18 research outputs found

    Without Apology: Writings on Abortion in Canada

    Get PDF
    Until the late 1960s, the authorities on abortion were for the most part men—politicians, clergy, lawyers, physicians, all of whom had an interest in regulating women’s bodies. Even today, when we hear women speak publicly about abortion, the voices are usually those of the leaders of women’s and abortion rights organizations, women who hold political office, and, on occasion, female physicians. We also hear quite frequently from spokeswomen for anti-abortion groups. Rarely, however, do we hear the voices of ordinary women—women whose lives have been in some way touched by abortion. Their thoughts typically owe more to human circumstance than to ideology, and without them, we run the risk of thinking and talking about the issue of abortion only in the abstract. Without Apology seeks to address this issue by gathering the voices of activists, feminists, and scholars as well as abortion providers and clinic support staff alongside the stories of women whose experience with abortion is more personal. With the particular aim of moving beyond the polarizing rhetoric that has characterized the issue of abortion and reproductive justice for so long, Without Apology is an engrossing and arresting account that will promote both reflection and discussion.Canada Council for the Arts Government of Canada Canada Book Fund (CFB) Government of Alberta, Alberta Media Fun

    Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

    Validation of Caloric Expenditure Using the Apple Watch and the Fitbit Zip

    No full text
    The purpose of this study is to compare estimates of caloric expenditure during exercise using an Apple Watch Sport and Fitbit Zip to values calculated from direct measurement of oxygen consumption

    Caloric Expenditure Using Indirect Calorimetry, Apple Watch Sport, and Fitbit Zip

    No full text
    The aim of this study was to compare caloric expenditure values during exercise using Apple Watch Sport, Fitbit Zip, and indirect calorimetry. The study included 7 healthy subjects (3 men and 4 women). The subjects completed six 6-min bouts of sitting, treadmill walking, and jogging (sitting, 4.0, 5.6, 6.8, and 8.9 km·hr-1 , followed by 4.0 km·hr-1 cool-down) while wearing an Apple Watch Sport and a Fitbit Zip. Oxygen consumption (VO2) was measured using the Cosmed Quark CPET. The data were analyzed using ANOVA (P\u3c0.05). The results are presented as means ± SD. Caloric expenditure values for the Fitbit Zip were significantly higher than values calculated from VO2 for all walking and jogging speeds (P\u3c0.05). In contrast, caloric expenditure values for Apple Watch Sport were not significantly different than values calculated from VO2 (P\u3e0.05). Total caloric expenditure values were also significantly higher for the Fitbit Zip (296.3 ± 33.0 kcals) compared to values calculated using VO2 (195.8 ± 30.4 kcals) and the Apple Watch Sport (201.1 ± 41.5 kcals) (P\u3c0.05). The results of this study suggest that the Fitbit Zip may overestimate caloric expenditure compared to indirect calorimetry. In contrast, caloric expenditure values from the Apple Watch are not different from the indirect calorimetry values. This information may be important for exercise professionals to consider when recommending physical activity trackers to clients
    corecore