Streamflow hydrology in the boreal region under the influences of climate and human interference

The boreal region has a subarctic climate that is subject to considerable inter-annual variability and is prone to impacts of future warming. Climate influences the seasonal streamflow regime which typically exhibits winter low flow, terminated by spring freshet, followed by summer flow recession. The effects of climatic variation on streamflow cannot be isolated with confidence but the impact of human regulation of rivers can greatly alter the natural flow rhythm, changing the timing of flow to suit human demands. The effect of scenario climate change on streamflow is explored through hydrological simulation. Example of a Canadian basin under warming scenario suggests that winter flow will increase, spring freshet dates will advance but peak flow will decline, as will summer flow due to enhanced evaporation. While this simulation was site specific, the results are qualitatively applicable to other boreal areas. Future studies should consider the role of human activities as their impacts on streamflow will be more profound than those due to climate change

Students’ interaction anxiety and social phobia in interprofessional education in Hong Kong: mapping a new research direction

AbstractBackground Interprofessional education (IPE) has been promoted as a breakthrough in healthcare because of the impact when professionals work as a team. However, despite its inception dating back to the 1960s, its science has taken a long time to advance. There is a need to theorize IPE to cultivate creative insights for a nuanced understanding of IPE. This study aims to propose a research agenda on social interaction by understanding the measurement scales used and guiding researchers to contribute to the discussion of social processes in IPE.Method This quantitative research was undertaken in a cross-institutional IPE involving 925 healthcare students (Medicine, Nursing, Social Work, Chinese Medicine, Pharmacy, Speech Language Pathology, Clinical Psychology, Food and Nutritional Science and Physiotherapy) from two institutions in Hong Kong. Participants completed the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS-6) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS-6). We applied a construct validation approach: within-network and between-network validation. We performed confirmatory factors analysis, t-test, analysis of variance and regression analysis.Results CFA results indicated that current data fit the a priori model providing support to within-network validity [RMSEA=.08, NFI=.959, CFI=.965, IFI=.965, TLI=.955]. The criteria for acceptable fit were met. The scales were invariant between genders, across year levels and disciplines. Results indicated that social interaction anxiety and social phobia negatively predicted behavioural engagement (F = 25.093, p<.001, R2=.065) and positively predicted behavioural disaffection (F = 22.169, p<.001, R2=.057) to IPE, suggesting between-network validity.Conclusions Our data provided support for the validity of the scales when used among healthcare students in Hong Kong. SIAS-6 and SPS-6 have sound psychometric properties based on students’ data in Hong Kong. We identified quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods research designs to guide researchers in getting involved in the discussion of students’ social interactions in IPE.Key MessagesThe Social Anxiety Scale (SIAS-6) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS-6) scales have sound psychometric properties based on the large-scale healthcare students’ data in IPE in Hong Kong.Social interaction anxiety and social phobia negatively predicted students’ behavioural engagement with IPE and positively predicted behavioural disaffection. The scales are invariant in terms of gender, year level and discipline.Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies are proposed to aid researchers to contribute in healthcare education literature using the SIAS-6 and SPS-6

Towards a global partnership model in interprofessional education for cross-sector problem-solving

Abstract Objectives A partnership model in interprofessional education (IPE) is important in promoting a sense of global citizenship while preparing students for cross-sector problem-solving. However, the literature remains scant in providing useful guidance for the development of an IPE programme co-implemented by external partners. In this pioneering study, we describe the processes of forging global partnerships in co-implementing IPE and evaluate the programme in light of the preliminary data available. Methods This study is generally quantitative. We collected data from a total of 747 health and social care students from four higher education institutions. We utilized a descriptive narrative format and a quantitative design to present our experiences of running IPE with external partners and performed independent t-tests and analysis of variance to examine pretest and posttest mean differences in students’ data. Results We identified factors in establishing a cross-institutional IPE programme. These factors include complementarity of expertise, mutual benefits, internet connectivity, interactivity of design, and time difference. We found significant pretest–posttest differences in students’ readiness for interprofessional learning (teamwork and collaboration, positive professional identity, roles, and responsibilities). We also found a significant decrease in students’ social interaction anxiety after the IPE simulation. Conclusions The narrative of our experiences described in this manuscript could be considered by higher education institutions seeking to forge meaningful external partnerships in their effort to establish interprofessional global health education

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to &lt;60 mL/min per 1·73 m2 and ≥60 mL/min per 1·73 m2) and urine protein excretion at screening (≤1·75 g/day and &gt;1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein–creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein–creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (–49·8%) than the irbesartan group (–15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51–0·69; p&lt;0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics

Efficacy and safety of sparsentan versus irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy (PROTECT): 2-year results from a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 trial

BackgroundSparsentan, a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin angiotensin receptor antagonist, significantly reduced proteinuria versus irbesartan, an angiotensin II receptor blocker, at 36 weeks (primary endpoint) in patients with immunoglobulin A nephropathy in the phase 3 PROTECT trial's previously reported interim analysis. Here, we report kidney function and outcomes over 110 weeks from the double-blind final analysis.MethodsPROTECT, a double-blind, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 study, was done across 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries throughout the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Patients aged 18 years or older with biopsy-proven primary IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of at least 1·0 g per day despite maximised renin–angiotensin system inhibition for at least 12 weeks were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive sparsentan (target dose 400 mg oral sparsentan once daily) or irbesartan (target dose 300 mg oral irbesartan once daily) based on a permuted-block randomisation method. The primary endpoint was proteinuria change between treatment groups at 36 weeks. Secondary endpoints included rate of change (slope) of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), changes in proteinuria, a composite of kidney failure (confirmed 40% eGFR reduction, end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality), and safety and tolerability up to 110 weeks from randomisation. Secondary efficacy outcomes were assessed in the full analysis set and safety was assessed in the safety set, both of which were defined as all patients who were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of randomly assigned study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850.FindingsBetween Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 203 patients were randomly assigned to the sparsentan group and 203 to the irbesartan group. One patient from each group did not receive the study drug and was excluded from the efficacy and safety analyses (282 [70%] of 404 included patients were male and 272 [67%] were White) . Patients in the sparsentan group had a slower rate of eGFR decline than those in the irbesartan group. eGFR chronic 2-year slope (weeks 6–110) was −2·7 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·8 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·1 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI 0·1 to 2·1; p=0·037); total 2-year slope (day 1–week 110) was −2·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year versus −3·9 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year (difference 1·0 mL/min per 1·73 m2 per year, 95% CI −0·03 to 1·94; p=0·058). The significant reduction in proteinuria at 36 weeks with sparsentan was maintained throughout the study period; at 110 weeks, proteinuria, as determined by the change from baseline in urine protein-to-creatinine ratio, was 40% lower in the sparsentan group than in the irbesartan group (−42·8%, 95% CI −49·8 to −35·0, with sparsentan versus −4·4%, −15·8 to 8·7, with irbesartan; geometric least-squares mean ratio 0·60, 95% CI 0·50 to 0·72). The composite kidney failure endpoint was reached by 18 (9%) of 202 patients in the sparsentan group versus 26 (13%) of 202 patients in the irbesartan group (relative risk 0·7, 95% CI 0·4 to 1·2). Treatment-emergent adverse events were well balanced between sparsentan and irbesartan, with no new safety signals.InterpretationOver 110 weeks, treatment with sparsentan versus maximally titrated irbesartan in patients with IgA nephropathy resulted in significant reductions in proteinuria and preservation of kidney function

Sparsentan in patients with IgA nephropathy: a prespecified interim analysis from a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial

Background: Sparsentan is a novel, non-immunosuppressive, single-molecule, dual endothelin and angiotensin receptor antagonist being examined in an ongoing phase 3 trial in adults with IgA nephropathy. We report the prespecified interim analysis of the primary proteinuria efficacy endpoint, and safety. Methods: PROTECT is an international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled study, being conducted in 134 clinical practice sites in 18 countries. The study examines sparsentan versus irbesartan in adults (aged ≥18 years) with biopsy-proven IgA nephropathy and proteinuria of 1·0 g/day or higher despite maximised renin-angiotensin system inhibitor treatment for at least 12 weeks. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive sparsentan 400 mg once daily or irbesartan 300 mg once daily, stratified by estimated glomerular filtration rate at screening (30 to 1·75 g/day). The primary efficacy endpoint was change from baseline to week 36 in urine protein-creatinine ratio based on a 24-h urine sample, assessed using mixed model repeated measures. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were safety endpoints. All endpoints were examined in all participants who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. The study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03762850. Findings: Between Dec 20, 2018, and May 26, 2021, 404 participants were randomly assigned to sparsentan (n=202) or irbesartan (n=202) and received treatment. At week 36, the geometric least squares mean percent change from baseline in urine protein-creatinine ratio was statistically significantly greater in the sparsentan group (-49·8%) than the irbesartan group (-15·1%), resulting in a between-group relative reduction of 41% (least squares mean ratio=0·59; 95% CI 0·51-0·69; p<0·0001). TEAEs with sparsentan were similar to irbesartan. There were no cases of severe oedema, heart failure, hepatotoxicity, or oedema-related discontinuations. Bodyweight changes from baseline were not different between the sparsentan and irbesartan groups. Interpretation: Once-daily treatment with sparsentan produced meaningful reduction in proteinuria compared with irbesartan in adults with IgA nephropathy. Safety of sparsentan was similar to irbesartan. Future analyses after completion of the 2-year double-blind period will show whether these beneficial effects translate into a long-term nephroprotective potential of sparsentan. Funding: Travere Therapeutics