Continuous Sampling of Hydrothermal Fluids From Loihi Seamount After the 1996 Event

For at least 9 years prior to July 1996, hydrothermal fluids flowed from Pele\u27s Vents on Loihi Seamount, Hawaii. In July–August 1996 a tectonic-volcanic event occurred that destroyed Pele\u27s Vents, creating a pit crater (Pele\u27s Pit) and several sites with hydrothermal venting. In October 1996 we deployed two new continuous water samplers (OsmoSamplers) at two of these hydrothermal sites and collected fluids using traditional sampling techniques to monitor the evolution of crustal and hydrothermal conditions after the event. The samplers were recovered in September 1997, and additional discrete vent fluid samples were collected. The OsmoSampler located along the south rift at Naha Vents captured a change in composition from a low-chlorinity, high-K fluid (relative to bottom seawater) to a high-chlorinity, low-K fluid. These changes are consistent with the fluid cooling during ascent and being derived from several different sources, which include high- (\u3e330°C) and low- (330°C) into which magmatic volatiles were added. During the deployment, thermal and fluid fluxes decreased. At Naha the transport of heat and chemicals was decoupled. The chemical and thermal evolution of hydrothermal fluids after the event on Loihi is consistent with previous models based on events that have occurred along mid-ocean ridges. The event at Loihi clearly had an effect on the local hydrography; however, the integrated effect of chemical fluxes to global budgets from similar events is uncertain. Chemical fluxes from similar events may have a global impact, if ratios of chemical (e.g., CO2, Fe/Mn, Mg, sulfate, and K) to thermal anomalies greatly exceed, or are in the opposite direction to, fluxes from mid-ocean ridge hydrothermal systems

Legal origin and social solidarity: the continued relevance of Durkheim to comparative institutional analysis

By using the classic works of Durkheim as a theoretical platform, this research explores the relationship between legal systems and social solidarity. We found that certain types of civil law system, most notably those of Scandinavia, are associated with higher levels of social capital and better welfare state provision. However, we found the relationship between legal system and societal outcomes is considerably more complex than suggested by currently fashionable economistic legal origin approaches, and more in line with the later writings of Durkheim, and, indeed, the literature on comparative capitalisms. Relative communitarianism was strongly affected by relative development, reflecting the complex relationship between institutions, state capabilities and informal social ties and networks

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Contract 2 P01 DC00361National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00270U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Contract AFOSR-90-0200National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC00625U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-91-J-1454U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-M-1213U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-C-0055U.S. Navy - Naval Training Systems Center Contract N61339-93-C-0083U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-4005U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-93-1-119

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2 and reports on five research projects.National Institutes of Health Contract 2 R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Contract 1 R01 DC02032National Institutes of Health Contract 2 P01 DC00361National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC22402National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC001001National Institutes of Health Grant R01-DC00270National Institutes of Health Grant 5 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R29-DC00625U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-91-J-1454U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814U.S. Navy - Naval Air Warfare Center Training Systems Division Contract N61339-94-C-0087U.S. Navy - Naval Air Warfare Center Training System Division Contract N61339-93-C-0055U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-93-1-1198National Aeronautics and Space Administration/Ames Research Center Grant NCC 2-77

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0002U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0635U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0655U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 NS33778Massachusetts General Hospital, Center for Innovative Minimally Invasive Therapy Research Fellowship Gran

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fifteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health Contract P01-DC00361National Institutes of Health Contract N01-DC22402National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-94-C-0087U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-93-1-1399U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Grant N00014-94-1-1079U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-1814National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-88-K-0604National Aeronautics and Space Administration Grant NCC 2-771U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-94-1-0236U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Agreement with Brandeis Universit

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fourteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC52107U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-95-1-0176U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-96-K-0002National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-184

Oral Abstracts 7: RA ClinicalO37. Long-Term Outcomes of Early RA Patients Initiated with Adalimumab Plus Methotrexate Compared with Methotrexate Alone Following a Targeted Treatment Approach

Background: This analysis assessed, on a group level, whether there is a long-term advantage for early RA patients treated with adalimumab (ADA) + MTX vs those initially treated with placebo (PBO) + MTX who either responded to therapy or added ADA following inadequate response (IR). Methods: OPTIMA was a 78- week, randomized, controlled trial of ADA + MTX vs PBO + MTX in MTX-naïve early (<1 year) RA patients. Therapy was adjusted at week 26: ADA + MTX-responders (R) who achieved DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 at weeks 22 and 26 (Period 1, P1) were re-randomized to withdraw or continue ADA and PBO + MTX-R continued randomized therapy for 52 weeks (P2); IR-patients received open-label (OL) ADA + MTX during P2. This post hoc analysis evaluated the proportion of patients at week 78 with DAS28 (CRP) <3.2, HAQ-DI <0.5, and/or ΔmTSS ≤0.5 by initial treatment. To account for patients who withdrew ADA during P2, an equivalent proportion of R was imputed from ADA + MTX-R patients. Results: At week 26, significantly more patients had low disease activity, normal function, and/or no radiographic progression with ADA + MTX vs PBO + MTX (Table 1). Differences in clinical and functional outcomes disappeared following additional treatment, when PBO + MTX-IR (n = 348/460) switched to OL ADA + MTX. Addition of OL ADA slowed radiographic progression, but more patients who received ADA + MTX from baseline had no radiographic progression at week 78 than patients who received initial PBO + MTX. Conclusions: Early RA patients treated with PBO + MTX achieved comparable long-term clinical and functional outcomes on a group level as those who began ADA + MTX, but only when therapy was optimized by the addition of ADA in PBO + MTX-IR. Still, ADA + MTX therapy conferred a radiographic benefit although the difference did not appear to translate to an additional functional benefit. Disclosures: P.E., AbbVie, Merck, Pfizer, UCB, Roche, BMS—Provided Expert Advice, Undertaken Trials, AbbVie—AbbVie sponsored the study, contributed to its design, and participated in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data, and in the writing, reviewing, and approval of the final version. R.F., AbbVie, Pfizer, Merck, Roche, UCB, Celgene, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. S.F., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. A.K., AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, Pfizer, Roche, UCB—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. H.K., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. S.R., AbbVie—Employee, Stocks. J.S., AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Centocor-Janssen, GlaxoSmithKline, Lilly, Pfizer (Wyeth), MSD (Schering-Plough), Novo-Nordisk, Roche, Sandoz, UCB—Research Grants, Consultation Fees. R.V., AbbVie, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Human Genome Sciences, Merck, Pfizer, Roche, UCB Pharma—Consultation Fees, Research Support. Table 1.Week 78 clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes in patients who received continued ADA + MTX vs those who continued PBO + MTX or added open-label ADA following an inadequate response ADA + MTX, n/N (%)a PBO + MTX, n/N (%)b Outcome Week 26 Week 52 Week 78 Week 26 Week 52 Week 78 DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 246/466 (53) 304/465 (65) 303/465 (65) 139/460 (30)*** 284/460 (62) 300/460 (65) HAQ-DI <0.5 211/466 (45) 220/466 (47) 224/466 (48) 150/460 (33)*** 203/460 (44) 208/460 (45) ΔmTSS ≤0.5 402/462 (87) 379/445 (86) 382/443 (86) 330/459 (72)*** 318/440 (72)*** 318/440 (72)*** DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 + ΔmTSS ≤0.5 216/462 (47) 260/443 (59) 266/443 (60) 112/459 (24)*** 196/440 (45) 211/440 (48)*** DAS28 (CRP) <3.2 + HAQ-DI <0.5 + ΔmTSS ≤0.5 146/462 (32) 168/443 (38) 174/443 (39) 82/459 (18)*** 120/440 (27)*** 135/440 (31)** aIncludes patients from the ADA Continuation (n = 105) and OL ADA Carry On (n = 259) arms, as well as the proportional equivalent number of responders from the ADA Withdrawal arm (n = 102). bIncludes patients from the MTX Continuation (n = 112) and Rescue ADA (n = 348) arms. Last observation carried forward: DAS28 (CRP) and HAQ-DI; Multiple imputations: ΔmTSS. ***P < 0.001 and **iP < 0.01, respectively, for differences between initial treatments from chi-squar

Adjunctive rifampicin for Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia (ARREST): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia is a common cause of severe community-acquired and hospital-acquired infection worldwide. We tested the hypothesis that adjunctive rifampicin would reduce bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death, by enhancing early S aureus killing, sterilising infected foci and blood faster, and reducing risks of dissemination and metastatic infection. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adults (≥18 years) with S aureus bacteraemia who had received ≤96 h of active antibiotic therapy were recruited from 29 UK hospitals. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequential randomisation list to receive 2 weeks of adjunctive rifampicin (600 mg or 900 mg per day according to weight, oral or intravenous) versus identical placebo, together with standard antibiotic therapy. Randomisation was stratified by centre. Patients, investigators, and those caring for the patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was time to bacteriologically confirmed treatment failure or disease recurrence, or death (all-cause), from randomisation to 12 weeks, adjudicated by an independent review committee masked to the treatment. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial was registered, number ISRCTN37666216, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2012, and Oct 25, 2016, 758 eligible participants were randomly assigned: 370 to rifampicin and 388 to placebo. 485 (64%) participants had community-acquired S aureus infections, and 132 (17%) had nosocomial S aureus infections. 47 (6%) had meticillin-resistant infections. 301 (40%) participants had an initial deep infection focus. Standard antibiotics were given for 29 (IQR 18-45) days; 619 (82%) participants received flucloxacillin. By week 12, 62 (17%) of participants who received rifampicin versus 71 (18%) who received placebo experienced treatment failure or disease recurrence, or died (absolute risk difference -1·4%, 95% CI -7·0 to 4·3; hazard ratio 0·96, 0·68-1·35, p=0·81). From randomisation to 12 weeks, no evidence of differences in serious (p=0·17) or grade 3-4 (p=0·36) adverse events were observed; however, 63 (17%) participants in the rifampicin group versus 39 (10%) in the placebo group had antibiotic or trial drug-modifying adverse events (p=0·004), and 24 (6%) versus six (2%) had drug interactions (p=0·0005). INTERPRETATION: Adjunctive rifampicin provided no overall benefit over standard antibiotic therapy in adults with S aureus bacteraemia. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment