years with DOAC+ASA compared to 27.8 bleeds per 100 patient years with warfarin+ASA (P=0.24). There were no significant differences by bleeding subtype (table 1). Hospitalizations for clotting occurred less frequently with DOAC+ASA (0.9 hospitalizations per 100 patient years) compared to warfarin+ASA (1.7 hospitalizations per 100 patient years, P=0.03). Mortality, transfusions, and healthcare utilization were otherwise similar between the two groups. Conclusions: For patients on a DOAC versus warfarin with ASA for atrial fibrillation and/or venous thromboembolic disease without a recent myocardial infarction or heart valve replacement, bleeding and thrombotic outcomes were similar

ISTH guidelines for antithrombotic treatment in COVID-19

Antithrombotic agents reduce risk of thromboembolism in severely ill patients. Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may realize additional benefits from heparins. Optimal dosing and timing of these treatments and benefits of other antithrombotic agents remain unclear. In October 2021, ISTH assembled an international panel of content experts, patient representatives, and a methodologist to develop recommendations on anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents for patients with COVID-19 in different clinical settings. We used the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association methodology to assess level of evidence (LOE) and class of recommendation (COR). Only recommendations with LOE A or B were included. Panelists agreed on 12 recommendations: three for non-hospitalized, five for non-critically ill hospitalized, three for critically ill hospitalized, and one for post-discharge patients. Two recommendations were based on high-quality evidence, the remainder on moderate-quality evidence. Among non-critically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19, the panel gave a strong recommendation (a) for use of prophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin or unfractionated heparin (LMWH/UFH) (COR 1); (b) for select patients in this group, use of therapeutic dose LMWH/UFH in preference to prophylactic dose (COR 1); but (c) against the addition of an antiplatelet agent (COR 3). Weak recommendations favored (a) sulodexide in non-hospitalized patients, (b) adding an antiplatelet agent to prophylactic LMWH/UFH in select critically ill, and (c) prophylactic rivaroxaban for select patients after discharge (all COR 2b). Recommendations in this guideline are based on high-/moderate-quality evidence available through March 2022. Focused updates will incorporate future evidence supporting changes to these recommendations

Adverse Events Associated With the Addition of Aspirin to Direct Oral Anticoagulant Therapy Without a Clear Indication

Importance: It is unclear how many patients treated with a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) are using concomitant acetylsalicylic acid (ASA, or aspirin) and how this affects clinical outcomes. Objective: To evaluate the frequency and outcomes of prescription of concomitant ASA and DOAC therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). Design, Setting, and Participants: This registry-based cohort study took place at 4 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan from January 2015 to December 2019. Eligible participants were adults undergoing treatment with a DOAC for AF or VTE, without a recent myocardial infarction (MI) or history of heart valve replacement, with at least 3 months of follow-up. Exposures: Use of ASA concomitant with DOAC therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of bleeding (any, nonmajor, major), rates of thrombosis (stroke, VTE, MI), emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and death. Results: Of the study cohort of 3280 patients (1673 [51.0%] men; mean [SD] age 68.2 [13.3] years), 1107 (33.8%) patients without a clear indication for ASA were being treated with DOACs and ASA. Two propensity score-matched cohorts, each with 1047 patients, were analyzed (DOAC plus ASA and DOAC only). Patients were followed up for a mean (SD) of 20.9 (19.0) months. Patients taking DOAC and ASA experienced more bleeding events compared with DOAC monotherapy (26.0 bleeds vs 31.6 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .01). Specifically, patients undergoing combination therapy had significantly higher rates of nonmajor bleeding (26.1 bleeds vs 21.7 bleeds per 100 patient years, P = .02) compared with DOAC monotherapy. Major bleeding rates were similar between the 2 cohorts. Thrombotic event rates were also similar between the cohorts (2.5 events vs 2.3 events per 100 patient years for patients treated with DOAC and ASA compared with DOAC monotherapy, P = .80). Patients were more often hospitalized while undergoing combination therapy (9.1 vs 6.5 admissions per 100 patient years, P = .02). Conclusion and Relevance: Nearly one-third of patients with AF and/or VTE who were treated with a DOAC received ASA without a clear indication. Compared with DOAC monotherapy, concurrent DOAC and ASA use was associated with increased bleeding and hospitalizations but similar observed thrombosis rate. Future research should identify and deprescribe ASA for patients when the risk exceeds the anticipated benefit

Edoxaban: an update on the new oral direct factor Xa inhibitor.

Edoxaban is a once-daily oral anticoagulant that rapidly and selectively inhibits factor Xa in a concentration-dependent manner. This review describes the extensive clinical development program of edoxaban, including phase III studies in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) and symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE). The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 study (N = 21,105; mean CHADS2 score 2.8) compared edoxaban 60 mg once daily (high-dose regimen) and edoxaban 30 mg once daily (low-dose regimen) with dose-adjusted warfarin [international normalized ratio (INR) 2.0-3.0] and found that both regimens were non-inferior to warfarin in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with NVAF. Both edoxaban regimens also provided significant reductions in the risk of hemorrhagic stroke, cardiovascular mortality, major bleeding and intracranial bleeding. The Hokusai-VTE study (N = 8,292) in patients with symptomatic VTE had a flexible treatment duration of 3-12 months and found that following initial heparin, edoxaban 60 mg once daily was non-inferior to dose-adjusted warfarin (INR 2.0-3.0) for the prevention of recurrent VTE, and also had a significantly lower risk of bleeding events. Both studies randomized patients at moderate-to-high risk of thromboembolic events and were further designed to simulate routine clinical practice as much as possible, with edoxaban dose reduction (halving dose) at randomisation or during the study if required, a frequently monitored and well-controlled warfarin group, a well-monitored transition period at study end and a flexible treatment duration in Hokusai-VTE. Given the phase III results obtained, once-daily edoxaban may soon be a key addition to the range of antithrombotic treatment options