Light in the Polar Night

How much light isa vailable for biological processes during Polar Night? This question appears simple enough. But the reality is that conventional light sen- sors for measuring visible light (~350 to ~700 nm) have not been sensitive enough to answer it. Beyond this technical challenge, “light” is a general term that must be qualified in terms of “light climate” before it has meaning for biological systems. In this chapter, we provide an answer to the question posed above and explore aspects of light climate during Polar Night with relevance to biology, specifically, how Polar Night is defined by solar elevation, atmospheric light in Polar Night and its propaga- tion underwater, bioluminescence in Polar Night and the concept of Polar Night as a deep-sea analogue, light pollution, and future perspectives. This chapter focuses on the quantity and quality of light present during Polar Night, while subsequent chapters in this volume focus on specific biological effects of this light for algae (Chap. “Marine Micro- and Macroalgae in the Polar Night”), zooplankton (Chaps.“Zooplankton in the Polar Night” and “Biological Clocks and Rhythms in Polar Organisms”), and fish (Chap. “Fish Ecology in the Polar Night”)

A Multicenter Observational Study of US Adults with Acute Asthma: Who Are the Frequent Users of the Emergency Department?

Background: Despite the substantial burden of asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits, there have been no recent multicenter efforts to characterize this high-risk population. Objective: We aimed to characterize patients with asthma according to their frequency of ED visits and to identify factors associated with frequent ED visits. Methods: A multicenter chart review study of 48 EDs across 23 US states. We identified ED patients ages 18 to 54 years with acute asthma during 2011 and 2012. Primary outcome was frequency of ED visits for acute asthma in the past year, excluding the index ED visit. Results: Of the 1890 enrolled patients, 863 patients (46%) had 1 or more (frequent) ED visits in the past year. Specifically, 28% had 1 to 2 visits, 11% had 3 to 5 visits, and 7% had 6 or more visits. Among frequent ED users, guideline-recommended management was suboptimal. For example, of patients with 6 or more ED visits, 85% lacked evidence of prior evaluation by an asthma specialist, and 43% were not treated with inhaled corticosteroids. In a multivariable model, significant predictors of frequent ED visits were public insurance, no insurance, and markers for chronic asthma severity (all P < .05). Stronger associations were found among those with a higher frequency of asthma-related ED visits (eg, 6 or more ED visits). Conclusion: This multicenter study of US adults with acute asthma demonstrated many frequent ED users and suboptimal preventive management in this high-risk population. Future reductions in asthma morbidity and associated health care utilization will require continued efforts to bridge these majorgaps in asthma care

A Multicenter Observational Study of US Adults with Acute Asthma: Who Are the Frequent Users of the Emergency Department?

Background: Despite the substantial burden of asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits, there have been no recent multicenter efforts to characterize this high-risk population. Objective: We aimed to characterize patients with asthma according to their frequency of ED visits and to identify factors associated with frequent ED visits. Methods: A multicenter chart review study of 48 EDs across 23 US states. We identified ED patients ages 18 to 54 years with acute asthma during 2011 and 2012. Primary outcome was frequency of ED visits for acute asthma in the past year, excluding the index ED visit. Results: Of the 1890 enrolled patients, 863 patients (46%) had 1 or more (frequent) ED visits in the past year. Specifically, 28% had 1 to 2 visits, 11% had 3 to 5 visits, and 7% had 6 or more visits. Among frequent ED users, guideline-recommended management was suboptimal. For example, of patients with 6 or more ED visits, 85% lacked evidence of prior evaluation by an asthma specialist, and 43% were not treated with inhaled corticosteroids. In a multivariable model, significant predictors of frequent ED visits were public insurance, no insurance, and markers for chronic asthma severity (all P < .05). Stronger associations were found among those with a higher frequency of asthma-related ED visits (eg, 6 or more ED visits). Conclusion: This multicenter study of US adults with acute asthma demonstrated many frequent ED users and suboptimal preventive management in this high-risk population. Future reductions in asthma morbidity and associated health care utilization will require continued efforts to bridge these majorgaps in asthma care

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)