Understanding and examining teacher resilience from multiple perspectives

In this chapter, I argue that differing conceptualisations of the construct of resilience shape and enrich the research questions and methodology used to examine it. In addition, the conceptual focus has implications for questions such as whose responsibility it is for the development of resilience. Research conducted within two Australian projects, Keeping Cool and BRiTE (Building Resilience in Teacher Education) is used as an illustration of the impact of a changing conceptual focus. For example, beginning with a psychological perspective led to an examination of risk and protective factors for individuals. More contextual approaches involved a comparison of countries. Recent systemic views support a model that encompasses both personal and contextual characteristics, as well as strategies used and outcomes achieved. It is argued that taking multiple perspectives in this programme of work has enabled the incorporation of a broad range of research methods and findings, and contributed to a deeper understanding of the construct of teacher resilience

A prospective evaluation of early detection biomarkers for ovarian cancer in the European EPIC cohort

Purpose: About 60% of ovarian cancers are diagnosed at late stage, when 5-year survival is less than 30% in contrast to 90% for local disease. This has prompted search for early detection biomarkers. For initial testing, specimens taken months or years before ovarian cancer diagnosis are the best source of information to evaluate earlydetection biomarkers. Here we evaluate the most promising ovarian cancer screening biomarkers in prospectively collected samples from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition study. Experimental Design: We measured CA125, HE4, CA72.4, and CA15.3 in 810 invasive epithelial ovarian cancer cases and 1,939 controls. We calculated the sensitivity at 95% and 98% specificity as well as area under the receiver operator curve (C-statistic) for each marker individually and in combination. In addition, we evaluated marker performance by stage at diagnosis and time between blood draw and diagnosis. Results: We observed the best discrimination between cases and controls within 6 months of diagnosis for CA125 (C-statistic = 0.92), then HE4 (0.84), CA72.4 (0.77), and CA15.3 (0.73). Marker performance declined with longer time between blood draw and diagnosis and for earlier staged disease. However, assessment of discriminatory ability at early stage was limited by small numbers. Combinations of markers performed modestly, but significantly better than any single marker. Conclusions: CA125 remains the single best marker for the early detection of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer, but can be slightly improved by combining with other markers. Identifying novel markers for ovarian cancer will require studies including larger numbers of early-stage cases. (C) 2016 AACR

Why Are Outcomes Different for Registry Patients Enrolled Prospectively and Retrospectively? Insights from the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF).

Background: Retrospective and prospective observational studies are designed to reflect real-world evidence on clinical practice, but can yield conflicting results. The GARFIELD-AF Registry includes both methods of enrolment and allows analysis of differences in patient characteristics and outcomes that may result. Methods and Results: Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ≥1 risk factor for stroke at diagnosis of AF were recruited either retrospectively (n = 5069) or prospectively (n = 5501) from 19 countries and then followed prospectively. The retrospectively enrolled cohort comprised patients with established AF (for a least 6, and up to 24 months before enrolment), who were identified retrospectively (and baseline and partial follow-up data were collected from the emedical records) and then followed prospectively between 0-18 months (such that the total time of follow-up was 24 months; data collection Dec-2009 and Oct-2010). In the prospectively enrolled cohort, patients with newly diagnosed AF (≤6 weeks after diagnosis) were recruited between Mar-2010 and Oct-2011 and were followed for 24 months after enrolment. Differences between the cohorts were observed in clinical characteristics, including type of AF, stroke prevention strategies, and event rates. More patients in the retrospectively identified cohort received vitamin K antagonists (62.1% vs. 53.2%) and fewer received non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (1.8% vs . 4.2%). All-cause mortality rates per 100 person-years during the prospective follow-up (starting the first study visit up to 1 year) were significantly lower in the retrospective than prospectively identified cohort (3.04 [95% CI 2.51 to 3.67] vs . 4.05 [95% CI 3.53 to 4.63]; p = 0.016). Conclusions: Interpretations of data from registries that aim to evaluate the characteristics and outcomes of patients with AF must take account of differences in registry design and the impact of recall bias and survivorship bias that is incurred with retrospective enrolment. Clinical Trial Registration: - URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362)

Improved risk stratification of patients with atrial fibrillation: an integrated GARFIELD-AF tool for the prediction of mortality, stroke and bleed in patients with and without anticoagulation.

OBJECTIVES: To provide an accurate, web-based tool for stratifying patients with atrial fibrillation to facilitate decisions on the potential benefits/risks of anticoagulation, based on mortality, stroke and bleeding risks. DESIGN: The new tool was developed, using stepwise regression, for all and then applied to lower risk patients. C-statistics were compared with CHA2DS2-VASc using 30-fold cross-validation to control for overfitting. External validation was undertaken in an independent dataset, Outcome Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF). PARTICIPANTS: Data from 39 898 patients enrolled in the prospective GARFIELD-AF registry provided the basis for deriving and validating an integrated risk tool to predict stroke risk, mortality and bleeding risk. RESULTS: The discriminatory value of the GARFIELD-AF risk model was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc for patients with or without anticoagulation. C-statistics (95% CI) for all-cause mortality, ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and haemorrhagic stroke/major bleeding (treated patients) were: 0.77 (0.76 to 0.78), 0.69 (0.67 to 0.71) and 0.66 (0.62 to 0.69), respectively, for the GARFIELD-AF risk models, and 0.66 (0.64-0.67), 0.64 (0.61-0.66) and 0.64 (0.61-0.68), respectively, for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). In very low to low risk patients (CHA2DS2-VASc 0 or 1 (men) and 1 or 2 (women)), the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED (for bleeding) scores offered weak discriminatory value for mortality, stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding. C-statistics for the GARFIELD-AF risk tool were 0.69 (0.64 to 0.75), 0.65 (0.56 to 0.73) and 0.60 (0.47 to 0.73) for each end point, respectively, versus 0.50 (0.45 to 0.55), 0.59 (0.50 to 0.67) and 0.55 (0.53 to 0.56) for CHA2DS2-VASc (or HAS-BLED for bleeding). Upon validation in the ORBIT-AF population, C-statistics showed that the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was effective for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality using the full and simplified model for all-cause mortality: C-statistics 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77) and 0.75 (0.73 to 0.77), respectively, and for predicting for any stroke or systemic embolism over 1 year, C-statistics 0.68 (0.62 to 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Performance of the GARFIELD-AF risk tool was superior to CHA2DS2-VASc in predicting stroke and mortality and superior to HAS-BLED for bleeding, overall and in lower risk patients. The GARFIELD-AF tool has the potential for incorporation in routine electronic systems, and for the first time, permits simultaneous evaluation of ischaemic stroke, mortality and bleeding risks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF (NCT01090362) and for ORBIT-AF (NCT01165710)

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Two-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

AIMS: The relationship between outcomes and time after diagnosis for patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) is poorly defined, especially beyond the first year. METHODS AND RESULTS: GARFIELD-AF is an ongoing, global observational study of adults with newly diagnosed NVAF. Two-year outcomes of 17 162 patients prospectively enrolled in GARFIELD-AF were analysed in light of baseline characteristics, risk profiles for stroke/systemic embolism (SE), and antithrombotic therapy. The mean (standard deviation) age was 69.8 (11.4) years, 43.8% were women, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.3 (1.6); 60.8% of patients were prescribed anticoagulant therapy with/without antiplatelet (AP) therapy, 27.4% AP monotherapy, and 11.8% no antithrombotic therapy. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and major bleeding had occurred at a rate (95% confidence interval) of 3.83 (3.62; 4.05), 1.25 (1.13; 1.38), and 0.70 (0.62; 0.81) per 100 person-years, respectively. Rates for all three major events were highest during the first 4 months. Congestive heart failure, acute coronary syndromes, sudden/unwitnessed death, malignancy, respiratory failure, and infection/sepsis accounted for 65% of all known causes of death and strokes for <10%. Anticoagulant treatment was associated with a 35% lower risk of death. CONCLUSION: The most frequent of the three major outcome measures was death, whose most common causes are not known to be significantly influenced by anticoagulation. This suggests that a more comprehensive approach to the management of NVAF may be needed to improve outcome. This could include, in addition to anticoagulation, interventions targeting modifiable, cause-specific risk factors for death. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Risk profiles and one-year outcomes of patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation in India: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation (GARFIELD-AF) is an ongoing prospective noninterventional registry, which is providing important information on the baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, and 1-year outcomes in patients with newly diagnosed non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This report describes data from Indian patients recruited in this registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 52,014 patients with newly diagnosed AF were enrolled globally; of these, 1388 patients were recruited from 26 sites within India (2012-2016). In India, the mean age was 65.8 years at diagnosis of NVAF. Hypertension was the most prevalent risk factor for AF, present in 68.5% of patients from India and in 76.3% of patients globally (P < 0.001). Diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) were prevalent in 36.2% and 28.1% of patients as compared with global prevalence of 22.2% and 21.6%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both). Antiplatelet therapy was the most common antithrombotic treatment in India. With increasing stroke risk, however, patients were more likely to receive oral anticoagulant therapy [mainly vitamin K antagonist (VKA)], but average international normalized ratio (INR) was lower among Indian patients [median INR value 1.6 (interquartile range {IQR}: 1.3-2.3) versus 2.3 (IQR 1.8-2.8) (P < 0.001)]. Compared with other countries, patients from India had markedly higher rates of all-cause mortality [7.68 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval 6.32-9.35) vs 4.34 (4.16-4.53), P < 0.0001], while rates of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleeding were lower after 1 year of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared to previously published registries from India, the GARFIELD-AF registry describes clinical profiles and outcomes in Indian patients with AF of a different etiology. The registry data show that compared to the rest of the world, Indian AF patients are younger in age and have more diabetes and CAD. Patients with a higher stroke risk are more likely to receive anticoagulation therapy with VKA but are underdosed compared with the global average in the GARFIELD-AF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362

Safety of maintaining elective and emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic with the introduction of a Protected Elective Surgical Unit (PESU): A cross-specialty evaluation of 30-day outcomes in 9,925 patients undergoing surgery in a University Health Board

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented health care challenges mandating surgical service reconfiguration. Within our hospital, emergency and elective streams were separated and self-contained Protected Elective Surgical Units were developed to mitigate against infection-related morbidity. Aims of this study were to determine the risk of COVID-19 transmission and mortality and whether the development of Protected Elective Surgical Units can result in significant reduction in risk. Methods A retrospective observational study of consecutive patients from 18 specialties undergoing elective or emergency surgery under general, spinal, or epidural anaesthetic over a 12-month study period was undertaken. Primary outcome measures were 30-day postoperative COVID-19 transmission rate and mortality. Secondary adjusted analyses were performed to ascertain hospital and Protected Elective Surgical Unit transmission rates. Results Between 15 March 2020 and 14 March 2021, 9,925 patients underwent surgery: 6,464 (65.1%) elective, 5,116 (51.5%) female, and median age 57 (39–70). A total of 69.5% of all procedures were performed in Protected Elective Surgical Units. Overall, 30-day postoperative COVID-19 transmission was 2.8% (3.4% emergency vs 1.2% elective P  70, male sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade > 2, and emergency surgery were all independently associated with mortality. Conclusion This study has demonstrated that Protected Elective Surgical Units can facilitate high-volume elective surgical services throughout peaks of the COVID-19 pandemic while minimising viral transmission and mortality. However, mortality risk associated with perioperative COVID-19 infection remains high