What’s Wrong with Dodd-Frank 1502? Conflict Minerals, Civilian Livelihoods, and the Unintended Consequences of Western Advocacy- Working Paper 284

Although its provisions have yet to be implemented, section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is already having a profound effect on the Congolese mining sector. Nicknamed “Obama’s Law” by the Congolese, section 1502 has created a de facto ban on Congolese mineral exports, put anywhere from tens of thousands up to 2 million Congolese miners out of work in the eastern Congo, and, despite ending most of the trade in Congolese conflict minerals, done little to improve the security situation or the daily lives of most Congolese. In this report, Laura Seay traces the development of section 1502 with respect to the pursuit of a conflict minerals-based strategy by U.S. advocates, examines the effects of the legislation, and recommends new courses of action to move forward in a way that both promotes accountability and transparency and allows Congolese artisanal miners to earn a living. Length: 32 pages

Writing for Public Engagement

Academic research frequently speaks to current events and ongoing issues, from political protests and election events to climate change. Yet, the media often ignores academic expertise, and paywalled academic journals are inaccessible to most policy makers and the general public. How can university researchers effectively communicate our findings and ideas to audiences outside the academy? How do we ensure that our research is taken into account in public policy making processes? This workshop highlights strategies for academics who wish to engage with broad audiences of politicians, policy professionals, and general audiences. In the first part of the workshop, we will discuss effective strategies for topic identification, media outlet selection, accessible writing, and pitching to editors, from writing analytical blog posts to developing opinion-editorial pieces and policy papers. In the second part of the workshop, participants will each prepare a draft analytical blog post or op-ed and receive real-time feedback from the group. Participants are encouraged to come to the workshop with a topic they would like to write about in mind, such as a recently or soon to be published article, research findings, or informed observations relevant to a current event

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial

BackgroundDuctal carcinoma in situ is currently managed with excision, radiotherapy, and adjuvant hormone therapy, usually tamoxifen. We postulated that an aromatase inhibitor would be safer and more effective. We therefore undertook this trial to compare anastrozole versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with ductal carcinoma in situ undergoing lumpectomy plus radiotherapy.MethodsThe double-blind, randomised, phase 3 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-35 trial was done in 333 participating NSABP centres in the USA and Canada. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole-breast irradiation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral tamoxifen 20 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of anastrozole) or oral anastrozole 1 mg per day (with matching placebo in place of tamoxifen) for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by age (<60 vs ≥60 years) and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was breast cancer-free interval, defined as time from randomisation to any breast cancer event (local, regional, or distant recurrence, or contralateral breast cancer, invasive disease, or ductal carcinoma in situ), analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00053898, and is complete.FindingsBetween Jan 1, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (1552 to tamoxifen and 1552 to anastrozole). As of Feb 28, 2015, follow-up information was available for 3083 patients for overall survival and 3077 for all other disease-free endpoints, with median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 8·2-10·0). In total, 212 breast cancer-free interval events occurred: 122 in the tamoxifen group and 90 in the anastrozole group (HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·56-0·96], p=0·0234). A significant time-by-treatment interaction (p=0·0410) became evident later in the study. There was also a significant interaction between treatment and age group (p=0·0379), showing that anastrozole is superior only in women younger than 60 years of age. Adverse events did not differ between the groups, except for thrombosis or embolism--a known side-effect of tamoxifen-for which there were 17 grade 4 or worse events in the tamoxifen group versus four in the anastrozole group.InterpretationCompared with tamoxifen, anastrozole treatment provided a significant improvement in breast cancer-free interval, mainly in women younger than 60 years of age. This finding means that women will benefit from having a choice of effective agents for ductal carcinoma in situ.FundingUS National Cancer Institute and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP

Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial

BackgroundThe NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms.MethodsThe study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898.FindingsBetween Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46·72 for tamoxifen vs 45·85 for anastrozole; p=0·20), mental health scores (52·38 vs 51·48; p=0·38), energy and fatigue (58·34 vs 57·54; p=0·86), or symptoms of depression (6·19 vs 6·39; p=0·46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1·33 vs 1·17; p=0·011), difficulty with bladder control (0·96 vs 0·80; p=0·0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0·29 vs 0·18; p<0·0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1·50 vs 1·72; p=0·0006) and vaginal symptoms (0·76 vs 0·86; p=0·035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43·65 vs 45·29; p=0·56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1·45 for age <60 years vs 0·65 for age ≥60 years; p=0·0006), vaginal symptoms (0·98 vs 0·65; p<0·0001), weight problems (1·32 vs 1·02; p<0·0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0·26 vs 0·22; p=0·014).InterpretationGiven the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative.FundingUS National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Patient-reported outcomes with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with lumpectomy plus radiotherapy (NSABP B-35): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 clinical trial

BACKGROUND: The NSABP B-35 trial compared 5 years of treatment with anastrozole versus tamoxifen for reducing subsequent occurrence of breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. This report assesses the effect of these drugs on quality of life and symptoms. METHODS: The study was done at 333 hospitals in North America. Postmenopausal women with hormone-positive ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy with clear resection margins and whole breast irradiation were randomly assigned to receive either tamoxifen (20 mg/day) or anastrazole (1 mg/day) for 5 years, stratified by age (<60 years vs ≥60 years). Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and every 6 months thereafter for 6 years. The primary outcomes were SF-12 physical and mental health component scale scores, and vasomotor symptoms (as per the BCPT symptom scale). Secondary outcomes were vaginal symptoms and sexual functioning. Exploratory outcomes were musculoskeletal pain, bladder symptoms, gynaecological symptoms, cognitive symptoms, weight problems, vitality, and depression. We did the analyses by intention to treat, including patients who completed questionnaires at baseline and at least once during follow-up. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00053898. FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2003, and June 15, 2006, 3104 patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 1193 were included in the quality-of-life substudy: 601 assigned to tamoxifen and 592 assigned to anastrozole. We detected no significant difference between treatment groups for: physical health scores (mean severity score 46.72 for tamoxifen vs 45.85 for anastrozole; p=0.20), mental health scores (52.38 vs 51.48; p=0.38), energy and fatigue (58.34 vs 57.54; p=0.86), or symptoms of depression (6.19 vs 6.39; p=0.46) over 5 years. Vasomotor symptoms (1.33 vs 1·17; p=0.011), difficulty with bladder control (0.96 vs 0.80; p=0.0002), and gynaecological symptoms (0.29 vs 0.18; p<0.0001) were significantly more severe in the tamoxifen group than in the anastrozole group. Musculoskeletal pain (1.50 vs 1.72; p=0.0006) and vaginal symptoms (0.76 vs 0.86; p=0.035) were significantly worse in the anastrozole group than in the tamoxifen group. Sexual functioning did not differ significantly between the two treatments (43.65 vs 45.29; p=0.56). Younger age was significantly associated with more severe vasomotor symptoms (mean severity score 1.45 for age <60 years vs 0.65 for age ≥60 years; p=0.0006), vaginal symptoms (0.98 vs 0.65; p<0.0001), weight problems (1.32 vs 1·02; p<0.0001), and gynaecological symptoms (0.26 vs 0.22; p=0.014). INTERPRETATION: Given the similar efficacy of tamoxifen and anastrozole for women older than age 60 years, decisions about treatment should be informed by the risk for serious adverse health effects and the symptoms associated with each drug. For women younger than 60 years old, treatment decisions might be driven by efficacy (favouring anastrozole); however, if the side-effects of anastrozole are intolerable, then switching to tamoxifen is a good alternative. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

The History of Religions, Read as Fantasy: On the Construction of (Religious) Ambiguity in the TV Show Lost

With its intricate “mythology,” the ABC drama series Lost invites a wide range of religious interpretations. Starting off as a survivor drama, the show evolves into a fantastic epic, in which the pilot episode's initial question “Where are we?” triggers reflections such as “where do we come from, where are we going, and what are we” and is finally passed on to the world religions. Against the backdrop of Tzvetan Todorov's and Marianne Wünsch's work on the fantastic, we translate literary scholar Wolfgang Iser's aesthetic response theory into a tool for analyzing narrative structures of contemporary supernatural fiction. Taking storytelling and reception culture into account, this piece shows how Lost uses the enactment of religion(s) to perpetuate structural ambiguity concerning the series' genre. We identify the narrative devices used to create generic indeterminacy both in content and form of the Lost narrative. With this ambiguity reverberating on the religious traditions referred to, Lost suggests the history of religions as an extradiegetic analogue of the literary fantastic

Onset of Coagulation Function Recovery Is Delayed in Severely Injured Trauma Patients with Venous Thromboembolism

BackgroundAltered coagulation function after trauma can contribute to development of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Severe trauma impairs coagulation function, but the trajectory for recovery is not known. We hypothesized that enhanced, early recovery of coagulation function increases VTE risk in severely injured trauma patients.Study designSecondary analysis was performed on data from the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratio (PROPPR) trial, excluding patients who died within 24 hours or were on pre-injury anticoagulants. Patient characteristics, adverse outcomes, and parameters of platelet function and coagulation (thromboelastography) were compared from admission to 72 hours between VTE (n&nbsp;=&nbsp;83) and non-VTE (n&nbsp;= 475) patients. A p value &lt; 0.05 indicates significance.ResultsDespite similar patient demographics, VTE patients exhibited hypercoagulable thromboelastography parameters and enhanced platelet function at admission (p &lt; 0.05). Both groups exhibited hypocoagulable thromboelastography parameters, platelet dysfunction, and suppressed clot lysis (low clot lysis at 30 minutes) 2 hours after admission (p &lt; 0.05). The VTE patients exhibited delayed coagulation recovery (a significant change compared with 2 hours) of K-value (48 vs 24 hours), α-angle (no recovery), maximum amplitude (24 vs 12 hours), and clot lysis at 30 minutes (48 vs 12 hours). Platelet function recovery mediated by arachidonic acid (72 vs 4 hours), ADP (72 vs 12 hours), and collagen (48 vs 12 hours) was delayed in VTE patients. The VTE patients had lower mortality (4% vs 13%; p &lt; 0.05), but fewer hospital-free days (0 days [interquartile range 0 to 8 days] vs 10 days [interquartile range 0 to 20 days]; p &lt; 0.05) and higher complication rates (p &lt; 0.05).ConclusionsRecovery from platelet dysfunction and coagulopathy after severe trauma were delayed in VTE patients. Suppressed clot lysis and compensatory mechanisms associated with altered coagulation that can potentiate VTE formation require additional investigation

Older Blood Is Associated With Increased Mortality and Adverse Events in Massively Transfused Trauma Patients: Secondary Analysis of the PROPPR Trial

Study objectiveThe transfusion of older packed RBCs may be harmful in critically ill patients. We seek to determine the association between packed RBC age and mortality among trauma patients requiring massive packed RBC transfusion.MethodsWe analyzed data from the Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios trial. Subjects in the parent trial included critically injured adult patients admitted to 1 of 12 North American Level I trauma centers who received at least 1 unit of packed RBCs and were predicted to require massive blood transfusion. The primary exposure was volume of packed RBC units transfused during the first 24 hours of hospitalization, stratified by packed RBC age category: 0 to 7 days, 8 to 14 days, 15 to 21 days, and greater than or equal to 22 days. The primary outcome was 24-hour mortality. We evaluated the association between transfused volume of each packed RBC age category and 24-hour survival, using random-effects logistic regression, adjusting for total packed RBC volume, patient age, sex, race, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, clinical site, and trial treatment group.ResultsThe 678 patients included in the analysis received a total of 8,830 packed RBC units. One hundred patients (14.8%) died within the first 24 hours. On multivariable analysis, the number of packed RBCs greater than or equal to 22 days old was independently associated with increased 24-hour mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.05 per packed RBC unit; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.08): OR 0.97 for 0 to 7 days old (95% CI 0.88 to 1.08), OR 1.04 for 8 to 14 days old (95% CI 0.99 to 1.09), and OR 1.02 for 15 to 21 days old (95% CI 0.98 to 1.06). Results of sensitivity analyses were similar only among patients who received greater than or equal to 10 packed RBC units.ConclusionIncreasing quantities of older packed RBCs are associated with increased likelihood of 24-hour mortality in trauma patients receiving massive packed RBC transfusion (≥10 units), but not in those who receive fewer than 10 units