Perceived intensity of somatosensory cortical electrical stimulation

Artificial sensations can be produced by direct brain stimulation of sensory areas through implanted microelectrodes, but the perceptual psychophysics of such artificial sensations are not well understood. Based on prior work in cortical stimulation, we hypothesized that perceived intensity of electrical stimulation may be explained by the population response of the neurons affected by the stimulus train. To explore this hypothesis, we modeled perceived intensity of a stimulation pulse train with a leaky neural integrator. We then conducted a series of two-alternative forced choice behavioral experiments in which we systematically tested the ability of rats to discriminate frequency, amplitude, and duration of electrical pulse trains delivered to the whisker barrel somatosensory cortex. We found that the model was able to predict the performance of the animals, supporting the notion that perceived intensity can be largely accounted for by spatiotemporal integration of the action potentials evoked by the stimulus train

Effects of asenapine, olanzapine, and risperidone on psychotomimetic-induced reversal-learning deficits in the rat

YesBackground: Asenapine is a new pharmacological agent for the acute treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It has relatively higher affinity for serotonergic and α2-adrenergic than dopaminergic D2 receptors. We evaluated the effects of asenapine, risperidone, and olanzapine on acute and subchronic psychotomimetic-induced disruption of cued reversal learning in rats. Methods: After operant training, rats were treated acutely with D-amphetamine (0.75 mg/kg intraperitoneally [i.p.]) or phencyclidine (PCP; 1.5 mg/kg i.p.) or sub-chronically with PCP (2 mg/kg i.p. for 7 days). We assessed the effects of acute coadministration of asenapine, risperidone, or olanzapine on acute D-amphetamine– and PCP-induced deficits and the effects of long-term coadministration of these agents (for 28 additional days) on the deficits induced by subchronic PCP. Results: Deficits in reversal learning induced by acute D-amphetamine were attenuated by risperidone (0.2 mg/kg i.p.). Acute PCP-induced impairment of reversal learning was attenuated by acute asenapine (0.025 mg/kg subcutaneously [s.c.]), risperidone (0.2 mg/kg i.p.), and olanzapine (1.0 mg/kg i.p.). Subchronic PCP administration induced an enduring deficit that was attenuated by acute asenapine (0.075 mg/kg s.c.) and by olanzapine (1.5 mg/kg i.p.). Asenapine (0.075 mg/kg s.c.), risperidone (0.2 mg/kg i.p.), and olanzapine (1.0 mg/kg i.p.) all showed sustained efficacy with chronic (29 d) treatment to improve subchronic PCP-induced impairments. Conclusion: These data suggest that asenapine may have beneficial effects in the treatment of cognitive symptoms in schizophrenia. However, this remains to be validated by further clinical evaluation.This research was supported by Schering-Plough Corporation, now Merck & Co., Inc. and Pfizer Inc

Asenapine effects in animal models of psychosis and cognitive function

Asenapine, a novel psychopharmacologic agent in the development for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, has high affinity for serotonergic, α-adrenergic, and dopaminergic receptors, suggesting potential for antipsychotic and cognitive-enhancing properties. The effects of asenapine in rat models of antipsychotic efficacy and cognition were examined and compared with those of olanzapine and risperidone. Amphetamine-stimulated locomotor activity (Amp-LMA; 1.0 or 3.0 mg/kg s.c.) and apomorphine-disrupted prepulse inhibition (Apo-PPI; 0.5 mg/kg s.c.) were used as tests for antipsychotic activity. Delayed non-match to place (DNMTP) and five-choice serial reaction (5-CSR) tasks were used to assess short-term spatial memory and attention, respectively. Asenapine doses varied across tasks: Amp-LMA (0.01–0.3 mg/kg s.c.), Apo-PPI (0.001–0.3 mg/kg s.c.), DNMTP (0.01–0.1 mg/kg s.c.), and 5-CSR (0.003–0.3 mg/kg s.c.). Asenapine was highly potent (active at 0.03 mg/kg) in the Amp-LMA and Apo-PPI assays. DNMTP or 5-CSR performance was not improved by asenapine, olanzapine, or risperidone. All agents (P < 0.01) reduced DNMTP accuracy at short delays; post hoc analyses revealed that only 0.1 mg/kg asenapine and 0.3 mg/kg risperidone differed from vehicle. All active agents (asenapine, 0.3 mg/kg; olanzapine, 0.03–0.3 mg/kg; and risperidone, 0.01–0.1 mg/kg) significantly impaired 5-CSR accuracy (P < 0.05). Asenapine has potent antidopaminergic properties that are predictive of antipsychotic efficacy. Asenapine, like risperidone and olanzapine, did not improve cognition in normal rats. Rather, at doses greater than those required for antipsychotic activity, asenapine impaired cognitive performance due to disturbance of motor function, an effect also observed with olanzapine and risperidone

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Conservation : relaxed laws imperil Australian wildlife

Policy and legislative changes by Australia\u27s state governments are eroding the vital protection of the country\u27s unique biodiversity

Diversity in current ecological thinking: Implications for environmental management

Current ecological thinking emphasizes that systems are complex, dynamic, and unpredictable across space and time. What is the diversity in interpretation of these ideas among today's ecologists, and what does this mean for environmental management? This study used a Policy Delphi survey of ecologists to explore their perspectives on a number of current topics in ecology. The results showed general concurrence with nonequilibrium views. There was agreement that disturbance is a widespread, normal feature of ecosystems with historically contingent responses. The importance of recognizing multiple levels of organization and the role of functional diversity in environmental change were also widely acknowledged. Views differed regarding the predictability of successional development, whether "patchiness" is a useful concept, and the benefits of shifting the focus from species to ecosystem processes. Because of their centrality to environmental management, these different views warrant special attention from both managers and ecologists. Such divergence is particularly problematic given widespread concerns regarding the poor linkages between science (here, ecology) and environmental policy and management, which have been attributed to scientific uncertainty and a lack of consensus among scientists, both jeopardizing the transfer of science into management. Several suggestions to help managers deal with these differences are provided, especially the need to interpret broader theory in the context of place-based assessments. The uncertainty created by these differences requires a proactive approach to environmental management, including clearly identifying environmental objectives, careful experimental design, and effective monitoring