Energy cost and return for hunting in African wild dogs and Cheetahs

African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) are reported to hunt with energetically costly long chase distances. We used high-resolution GPS and inertial technology to record 1,119 high-speed chases of all members of a pack of six adult African wild dogs in northern Botswana. Dogs performed multiple short, high-speed, mostly unsuccessful chases to capture prey, while cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus) undertook even shorter, higher-speed hunts. We used an energy balance model to show that the energy return from group hunting and feeding substantially outweighs the cost of multiple short chases, which indicates that African wild dogs are more energetically robust than previously believed. Comparison with cheetah illustrates the trade-off between sheer athleticism and high individual kill rate characteristic of cheetahs, and the energetic robustness of frequent opportunistic group hunting and feeding by African wild dogs

CLEAR – clozapine in early psychosis: study protocol for a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of clozapine vs other antipsychotics for young people with treatment resistant schizophrenia in real world settings

Background: Clozapine is an antipsychotic drug with unique efficacy, and it is the only recommended treatment for treatment-resistant schizophrenia (TRS: failure to respond to at least two different antipsychotics). However, clozapine is also associated with a range of adverse effects which restrict its use, including blood dyscrasias, for which haematological monitoring is required. As treatment resistance is recognised earlier in the illness, the question of whether clozapine should be prescribed in children and young people is increasingly important. However, most research to date has been in older, chronic patients, and evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of clozapine in people under age 25 is lacking. The CLEAR (CLozapine in EARly psychosis) trial will assess whether clozapine is more effective than treatment as usual (TAU), at the level of clinical symptoms, patient rated outcomes, quality of life and cost-effectiveness in people below 25 years of age. Additionally, a nested biomarker study will investigate the mechanisms of action of clozapine compared to TAU. // Methods and design: This is the protocol of a multi-centre, open label, blind-rated, randomised controlled effectiveness trial of clozapine vs TAU (any other oral antipsychotic monotherapy licenced in the British National Formulary) for 12 weeks in 260 children and young people with TRS (12–24 years old). // Aim and objectives: The primary outcome is the change in blind-rated Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale scores at 12 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include blind-rated Clinical Global Impression, patient-rated outcomes, quality of life, adverse effects, and treatment adherence. Patients will be followed up for 12 months and will be invited to give consent for longer term follow-up using clinical records and potential re-contact for further research. For mechanism of action, change in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) biomarkers and peripheral inflammatory markers will be measured over 12 weeks. // Discussion: The CLEAR trial will contribute knowledge on clozapine effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness compared to standard antipsychotics in young people with TRS, and the results may guide future clinical treatment recommendation for early psychosis. // Trial registration: ISRCTN Number: 37176025, IRAS Number: 1004947. // Trial status: In set-up. Protocol version 4.0 01/08/23. Current up to date protocol available here: https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR131175#/

Rationale and design for SHAREHD: a quality improvement collaborative to scale up Shared Haemodialysis Care for patients on centre based haemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: The study objective is to assess the effectiveness and economic impact of a structured programme to support patient involvement in centre-based haemodialysis and to understand what works for whom in what circumstances and why. It implements a program of Shared Haemodialysis Care (SHC) that aims to improve experience and outcomes for those who are treated with centre-based haemodialysis, and give more patients the confidence to dialyse independently both at centres and at home. METHODS/DESIGN: The 24 month mixed methods cohort evaluation of 600 prevalent centre based HD patients is nested within a 30 month quality improvement program that aims to scale up SHC at 12 dialysis centres across England. SHC describes an intervention where patients who receive centre-based haemodialysis are given the opportunity to learn, engage with and undertake tasks associated with their treatment. Following a 6-month set up period, a phased implementation programme is initiated across 12 dialysis units using a randomised stepped wedge design with 6 centres participating in each of 2 steps, each lasting 6 months. The intervention utilises quality improvement methodologies involving rapid tests of change to determine the most appropriate mechanisms for implementation in the context of a learning collaborative. Running parallel with the stepped wedge intervention is a mixed methods cohort evaluation that employs patient questionnaires and interviews, and will link with routinely collected data at the end of the study period. The primary outcome measure is the number of patients performing at least 5 dialysis-related tasks collected using 3 monthly questionnaires. Secondary outcomes measures include: the number of people choosing to perform home haemodialysis or dialyse independently in-centre by the end of the study period; end-user recommendation; home dialysis establishment delay; staff impact and confidence; hospitalisation; infection and health economics. DISCUSSION: The results from this study will provide evidence of impact of SHC, barriers to patient and centre level adoption and inform development of future interventions to support its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Number: 93999549 , (retrospectively registered 1st May 2017); NIHR Research Portfolio: 31566

A single, one-off measure of depression and anxiety predicts future symptoms, higher healthcare costs, and lower quality of life in coronary heart disease patients: Analysis from a multi-wave, primary care cohort study

To determine whether a one-off, baseline measure of depression and anxiety in a primary care, coronary heart disease (CHD) population predicts ongoing symptoms, costs, and quality of life across a 3-year follow-up.Longitudinal cohort study.16 General Practice surgeries across South-East London.803 adults (70% male, mean age 71 years) contributing up to 7 follow-up points.Ongoing reporting of symptoms, health care costs, and quality of life.At baseline, 27% of the sample screened positive for symptoms of depression and anxiety, as measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The probability of scoring above the cut-off throughout the follow-up was 71.5% (p<0.001) for those screening positive at baseline, and for those screening negative, the probability of scoring below the cut-off throughout the follow-up was 97.6% (p<0.001). Total health care costs were 39% higher during follow-up for those screening positive (p<0.05). Quality of life as measured by the SF-12 was lower on the mental component during follow-up for those screening positive (-0.75, CI -1.53 to 0.03, p = 0.059), and significantly lower on the physical component (-4.99, CI -6.23 to -.376, p<0.001).A one-off measure for depression and anxiety symptoms in CHD predicts future symptoms, costs, and quality of life over the subsequent three-years. These findings suggest symptoms of depression and anxiety in CHD persist throughout long periods and are detrimental to a patient's quality of life, whilst incurring higher health care costs for primary and secondary care services. Screening for these symptoms at the primary care level is important to identify and manage patients at risk of the negative effects of this comorbidity. Implementation of screening, and possible collaborative care strategies and interventions that help mitigate this risk should be the ongoing focus of researchers and policy-makers

Is health-related quality of life associated with the risk of low-energy wrist fracture: a case-control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Some risk factors for low-energy wrist fracture have been identified. However, self-reported measures such as health-related quality of life (HRQOL) have not been examined as potential risk factors for wrist fracture. The aims of this study were to compare HRQOL prior to a low-energy wrist fracture in elderly patients (≥ 50 years) with HRQOL in age- and sex-matched controls, and to explore the association between HRQOL and wrist fracture after adjusting for known risk factors for fracture such as age, weight, osteoporosis and falls.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients with a low-energy wrist fracture (n = 181) and age- and sex-matched controls (n = 181) were studied. Shortly after fracture (median 10 days), patients assessed their HRQOL before fracture using the Short Form 36 (SF-36). Statistical tests included <it>t </it>tests and multivariate logistic regression analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Several dimensions of HRQOL were significantly associated with wrist fracture. The direction of the associations with wrist fracture varied between the different sub-dimensions of the SF-36. After controlling for demographic and clinical variables, higher scores on <it>general health </it>(odds ratio (OR) = 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.10–1.56), <it>bodily pain </it>(OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.03–1.34) and <it>mental health </it>(OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.09–1.79) were related to an increased chance of being a wrist fracture patient rather than a control. In contrast, higher scores on <it>physical role limitation </it>(OR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.79–0.95) and <it>social function </it>(OR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.53–0.80) decreased this chance. Significant associations with wrist fracture were also found for living alone (OR = 1.91, 95% CI 1.07–3.4), low body mass index (BMI) (OR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.86–0.98), osteoporosis (OR = 3.30, 95% CI 1.67–6.50) and previous falls (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.16–3.49).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Wrist fracture patients perceive themselves to be as healthy as the controls before fracture. Our data indicate that patients with favourable and unfavourable HRQOL measures may be at increased risk of wrist fracture.</p