Social movements related to alter-globalisation in Portugal:identities, praxes and mobilisations

Tese de doutoramento, Sociologia (Sociologia das Desigualdades, das Minorias e dos Movimentos Sociais), Universidade de Lisboa, Instituto de Ciências Sociais, 2013This sociological research deals with the problematic of the genesis and formation of social movements. The latter is approached through the study of Portuguese alterglobalisation social movements, and more precisely via an emphasis on their mobilisations, praxes and identities. I explore the conditions or possibilities of social movements (their socio-cultural and historical context and their structures – the how of social movements), the sense of militant action (activists’ motives and reasons – the why of social movements), and the ontology of social movements (collective and individual identities, otherness, and their co-relativity – the what and who of social movements). For this purpose, I have followed what is habitually called “qualitative sociology”, that is, I have opted for an ethnography carried out among three Portuguese movements, in Lisbon, between 2010 and 2012. This methodology led me to conduct interviews with activists, to consider their diverse practices, oral discourses and “emic” writings, to engage in “participant observation”. Thus, I have followed a certain idiographic approach by focusing upon the people who compose social movements. This idiography is irreducible to subjectivity. On the contrary, it allows one to observe collective or trans-subjective features of militant actions and representations, that is, their objective dimension. This empirical work has been necessarily complemented by a theoretical study, which have conduced to an analysis of the social phenomenon in question. The chosen theoretical perspective comprehends and goes beyond the main traditional theories in the sociology of social movements. Whilst these latter theories offer significant insights, they remain limited in their explanatory potential. Consequently, they have to be completed by a larger paradigm, notably to tackle the problems posed by current militant collective action. It therefore seems necessary to consider the contributions of the sociology of action and of identity in more depth.Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, SFRH/BD/63298/2009

TRY plant trait database – enhanced coverage and open access

Plant traits - the morphological, anatomical, physiological, biochemical and phenological characteristics of plants - determine how plants respond to environmental factors, affect other trophic levels, and influence ecosystem properties and their benefits and detriments to people. Plant trait data thus represent the basis for a vast area of research spanning from evolutionary biology, community and functional ecology, to biodiversity conservation, ecosystem and landscape management, restoration, biogeography and earth system modelling. Since its foundation in 2007, the TRY database of plant traits has grown continuously. It now provides unprecedented data coverage under an open access data policy and is the main plant trait database used by the research community worldwide. Increasingly, the TRY database also supports new frontiers of trait‐based plant research, including the identification of data gaps and the subsequent mobilization or measurement of new data. To support this development, in this article we evaluate the extent of the trait data compiled in TRY and analyse emerging patterns of data coverage and representativeness. Best species coverage is achieved for categorical traits - almost complete coverage for ‘plant growth form’. However, most traits relevant for ecology and vegetation modelling are characterized by continuous intraspecific variation and trait–environmental relationships. These traits have to be measured on individual plants in their respective environment. Despite unprecedented data coverage, we observe a humbling lack of completeness and representativeness of these continuous traits in many aspects. We, therefore, conclude that reducing data gaps and biases in the TRY database remains a key challenge and requires a coordinated approach to data mobilization and trait measurements. This can only be achieved in collaboration with other initiatives

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Type 1 Diabetes in People Hospitalized for COVID-19: New Insights From the CORONADO Study

International audienc

The association between macrovascular complications and intensive care admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, and mortality in people with diabetes hospitalized for coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19)

International audienceAbstract Background It is not clear whether pre-existing macrovascular complications (ischemic heart disease, stroke or peripheral artery disease) are associated with health outcomes in people with diabetes mellitus hospitalized for COVID-19. Methods We conducted cohort studies of adults with pre-existing diabetes hospitalized for COVID-19 infection in the UK, France, and Spain during the early phase of the pandemic (between March 2020—October 2020). Logistic regression models adjusted for demographic factors and other comorbidities were used to determine associations between previous macrovascular disease and relevant clinical outcomes: mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and use of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) during the hospitalization. Output from individual logistic regression models for each cohort was combined in a meta-analysis. Results Complete data were available for 4,106 (60.4%) individuals. Of these, 1,652 (40.2%) had any prior macrovascular disease of whom 28.5% of patients died. Mortality was higher for people with compared to those without previous macrovascular disease (37.7% vs 22.4%). The combined crude odds ratio (OR) for previous macrovascular disease and mortality for all four cohorts was 2.12 (95% CI 1.83–2.45 with an I 2 of 60%, reduced after adjustments for age, sex, type of diabetes, hypertension, microvascular disease, ethnicity, and BMI to adjusted OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.29–1.81]) for the three cohorts. Further analysis revealed that ischemic heart disease and cerebrovascular disease were the main contributors of adverse outcomes. However, proportions of people admitted to ICU (adjOR 0.48 [95% CI 0.31–0.75], I 2 60%) and the use of IMV during hospitalization (adjOR 0.52 [95% CI 0.40–0.68], I 2 37%) were significantly lower for people with previous macrovascular disease. Conclusions This large multinational study of people with diabetes mellitus hospitalized for COVID-19 demonstrates that previous macrovascular disease is associated with higher mortality and lower proportions admitted to ICU and treated with IMV during hospitalization suggesting selective admission criteria. Our findings highlight the importance correctly assess the prognosis and intensive monitoring in this high-risk group of patients and emphasize the need to design specific public health programs aimed to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection in this subgroup

TRY plant trait database - enhanced coverage and open access

10.1111/gcb.14904GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY261119-18

A Bayesian reanalysis of the Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial

Background Timing of initiation of kidney-replacement therapy (KRT) in critically ill patients remains controversial. The Standard versus Accelerated Initiation of Renal-Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial compared two strategies of KRT initiation (accelerated versus standard) in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury and found neutral results for 90-day all-cause mortality. Probabilistic exploration of the trial endpoints may enable greater understanding of the trial findings. We aimed to perform a reanalysis using a Bayesian framework. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of all 2927 patients randomized in multi-national STARRT-AKI trial, performed at 168 centers in 15 countries. The primary endpoint, 90-day all-cause mortality, was evaluated using hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression. A spectrum of priors includes optimistic, neutral, and pessimistic priors, along with priors informed from earlier clinical trials. Secondary endpoints (KRT-free days and hospital-free days) were assessed using zero–one inflated beta regression. Results The posterior probability of benefit comparing an accelerated versus a standard KRT initiation strategy for the primary endpoint suggested no important difference, regardless of the prior used (absolute difference of 0.13% [95% credible interval [CrI] − 3.30%; 3.40%], − 0.39% [95% CrI − 3.46%; 3.00%], and 0.64% [95% CrI − 2.53%; 3.88%] for neutral, optimistic, and pessimistic priors, respectively). There was a very low probability that the effect size was equal or larger than a consensus-defined minimal clinically important difference. Patients allocated to the accelerated strategy had a lower number of KRT-free days (median absolute difference of − 3.55 days [95% CrI − 6.38; − 0.48]), with a probability that the accelerated strategy was associated with more KRT-free days of 0.008. Hospital-free days were similar between strategies, with the accelerated strategy having a median absolute difference of 0.48 more hospital-free days (95% CrI − 1.87; 2.72) compared with the standard strategy and the probability that the accelerated strategy had more hospital-free days was 0.66. Conclusions In a Bayesian reanalysis of the STARRT-AKI trial, we found very low probability that an accelerated strategy has clinically important benefits compared with the standard strategy. Patients receiving the accelerated strategy probably have fewer days alive and KRT-free. These findings do not support the adoption of an accelerated strategy of KRT initiation