Effects of Aerobic Exercise on Body Composition at Different Phases of the Menstrual Cycle

PURPOSE: To determine the behaviour of body composition, especially body water in females in relation to their menstrual cycle and in response to aerobic exercise. METHODS: Eight females (age = 20.4 ± 1.6 yrs) performed four sessions of aerobic activity at 70% of their calculated VO2max. VO2max was determined by utilizing the Bruce Protocol. The speed for each subject’s aerobic activity was then calculated using the ACSM metabolic running equation. The four sessions of aerobic activity were identical in format and performed on days 1, 7, 14, and 21 of each subject’s menstrual cycle. Sessions began with measurements of body weight, body fat, extracellular fluid (ECF), intracellular fluid (ICF), and fat-free mass (FFM) via single-frequency and multiple-frequency bio-electrical impedance analysis (BIA) prior to aerobic activity. Subjects then completed 30 minutes of aerobic activity at the calculated speed to yield an intensity of 70% VO2max. Following the aerobic activity, all measures taken pre-exercise were measured again at three separate time points post-exercise; post-0min, post-15min, and post-30min. This combined for a total of 4 separate time points at which measurements were taken; pre, post-0min, post-15min, and post-30 min. RESULTS: Significance was seen for a condition difference in body mass (pCONCLUSIONS:Body water responses to aerobic exercise varied across the days of the menstrual cycle, which caused fluctuations in body weight, ECF, and ICF. The percent changes in ICF values from pre to post-30min were increased by 3.2% on day 14 and decreased by 5.6% on day 7. ICF behaviour on different days suggests that the menstrual cycle may have impacts on performance. Further investigation is required to back up such claims. Future studies should investigate the effects of different duration and/or intensity of aerobic exercises on body composition along with blood pressure, heart rate, and RPE

In vitro characterisation of fresh and frozen sex-sorted bull spermatozoa

peer-reviewedThis study sought to compare the in vitro characteristics of fresh and frozen non-sorted (NS) and sex-sorted (SS) bull spermatozoa. Experiment 1: Holstein–Friesian ejaculates (n = 10 bulls) were split across four treatments and processed: (1) NS fresh at 3 × 106 spermatozoa, (2) X-SS frozen at 2 × 106 spermatozoa, (3) X-SS fresh at 2 × 106 spermatozoa and (4) X-SS fresh at 1 × 106 spermatozoa. NS frozen controls of 20 × 106 spermatozoa per straw were sourced from previously frozen ejaculates (n = 3 bulls). Experiment 2: Aberdeen Angus ejaculates (n = 4 bulls) were split across four treatments and processed as: (1) NS fresh 3 × 106 spermatozoa, (2) Y-SS fresh at 1 × 106 spermatozoa, (3) Y-SS fresh at 2 × 106 spermatozoa and (4) X-SS fresh at 2 × 106 spermatozoa. Controls were sourced as per Experiment 1. In vitro assessments for progressive linear motility, acrosomal status and oxidative stress were carried out on Days 1, 2 and 3 after sorting (Day 0 = day of sorting. In both experiments SS fresh treatments had higher levels of agglutination in comparison to the NS fresh (P < 0.001), NS frozen treatments had the greatest PLM (P < 0.05) and NS spermatozoa exhibited higher levels of superoxide anion production compared with SS spermatozoa (P < 0.05). Experiment 1 found both fresh and frozen SS treatments had higher levels of viable acrosome-intact spermatozoa compared with the NS frozen treatments (P < 0.01).ACCEPTEDpeer-reviewe

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Obesity in adults: a 2022 adapted clinical practice guideline for Ireland

This Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for the management of obesity in adults in Ireland, adapted from the Canadian CPG, defines obesity as a complex chronic disease characterised by excess or dysfunctional adiposity that impairs health. The guideline reflects substantial advances in the understanding of the determinants, pathophysiology, assessment, and treatment of obesity. It shifts the focus of obesity management toward improving patient-centred health outcomes, functional outcomes, and social and economic participation, rather than weight loss alone. It gives recommendations for care that are underpinned by evidence-based principles of chronic disease management; validate patients' lived experiences; move beyond simplistic approaches of "eat less, move more" and address the root drivers of obesity. People living with obesity face substantial bias and stigma, which contribute to increased morbidity and mortality independent of body weight. Education is needed for all healthcare professionals in Ireland to address the gap in skills, increase knowledge of evidence-based practice, and eliminate bias and stigma in healthcare settings. We call for people living with obesity in Ireland to have access to evidence-informed care, including medical, medical nutrition therapy, physical activity and physical rehabilitation interventions, psychological interventions, pharmacotherapy, and bariatric surgery. This can be best achieved by resourcing and fully implementing the Model of Care for the Management of Adult Overweight and Obesity. To address health inequalities, we also call for the inclusion of obesity in the Structured Chronic Disease Management Programme and for pharmacotherapy reimbursement, to ensure equal access to treatment based on health-need rather than ability to pay

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

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

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

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