Contemporary contestations over working time: time for health to weigh in

Non-communicable disease (NCD) incidence and prevalence is of central concern to most nations, along with international agencies such as the UN, OECD, IMF and World Bank. As a result, the search has begun for ‘causes of the cause’ behind health risks and behaviours responsible for the major NCDs. As part of this effort, researchers are turning their attention to charting the temporal nature of societal changes that might be associated with the rapid rise in NCDs. From this, the experience of time and its allocation are increasingly understood to be key individual and societal resources for health (7–9). The interdisciplinary study outlined in this paper will produce a systematic analysis of the behavioural health dimensions, or ‘health time economies’ (quantity and quality of time necessary for the practice of health behaviours), that have accompanied labour market transitions of the last 30 years - the period in which so many NCDs have risen sharply

ICAR: endoscopic skull‐base surgery

n/

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard

Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of PBT2 in Huntington's disease: A phase 2, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: PBT2 is a metal protein-attenuating compound that might reduce metal-induced aggregation of mutant huntingtin and has prolonged survival in a mouse model of Huntington's disease. We aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of PBT2 in patients with Huntington's disease. Methods: In this 26-week, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults ( ≥ 25 years old ) with early-stage to mid-stage Huntington's disease were randomly assigned ( 1:1:1 ) by a centralised interactive response system to once daily PBT2 250 mg, PBT2 100 mg, or placebo. Randomisation was stratified by site with a block size of three. Participants, carers, the steering committee, site investigators, study staff, and the study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Primary endpoints were safety and tolerability. The safety population consisted of all participants who were randomly assigned and had at least one dose of study drug. The principal secondary endpoint was cognition, measured by the change from baseline to week 26 in the main composite Z score of five cognitive tests ( Category Fluency Test, Trail Making Test Part B, Map Search, Symbol Digit Modalities Test, and Stroop Word Reading Test ) and scores on eight individual cognitive tests ( the five aforementioned plus the Trail Making Test Part A, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Speeded Tapping Test ). The intention-to-treat population comprised participants who were randomly assigned and had at least one efficacy assessment after administration of study drug. This trial is registered with [http://clinicaltrials.gov/] ClinicalTrials.gov, [http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01590888] NCT01590888. Findings: Between April 18, 2012, and Dec 14, 2012, 109 participants were randomly assigned to PBT2 250 mg ( n=36 ), PBT2 100 mg ( n=38 ), or placebo ( n=35 ) at 19 research centres in Australia and the USA. 32 ( 89% ) individuals on PBT2 250 mg, 38 ( 100% ) on PBT2 100 mg, and 34 ( 97% ) on placebo completed the study. Six serious adverse events ( acute coronary syndrome, major depression, pneumonia, suicide attempt, viral infection, and worsening of Huntington's disease ) occurred in five participants in the PBT2 250 mg group, three ( fall with subdural haematoma, suicide attempt, and hospital admission for stabilisation of Huntington's disease ) occurred in two participants in the PBT2 100 mg group, and one ( increasing aggression ) occurred in a participant in the placebo group. The site investigators deemed all, except the worsening of Huntington's disease, as unrelated to study drug. 32 ( 89% ) participants on PBT2 250 mg, 30 ( 79% ) on PBT2 100 mg, and 28 ( 80% ) on placebo had at least one adverse event. Compared with placebo, neither PBT2 100 mg ( least-squares mean 0·02, 95% CI −0·10 to 0·14; p=0·772 ) nor PBT2 250 mg ( 0·07, −0·05 to 0·20; p=0·240 ) significantly improved the main composite cognition Zscore between baseline and 26 weeks. Compared with placebo, the Trail Making Test Part B score was improved between baseline and 26 weeks in the PBT2 250 mg group ( 17·65 s, 0·65–34·65; p=0·042 ) but not in the 100 mg group ( 0·79 s improvement, −15·75 to 17·32; p=0·925 ); neither dose significantly improved cognition on the other tests. Interpretation: PBT2 was generally safe and well tolerated in patients with Huntington's disease. The potential benefit on executive function will need to be confirmed in a larger study. Funding: Prana Biotechnology Limited