Who dares, wins : Heroism versus altruism in women's mate choice

Heroism is apparently nonadaptive in Darwinian terms, so why does it exist at all? Risk-taking and heroic behavior are predominantly male tendencies, and literature and legend reflect this. This study explores the possibility that heroism persists in many human cultures owing to a female preference for risk-prone rather than risk-averse males as sexual partners, and it suggests that such a preference may be exploited as a male mating strategy. It also attempts to quantify the relative influences of altruism and bravery in the evolution of heroism. Our study found that females do prefer risk-prone brave males to risk-averse non-brave males, and that men are aware of this preference. Bravery in a male was shown to be the stronger factor influencing female choice of short-term partners, long-term partners, and male friends, with altruism playing a lesser part in their choice. Altruism was deemed important in long-term relationships and friendships, but for short-term liaisons, non-altruists were preferred to altruists. Heroism may therefore have evolved owing to a female preference for brave, risk-prone males because risk-taking acts as an honest cue for "good genes." Altruism was judged to be a less influential factor in the evolution of heroism than bravery and a demonstrated willingness to take risks.

Defining response to anti-VEGF therapies in neovascular AMD

The introduction of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) has made significant impact on the reduction of the visual loss due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (n-AMD). There are significant inter-individual differences in response to an anti-VEGF agent, made more complex by the availability of multiple anti-VEGF agents with different molecular configurations. The response to anti-VEGF therapy have been found to be dependent on a variety of factors including patient's age, lesion characteristics, lesion duration, baseline visual acuity (VA) and the presence of particular genotype risk alleles. Furthermore, a proportion of eyes with n-AMD show a decline in acuity or morphology, despite therapy or require very frequent re-treatment. There is currently no consensus as to how to classify optimal response, or lack of it, with these therapies. There is, in particular, confusion over terms such as 'responder status' after treatment for n-AMD, 'tachyphylaxis' and 'recalcitrant' n-AMD. This document aims to provide a consensus on definition/categorisation of the response of n-AMD to anti-VEGF therapies and on the time points at which response to treatment should be determined. Primary response is best determined at 1 month following the last initiation dose, while maintained treatment (secondary) response is determined any time after the 4th visit. In a particular eye, secondary responses do not mirror and cannot be predicted from that in the primary phase. Morphological and functional responses to anti-VEGF treatments, do not necessarily correlate, and may be dissociated in an individual eye. Furthermore, there is a ceiling effect that can negate the currently used functional metrics such as >5 letters improvement when the baseline VA is good (ETDRS>70 letters). It is therefore important to use a combination of both the parameters in determining the response.The following are proposed definitions: optimal (good) response is defined as when there is resolution of fluid (intraretinal fluid; IRF, subretinal fluid; SRF and retinal thickening), and/or improvement of >5 letters, subject to the ceiling effect of good starting VA. Poor response is defined as <25% reduction from the baseline in the central retinal thickness (CRT), with persistent or new IRF, SRF or minimal or change in VA (that is, change in VA of 0+4 letters). Non-response is defined as an increase in fluid (IRF, SRF and CRT), or increasing haemorrhage compared with the baseline and/or loss of >5 letters compared with the baseline or best corrected vision subsequently. Poor or non-response to anti-VEGF may be due to clinical factors including suboptimal dosing than that required by a particular patient, increased dosing intervals, treatment initiation when disease is already at an advanced or chronic stage), cellular mechanisms, lesion type, genetic variation and potential tachyphylaxis); non-clinical factors including poor access to clinics or delayed appointments may also result in poor treatment outcomes. In eyes classified as good responders, treatment should be continued with the same agent when disease activity is present or reactivation occurs following temporary dose holding. In eyes that show partial response, treatment may be continued, although re-evaluation with further imaging may be required to exclude confounding factors. Where there is persistent, unchanging accumulated fluid following three consecutive injections at monthly intervals, treatment may be withheld temporarily, but recommenced with the same or alternative anti-VEGF if the fluid subsequently increases (lesion considered active). Poor or non-response to anti-VEGF treatments requires re-evaluation of diagnosis and if necessary switch to alternative therapies including other anti-VEGF agents and/or with photodynamic therapy (PDT). Idiopathic polypoidal choroidopathy may require treatment with PDT monotherapy or combination with anti-VEGF. A committee comprised of retinal specialists with experience of managing patients with n-AMD similar to that which developed the Royal College of Ophthalmologists Guidelines to Ranibizumab was assembled. Individual aspects of the guidelines were proposed by the committee lead (WMA) based on relevant reference to published evidence base following a search of Medline and circulated to all committee members for discussion before approval or modification. Each draft was modified according to feedback from committee members until unanimous approval was obtained in the final draft. A system for categorising the range of responsiveness of n-AMD lesions to anti-VEGF therapy is proposed. The proposal is based primarily on morphological criteria but functional criteria have been included. Recommendations have been made on when to consider discontinuation of therapy either because of success or futility. These guidelines should help clinical decision-making and may prevent over and/or undertreatment with anti-VEGF therapy.

Ivacaftor as salvage therapy in a patient with cystic fibrosis genotype F508del/R117H/IVS8-5T

Ivacaftor is a novel CFTR potentiator that increases CFTR activity and improves clinical outcomes in cystic fibrosis (CF) patients with at least one copy of CFTR-G551D. Clinical trials have shown an improvement in lung function, weight and CF pulmonary exacerbation in adults with CFTR-G551D leading to the approval of ivacaftor as a novel CF therapy [1]. In vitro studies of ivacaftor have also shown significant improvements in CFTR chloride channel opening time in other non-G551D CFTR mutations suggesting that ivacaftor may be of benefit to patients with mutations other than gating mutations [2]. R117H-CFTR is a relatively common CFTR mutation that demonstrates an in-vitro response to ivacaftor [2,3]. A clinical trial has suggested that there may be a role for ivacaftor in older patients with R117H-CFTR although this trial did not include patients with very severe CF lung disease [4]. In 2014, ivacaftor was approved in the United States as a treatment for CF subjects aged greater than 6 years old with a copy of R117H-CFTR. We present a case demonstrating a substantial therapeutic effect of ivacaftor in a CF patient with genotype F508del/R117H and advanced lung disease.

Editor's choice--Angulation of the C-arm during complex endovascular aortic procedures increases radiation exposure to the head

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

The increased complexity of endovascular aortic repair necessitates longer procedural time and higher radiation exposure to the operator, particularly to exposed body parts. The aims were to measure directly exposure to radiation of the bodies and heads of the operating team during endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA), and to identify factors that may increase exposure.

METHODS

This was a single-centre prospective study. Between October 2013 and July 2014, consecutive elective branched and fenestrated TAAA repairs performed in a hybrid operating room were studied. Electronic dosimeters were used to measure directly radiation exposure to the primary (PO) and assistant (AO) operator in three different areas (under-lead, over-lead, and head). Fluoroscopy and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) acquisition times, C-arm angulation, and PO/AO height were recorded.

RESULTS

Seventeen cases were analysed (Crawford II-IV), with a median operating time of 280 minutes (interquartile range 200-330 minutes). Median age was 76 years (range 71-81 years); median body mass index was 28 kg/m(2) (25-32 kg/m(2)). Stent-grafts incorporated branches only, fenestrations only, or a mixture of branches and fenestrations. A total of 21 branches and 38 fenestrations were cannulated and stented. Head dose was significantly higher in the PO compared with the AO (median 54 μSv [range 24-130 μSv] vs. 15 μSv [range 7-43 μSv], respectively; p = .022), as was over-lead body dose (median 80 μSv [range 37-163 μSv] vs. 32 μSv [range 6-48 μSv], respectively; p = .003). Corresponding under-lead doses were similar between operators (median 4 μSv [range 1-17 μSv] vs. 1 μSv [range 1-3 μSv], respectively; p = .222). Primary operator height, DSA acquisition time in left anterior oblique (LAO) position, and degrees of LAO angulation were independent predictors of PO head dose (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The head is an unprotected area receiving a significant radiation dose during complex endovascular aortic repair. The deleterious effects of exposure to this area are not fully understood. Vascular interventionalists should be cognisant of head exposure increasing with C-arm angulation, and limit this manoeuvre.

Measuring quality in maternal-newborn care: developing a clinical dashboard

Pregnancy, birth, and the early newborn period are times of high use of health care services. As well as opportunities for providing quality care, there are potential missed opportunities for health promotion, safety issues, and increased costs for the individual and the system when quality is not well defined or measured. There has been a need to identify key performance indicators (KPIs) to measure quality care within the provincial maternal-newborn system. We also wanted to provide automated audit and feedback about these KPIs to support quality improvement initiatives in a large Canadian province with approximately 140 000 births per year. We therefore worked to develop a maternal-newborn dashboard to increase awareness about selected KPIs and to inform and support hospitals and care providers about areas for quality improvement. We mapped maternal-newborn data elements to a quality domain framework, sought feedback via survey for the relevance and feasibility of change, and examined current data and the literature to assist in setting provincial benchmarks. Six clinical performance indicators of maternal-newborn quality care were identified and evidence-informed benchmarks were set. A maternal-newborn dashboard with "drill down" capacity for detailed analysis to enhance audit and feedback is now available for implementation. While audit and feedback does not guarantee individuals or institutions will make practice changes and move towards quality improvement, it is an important first step. Practice change and quality improvement will not occur without an awareness of the issues.