Reef Life Survey: Establishing the ecological basis for conservation of shallow marine life

Este artículo contiene 14 páginas, 7 figuras.Reef Life Survey (RLS) provides a new model for ecological monitoring through training experienced recreational divers in underwater visual census methods to the level of skilled scientists. Detail produced is similar to that of programs with professional scientific teams, at low cost to allow global coverage. RLS differs from most other citizen science initiatives in its emphasis on rigorous training and data quality rather than open participation, selectively involving the most skilled and committed members. Volunteers participate primarily because they appreciate the close relationship with scientists, other divers, and managers, and see their efforts directly contributing to improved environmental outcomes. RLS works closely with Australian management agencies, scheduling annual events at core monitoring sites associated with 10 inshore marine protected areas Australiawide. Surveys of 12 offshore Australian Marine Parks (AMPs) are realized through 2–4 week voyages in a sailing catamaran crewed by volunteers. Across the AMP network, RLS surveys have quantified densities of fishes, mobile invertebrates, macroalgae and corals at 350 shallow coral reef sites (180 sites surveyed on two or more occasions), providing an understanding of (i) population changes amongst threatened species including sea snakes, (ii) responses of fish and invertebrate populations following fisheries closures, (iii) ecosystem-wide impacts of marine heat-waves, and (iv) the extent that AMPs spanning the network comprehensively encompass national coral reef biodiversity. This scientist/volunteer/manager collaboration could be greatly expanded globally (presently 3537 sites in 53 countries).Reef Life Survey Foundation has been sustained through grants from the Ian Potter Foundation and Minderoo Foundation, reporting contracts from Parks Australia, and administrative and analytical support from the University of Tasmania. The RLS program was established through a grant to GJE through the former Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities Program. Analyses were supported by the Australian Research Council and the Marine Biodiversity Hub, a collaborative partnership supported through the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program. Additional advice and assistance have been provided by the Department for Environment and Water (South Australia), Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (Tasmania), Department of Primary Industries (New South Wales), Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (Western Australia), and Parks Victoria. Data management and distribution is supported through the Integrated Marine Observing System.Peer reviewe

Respiratory Medications in Infants <29 Weeks during the First Year Postdischarge: The Prematurity and Respiratory Outcomes Program (PROP) Consortium

ObjectiveTo determine patterns of respiratory medications used in neonatal intensive care unit graduates.Study designThe Prematurity Respiratory Outcomes Program enrolled 835 babies <29 weeks of gestation in the first week. Of 751 survivors, 738 (98%) completed at least 1, and 85% completed all 4, postdischarge medication usage in-person/telephone parental questionnaires requested at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of corrected age. Respiratory drug usage over the first year of life after in neonatal intensive care unit discharge was analyzed.ResultsDuring any given quarter, 66%-75% of the babies received no respiratory medication and 45% of the infants received no respiratory drug over the first year. The most common postdischarge medication was the inhaled bronchodilator albuterol; its use increased significantly from 13% to 31%. Diuretic usage decreased significantly from 11% to 2% over the first year. Systemic steroids (prednisone, most commonly) were used in approximately 5% of subjects in any one quarter. Inhaled steroids significantly increased over the first year from 9% to 14% at 12 months. Drug exposure changed significantly based on gestational age with 72% of babies born at 23-24 weeks receiving at least 1 respiratory medication but only 40% of babies born at 28 weeks. Overall, at some time in the first year, 55% of infants received at least 1 drug including an inhaled bronchodilator (45%), an inhaled steroid (22%), a systemic steroid (15%), or diuretic (12%).ConclusionMany babies born at <29 weeks have no respiratory medication exposure postdischarge during the first year of life. Inhaled medications, including bronchodilators and steroids, increase over the first year

Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia and Perinatal Characteristics Predict 1-Year Respiratory Outcomes in Newborns Born at Extremely Low Gestational Age: A Prospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE:To assess the utility of clinical predictors of persistent respiratory morbidity in extremely low gestational age newborns (ELGANs). STUDY DESIGN:We enrolled ELGANs (<29 weeks' gestation) at ≤7 postnatal days and collected antenatal and neonatal clinical data through 36 weeks' postmenstrual age. We surveyed caregivers at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months' corrected age to identify postdischarge respiratory morbidity, defined as hospitalization, home support (oxygen, tracheostomy, ventilation), medications, or symptoms (cough/wheeze). Infants were classified as having postprematurity respiratory disease (PRD, the primary study outcome) if respiratory morbidity persisted over ≥2 questionnaires. Infants were classified with severe respiratory morbidity if there were multiple hospitalizations, exposure to systemic steroids or pulmonary vasodilators, home oxygen after 3 months or mechanical ventilation, or symptoms despite inhaled corticosteroids. Mixed-effects models generated with data available at 1 day (perinatal) and 36 weeks' postmenstrual age were assessed for predictive accuracy. RESULTS:Of 724 infants (918 ± 234 g, 26.7 ± 1.4 weeks' gestational age) classified for the primary outcome, 68.6% had PRD; 245 of 704 (34.8%) were classified as severe. Male sex, intrauterine growth restriction, maternal smoking, race/ethnicity, intubation at birth, and public insurance were retained in perinatal and 36-week models for both PRD and respiratory morbidity severity. The perinatal model accurately predicted PRD (c-statistic 0.858). Neither the 36-week model nor the addition of bronchopulmonary dysplasia to the perinatal model improved accuracy (0.856, 0.860); c-statistic for BPD alone was 0.907. CONCLUSION:Both bronchopulmonary dysplasia and perinatal clinical data accurately identify ELGANs at risk for persistent and severe respiratory morbidity at 1 year. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01435187

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health