The Toronto prehospital hypertonic resuscitation-head injury and multi organ dysfunction trial (TOPHR HIT) - Methods and data collection tools

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical trials evaluating the use of hypertonic saline in the treatment of hypovolemia and head trauma suggest no survival superiority over normal saline; however subgroup analyses suggest there may be a reduction in the inflammatory response and multiorgan failure which may lead to better survival and enhanced neurocognitive function. We describe a feasibility study of randomizing head injured patients to hypertonic saline and dextran vs. normal saline administration in the out of hospital setting.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This feasibility study employs a randomized, placebo-controlled design evaluating normal saline compared with a single dose of 250 ml of 7.5% hypertonic saline in 6% dextran 70 in the management of traumatic brain injuries. The primary feasibility endpoints of the trial were: 1) baseline survival rates for the treatment and control group to aid in the design of a definitive multicentre trial, 2) randomization compliance rate, 3) ease of protocol implementation in the out-of-hospital setting, and 4) adverse event rate of HSD infusion.</p> <p>The secondary objectives include measuring the effect of HSD in modulating the immuno-inflammatory response to severe head injury and its effect on modulating the release of neuro-biomarkers into serum; evaluating the role of serum neuro-biomarkers in predicting patient outcome and clinical response to HSD intervention; evaluating effects of HSD on brain atrophy post-injury and neurocognitive and neuropsychological outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We anticipate three aspects of the trial will present challenges to trial success; ethical demands associated with a waiver of consent trial, challenging follow up and comprehensive accurate timely data collection of patient identifiers and clinical or laboratory values. In addition all the data collection tools had to be derived de novo as none existed in the literature.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>NCT00878631</p

Association of breast cancer risk in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with genetic variants showing differential allelic expression:Identification of a modifier of breast cancer risk at locus 11q22.3

Cis-acting regulatory SNPs resulting in differential allelic expression (DAE) may, in part, explain the underlying phenotypic variation associated with many complex diseases. To investigate whether common variants associated with DAE were involved in breast cancer susceptibility among BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, a list of 175 genes was developed based of their involvement in cancer-related pathways.Using data from a genome-wide map of SNPs associated with allelic expression, we assessed the association of similar to 320 SNPs located in the vicinity of these genes with breast and ovarian cancer risks in 15,252 BRCA1 and 8211 BRCA2 mutation carriers ascertained from 54 studies participating in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2.We identified a region on 11q22.3 that is significantly associated with breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers (most significant SNP rs228595 p = 7 x 10(-6)). This association was absent in BRCA2 carriers (p = 0.57). The 11q22.3 region notably encompasses genes such as ACAT1, NPAT, and ATM. Expression quantitative trait loci associations were observed in both normal breast and tumors across this region, namely for ACAT1, ATM, and other genes. In silico analysis revealed some overlap between top risk-associated SNPs and relevant biological features in mammary cell data, which suggests potential functional significance.We identified 11q22.3 as a new modifier locus in BRCA1 carriers. Replication in larger studies using estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or triple-negative (i.e., ER-, progesterone receptor-, and HER2-negative) cases could therefore be helpful to confirm the association of this locus with breast cancer risk.</p

Ecoacoustics and multispecies semiosis: naming, semantics, semiotic characteristics, and competencies

Biosemiotics to date has focused on the exchange of signals between organisms, in line with bioacoustics; consideration of the wider acoustic environment as a semiotic medium is under-developed. The nascent discipline of ecoacoustics, that investigates the role of environmental sound in ecological processes and dynamics, fills this gap. In this paper we introduce key ecoacoustic terminology and concepts in order to highlight the value of ecoacoustics as a discipline in which to conceptualise and study intra- and interspecies semiosis. We stress the inherently subjective nature of all sensory scapes (vivo-, land-, vibro- and soundscapes) and propose that they should always bear an organismic attribution. Key terms to describe the sources (geophony, biophony, anthropophony, technophony) and scales (sonotopes, soundtopes, sonotones) of soundscapes are described. We introduce epithets for soundscapes to point to the degree to which the global environment is implicated in semiosis (latent, sensed and interpreted soundscapes); terms for describing key ecological structures and processes (acoustic community, acoustic habitat, ecoacoustic events) and examples of ecoacoustic events (choruses and noise) are described. The acoustic eco-field is recognized as the semiotic model that enables soniferous species to intercept core resources like food, safety and roosting places. We note that whilst ecoacoustics to date has focused on the critical task of the development of metrics for application in conservation and biodiversity assessment, these can be enriched by advancing conceptual and theoretical foundations. Finally, the mutual value of integrating ecoacoustic and biosemiotics perspectives is considered