Gastroesophageal reflux disease is associated with an increased rate of acute rejection in lung transplant allografts

PURPOSE

Gastric fundoplication (GF) for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) may protect against the progression of chronic rejection in lung transplant (LT) recipients. However, the association of GERD with acute rejection episodes (ARE) is uncertain. This study sought to identify if ARE were linked to GERD in LT patients.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective observational study, of patients transplanted from January 1, 2000, to January 31, 2009, correlated results of pH probe testing for GERD with ARE (≥International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation A1 or B1). We compared the rates of ARE among patients with GERD (DeMeester Score > 14.7) versus without GERD as number of ARE per 1,000 patient-days after LT. Patients undergoing GF prior to LT were excluded.

RESULTS

The analysis included 60 LT subjects and 9,249 patient-days: 33 with GERD versus 27 without GERD. We observed 51 ARE among 60 LT recipients. The rate of ARE was highest among patients with GERD: 8.49 versus 2.58, an incidence density ratio (IDR) of 3.29 (P = .00016). Upon multivariate negative binomial regression modeling, only GERD was associated with ARE (IDR 2.15; P = .009). Furthermore, GERD was associated with multiple ARE (36.4% vs 0%; P < .0001) and earlier onset compared with patients without GERD: ARE proportion at 2 months was 0.55 versus 0.26 P = .004).

CONCLUSION

In LT recipients, GERD was associated with a higher rate, multiple events, and earlier onset of ARE. The efficacy of GF to reduce ARE among patients with GERD needs further evaluation.

Improving collected rainwater quality in rural communities

The country of Mexico is facing serious problems with water quality and supply for human use and consumption in rural communities, mainly due to topographic and isolation. In Mexico the average annual precipitation is 1,500 cubic kilometers of water, if 3% of that amount were used, 13 million Mexicans could be supplied with drinking water that they currently do not have access. Considering the limited infrastructure and management in rural communities, which do not receive services from the centralized systems of large cities, a modified pilot multi-stage filtration (MMSF) system was designed, developed, and evaluated for treating collected rainwater in three rural communities, Ajuchitlan and Villa Nicolas Zapata (Morelos State) and Xacxamayo (Puebla State). The efficiencies obtained in the treatment system were: colour and turbidity >93%. It is worth mentioning that the water obtained for human use and consumption complies with the Mexican Standard NOM-127-SSA1-1994.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that might not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A 2-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, IL, to achieve the objective. Before the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Before the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items would need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional subitem was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.

The REFLECT statement: reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration

Concerns about the completeness and accuracy of reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and the impact of poor reporting on decision-making have been documented in the medical field over the past several decades. Experience from RCTs in human medicine would suggest that failure to report critical trial features can be associated with biased estimated effect measures, and there is evidence to suggest similar biases occur in RCTs conducted in livestock populations. In response to these concerns, standardized guidelines for reporting RCTs were developed and implemented in human medicine. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was first published in 1996 with a revised edition published in 2001. The CONSORT statement consists of a 22-item checklist for reporting a RCT and a flow diagram to follow the number of participants at each stage of a trial. An explanation and elaboration document not only defines and discusses the importance of each of the items, but also provides examples of how this information could be supplied in a publication. Differences between human and livestock populations necessitate modifications to the CONSORT statement to maximize its usefulness for RCTs involving livestock. These have been addressed in an extension of the CONSORT statement titled the REFLECT statement: Methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized control trials for livestock and food safety. The modifications made for livestock trials specifically addressed the common use of group housing and group allocation to intervention in livestock studies, the use of a deliberate challenge model in some trials, and common use of non-clinical outcomes, such as contamination with a foodborne pathogen. In addition, the REFLECT statement for RCTs in livestock populations proposed specific terms or further clarified terms as they pertained to livestock studies.

Public awareness of cancer in Britain: a population-based survey of adults

Objective:

To assess public awareness of cancer warning signs, anticipated delay and perceived barriers to seeking medical advice in the British population.

Methods:

We carried out a population-based survey using face-to-face, computer-assisted interviews to administer the cancer awareness measure (CAM), a newly developed, validated measure of cancer awareness. The sample included 2216 adults (970 males and 1246 females) recruited as part of the Office for National Statistics Opinions Survey using stratified probability sampling.

Results:

Awareness of cancer warning signs was low when open-ended (recall) questions were used and higher with closed (recognition) questions; but on either measure, awareness was lower in those who were male, younger, and from lower socio-economic status (SES) groups or ethnic minorities. The most commonly endorsed barriers to help seeking were difficulty making an appointment, worry about wasting the doctor's time and worry about what would be found. Emotional barriers were more prominent in lower SES groups and practical barriers (e.g. too busy) more prominent in higher SES groups. Anticipated delay was lower in ethnic minority and lower SES groups. In multivariate analysis, higher symptom awareness was associated with lower anticipated delay, and more barriers with greater anticipated delay.

Conclusions:

A combination of public education about symptoms and empowerment to seek medical advice, as well as support at primary care level, could enhance early presentation and improve cancer outcomes.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A two-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, Ill, United States of America, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines for Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety (LFS) and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.

The REFLECT statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety

The conduct of randomized controlled trials in livestock with production, health, and food-safety outcomes presents unique challenges that may not be adequately reported in trial reports. The objective of this project was to modify the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to reflect the unique aspects of reporting these livestock trials. A two-day consensus meeting was held on November 18-19, 2008 in Chicago, IL, United States of America, to achieve the objective. Prior to the meeting, a Web-based survey was conducted to identify issues for discussion. The 24 attendees were biostatisticians, epidemiologists, food-safety researchers, livestock-production specialists, journal editors, assistant editors, and associate editors. Prior to the meeting, the attendees completed a Web-based survey indicating which CONSORT statement items may need to be modified to address unique issues for livestock trials. The consensus meeting resulted in the production of the REFLECT (Reporting Guidelines For Randomized Control Trials) statement for livestock and food safety (LFS) and 22-item checklist. Fourteen items were modified from the CONSORT checklist, and an additional sub-item was proposed to address challenge trials. The REFLECT statement proposes new terminology, more consistent with common usage in livestock production, to describe study subjects. Evidence was not always available to support modification to or inclusion of an item. The use of the REFLECT statement, which addresses issues unique to livestock trials, should improve the quality of reporting and design for trials reporting production, health, and food-safety outcomes.