A Field Evaluation of the LuciTrap and the Western Australian Trap with Three Different Baits Types for Monitoring Lucilia cuprina and Lucilia sericata in New Zealand

Publishe

CHANGES IN THE LEVELS OF THEILERIA ORIENTALIS IKEDA TYPE INFECTION IN HAEMAPHYSALIS LONGICORNIS NYMPHS OVER A SIX-MONTH PERIOD

Publishe

Rapid Spread of Severe Fever with Thrombocytopenia Syndrome Virus by Parthenogenetic Asian Longhorned Ticks

Publishe

Modern microwave methods in solid state inorganic materials chemistry: from fundamentals to manufacturing

No abstract available

The treatment of migraines and tension-type headaches with intravenous and oral niacin (nicotinic acid): systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND: Migraine and tension-type headaches impose a tremendous economic drain upon the healthcare system. Intravenous and oral niacin has been employed in the treatment of acute and chronic migraine and tension-type headaches, but its use has not become part of contemporary medicine, nor have there been randomized controlled trials further assessing this novel treatment. We aimed to systematically review the evidence of using intravenous and/or oral niacin as a treatment for migraine headaches, tension-type headaches, and for headaches of other etiologic types. METHODS: We searched English and non-English language articles in the following databases: MEDLINE (1966–February 2004), AMED (1995–February 2004) and Alt HealthWatch (1990–February 2004). RESULTS: Nine articles were found to meet the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Hypothetical reasons for niacin's effectiveness include its vasodilatory properties, and its ability to improve mitochondrial energy metabolism. Important side effects of niacin include flushing, nausea and fainting. CONCLUSION: Although niacin's mechanisms of action have not been substantiated from controlled clinical trials, this agent may have beneficial effects upon migraine and tension-type headaches. Adequately designed randomized trials are required to determine its clinical implications

NUTMEG: A randomized phase II study of nivolumab and temozolomide versus temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed older patients with glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: There is an immunologic rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in the older glioblastoma population, who have been underrepresented in prior trials. The NUTMEG study evaluated the combination of nivolumab and temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. METHODS: NUTMEG was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. The experimental arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant nivolumab and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to improve overall survival (OS) in the experimental arm. RESULTS: A total of 103 participants were randomized, with 69 in the experimental arm and 34 in the standard arm. The median (range) age was 73 (65-88) years. After 37 months of follow-up, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-13.4) in the experimental arm and 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.8) in the standard arm. For the experimental arm relative to the standard arm, the OS hazard ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.33). In the experimental arm, there were three grade 3 immune-related adverse events which resolved, with no unexpected serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Due to insufficient evidence of benefit with nivolumab, the decision was made not to transition to a phase III trial. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab. This complements the existing series of immunotherapy trials. Research is needed to identify biomarkers and new strategies including combinations

The Australasian COVID-19 Trial (ASCOT) to assess clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) treated with lopinavir/ritonavir and/or hydroxychloroquine compared to standard of care: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To determine if lopinavir/ritonavir +/- hydroxychloroquine will reduce the proportion of participants who survive without requiring ventilatory support, 15 days after enrolment, in adult participants with non-critically ill SARS-CoV-2 infection. Trial design: ASCOT is an investigator-initiated, multi-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Participants will have been hospitalised with confirmed COVID-19, and will be randomised 1:1:1:1 to receive lopinavir /ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, both or neither drug in addition to standard of care management. Participants: Participants will be recruited from >80 hospitals across Australia and New Zealand, representing metropolitan and regional centres in both public and private sectors. Admitted patients will be eligible if aged ≥ 18 years, have confirmed SARS-CoV-2 by nucleic acid testing in the past 12 days and are expected to remain an inpatient for at least 48 hours from the time of randomisation. Potentially eligible participants will be excluded if admitted to intensive care or requiring high level respiratory support, are currently receiving study drugs or their use is contraindicated due to allergy, drug interaction or comorbidities (including baseline QTc prolongation of 470ms for women or 480ms for men), or death is anticipated imminently

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research