Anthropogenic disturbance promotes the abundance of a newly introduced butterfly in Canada, Polyommatus icarus (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae)

The frequency of introductions of non-native species is increasing worldwide, but only a few introduced species undergo rapid population growth and range expansion, and even fewer become invasive, leading to negative impacts on native communities. Predicting which non-native species are likely to become widespread and abundant can be difficult when there is a lack of species’ information in the early stages of colonization. Here, we investigate the ecology of a newly introduced butterfly in Canada, the European Common Blue (Polyommatus icarus Rottemberg, 1775), by modelling its local- and landscape-scale habitat suitability in Montral, Canada and the surrounding region, and by assessing its dispersal ability using a mark-release-recapture study. At a local-scale, we found that P. icarus abundance was highest at sites with moderate levels of habitat disturbance (e.g., mowed every 2-3 years), the presence of their preferred larval host plant and low proportional cover of grasses. At a landscape-scale, P. icarus abundance increased with an increasing proportion of urban area and decreasing proportion of forests. We also found that P. icarus is a low to mid-level disperser relative to other butterflies. Our results suggest that P. icarus may become widespread in disturbed and urban areas across Canada, but that further investigation into additional potential range-constraining factors (e.g., microclimate), especially larval preferences, and modelling of the trajectory of P. icarus range expansion is needed.The accepted manuscript in pdf format is listed with the files at the bottom of this page. The presentation of the authors' names and (or) special characters in the title of the manuscript may differ slightly between what is listed on this page and what is listed in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript; that in the pdf file of the accepted manuscript is what was submitted by the author

A randomized clinical trial of high-dosage coenzyme Q10 in early Parkinson disease: no evidence of benefit

Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), an antioxidant that supports mitochondrial function, has been shown in preclinical Parkinson disease (PD) models to reduce the loss of dopamine neurons, and was safe and well tolerated in early-phase human studies. A previous phase II study suggested possible clinical benefit. To examine whether CoQ10 could slow disease progression in early PD. A phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial at 67 North American sites consisting of participants 30 years of age or older who received a diagnosis of PD within 5 years and who had the following inclusion criteria: the presence of a rest tremor, bradykinesia, and rigidity; a modified Hoehn and Yahr stage of 2.5 or less; and no anticipated need for dopaminergic therapy within 3 months. Exclusion criteria included the use of any PD medication within 60 days, the use of any symptomatic PD medication for more than 90 days, atypical or drug-induced parkinsonism, a Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) rest tremor score of 3 or greater for any limb, a Mini-Mental State Examination score of 25 or less, a history of stroke, the use of certain supplements, and substantial recent exposure to CoQ10. Of 696 participants screened, 78 were found to be ineligible, and 18 declined participation. The remaining 600 participants were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 1200 mg/d of CoQ10, or 2400 mg/d of CoQ10; all participants received 1200 IU/d of vitamin E. Participants were observed for 16 months or until a disability requiring dopaminergic treatment. The prospectively defined primary outcome measure was the change in total UPDRS score (Parts I-III) from baseline to final visit. The study was powered to detect a 3-point difference between an active treatment and placebo. The baseline characteristics of the participants were well balanced, the mean age was 62.5 years, 66% of participants were male, and the mean baseline total UPDRS score was 22.7. A total of 267 participants required treatment (94 received placebo, 87 received 1200 mg/d of CoQ10, and 86 received 2400 mg/d of CoQ10), and 65 participants (29 who received placebo, 19 who received 1200 mg/d of CoQ10, and 17 who received 2400 mg/d of CoQ10) withdrew prematurely. Treatments were well tolerated with no safety concerns. The study was terminated after a prespecified futility criterion was reached. At study termination, both active treatment groups showed slight adverse trends relative to placebo. Adjusted mean changes (worsening) in total UPDRS scores from baseline to final visit were 6.9 points (placebo), 7.5 points (1200 mg/d of CoQ10; P = .49 relative to placebo), and 8.0 points (2400 mg/d of CoQ10; P = .21 relative to placebo). Coenzyme Q10 was safe and well tolerated in this population, but showed no evidence of clinical benefit. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00740714

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used