Statement of the Third International Exercise-Associated Hyponatremia Consensus Development Conference, Carlsbad, California, 2015

The third International Exercise-Associated Hyponatremia (EAH) Consensus Development Conference convened in Carlsbad, California in February 2015 with a panel of 17 international experts. The delegates represented 4 countries and 9 medical and scientific sub-specialties pertaining to athletic training, exercise physiology, sports medicine, water/sodium metabolism, and body fluid homeostasis. The primary goal of the panel was to review the existing data on EAH and update the 2008 Consensus Statement.1 This document serves to replace the second International EAH Consensus Development Conference Statement and launch an educational campaign designed to address the morbidity and mortality associated with a preventable and treatable fluid imbalance. The following statement is a summary of the data synthesized by the 2015 EAH Consensus Panel and represents an evolution of the most current knowledge on EAH. This document will summarize the most current information on the prevalence, etiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of EAH for medical personnel, athletes, athletic trainers, and the greater public. The EAH Consensus Panel strove to clearly articulate what we agreed upon, did not agree upon, and did not know, including minority viewpoints that were supported by clinical experience and experimental data. Further updates will be necessary to both: (1) remain current with our understanding and (2) critically assess the effectiveness of our present recommendations. Suggestions for future research and educational strategies to reduce the incidence and prevalence of EAH are provided at the end of the document as well as areas of controversy that remain in this topic. [excerpt

Biologic Responders and Super-responders in the International Severe Asthma Registry

Peer reviewe

Comparative effectiveness of Anti-IL5 and Anti-IgE biologic classes in patients with severe asthma eligible for both.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe asthma may present with characteristics representing overlapping phenotypes, making them eligible for more than one class of biologic. Our aim was to describe the profile of adult patients with severe asthma eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R and to compare the effectiveness of both classes of treatment in real life. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study that included adult patients with severe asthma from 22 countries enrolled into the International Severe Asthma registry (ISAR) who were eligible for both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R. The effectiveness of anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R was compared in a 1:1 matched cohort. Exacerbation rate was the primary effectiveness endpoint. Secondary endpoints included long-term-oral corticosteroid (LTOCS) use, asthma-related emergency room (ER) attendance, and hospital admissions. RESULTS: In the matched analysis (n = 350/group), the mean annualized exacerbation rate decreased by 47.1% in the anti-IL5/5R group and 38.7% in the anti-IgE group. Patients treated with anti-IL5/5R were less likely to experience a future exacerbation (adjusted IRR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64, 0.89; p < 0.001) and experienced a greater reduction in mean LTOCS dose than those treated with anti-IgE (37.44% vs. 20.55% reduction; p = 0.023). There was some evidence to suggest that patients treated with anti-IL5/5R experienced fewer asthma-related hospitalizations (IRR 0.64; 95% CI 0.38, 1.08), but not ER visits (IRR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61, 1.43). CONCLUSIONS: In real life, both anti-IgE and anti-IL5/5R improve asthma outcomes in patients eligible for both biologic classes; however, anti-IL5/5R was superior in terms of reducing asthma exacerbations and LTOCS use

Association between T2-related co-morbidities and effectiveness of biologics in severe asthma

Acknowledgments The authors thank Mr. Joash Tan (BSc, Hons), of the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI), and Ms Andrea Lim (BSc, Hons) of the Observational Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) for their editorial and formatting assistance that supported the development of this publication. Funding statement: This study was conducted by the Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute (OPRI) Pte Ltd and was partially funded by Optimum Patient Care Global and AstraZeneca Ltd. AstraZeneca UK LimitedPeer reviewe

Guinea pig models for translation of the developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis into the clinic

Over 30 years ago Professor David Barker first proposed the theory that events in early life could explain an individual\u27s risk of non-communicable disease in later life: the developmental origins of health and disease (DOHaD) hypothesis. During the 1990s the validity of the DOHaD hypothesis was extensively tested in a number of human populations and the mechanisms underpinning it characterised in a range of experimental animal models. Over the past decade, researchers have sought to use this mechanistic understanding of DOHaD to develop therapeutic interventions during pregnancy and early life to improve adult health. A variety of animal models have been used to develop and evaluate interventions, each with strengths and limitations. It is becoming apparent that effective translational research requires that the animal paradigm selected mirrors the tempo of human fetal growth and development as closely as possible so that the effect of a perinatal insult and/or therapeutic intervention can be fully assessed. The guinea pig is one such animal model that over the past two decades has demonstrated itself to be a very useful platform for these important reproductive studies. This review highlights similarities in the in utero development between humans and guinea pigs, the strengths and limitations of the guinea pig as an experimental model of DOHaD and the guinea pig\u27s potential to enhance clinical therapeutic innovation to improve human health. (Figure presented.)

Recommendations for active correction of hypernatremia in volume-resuscitated shock or sepsis patients should be taken with a grain of salt: A systematic review

Background: Healthcare-acquired hypernatremia (serum sodium >145 mEq/dL) is common among critically ill and other hospitalized patients and is usually treated with hypotonic fluid and/or diuretics to correct a “free water deficit.� However, many hypernatremic patients are eu- or hypervolemic, and an evolving body of literature emphasizes the importance of rapidly returning critically ill patients to a neutral fluid balance after resuscitation. Objective: We searched for any randomized- or observational-controlled studies evaluating the impact of active interventions intended to correct hypernatremia to eunatremia on any outcome in volume-resuscitated patients with shock and/or sepsis. Data sources: We performed a systematic literature search with studies identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, IndexCatalogue of the Library of the Surgeon General’s Office, DARE (Database of Reviews of Effects), and CINAHL and scanning reference lists of relevant articles with abstracts published in English. Data synthesis: We found no randomized- or observational-controlled trials measuring the impact of active correction of hypernatremia on any outcome in resuscitated patients. Conclusion: Recommendations for active correction of hypernatremia in resuscitated patients with sepsis or shock are unsupported by clinical research acceptable by modern evidence standards.ECU Open Access Publishing Support Fun

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe