Predicting selection for antimicrobial resistance in UK wastewater and aquatic environments: ciprofloxacin poses a significant risk

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a threat to human and animal health, with the environment increasingly recognised as playing an important role in AMR evolution, dissemination, and transmission. Antibiotics can select for AMR at very low concentrations, similar to those in the environment, yet their release into the environment, e.g., from wastewater treatment plants, is not currently regulated. Understanding the selection risk antibiotics pose in wastewater and receiving waters is key to understanding if environmental regulation of antibiotics is required. We investigated the risk of selection occurring in UK wastewater and receiving waters by determining where measured environmental concentration data (n = 8187) for four antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, azithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin) collected in England and Wales 2015–2018 (sites n = 67) exceeded selective concentration thresholds derived from complex microbial community evolution experiments undertaken previously. We show that selection for AMR by ciprofloxacin is likely to have occurred routinely in England and Wales wastewater during the 2015–2018 period, with some seasonal and regional trends. Wastewater treatment reduces the selection risk posed by ciprofloxacin significantly, but not completely, and predicted risk in surface waters remains high in several cases. Conversely, the potential risks posed by the macrolides (azithromycin, clarithromycin, and erythromycin) were lower than those posed by ciprofloxacin. Our data demonstrate further action is needed to prevent selection for AMR in wastewater, with environmental quality standards for some antibiotics required in the future, and that selection risk is not solely a concern in low/middle income countries

Functional neurological disorder is a feminist issue

Functional neurological disorder (FND) is a common and disabling disorder, often misunderstood by clinicians. Although viewed sceptically by some, FND is a diagnosis that can be made accurately, based on positive clinical signs, with clinical features that have remained stable for over 100 years. Despite some progress in the last decade, people with FND continue to suffer subtle and overt forms of discrimination by clinicians, researchers and the public. There is abundant evidence that disorders perceived as primarily affecting women are neglected in healthcare and medical research, and the course of FND mirrors this neglect. We outline the reasons why FND is a feminist issue, incorporating historical and contemporary clinical, research and social perspectives. We call for parity for FND in medical education, research and clinical service development so that people affected by FND can receive the care they need

Continuous glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes (CONCEPTT): a multicentre international randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes are a high-risk population who are recommended to strive for optimal glucose control, but neonatal outcomes attributed to maternal hyperglycaemia remain suboptimal. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) on maternal glucose control and obstetric and neonatal health outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial, we recruited women aged 18-40 years with type 1 diabetes for a minimum of 12 months who were receiving intensive insulin therapy. Participants were pregnant (≤13 weeks and 6 days' gestation) or planning pregnancy from 31 hospitals in Canada, England, Scotland, Spain, Italy, Ireland, and the USA. We ran two trials in parallel for pregnant participants and for participants planning pregnancy. In both trials, participants were randomly assigned to either CGM in addition to capillary glucose monitoring or capillary glucose monitoring alone. Randomisation was stratified by insulin delivery (pump or injections) and baseline glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). The primary outcome was change in HbA1c from randomisation to 34 weeks' gestation in pregnant women and to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and was assessed in all randomised participants with baseline assessments. Secondary outcomes included obstetric and neonatal health outcomes, assessed with all available data without imputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01788527. FINDINGS: Between March 25, 2013, and March 22, 2016, we randomly assigned 325 women (215 pregnant, 110 planning pregnancy) to capillary glucose monitoring with CGM (108 pregnant and 53 planning pregnancy) or without (107 pregnant and 57 planning pregnancy). We found a small difference in HbA1c in pregnant women using CGM (mean difference -0·19%; 95% CI -0·34 to -0·03; p=0·0207). Pregnant CGM users spent more time in target (68% vs 61%; p=0·0034) and less time hyperglycaemic (27% vs 32%; p=0·0279) than did pregnant control participants, with comparable severe hypoglycaemia episodes (18 CGM and 21 control) and time spent hypoglycaemic (3% vs 4%; p=0·10). Neonatal health outcomes were significantly improved, with lower incidence of large for gestational age (odds ratio 0·51, 95% CI 0·28 to 0·90; p=0·0210), fewer neonatal intensive care admissions lasting more than 24 h (0·48; 0·26 to 0·86; p=0·0157), fewer incidences of neonatal hypoglycaemia (0·45; 0·22 to 0·89; p=0·0250), and 1-day shorter length of hospital stay (p=0·0091). We found no apparent benefit of CGM in women planning pregnancy. Adverse events occurred in 51 (48%) of CGM participants and 43 (40%) of control participants in the pregnancy trial, and in 12 (27%) of CGM participants and 21 (37%) of control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. Serious adverse events occurred in 13 (6%) participants in the pregnancy trial (eight [7%] CGM, five [5%] control) and in three (3%) participants in the planning pregnancy trial (two [4%] CGM and one [2%] control). The most common adverse events were skin reactions occurring in 49 (48%) of 103 CGM participants and eight (8%) of 104 control participants during pregnancy and in 23 (44%) of 52 CGM participants and five (9%) of 57 control participants in the planning pregnancy trial. The most common serious adverse events were gastrointestinal (nausea and vomiting in four participants during pregnancy and three participants planning pregnancy). INTERPRETATION: Use of CGM during pregnancy in patients with type 1 diabetes is associated with improved neonatal outcomes, which are likely to be attributed to reduced exposure to maternal hyperglycaemia. CGM should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes using intensive insulin therapy. This study is the first to indicate potential for improvements in non-glycaemic health outcomes from CGM use. FUNDING: Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Canadian Clinical Trials Network, and National Institute for Health Research

CONCEPTT : Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women with Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial: A multi-center, multi-national, randomized controlled trial - Study protocol

Women with type 1 diabetes strive for optimal glycemic control before and during pregnancy to avoid adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. For most women, optimal glycemic control is challenging to achieve and maintain. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) will improve glycemic control in women with type 1 diabetes who are pregnant or planning pregnancy. A multi-center, open label, randomized, controlled trial of women with type 1 diabetes who are either planning pregnancy with an HbA1c of 7.0 % to ≤10.0 % (53 to ≤ 86 mmol/mol) or are in early pregnancy (<13 weeks 6 days) with an HbA1c of 6.5 % to ≤10.0 % (48 to ≤ 86 mmol/mol). Participants will be randomized to either RT-CGM alongside conventional intermittent home glucose monitoring (HGM), or HGM alone. Eligible women will wear a CGM which does not display the glucose result for 6 days during the run-in phase. To be eligible for randomization, a minimum of 4 HGM measurements per day and a minimum of 96 hours total with 24 hours overnight (11 pm-7 am) of CGM glucose values are required. Those meeting these criteria are randomized to RT- CGM or HGM. A total of 324 women will be recruited (110 planning pregnancy, 214 pregnant). This takes into account 15 and 20 % attrition rates for the planning pregnancy and pregnant cohorts and will detect a clinically relevant 0.5 % difference between groups at 90 % power with 5 % significance. Randomization will stratify for type of insulin treatment (pump or multiple daily injections) and baseline HbA1c. Analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. The primary outcome is the change in glycemic control as measured by HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and from baseline to 34 weeks gestation during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include maternal hypoglycemia, CGM time in, above and below target (3.5-7.8 mmol/l), glucose variability measures, maternal and neonatal outcomes. This will be the first international multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of RT- CGM before and during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. NCT01788527 December 19, 2012

Continuous glucose monitoring time-in-range and HbA1c targets in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes

The CONCEPTT trial compared real-time Continuous Glucose Monitoring (RT-CGM) to capillary glucose monitoring in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. We analyzed CGM and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) measures in first (n = 221), second (n = 197), and third (n = 172) trimesters, aiming to examine target glucose attainment and associations with pregnancy outcomes. CGM targets were Time-in-range (TIR) &gt; 70%, Time-above-range (TAR) &lt;25%, and Time-below-range (TBR) &lt; 4%, and HbA1c targets &lt; 6.5% (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]) and HbA1c &lt; 6.0% in second and third trimesters (American Diabetes Association [ADA]). TIR/TAR/TBR targets were achieved by 7.7/14.5/30.3% participants in first, 10.2/14.2/52.8% in second, and 35.5/37.2/52.9% in third trimesters. CGM target attainment was low but increased during pregnancy and with RT-CGM use. In the adjusted analyses, achieving TBR target was associated with a higher risk of pre-eclampsia and neonatal hypoglycemia. ADA HbA1c target attainment was low and unchanged during pregnancy (23.5/27.9/23.8%) but increased with RT-CGM use. In the adjusted analyses, HbA1c target attainment was associated with a lower risk of preterm birth, large-for-gestational age and neonatal hypoglycemia. We conclude that CONCEPTT trial participants had a low rate of CGM and of HbA1c target attainment. Attainment of CGM and NICE HbA1c targets increased throughout gestation and all targets (both NICE/ADA HbA1c and CGM) were more likely to be achieved by RT-CGM users, at 34 weeks' gestation. ADA HbA1c target achievement was independently associated with better perinatal outcomes, while the independent association of TBR target achievement with increased risk warrants further study. ClinicalTrials.gov Registration Identifier NCT01788527

Erratum : CONCEPTT: Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women with Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial: A multi-center, multi-national, randomized controlled trial - Study protocol [BMC Pregnancy Childbirth., 16, (2016) (167)] doi: 10.1186/s12884-016-0961-5

After publication of the original article [1], it came to the authors' attention that an incorrect affiliation was inadvertently added in the Acknowledgements section for the CONCEPTT Collaborative Group. The authors would like to amend the following statement in the CONCEPTT Collaborative Group section as follows: The correct affiliation for Julia Lowe and Anna Rogowsky should read Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto