Modelling the impact of toxic and disturbance stress on white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla) populations

Several studies have related breeding success and survival of sea eagles to toxic or non-toxic stress separately. In the present investigation, we analysed single and combined impacts of both toxic and disturbance stress on populations of white-tailed eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla), using an analytical single-species model. Chemical and eco(toxico)logical data reported from laboratory and field studies were used to parameterise and validate the model. The model was applied to assess the impact of ∑PCB, DDE and disturbance stress on the white-tailed eagle population in The Netherlands. Disturbance stress was incorporated through a 1.6% reduction in survival and a 10–50% reduction in reproduction. ∑PCB contamination from 1950 up to 1987 was found to be too high to allow the return of white-tailed eagle as a breeding species in that period. ∑PCB and population trends simulated for 2006–2050 suggest that future population growth is still reduced. Disturbance stress resulted in a reduced population development. The combination of both toxic and disturbance stress varied from a slower population development to a catastrophical reduction in population size, where the main cause was attributed to the reduction in reproduction of 50%. Application of the model was restricted by the current lack of quantitative dose–response relationships between non-toxic stress and survival and reproduction. Nevertheless, the model provides a first step towards integrating and quantifying the impacts of multiple stressors on white-tailed eagle populations

Cancer Prevention with Resistant Starch in Lynch Syndrome Patients in the CAPP2-Randomized Placebo Controlled Trial : Planned 10-Year Follow-up

The CAPP2 trial investigated the long-term effects of aspirin and resistant starch on cancer incidence in patients with Lynch syndrome (LS). Participants with LS were randomized double-blind to 30 g resistant starch (RS) daily or placebo for up to 4 years. We present long-term cancer outcomes based on the planned 10-year follow-up from recruitment, supplemented by National Cancer Registry data to 20 years in England, Wales, and Finland. Overall, 463 participants received RS and 455 participants received placebo. After up to 20 years follow-up, there was no difference in colorectal cancer incidence (n = 52 diagnosed with colorectal cancer among those randomized to RS against n = 53 on placebo) but fewer participants had non-colorectal LS cancers in those randomized to RS (n = 27) compared with placebo (n = 48); intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis [HR, 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33–0.86; P = 0.010]. In ITT analysis, allowing for multiple primary cancer diagnoses among participants by calculating incidence rate ratios (IRR) confirmed the protective effect of RS against non–colorectal cancer LS cancers (IRR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.32–0.84; P = 0.0075). These effects are particularly pronounced for cancers of the upper GI tract; 5 diagnoses in those on RS versus 21 diagnoses on placebo. The reduction in non–colorectal cancer LS cancers was detectable in the first 10 years and continued in the next decade. For colorectal cancer, ITT analysis showed no effect of RS on colorectal cancer risk (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.62–1.34; P = 0.63). There was no interaction between aspirin and RS treatments. In conclusion, 30 g daily RS appears to have a substantial protective effect against non–colorectal cancer cancers for patients with LS. Prevention Relevance: Regular bowel screening and aspirin reduce colorectal cancer among patients with LS but extracolonic cancers are difficult to detect and manage. This study suggests that RS reduces morbidity associated with extracolonic cancers.peerReviewe

Cancer prevention with aspirin in hereditary colorectal cancer (Lynch syndrome), 10-year follow-up and registry-based 20-year data in the CAPP2 study: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Lynch syndrome is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer and with a broader spectrum of cancers, especially endometrial cancer. In 2011, our group reported long-term cancer outcomes (mean follow-up 55·7 months [SD 31·4]) for participants with Lynch syndrome enrolled into a randomised trial of daily aspirin versus placebo. This report completes the planned 10-year follow-up to allow a longer-term assessment of the effect of taking regular aspirin in this high-risk population. Methods: In the double-blind, randomised CAPP2 trial, 861 patients from 43 international centres worldwide (707 [82%] from Europe, 112 [13%] from Australasia, 38 [4%] from Africa, and four [&lt;1%] from The Americas) with Lynch syndrome were randomly assigned to receive 600 mg aspirin daily or placebo. Cancer outcomes were monitored for at least 10 years from recruitment with English, Finnish, and Welsh participants being monitored for up to 20 years. The primary endpoint was development of colorectal cancer. Analysis was by intention to treat and per protocol. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN59521990. Findings: Between January, 1999, and March, 2005, 937 eligible patients with Lynch syndrome, mean age 45 years, commenced treatment, of whom 861 agreed to be randomly assigned to the aspirin group or placebo; 427 (50%) participants received aspirin and 434 (50%) placebo. Participants were followed for a mean of 10 years approximating 8500 person-years. 40 (9%) of 427 participants who received aspirin developed colorectal cancer compared with 58 (13%) of 434 who received placebo. Intention-to-treat Cox proportional hazards analysis revealed a significantly reduced hazard ratio (HR) of 0·65 (95% CI 0·43–0·97; p=0·035) for aspirin versus placebo. Negative binomial regression to account for multiple primary events gave an incidence rate ratio of 0·58 (0·39–0·87; p=0·0085). Per-protocol analyses restricted to 509 who achieved 2 years' intervention gave an HR of 0·56 (0·34–0·91; p=0·019) and an incidence rate ratio of 0·50 (0·31–0·82; p=0·0057). Non-colorectal Lynch syndrome cancers were reported in 36 participants who received aspirin and 36 participants who received placebo. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses showed no effect. For all Lynch syndrome cancers combined, the intention-to-treat analysis did not reach significance but per-protocol analysis showed significantly reduced overall risk for the aspirin group (HR=0·63, 0·43–0·92; p=0·018). Adverse events during the intervention phase between aspirin and placebo groups were similar, and no significant difference in compliance between intervention groups was observed for participants with complete intervention phase data; details reported previously. Interpretation: The case for prevention of colorectal cancer with aspirin in Lynch syndrome is supported by our results. Funding: Cancer Research UK, European Union, MRC, NIHR, Bayer Pharma AG, Barbour Foundation.</p

Analgesic use by ageing and elderly patients with chronic non-malignant pain: a qualitative study

Background: Analgesics are used in the management of chronic non-malignant pain (CNMP), a condition which is highly prevalent among older adults. CNMP may not only be physically distressing but also complicated by psychosocial and economic factors. An individual’s perception and use of analgesics may be influenced by a range of factors such as perceptions of risk or benefits, ability to purchase medication or access to non-pharmacological therapies or specialist care. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe the perceptions and experiences of analgesics by ageing and elderly individuals with CNMP and identify factors that influence their use. Setting: Telephone interviews with 28 members of Chronic Pain Ireland aged ≥50. Method: In-depth semi-structured interviews; audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Main outcome measure Experiences and perceptions of ageing and elderly individuals with CNMP taking analgesics. Results: A combination of factors specific to the patient and arising from outside influences informed perceptions and experiences of analgesics. Pain severity, perceived efficacy of analgesics, occurrence of adverse-effects and concerns about addiction/dependence were identified as internal factors influencing medication use. External factors included views of family members, access to specialised care and the individual’s interaction with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Conclusion: Individuals with CNMP regard analgesics as an important method for managing pain and are relied upon when other interventions are difficult to access. HCPs in primary care, who are the main point of contact for patients, need to take into account the various factors that may influence analgesic use when consulting with this patient group