Relationship between feed efficiency indexes and performance, body measurements, digestibility, energy partitioning, and nitrogen partitioning in pre-weaning dairy heifers.

Abstract The objectives of this study were: 1) to classify animals into groups of high and low feed efficiency using two feed efficiency indexes (Residual feed intake (RFI) and residual feed intake and body weight gain (RIG)), and 2) to evaluate if pre-weaning heifer calves divergent for feed efficiency indexes exhibit differences in performance, body measurements, digestibility, energy partitioning, and nitrogen partitioning. A total of 32 Gyr heifer calves were enrolled in a 63-d trial and classified into two feed efficiency (FE) groups based on RFI and RIG (mean ± 0.5 SD). The groups were classified as high efficiency (HE) RFI (HE RFI, n = 9; HE RIG, n = 10), and low efficiency (LE) RFI (LE RFI, n = 10; LE RIG, n = 11). The remaining animals were classified as intermediate (n = 13 (RFI) and n = 11 (RIG)). HE and LE calves had RFI values of?0.052 and 0.049 kg/d (P < 0.05), respectively. The HE RFI group consumed 8.9% less solid diet than the LE RFI group. HE RFI animals exhibited an increased digestibility of crude protein and ether extract and tended to have greater total dry and organic matter digestibility. LE RFI animals had greater gross energy and nitrogen intake, though greater fecal losses resulted in a tendency to reduce energy and nitrogen use efficiency. HE and LE calves had RIG values of 0.080 and -0.077kg/d (P ? 0.01), respectively. HE RIG animals exhibited greater average daily gain (9.4%), body weight (BW), and heart girth, though HE RIG group exhibited narrower hip width. HE RIG animals tended to have greater ether extract digestibility but greater methane losses (% of gross energy). HE RFI in pre-weaning heifers seems to be related to differences in digestibility. Divergent animals for RIG during the assessed phase appear to differ in body measurements, which may be related to differences in the composition of the gain

Pharmacological blood pressure lowering for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease across different levels of blood pressure: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis

Background: The effects of pharmacological blood pressure lowering at normal or high-normal blood pressure ranges in people with or without pre-existing cardiovascular disease remains uncertain. We analysed individual participant data from randomised trials to investigate the effects of blood pressure lowering treatment on the risk of major cardiovascular events by baseline levels of systolic blood pressure. Methods: We did a meta-analysis of individual participant-level data from 48 randomised trials of pharmacological blood pressure lowering medications versus placebo or other classes of blood pressure-lowering medications, or between more versus less intensive treatment regimens, which had at least 1000 persons-years of follow-up in each group. Trials exclusively done with participants with heart failure or short-term interventions in participants with acute myocardial infarction or other acute settings were excluded. Data from 51 studies published between 1972 and 2013 were obtained by the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (Oxford University, Oxford, UK). We pooled the data to investigate the stratified effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment in participants with and without prevalent cardiovascular disease (ie, any reports of stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic heart disease before randomisation), overall and across seven systolic blood pressure categories (ranging from <120 to ≥170 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a major cardiovascular event (defined as a composite of fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction or ischaemic heart disease, or heart failure causing death or requiring admission to hospital), analysed as per intention to treat. Findings: Data for 344 716 participants from 48 randomised clinical trials were available for this analysis. Pre-randomisation mean systolic/diastolic blood pressures were 146/84 mm Hg in participants with previous cardiovascular disease (n=157 728) and 157/89 mm Hg in participants without previous cardiovascular disease (n=186 988). There was substantial spread in participants' blood pressure at baseline, with 31 239 (19·8%) of participants with previous cardiovascular disease and 14 928 (8·0%) of individuals without previous cardiovascular disease having a systolic blood pressure of less than 130 mm Hg. The relative effects of blood pressure-lowering treatment were proportional to the intensity of systolic blood pressure reduction. After a median 4·15 years' follow-up (Q1–Q3 2·97–4·96), 42 324 participants (12·3%) had at least one major cardiovascular event. In participants without previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the incidence rate for developing a major cardiovascular event per 1000 person-years was 31·9 (95% CI 31·3–32·5) in the comparator group and 25·9 (25·4–26·4) in the intervention group. In participants with previous cardiovascular disease at baseline, the corresponding rates were 39·7 (95% CI 39·0–40·5) and 36·0 (95% CI 35·3–36·7), in the comparator and intervention groups, respectively. Hazard ratios (HR) associated with a reduction of systolic blood pressure by 5 mm Hg for a major cardiovascular event were 0·91, 95% CI 0·89–0·94 for partipants without previous cardiovascular disease and 0·89, 0·86–0·92, for those with previous cardiovascular disease. In stratified analyses, there was no reliable evidence of heterogeneity of treatment effects on major cardiovascular events by baseline cardiovascular disease status or systolic blood pressure categories. Interpretation: In this large-scale analysis of randomised trials, a 5 mm Hg reduction of systolic blood pressure reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events by about 10%, irrespective of previous diagnoses of cardiovascular disease, and even at normal or high–normal blood pressure values. These findings suggest that a fixed degree of pharmacological blood pressure lowering is similarly effective for primary and secondary prevention of major cardiovascular disease, even at blood pressure levels currently not considered for treatment. Physicians communicating the indication for blood pressure lowering treatment to their patients should emphasise its importance on reducing cardiovascular risk rather than focusing on blood pressure reduction itself. Funding: British Heart Foundation, UK National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Martin School

Comparison of valsartan 160 mg with lisinopril 20 mg, given as monotherapy or in combination with a diuretic, for the treatment of hypertension: the Blood Pressure Reduction and Tolerability of Valsartan in Comparison with Lisinopril (PREVAIL) study.

Background: The goal of antihypertensive therapy is to provide good blood pressure (BP) control without eliciting adverse effects. Objective: This study compared the risk-benefit profile of the angiotensin II receptor blocker valsartan with that of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril in patients with mild to severe hypertension. The primary objective was to show that the equipotent BP-lowering effect of the valsartan-based treatment is accompanied by a better tolerability profile. Methods: This 16-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study was conducted at 88 outpatient centers across Italy After a 2-week placebo run-in period, patients aged >18 years with mild to severe hypertension (systolic BP [SBP], 160-220 mm Hg; diastolic BP [DBP], 93-110 mm Hg) were eligible. Patients were randomized to receive once-daily, oral, self-administered treatment with valsartan 160-rag capsules or lisinopril 20-rag capsules under double-blind conditions for 4 weeks. Responders continued monotherapy, whereas nonresponders had hydrochlorothiazide 12.3 mg added for the final 12 weeks of the study The 2 primary variables used to assess the equivalence of therapeutic efficacy of the 2 regimens were sitting SBP and sitting DBE which were measured at weeks 0 (baseline), 4, 8, and 16. The rate of drug-related adverse events (AEs) was used to assess whether 1 treatment had a better tolerability profile than the other. Tolerability was assessed by collecting information about AEs by means of questioning the patient or physical examination at each visit. Results: A total of 1213 patients were enrolled (633 men, 378 women; mean [SD] age, 34.3 [10.1] years [range, 28-78 years]). The study was completed by 1100 patients (333 receiving valsartan and 347 receiving lisinopril). Fifty-one patients (8.4%) treated with valsartan and 62 (1.2%) treated with lisinopril withdrew, mainly because of AEs (9 [1.3%] and 23 patients [3.8%], respectively). The valsartan- and lisinopril-based treatments were similarly effective in reducing sitting BE with mean SBP/DBP reductions of 31.2/13.9 mm Hg and 31.4/ 13.9 mm Hg, respectively At the end of the stud> BP was controlled in 82.7% of the patients receiving valsartan and 81.6 % of those receiving lisinopril. AEs were experienced by 3.1% of the patients treated with valsartan and 10.7% of those treated with lisinopril (P = 0.001), with dry cough observed in 1.0% and 7.2% of patients, respectively (P < 0.001)

Relationship between feed efficiency indexes and thermography, blood, and ruminal parameters in pre-weaning dairy heifers.

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether pre-weaning heifer calves divergent for residual feed intake (RFI) or residual feed intake and body weight gain (RIG) exhibit differences in thermography, blood, and ruminal parameters. Thirty-two Gyr heifer calves were enrolled in a 63-d trial and classified into 2 feed efficiency (FE) groups based on RFI and RIG (mean ± 0.5 SD). The groups were classified as high efficiency (HE) RFI (HE RFI, n = 9), HE RIG (HE RIG, n = 10), low efficiency (LE) RFI (LE RFI, n = 10), and LE RIG (LE RIG, n = 11). The amount of whole milk provided for each calf was calculated based on their metabolic weight at birth (42% x BW0.75). The liquid diet was divided into two meals at 0700 and 1400 h. The total solid diet (TSD) was composed of 92% concentrate and 8% of Tifton 85 hay chopped in 5-cm lengths, as fed. Intake was measured daily. Blood concentrations of insulin, beta hydroxybutyrate, urea, and glucose, and ruminal pH, N-NH3, and volatile fatty acids (VFA) were evaluated at 14, 28, 42, 56, and 70 days of age. Thermal images of the calves were taken with an infrared camera (FLIR T420, FLIR Systems Inc., Wilsonville, OR) on d 56 (±3) at 0600 h, before the morning feeding. Total VFA concentration and propionate as % of total VFA were 24.2% and 22.2% lower in HE RFI compared to LE RFI calves, respectively. On the other hand, acetate as % of total VFA was 10.6% greater in HE RFI than LE RFI calves. Blood urea concentration tended to be greater in LE RFI than HE RFI calves. High efficiency HE RIG tended to have 6.8% greater acetate and 15.4% lower propionate as % of total VFA than LE RIG. Blood insulin concentration was greater and blood glucose tended to be greater for LE RIG than HE RIG group. Low efficiency RIG group had greater left rib, left flank, and anus surface temperature measured by infrared thermography than the HE RIG group. Differences in ruminal fermentation do not seem to be associated with pre-weaning calves efficiency, while differences in protein metabolism seem to affect RFI during this phase. Infrared thermography appears to be correlated to RIG in pre-weaning heifer calves

Could the breed composition improve performance and change the enteric methane emissions from beef cattle in a tropical intensive production system?

Crossbreeding has been used to improve performance in beef cattle, however the effects of breed composition on methane (CH4) production, yield and intensity from cattle raised in tropical intensive and integrated systems remain unknown. To assess the impact of breed composition on performance and methane emissions, Nellore (NEL; yr 1: BW = 171.5± 19.4 kg; n = 10; yr 2: BW = 215.8±32.3 kg, n = 25) and Angus x Nellore crossbred (AN; yr 1: BW = 214.2±26.4 kg, n = 10; yr 2: BW = 242.5±32.2 kg, n = 25) were compared. The animals grazed on integrated crop-livestock system in the growing phase (stocking rate 2452 kg BW/ha, herbage mass 4,884 kg dry matter (DM)/ha, forage allowance 5.9 kg DM/100kg BW) and then were finished in a feedlot. Steers (n = 8) from each breed composition were randomly selected in each phase to measure CH4 production using a sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique and DM intake (DMI) using titanium dioxide. Compared with NEL, AN had both superior total gain and average daily gain (ADG) in the grazing period. The AN presented greater ADG in the feedlot with a shorter finishing period and resulted in greater carcass yield and carcass ADG. Methane production (kg/period) was lower in NEL (19% less) than AN in grazing (P<0.01), and no difference was observed in feedlot. The NEL had less CH4 intensity (CH4/BW) in grazing but greater CH4 per unit of ADG in the feedlot compared to AN. Breed composition did not influence the CH4 yield (CH4/DMI) in either phase, despite the difference in feedlot DMI (kg/day). In conclusion, crossbreeding may be an option to improve performance and reduce the CH4 per ADG in tropical climate conditions, resulting in lower methane emission per kg of meat produced.Made available in DSpace on 2019-10-28T18:06:11Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ArtigoPlosOneThierryCouldbreed.pdf: 576624 bytes, checksum: 297fd870376961355898230bf675520d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019bitstream/item/203802/1/Artigo-PlosOne-Thierry-Could-breed.pd

Twenty-four hour and early morning blood pressure control of olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: pooled individual data analysis of two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in elderly hypertensive patients by pooled data analysis of two studies with identical designs (one Italian, one European). METHODS: After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1453 elderly hypertensive patients (65-89 years; sitting office DBP 90-109 mmHg and/or sitting office SBP 140-179 mmHg) were randomized to a 12-week double-blind treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 10 mg or ramipril 2.5 mg once-daily, up-titrated (20 and 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil; 5 and 10 mg ramipril) after 2 and 6 weeks in patients without normalized office BP. 24-h ABP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 715 patients with valid baseline and end-of-treatment recordings baseline-adjusted 24-h SBP and DBP reductions were greater with olmesartan medoxomil (n = 356) than with ramipril (n = 359) [between-treatment differences and 95% confidence interval (CI), SBP: 2.2 (3.8, 0.6), P = 0.006; DBP: 1.3 (2.2, 0.3), P = 0.009]. Olmesartan medoxomil showed larger BP reductions in the last 6 h from the dosing interval and higher smoothness indices than ramipril. Olmesartan medoxomil reduced the SBP morning rise [-2.8 (-4.9, -0.8) mmHg], whereas ramipril did not [+1.5 (-0.6, +3.6) mmHg; P = 0.004 between-treatments]. Five hundred and eighty-two patients with sustained hypertension (office and 24-h ambulatory hypertension) showed the largest antihypertensive effect, with between-treatment differences still in favor of olmesartan medoxomil [SBP: 2.1 (3.9, 0.4), P = 0.019; DBP: 1.2 (2.3, 0.1), P = 0.032]. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil provides a more effective and sustained 24-h BP control than ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients, particularly in the hours farthest from last intake

Twenty-four hour and early morning blood pressure control of olmesartan vs. ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients: pooled individual data analysis of two randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antihypertensive efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil and ramipril on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) in elderly hypertensive patients by pooled data analysis of two studies with identical designs (one Italian, one European). METHODS: After a 2-week placebo wash-out 1453 elderly hypertensive patients (65-89 years; sitting office DBP 90-109 mmHg and/or sitting office SBP 140-179 mmHg) were randomized to a 12-week double-blind treatment with olmesartan medoxomil 10 mg or ramipril 2.5 mg once-daily, up-titrated (20 and 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil; 5 and 10 mg ramipril) after 2 and 6 weeks in patients without normalized office BP. 24-h ABP was recorded at randomization and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: In 715 patients with valid baseline and end-of-treatment recordings baseline-adjusted 24-h SBP and DBP reductions were greater with olmesartan medoxomil (n = 356) than with ramipril (n = 359) [between-treatment differences and 95% confidence interval (CI), SBP: 2.2 (3.8, 0.6), P = 0.006; DBP: 1.3 (2.2, 0.3), P = 0.009]. Olmesartan medoxomil showed larger BP reductions in the last 6 h from the dosing interval and higher smoothness indices than ramipril. Olmesartan medoxomil reduced the SBP morning rise [-2.8 (-4.9, -0.8) mmHg], whereas ramipril did not [+1.5 (-0.6, +3.6) mmHg; P = 0.004 between-treatments]. Five hundred and eighty-two patients with sustained hypertension (office and 24-h ambulatory hypertension) showed the largest antihypertensive effect, with between-treatment differences still in favor of olmesartan medoxomil [SBP: 2.1 (3.9, 0.4), P = 0.019; DBP: 1.2 (2.3, 0.1), P = 0.032]. CONCLUSIONS: Olmesartan medoxomil provides a more effective and sustained 24-h BP control than ramipril in elderly hypertensive patients, particularly in the hours farthest from last intak

PRAVASTATIN VS GEMFIBROZIL IN THE TREATMENT OF PRIMARY HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA RID A-6707-2012

An increase in total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations is related to the incidence of cardiovascular heart disease. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pravastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, versus gemfibrozil, a fibrate, in the treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia. 855 subjects (males and females, aged between 18 and 70 years) with total cholesterol (TC) concentrations > 240 mg/dl and triglyceride (TG) concentrations < 250 mg/dl were enrolled. After a pretreatment diet period, patients received either pravastatin 20 mg/day (659 patients) or gemfibrozil 1200 mg/day (196 patients). At the end of the 12-week treatment period, reductions in TC (-23%) and LDL-C (-31%) were noted in the pravastatin group. Gemfibrozil reduced TC by 16% and LDL by 20%. High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentrations increased in a similar way in the two groups: pravastatin +10%, gemfibrozil +11%. Triglycerides decreased by 14% with pravastatin and by 22% with gemfibrozil. Pravastatin and gemfibrozil were both well tolerated. No significant adverse events or variations in laboratory parameters occurred during this study