Characterization of exercise-induced hemolysis in endurance horses

Exercise-induced hemolysis occurs as the result of intense physical exercise and is caused by metabolic and mechanical factors including repeated muscle contractions leading to capillary vessels compression, vasoconstriction of internal organs and foot strike among others. We hypothesized that exercise-induced hemolysis occurred in endurance racehorses and its severity was associated with the intensity of exercise. To provide further insight into the hemolysis of endurance horses, the aim of the study was to deployed a strategy for small molecules (metabolites) profiling, beyond standard molecular methods. The study included 47 Arabian endurance horses competing for either 80, 100, or 120 km distances. Blood plasma was collected before and after the competition and analyzed macroscopically, by ELISA and non-targeted metabolomics with liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. A significant increase in all hemolysis parameters was observed after the race, and an association was found between the measured parameters, average speed, and distance completed. Levels of hemolysis markers were highest in horses eliminated for metabolic reasons in comparison to finishers and horses eliminated for lameness (gait abnormality), which may suggest a connection between the intensity of exercise, metabolic challenges, and hemolysis. Utilization of omics methods alongside conventional methods revealed a broader insight into the exercise-induced hemolysis process by displaying, apart from commonly measured hemoglobin and haptoglobin, levels of hemoglobin degradation metabolites. Obtained results emphasized the importance of respecting horse limitations in regard to speed and distance which, if underestimated, may lead to severe damages

Pharmaceutical policies : effects of policies regulating drug marketing

Objectives: This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows:. Main objective To assess the effects of policies that regulate drug promotion on drug utilization, coverage or access, healthcare utilization, patient outcomes, adverse events and costs. Secondary objective(s) To assess whether the effects of policies that regulate drug promotion to patients/consumers, healthcare professionals, regulators and third-party payers differ according to drug class, clinical indication, target groups and country (high-, middle- or low-income countries)

NOTAS E RESENHAS

A CONTRIBUIÇÃO DA GEOGRAFIA FÍSICA NA EDUCAÇÃO AMBIENTAL: O ENSINO DE 1.º E 2.º GRAUS - David Márcio Santos Rodrigues PROBLEMAS EPISTEMOLÓGICOS Y SOCIOLÓGICOS DE LA INVESTIGACIÓN: EL CASO DE LA GEOGRAFIA - Néstor Sebastian Lizarraga TEMPO LIVRE COMO OBJETO DE CONSUMO E LAZER DIRIGIDO COMO OPORTUNIDADE DE MANIPULAÇÃO - Adyr A. Balastreri Rodrigues VARIAÇÕES MICROCLIMATICAS EM ÁREAS DE MATA TROPICAL E DE REFLORESTAMENTO - Anderson Luís Hebling Christofoletti; Maria Juraci Zani dos Santos UM EXEMPLO DE INTERVENÇÃO DO ESTADO NO ESPAÇO: A BARRAGEM DE ANAGÉ - BAHIA - Lucas Batista Pereira À MARGEM DA GEOGRAFIA: ESPAÇO, PODER E NACIONALIDADE EM EUCLIDES DA CUNHA - Fadel David Antonio Filho; Silvio Carlos Bray CONTRIBUIÇÕES À HISTÓRIA, ÀS CONCEPÇÕES E AOS PROCEDIMENTOS METODOLÓGICOS EM GEOGRAFIA - Antonio Christofoletti  CONTRIBUIÇÕES AO ENSINO E À PESQUISA EM GEOGRAFIA HUMANA - Antonio Christofoletti  PROGRESS IN PHYSICAL AND IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY - 1988 - Antonio Christofoletti  O USO DE COMPUTADORES EM GEOGRAFIA - Amândio Luís de Almeida Teixeir

Sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with severe or critical COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background: Elevated proinflammatory cytokines are associated with greater COVID-19 severity. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of sarilumab, an interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor, in patients with severe (requiring supplemental oxygen by nasal cannula or face mask) or critical (requiring greater supplemental oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extracorporeal support) COVID-19. Methods: We did a 60-day, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational phase 3 trial at 45 hospitals in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Russia, and Spain. We included adults (≥18 years) admitted to hospital with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and pneumonia, who required oxygen supplementation or intensive care. Patients were randomly assigned (2:2:1 with permuted blocks of five) to receive intravenous sarilumab 400 mg, sarilumab 200 mg, or placebo. Patients, care providers, outcome assessors, and investigators remained masked to assigned intervention throughout the course of the study. The primary endpoint was time to clinical improvement of two or more points (seven point scale ranging from 1 [death] to 7 [discharged from hospital]) in the modified intention-to-treat population. The key secondary endpoint was proportion of patients alive at day 29. Safety outcomes included adverse events and laboratory assessments. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04327388; EudraCT, 2020-001162-12; and WHO, U1111-1249-6021. Findings: Between March 28 and July 3, 2020, of 431 patients who were screened, 420 patients were randomly assigned and 416 received placebo (n=84 [20%]), sarilumab 200 mg (n=159 [38%]), or sarilumab 400 mg (n=173 [42%]). At day 29, no significant differences were seen in median time to an improvement of two or more points between placebo (12·0 days [95% CI 9·0 to 15·0]) and sarilumab 200 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 12·0]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·03 [95% CI 0·75 to 1·40]; log-rank p=0·96) or sarilumab 400 mg (10·0 days [9·0 to 13·0]; HR 1·14 [95% CI 0·84 to 1·54]; log-rank p=0·34), or in proportions of patients alive (77 [92%] of 84 patients in the placebo group; 143 [90%] of 159 patients in the sarilumab 200 mg group; difference −1·7 [−9·3 to 5·8]; p=0·63 vs placebo; and 159 [92%] of 173 patients in the sarilumab 400 mg group; difference 0·2 [−6·9 to 7·4]; p=0·85 vs placebo). At day 29, there were numerical, non-significant survival differences between sarilumab 400 mg (88%) and placebo (79%; difference +8·9% [95% CI −7·7 to 25·5]; p=0·25) for patients who had critical disease. No unexpected safety signals were seen. The rates of treatment-emergent adverse events were 65% (55 of 84) in the placebo group, 65% (103 of 159) in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 70% (121 of 173) in the sarilumab 400 mg group, and of those leading to death 11% (nine of 84) were in the placebo group, 11% (17 of 159) were in the sarilumab 200 mg group, and 10% (18 of 173) were in the sarilumab 400 mg group. Interpretation: This trial did not show efficacy of sarilumab in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and receiving supplemental oxygen. Adequately powered trials of targeted immunomodulatory therapies assessing survival as a primary endpoint are suggested in patients with critical COVID-19. Funding: Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation

Peer reviewe