Body weight prediction using body size measurements in Fleckvieh, Holstein, and Brown Swiss dairy cows in lactation and dry periods

The objective of this study was to predict cows' body weight from body size measurements and other animal data in the lactation and dry periods. During the whole year 2014, 6306 cows (on 167 commercial Austrian dairy farms) were weighed at each routine performance recording and body size measurements like heart girth (HG), belly girth (BG), and body condition score (BCS) were recorded. Data on linear traits like hip width (HW), stature, and body depth were collected three times a year. Cows belonged to the genotypes Fleckvieh (and Red Holstein crosses), Holstein, and Brown Swiss. Body measurements were tested as single predictors and in multiple regressions according to their prediction accuracy and their correlations with body weight. For validation, data sets were split randomly into independent subsets for estimation and validation. Within the prediction models with a single body measurement, heart girth influenced relationship with body weight most, with a lowest root mean square error (RMSE) of 39.0&thinsp;kg, followed by belly girth (39.3&thinsp;kg) and hip width (49.9&thinsp;kg). All other body measurements and BCS resulted in a RMSE of higher than 50.0 kg. The model with heart and belly girth (ModelHG BG) reduced RMSE to 32.5&thinsp;kg, and adding HW reduced it further to 30.4&thinsp;kg (ModelHG BG HW). As RMSE and the coefficient of determination improved, genotype-specific regression coefficients for body measurements were introduced in addition to the pooled ones. The most accurate equations, ModelHG BG and ModelHG BG HW, were validated separately for the lactation and dry periods. Root mean square prediction error (RMSPE) ranged between 36.5 and 37.0&thinsp;kg (ModelHG BG HW, ModelHG BG, lactation) and 39.9 and 41.3&thinsp;kg (ModelHG BG HW, ModelHG BG, dry period). Accuracy of the predictions was evaluated by decomposing the mean square prediction error (MSPE) into error due to central tendency, error due to regression, and error due to disturbance. On average, 99.6&thinsp;% of the variance between estimated and observed values was caused by disturbance, meaning that predictions were valid and without systematic estimation error. On the one hand, this indicates that the chosen traits sufficiently depicted factors influencing body weight. On the other hand, the data set was very heterogeneous and large. To ensure high prediction accuracy, it was necessary to include body girth traits for body weight estimation.</p

Improved Efficacy of Tafasitamab plus Lenalidomide versus Systemic Therapies for Relapsed/Refractory DLBCL: RE-MIND2, an Observational Retrospective Matched Cohort Study

PURPOSE: In RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160), patient-level outcomes from the L-MIND study (NCT02399085) of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide were retrospectively compared with patient-level matched observational cohorts treated with National Cancer Care Network (NCCN)/European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-listed systemic therapies for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from health records of eligible patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL who had received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy). Patients from L-MIND were matched with patients from the RE-MIND2 observational cohort using estimated propensity score-based 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching, balanced for nine covariates. The primary analysis compared tafasitamab plus lenalidomide with patients who received any systemic therapy for R/R DLBCL (pooled in one cohort) or bendamustine plus rituximab (BR) or rituximab plus gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (R-GemOx; as two distinct cohorts). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included treatment response and time-to-event outcomes. RESULTS: In RE-MIND2, 3,454 patients were enrolled from 200 sites in North America, Europe, and Asia-Pacific. Strictly matched pairs of patients consisted of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus systemic therapies pooled (n = 76 pairs), versus BR (n = 75 pairs), and versus R-GemOx (n = 74 pairs). Significantly prolonged OS was reported with tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus systemic pooled therapies [hazard ratios (HR): 0.55; P = 0.0068], BR (HR: 0.42; P &lt; 0.0001), and R-GemOx (HR: 0.47; P = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: RE-MIND2, a retrospective observational study, met its primary endpoint, demonstrating prolonged OS with tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus BR and R-GemOx. See related commentary by Cherng and Westin, p. 3908

RE-MIND2: comparative effectiveness of tafasitamab plus lenalidomide versus polatuzumab vedotin/bendamustine/rituximab (pola-BR), CAR-T therapies, and lenalidomide/rituximab (R2) based on real-world data in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma

Abstract: RE-MIND2 (NCT04697160) compared patient outcomes from the L-MIND (NCT02399085) trial of tafasitamab+lenalidomide with those of patients treated with other therapies for relapsed/refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are autologous stem cell transplant ineligible. We present outcomes data for three pre-specified treatments not assessed in the primary analysis. Data were retrospectively collected from sites in North America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region. Patients were aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed DLBCL and received ≥2 systemic therapies for DLBCL (including ≥1 anti-CD20 therapy). Patients enrolled in the observational and L-MIND cohorts were matched using propensity score-based 1:1 nearest-neighbor matching, balanced for six covariates. Tafasitamab+lenalidomide was compared with polatuzumab vedotin+bendamustine+rituximab (pola-BR), rituximab+lenalidomide (R2), and CD19-chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included treatment response and progression-free survival. From 200 sites, 3,454 patients were enrolled in the observational cohort. Strictly matched patient pairs consisted of tafasitamab+lenalidomide versus pola-BR (n = 24 pairs), versus R2 (n = 33 pairs), and versus CAR-T therapies (n = 37 pairs). A significant OS benefit was observed with tafasitamab+lenalidomide versus pola-BR (HR: 0.441; p = 0.034) and R2 (HR: 0.435; p = 0.012). Comparable OS was observed in tafasitamab+lenalidomide and CAR-T cohorts (HR: 0.953, p = 0.892). Tafasitamab+lenalidomide appeared to improve survival outcomes versus pola-BR and R2, and comparable outcomes were observed versus CAR-T. Although based on limited patient numbers, these data may help to contextualize emerging therapies for R/R DLBCL. Clinical trial registration: NCT04697160 (January 6, 2021

WaterStressAT - Climate change induced water stress - participatory modeling to identify risks and opportunities in Austrian regions

In Austria, increase in demand as well as climate change might create local and seasonal hot-spots of water stress. It is thus important to understand the status quo and future development of these phenomena to identify potential areas of tension. WaterStressAT assesses water availability and demand in two Austrian case studies under a set of regional development and climate change scenarios

Strategies for keeping dairy cows and calves together – a cross-sectional survey study

Although it is still most common to rear dairy calves separately from adult cattle, the interest in prolonged contact between dairy calves and lactating cows during early life is increasing. Previous research has documented positive effects of cow-calf contact (CCC) on for example early calf growth and udder health of suckled cows, but also negative effects such as increased separation distress and reduced weight gains after weaning. The aim of this study was to use information from European farms with prolonged cow-calf contact to identify innovative solutions to common challenges for CCC farms. Commercial dairy farms that kept calves with adult lactating cows for seven days or more after birth were invited to participate, and interviews were performed with 104 farmers from six countries. During interviews, information about farm management, calf rearing, farmers’ perception of animal health on their farm, and farmers’ drivers and barriers for implementing CCC were collected. We found that CCC was practised in a large variety of housing and management systems, and that calves could be reared together with their dam, with foster cows, or using a combination of the two. The contact period varied considerably (7–305 days) between farms and about 25% of the farms manually milk fed the calves during parts of the milk feeding period. Daily contact time varied between farms, from 30 minutes per day to permanent contact except at milking. Behaviours indicative of separation distress, most commonly vocalisation in cows and calves, were reported by 87% of the farmers. Strategies to alleviate separation distress, for example simultaneous gradual weaning and separation, were used on some farms. Building constraints were most often mentioned as a barrier for implementing CCC. Our findings suggest that CCC is practised in a variety of commonly used husbandry systems. Reported challenges were primarily related to weaning and separation, and to building constraints; these aspects should be areas of future research