2 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Assessment of Noise Effects on Sensitive Animal Communities
There is a statutory requirement to protect certain animals and to assess the environmental effects of new developments on wildlife. However, there is no formal guidance on how such assessments should be undertaken. This research has developed an assessment process specific to animals, which enables informed judgement as to the likely short or long-term impacts. Published animal responses have been analysed to identify particular trends and response thresholds, and a standard procedure for assessing noise effects on animals has been developed. The procedure assigns significance criteria (no effect, slight, moderate and severe) that take account of the physiological and behavioural responses exhibited following exposure to noise. The significance rating determines whether mitigation is required.
Particular combinations of noise, animals and habitat that are especially sensitive to environmental noise are identified as off-road vehicles, helicopters, very quiet habitats, and animals having special hearing characteristics.
An assessment threshold is proposed based on key factors such as the noise level, source distance, and other site-specific circumstances. If LAmax noise levels are greater than 80 dB or the separation between the animals and the noise source is less than 1,000m, an assessment is recommended. For fish and marine mammals, if the Received Level (RL) is greater than 140 dB re: 1μPa rms an assessment is recommended. Slight responses may still arise below these thresholds but moderate or severe responses would not be expected. Circumstances most likely to affect animal responses are a rapid onset of noise, and the presence of helicopters, sonic booms, low flying aircraft, artillery/rockets, blasting/explosions, fireworks, motorboats or float planes.
The assessment methodology is tested on two animal species (black grouse and golden plover) using data from a planning application for military development, and retrospectively to mammals at a wildlife park where low-flying jets had caused moderate/severe responses
Development and Validation of a Risk Score for Chronic Kidney Disease in HIV Infection Using Prospective Cohort Data from the D:A:D Study
Ristola M. on työryhmien DAD Study Grp ; Royal Free Hosp Clin Cohort ; INSIGHT Study Grp ; SMART Study Grp ; ESPRIT Study Grp jäsen.Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major health issue for HIV-positive individuals, associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Development and implementation of a risk score model for CKD would allow comparison of the risks and benefits of adding potentially nephrotoxic antiretrovirals to a treatment regimen and would identify those at greatest risk of CKD. The aims of this study were to develop a simple, externally validated, and widely applicable long-term risk score model for CKD in HIV-positive individuals that can guide decision making in clinical practice. Methods and Findings A total of 17,954 HIV-positive individuals from the Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti-HIV Drugs (D:A:D) study with >= 3 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values after 1 January 2004 were included. Baseline was defined as the first eGFR > 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 after 1 January 2004; individuals with exposure to tenofovir, atazanavir, atazanavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir, other boosted protease inhibitors before baseline were excluded. CKD was defined as confirmed (>3 mo apart) eGFR In the D:A:D study, 641 individuals developed CKD during 103,185 person-years of follow-up (PYFU; incidence 6.2/1,000 PYFU, 95% CI 5.7-6.7; median follow-up 6.1 y, range 0.3-9.1 y). Older age, intravenous drug use, hepatitis C coinfection, lower baseline eGFR, female gender, lower CD4 count nadir, hypertension, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) predicted CKD. The adjusted incidence rate ratios of these nine categorical variables were scaled and summed to create the risk score. The median risk score at baseline was -2 (interquartile range -4 to 2). There was a 1: 393 chance of developing CKD in the next 5 y in the low risk group (risk score = 5, 505 events), respectively. Number needed to harm (NNTH) at 5 y when starting unboosted atazanavir or lopinavir/ritonavir among those with a low risk score was 1,702 (95% CI 1,166-3,367); NNTH was 202 (95% CI 159-278) and 21 (95% CI 19-23), respectively, for those with a medium and high risk score. NNTH was 739 (95% CI 506-1462), 88 (95% CI 69-121), and 9 (95% CI 8-10) for those with a low, medium, and high risk score, respectively, starting tenofovir, atazanavir/ritonavir, or another boosted protease inhibitor. The Royal Free Hospital Clinic Cohort included 2,548 individuals, of whom 94 individuals developed CKD (3.7%) during 18,376 PYFU (median follow-up 7.4 y, range 0.3-12.7 y). Of 2,013 individuals included from the SMART/ESPRIT control arms, 32 individuals developed CKD (1.6%) during 8,452 PYFU (median follow-up 4.1 y, range 0.6-8.1 y). External validation showed that the risk score predicted well in these cohorts. Limitations of this study included limited data on race and no information on proteinuria. Conclusions Both traditional and HIV-related risk factors were predictive of CKD. These factors were used to develop a risk score for CKD in HIV infection, externally validated, that has direct clinical relevance for patients and clinicians to weigh the benefits of certain antiretrovirals against the risk of CKD and to identify those at greatest risk of CKD.Peer reviewe