Prediction-Coherent LSTM-based Recurrent Neural Network for Safer Glucose Predictions in Diabetic People

In the context of time-series forecasting, we propose a LSTM-based recurrent neural network architecture and loss function that enhance the stability of the predictions. In particular, the loss function penalizes the model, not only on the prediction error (mean-squared error), but also on the predicted variation error. We apply this idea to the prediction of future glucose values in diabetes, which is a delicate task as unstable predictions can leave the patient in doubt and make him/her take the wrong action, threatening his/her life. The study is conducted on type 1 and type 2 diabetic people, with a focus on predictions made 30-minutes ahead of time. First, we confirm the superiority, in the context of glucose prediction, of the LSTM model by comparing it to other state-of-the-art models (Extreme Learning Machine, Gaussian Process regressor, Support Vector Regressor). Then, we show the importance of making stable predictions by smoothing the predictions made by the models, resulting in an overall improvement of the clinical acceptability of the models at the cost in a slight loss in prediction accuracy. Finally, we show that the proposed approach, outperforms all baseline results. More precisely, it trades a loss of 4.3\% in the prediction accuracy for an improvement of the clinical acceptability of 27.1\%. When compared to the moving average post-processing method, we show that the trade-off is more efficient with our approach

Mycophenolate mofetil versus azathioprine for prevention of acute rejection in renal transplantation (MYSS): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil has replaced azathioprine in immunosuppression regimens worldwide to prevent graft rejection. However, evidence that its antirejection activity is better than that of azathioprine has been provided only by registration trials with an old formulation of ciclosporin and steroid. We aimed to compare the antirejection activity of these two drugs with a new formulation of ciclosporin. METHODS: The mycophenolate steroids sparing multicentre, prospective, randomised, parallel-group trial compared acute rejections and adverse events in recipients of cadaver-kidney transplants over 6-month treatment with mycophenolate mofetil or azathioprine along with ciclosporin microemulsion (Neoral) and steroids (phase A), and over 15 more months without steroids (phase B). The primary endpoint was occurrence of acute rejection episodes. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: 168 patients per group entered phase A. 56 (34%) assigned mycophenolate mofetil and 58 (35%) assigned azathioprine had clinical rejections (risk reduction [RR] on mycophenolate mofetil compared with azathioprine 13.7% [95% CI -25.7% to 40.7%], p=0.44). 88 patients in the mycophenolate mofetil group and 89 in the azathioprine group entered phase B. 14 (16%) taking mycophenolate mofetil and 11 (12%) taking azathioprine had clinical rejections (RR -16.2%, [-157.5% to 47.5%], p=0.71). Average per-patient costs of mycophenolate mofetil treatment greatly exceeded those of azathioprine (phase A 2665 Euros [SD 586] vs Euros 184 [62]; phase B 5095 Euros [2658] vs 322 Euros [170], p<0.0001 for both). INTERPRETATION: In recipients of cadaver kidney-transplants given ciclosporin microemulsion, mycophenolate mofetil offers no advantages over azathioprine in preventing acute rejections and is about 15 times more expensive. Standard immunosuppression regimens for transplantation should perhaps include azathioprine rather than mycophenolate mofetil, at least for kidney graft

Participants’ perspectives on mindfulnessbased cognitive therapy for inflammatory bowel disease: a qualitative study nested within a pilot randomised controlled trial

Background: Mindfulness-based interventions have shown to improve depression and anxiety symptoms as well as quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, little is known about the experiences of this group of patients participating in mindfulness interventions. This paper sets out to explore the perspectives of patients with IBD recruited to a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) about the intervention. Methods: In a qualitative study nested within a parallel two-arm pilot RCT of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for patients with IBD, two focus group interviews (using the same schedule) and a free text postal survey were conducted. Data from both were analysed using thematic analysis. Data and investigator triangulation was performed to enhance confidence in the ensuing findings. Forty-four patients with IBD were recruited to the pilot RCT from gastroenterology outpatient clinics from two Scottish NHS boards. Eighteen of these patients (ten from mindfulness intervention and eight from control group) also completed a postal survey and participated in two focus groups after completing post intervention assessments. Results: The major themes that emerged from the data were the following: perceived benefits of MBCT for IBD, barriers to attending MBCT and expectations about MBCT. Participants identified MBCT as a therapeutic, educational and an inclusive process as key benefits of the intervention. Key barriers included time and travel constraints. Conclusions: This qualitative study has demonstrated the acceptability of MBCT in a group of patients with IBD. Participants saw MBCT as a therapeutic and educational initiative that transformed their relationship with the illness. The inclusive process and shared experience of MBCT alleviated the sense of social isolation commonly associated with IBD. However, time commitment and travel were recognised as a barrier to MBCT which could potentially influence the degree of therapeutic gain from MBCT for some participants. Keywords: Inflammatory bowel disease, Mindfulness, MBCT, Focus groups, Qualitative stud

Personalizing Cancer Pain Therapy: Insights from the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) Group

Introduction: A previous Delphi survey from the Rational Use of Analgesics (RUA) project involving Italian palliative care specialists revealed some discrepancies between current guidelines and clinical practice with a lack of consensus on items regarding the use of strong opioids in treating cancer pain. Those results represented the basis for a new Delphi study addressing a better approach to pain treatment in patients with cancer. Methods: The study consisted of a two-round multidisciplinary Delphi study. Specialists rated their agreement with a set of 17 statements using a 5-point Likert scale (0 = totally disagree and 4 = totally agree). Consensus on a statement was achieved if the median consensus score (MCS) (expressed as value at which at least 50% of participants agreed) was at least 4 and the interquartile range (IQR) was 3–4. Results: This survey included input from 186 palliative care specialists representing all Italian territory. Consensus was reached on seven statements. More than 70% of participants agreed with the use of low dose of strong opioids in moderate pain treatment and valued transdermal route as an effective option when the oral route is not available. There was strong consensus on the importance of knowing opioid pharmacokinetics for therapy personalization and on identifying immediate-release opioids as key for tailoring therapy to patients’ needs. Limited agreement was reached on items regarding breakthrough pain and the management of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. Conclusion: These findings may assist clinicians in applying clinical evidence to routine care settings and call for a reappraisal of current pain treatment recommendations with the final aim of optimizing the clinical use of strong opioids in patients with cancer

An Integrated Model for Supporting Aware Decisions of Companies in a Circular and Sustainable Economy Transition

The world of business is rapidly changing, not only thanks to digitization and technological transformation, but also to address challenges related to the environment and climate change, and to reduce its impact in terms of waste, emissions, and raw materials. The COVID-19 crisis and the European Green New Deal have also accelerated this transformation process. In this context, companies must be able to evaluate their commitment and contribution to sustainable development, and to adopt lower impact business models. To achieve this aim, companies need easy and accessible measurement tools. The tools currently available are based on quantitative or statistical approaches and require the process of large amounts of data. This approach is easily accessible to large companies, while small companies or craft businesses may be scared off, as they may lack the structures and expertise. This study fills this gap by presenting an innovative and easy-to-access methodology for assessing sustainability in companies. Through a qualitative assessment of interdependence among nine categories grouping multiple environmental, social, and governance indicators, companies can evaluate their impact on the 17 SDGs and on the 3 ESG dimensions. The result can be used by the companies to design strategies for their businesses and plan future actions to improve circular models, thanks to the awareness and benefits gained from the analysis. The methodology has been applied to the case study of Ohoskin © 2021