A MICROCOMPUTER MODEL FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM EVALUATION

ICEASE (Irrigation Cost Estimator and System Evaluator) is a microcomputer model designed and developed to meet the need for conducting economic evaluation of adjustments to irrigation systems and management techniques to improve the use of irrigated water. ICEASE can calculate the annual operating costs for irrigation systems and has five options that can be used to economically evaluate improvements in the pumping plant or the way the irrigation system is used for crop production.Crop Production/Industries,

Addendum to “on the measurability of a function which occurs in a paper by A. C. Zaanen”

Current guidelines discourage combined oral contraceptive (COC) use in women with hereditary thrombophilic defects. However, qualifying all hereditary thrombophilic defects as similarly strong risk factors might be questioned. Recent studies indicate the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of a factor V Leiden mutation as considerably lower than a deficiency of protein C, protein S, or antithrombin. In a retrospective family cohort, the VTE risk during COC use and pregnancy (including postpartum) was assessed in 798 female relatives with or without a heterozygous, double heterozygous, or homozygous factor V Leiden or prothrombin G20210A mutation. Overall, absolute VTE risk in women with no, single, or combined defects was 0.13 (95% confidence interval 0.08-0.21), 0.35 (0.22-0.53), and 0.94 (0.47-1.67) per 100 person-years, while these were 0.19 (0.07-0.41), 0.49 (0.18-1.07), and 0.86 (0.10-3.11) during COC use, and 0.73 (0.30-1.51), 1.97 (0.94-3.63), and 7.65 (3.08-15.76) during pregnancy. COC use and pregnancy were independent risk factors for VTE, with highest risk during pregnancy postpartum, as demonstrated by adjusted hazard ratios of 16.0 (8.0-32.2) versus 2.2 (1.1-4.0) during COC use. Rather than strictly contraindicating COC use, we advocate that detailed counseling on all contraceptive options, including COCs, addressing the associated risks of both VTE and unintended pregnancy, enabling these women to make an informed choice. (Blood. 2011;118(8):2055-2061

Characterization of AIM2 DNA-Binding Properties and Filament Formation

High levels of thrombin-activatable fibrinolysis inhibitor (TAFI) are a supposed risk factor for thrombosis. However, results from previous studies are conflicting.We assessed the absolute risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in subjects with high TAFI levels (> 126 U/dl) versus subjects with normal levels, and the contribution of other concomitant thrombophilic defects. Relatives from four identical cohort studies in families with either deficiencies of antithrombin, protein C or protein S, prothrombin 202 1 OA, high factorVIII levels, or hyperhomocysteinemia were pooled. Probands were excluded. Of 1,940 relatives, 187 had high TAR levels. Annual incidences of venous thromboembolism were 0.23% in relatives with highTAFI levels versus 0.26% in relatives with normal TAFI levels (adjusted relative risk [RR] 0.8; 95% confidence interval [0], 0.5-1.3). For arterial thrombosis these were 0.3 1 % versus 0.23% (adjusted RR 1.4; 95% Cl, 0.9-2.2). High levels of factor VIII, IX and XI were observed more frequently in relatives with high TAR levels. Only high factor VIII levels were associated with an increased risk of venous and arterial thrombosis, independently of TAR levels. None of these concomitant defects showed interaction with high TAR levels. High TAR levels were not associated with an increased risk of venous and arterial thromboembolism in thrombophilic families

Apixaban for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism

Background: Apixaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor that can be administered in a simple, fixed-dose regimen, may be an option for the extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. Methods: in this randomized, double-blind study, we compared two doses of apixaban (2.5 mg and 5 mg, twice daily) with placebo in patients with venous thromboembolism who had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy and for whom there was clinical equipoise regarding the continuation or cessation of anticoagulation therapy. The study drugs were administered for 12 months. Results: a total of 2486 patients underwent randomization, of whom 2482 were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism or death from venous thromboembolism occurred in 73 of the 829 patients (8.8%) who were receiving placebo, as compared with 14 of the 840 patients (1.7%) who were receiving 2.5 mg of apixaban (a difference of 7.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.0 to 9.3) and 14 of the 813 patients (1.7%) who were receiving 5 mg of apixaban (a difference of 7.0 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.9 to 9.1) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The rates of major bleeding were 0.5% in the placebo group, 0.2% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 0.1% in the 5-mg apixaban group. The rates of clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 2.3% in the placebo group, 3.0% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 4.2% in the 5-mg apixaban group. The rate of death from any cause was 1.7% in the placebo group, as compared with 0.8% in the 2.5-mg apixaban group and 0.5% in the 5-mg apixaban group. Conclusions: extended anticoagulation with apixaban at either a treatment dose (5 mg) or a thromboprophylactic dose (2.5 mg) reduced the risk of recurrent venous thromboembolism without increasing the rate of major bleeding. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer; AMPLIFY-EXT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00633893)

The Khorana score for prediction of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients:a systematic review and meta-analysis

We aimed to evaluate the performance of the Khorana score in predicting venous thromboembolic events in ambulatory cancer patients. Embase and MEDLINE were searched from January 2008 to June 2018 for studies which evaluated the Khorana score. Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Additional data on the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism were sought by contacting corresponding authors. The incidence in each Khorana score risk group was estimated with random effects meta-analysis. A total of 45 articles and eight abstracts were included, comprising 55 cohorts enrolling 34,555 ambulatory cancer patients. For 27,849 patients (81%), 6-month follow-up data were obtained. Overall, 19% of patients had a Khorana score of 0 points, 64% a score of 1 or 2 points, and 17% a score of 3 or more points. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in the first six months was 5.0% (95% CI: 3.9-6.5) in patients with a low-risk Khorana score (0 points), 6.6% (95% CI: 5.6-7.7) in those with an intermediate-risk Khorana score (1 or 2 points), and 11.0% (95% CI: 8.8-13.8) in those with a high-risk Khorana score (3 points or higher). Of the patients with venous thromboembolism in the first six months, 23.4% (95% CI: 18.4-29.4) had been classified as high risk according to the Khorana score. In conclusion, the Khorana score can be used to select ambulatory cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism for thromboprophylaxis; however, most events occur outside this high-risk group

Comparison of risk prediction scores for venous thromboembolism in cancer patients:A prospective cohort study

In ambulatory patients with solid cancer, routine thromboprophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is not recommended. Several risk prediction scores to identify cancer patients at high risk of venous thromboembolism have been proposed, but their clinical usefulness remains a matter of debate. We evaluated and directly compared the performance of the Khorana, Vienna, PROTECHT, and CONKO scores in a multinational, prospective cohort study. Patients with advanced cancer were eligible if they were due to undergo chemotherapy or had started chemotherapy in the previous three months. The primary outcome was objectively confirmed symptomatic or incidental deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during a 6-month followup period. A total of 876 patients were enrolled, of whom 260 (30%) had not yet received chemotherapy. Fifty-three patients (6.1%) developed venous thromboembolism. The c-statistics of the scores ranged from 0.50 to 0.57. At the conventional positivity threshold of 3 points, the scores classified 13-34% of patients as high-risk; the 6-month incidence of venous thromboembolism in these patients ranged from 6.5% (95% CI: 2.8-12) for the Khorana score to 9.6% (95% CI: 6.6-13) for the PROTECHT score. High-risk patients had a significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism when using the Vienna (subhazard ratio 1.7; 95% CI: 1.0-3.1) or PROTECHT (subhazard ratio 2.1; 95% CI: 1.23.6) scores. In conclusion, the prediction scores performed poorly in predicting venous thromboembolism in cancer patients. The Vienna CATS and PROTECHT scores appear to discriminate better between low-and high-risk patients, but further improvements are needed before they can be considered for introduction into clinical practice

Excluding pulmonary embolism in primary care using the Wells-rule in combination with a point-of care D-dimer test: a scenario analysis

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In secondary care the Wells clinical decision rule (CDR) combined with a quantitative D-dimer test can exclude pulmonary embolism (PE) safely. The introduction of point-of-care (POC) D-dimer tests facilitates a similar diagnostic strategy in primary care. We estimated failure-rate and efficiency of a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a POC-D-dimer test for excluding PE in primary care. We considered ruling out PE safe if the failure rate was <2% with a maximum upper confidence limit of 2.7%. METHODS: We performed a scenario-analysis on data of 2701 outpatients suspected of PE. We used test characteristics of two qualitative POC-D-dimer tests, as derived from a meta-analysis and combined these with the Wells-CDR-score. RESULTS: In scenario 1 (SimpliRed-D-dimer sensitivity 85%, specificity 74%) PE was excluded safely in 23.8% of patients but only by lowering the cut-off value of the Wells rule to <2. (failure rate: 1.4%, 95% CI 0.6-2.6%) In scenario 2 (Simplify-D-dimer sensitivity 87%, specificity 62%) PE was excluded safely in 12.4% of patients provided that the Wells-cut-off value was set at 0. (failure rate: 0.9%, 95% CI 0.2-2.6%) CONCLUSION: Theoretically a diagnostic strategy using the Wells-CDR combined with a qualitative POC-D-dimer test can be used safely to exclude PE in primary care albeit with only moderate efficienc

Direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an emerging treatment option for cancer patients with acute venous thromboembolism (VTE), but studies have reported inconsistent results. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of DOACs and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) in these patients. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and conference proceedings were searched to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Additional data were obtained from the original authors to homogenize definitions for all study outcomes. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were recurrent VTE and major bleeding, respectively. Other outcomes included the composite of recurrent VTE and major bleeding, clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and all-cause mortality. Summary relative risks (RR) were calculated in a random effects meta-analysis. In the primary analysis comprising 2,607 patients, the risk of recurrent VTE was non-significantly lower with DOACs than with LMWH (RR 0.68; 95% CI, 0.39 to 1.17). Conversely, the risks of major bleeding (RR 1.36; 95% CI, 0.55 to 3.35) and CRNMB (RR 1.63, 95%, 0.73 to 3.64) were non-significantly higher. The risk of the composite of recurrent VTE or major bleeding was non-significantly lower with DOACs than with LMWH (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.23). Mortality was comparable in both groups (RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.36). Findings were consistent during the on-treatment period and in those with incidental VTE. In conclusion, DOACs are an effective treatment option for cancer patients with acute VTE, although caution is needed in patients at high risk of bleeding. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2020 American Society of Hematology.