Land use regression model (LUR) for ultrafine particles in Brisbane

Traffic-related air pollution has been associated with a wide range of adverse health effects. One component of traffic emissions that has been receiving increasing attention is ultrafine particles(UFP, < 100 nm), which are of concern to human health due to their small diameters. Vehicles are the dominant source of UFP in urban environments. Small-scale variation in ultrafine particle number concentration (PNC) can be attributed to local changes in land use and road abundance. UFPs are also formed as a result of particle formation events. Modelling the spatial patterns in PNC is integral to understanding human UFP exposure and also provides insight into particle formation mechanisms that contribute to air pollution in urban environments. Land-use regression (LUR) is a technique that can use to improve the prediction of air pollution.

Designing an emotional strategy : Strengthening digital channel engagements

The emergence of new technologies has revolutionized the way companies interact and build relationships with customers. The channel–customer relationship has traditionally been managed via a push approach in communication (“What can we sell customers?”) with the hope of cultivating customer loyalty. However, emotional understandings of customers and how they feel about a product, service, or business can drastically alter consumers’ engagement, behavior, and purchasing preferences. This rapidly evolving landscape has left managers at a loss, and what they are experiencing is likely the beginning of a tectonic shift in the way digital channels are designed, monitored, and managed. In this article, digital channel relationships are examined, and useful concepts for clarifying and refining the emotional meaning behind company strategy and their relationship to corresponding digital channels are detailed. Using three case study examples, we discuss the process and impact of such emotionally aware digital channel designs. Recommendations are made regarding how companies can select, design, and maintain digital engagements based on their strategy and industry needs.

Negative experiences and donor return: An examination of the role of asking for something different

BACKGROUND Negative donation experiences, including vasovagal reactions, deter donor retention. However, whether this deterrence effect varies as a function of whole blood (WB) donation history and requests to donate the same or a different product remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS The responses of 894 eligible WB donors who had been approached to convert to plasmapheresis and 954 eligible first-time plasmapheresis donors who had been surveyed on their last donation experience and their intention to donate plasma were considered. This information was matched with individual vasovagal reaction records, deferral category, WB donation history, and subsequent donation behavioral data obtained from the blood collection agency. RESULTS Path analysis indicated that the application of a deferral and an officially recorded vasovagal reaction decreased donors' intentions to continue plasmapheresis donation, but had no effect on WB donors' intentions to convert to plasmapheresis. Consistent with past findings, vasovagal reactions occurred more frequently with female and inexperienced donors. CONCLUSION Experiencing vasovagal reactions and deferrals may not universally deter donors from continuing to donate. Rather, the offer to convert to another form of donation—in this instance, plasmapheresis—after experiencing a negative donation event while donating WB may be sufficient to eliminate the deterrence effect on retention.

Translating emotional insights into digital channel designs: Opportunities to enhance the airport experience

Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify and understand the emotions behind a passenger’s airport experience and how this can inform digital channel engagements. Design/methodology/approach This study investigates the emotional experience of two hundred (200) passengers’ journeys at an Australian domestic airport. A survey was conducted which implemented the use of Emocards and an interview approach of laddering. The responses were then analysed into attributes, consequences and values. Findings The results indicate that across key stages of the airport (parking, retail, gates and arrivals) passengers had different emotional experiences (positive, negative and neutral). The attributes, consequences and values behind these emotions were then used to propose digital channel content and purpose of various future digital channel engagements. Research limitations/implications By gaining emotional insights airports are able to generate digital channel engagements, which align with passengers’ needs and values rather than internal operational motivations. Theoretical contributions include the development of the Technology Acceptance Model to include emotional drivers as influences in the use of digital channels. Originality/value This research provides a unique method to understand the passengers’ emotional journey across the airport infrastructure and suggest how to better design digital channel engagements to address passenger latent needs.

Selecting rainfall events for effective Water Sensitive Urban Design: A case study in Gold Coast City, Australia

The current approach for protecting the receiving water environment from urban stormwater pollution is the adoption of structural measures commonly referred to as Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD). The treatment efficiency of WSUD measures closely depends on the design of the specific treatment units. As stormwater quality is influenced by rainfall characteristics, the selection of appropriate rainfall events for treatment design is essential to ensure the effectiveness of WSUD systems. Based on extensive field investigations in four urban residential catchments based at Gold Coast, Australia, and computer modelling, this paper details a technically robust approach for the selection of rainfall events for stormwater treatment design using a three-component model. The modelling results confirmed that high intensity-short duration events produce 58.0% of TS load while they only generated 29.1% of total runoff volume. Additionally, rainfall events smaller than 6-month average recurrence interval (ARI) generates a greater cumulative runoff volume (68.4% of the total annual runoff volume) and TS load (68.6% of the TS load exported) than the rainfall events larger than 6-month ARI. The results suggest that for the study catchments, stormwater treatment design could be based on the rainfall which had a mean value of 31 mm/h average intensity and 0.4 h duration. These outcomes also confirmed that selecting smaller ARI rainfall events with high intensity-short duration as the threshold for treatment system design is the most feasible approach since these events cumulatively generate a major portion of the annual pollutant load compared to the other types of events, despite producing a relatively smaller runoff volume. This implies that designs based on small and more frequent rainfall events rather than larger rainfall events would be appropriate in the context of efficiency in treatment performance, cost-effectiveness and possible savings in land area needed.

Afatinib versus gefitinib as first-line treatment of patients with EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (LUX-Lung 7): a phase 2B, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background The irreversible ErbB family blocker afatinib and the reversible EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib are approved for first-line treatment of EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of afatinib and gefitinib in this setting. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, exploratory, randomised controlled phase 2B trial (LUX-Lung 7) was done at 64 centres in 13 countries. Treatment-naive patients with stage IIIB or IV NSCLC and a common EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion or Leu858Arg) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive afatinib (40 mg per day) or gefitinib (250 mg per day) until disease progression, or beyond if deemed beneficial by the investigator. Randomisation, stratified by EGFR mutation type and status of brain metastases, was done centrally using a validated number generating system implemented via an interactive voice or web-based response system with a block size of four. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation; independent review of tumour response was done in a blinded manner. Coprimary endpoints were progression-free survival by independent central review, time-to-treatment failure, and overall survival. Efficacy analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population and safety analyses were done in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01466660. Findings Between Dec 13, 2011, and Aug 8, 2013, 319 patients were randomly assigned (160 to afatinib and 159 to gefitinib). Median follow-up was 27·3 months (IQR 15·3–33·9). Progression-free survival (median 11·0 months [95% CI 10·6–12·9] with afatinib vs 10·9 months [9·1–11·5] with gefitinib; hazard ratio [HR] 0·73 [95% CI 0·57–0·95], p=0·017) and time-to-treatment failure (median 13·7 months [95% CI 11·9–15·0] with afatinib vs 11·5 months [10·1–13·1] with gefitinib; HR 0·73 [95% CI 0·58–0·92], p=0·0073) were significantly longer with afatinib than with gefitinib. Overall survival data are not mature. The most common treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20 [13%] of 160 patients given afatinib vs two [1%] of 159 given gefitinib) and rash or acne (15 [9%] patients given afatinib vs five [3%] of those given gefitinib) and liver enzyme elevations (no patients given afatinib vs 14 [9%] of those given gefitinib). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 17 (11%) patients in the afatinib group and seven (4%) in the gefitinib group. Ten (6%) patients in each group discontinued treatment due to drug-related adverse events. 15 (9%) fatal adverse events occurred in the afatinib group and ten (6%) in the gefitinib group. All but one of these deaths were considered unrelated to treatment; one patient in the gefitinib group died from drug-related hepatic and renal failure. Interpretation Afatinib significantly improved outcomes in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated NSCLC compared with gefitinib, with a manageable tolerability profile. These data are potentially important for clinical decision making in this patient population.

Cilengitide combined with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: Results of an open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study (CERTO)

Background: This multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled phase II study evaluated cilengitide in combination with cetuximab and platinum-based chemotherapy, compared with cetuximab and chemotherapy alone, as first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patients and methods: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy alone (control), or combined with cilengitide 2000 mg 1×/week i.v. (CIL-once) or 2×/week i.v. (CIL-twice). A protocol amendment limited enrolment to patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) histoscore ≥200 and closed the CIL-twice arm for practical feasibility issues. Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; independent read); secondary end points included overall survival (OS), safety, and biomarker analyses. A comparison between the CIL-once and control arms is reported, both for the total cohorts, as well as for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200. Results: There were 85 patients in the CIL-once group and 84 in the control group. The PFS (independent read) was 6.2 versus 5.0 months for CIL-once versus control [hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; P = 0.085]; for patients with EGFR histoscore ≥200, PFS was 6.8 versus 5.6 months, respectively (HR 0.57; P = 0.0446). Median OS was 13.6 for CIL-once versus 9.7 months for control (HR 0.81; P = 0.265). In patients with EGFR ≥200, OS was 13.2 versus 11.8 months, respectively (HR 0.95; P = 0.855). No major differences in adverse events between CIL-once and control were reported; nausea (59% versus 56%, respectively) and neutropenia (54% versus 46%, respectively) were the most frequent. There was no increased incidence of thromboembolic events or haemorrhage in cilengitide-treated patients. αvβ3 and αvβ5 expression was neither a predictive nor a prognostic indicator. Conclusions: The addition of cilengitide to cetuximab/chemotherapy indicated potential clinical activity, with a trend for PFS difference in the independent-read analysis. However, the observed inconsistencies across end points suggest additional investigations are required to substantiate a potential role of other integrin inhibitors in NSCLC treatment.

Afatinib versus cisplatin-based chemotherapy for EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma (LUX-Lung 3 and LUX-Lung 6): analysis of overall survival data from two randomised, phase 3 trials

Background We aimed to assess the effect of afatinib on overall survival of patients with EGFR mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma through an analysis of data from two open-label, randomised, phase 3 trials. Methods Previously untreated patients with EGFR mutation-positive stage IIIB or IV lung adenocarcinoma were enrolled in LUX-Lung 3 (n=345) and LUX-Lung 6 (n=364). These patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive afatinib or chemotherapy (pemetrexed-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 3] or gemcitabine-cisplatin [LUX-Lung 6]), stratified by EGFR mutation (exon 19 deletion [del19], Leu858Arg, or other) and ethnic origin (LUX-Lung 3 only). We planned analyses of mature overall survival data in the intention-to-treat population after 209 (LUX-Lung 3) and 237 (LUX-Lung 6) deaths. These ongoing studies are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00949650 and NCT01121393. Findings Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 3 was 41 months (IQR 35–44); 213 (62%) of 345 patients had died. Median follow-up in LUX-Lung 6 was 33 months (IQR 31–37); 246 (68%) of 364 patients had died. In LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 28·2 months (95% CI 24·6–33·6) in the afatinib group and 28·2 months (20·7–33·2) in the pemetrexed-cisplatin group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·66–1·17, p=0·39). In LUX-Lung 6, median overall survival was 23·1 months (95% CI 20·4–27·3) in the afatinib group and 23·5 months (18·0–25·6) in the gemcitabine-cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·72–1·22, p=0·61). However, in preplanned analyses, overall survival was significantly longer for patients with del19-positive tumours in the afatinib group than in the chemotherapy group in both trials: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 33·3 months (95% CI 26·8–41·5) in the afatinib group versus 21·1 months (16·3–30·7) in the chemotherapy group (HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·36–0·79, p=0·0015); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 31·4 months (95% CI 24·2–35·3) versus 18·4 months (14·6–25·6), respectively (HR 0·64, 95% CI 0·44–0·94, p=0·023). By contrast, there were no significant differences by treatment group for patients with EGFR Leu858Arg-positive tumours in either trial: in LUX-Lung 3, median overall survival was 27·6 months (19·8–41·7) in the afatinib group versus 40·3 months (24·3–not estimable) in the chemotherapy group (HR 1·30, 95% CI 0·80–2·11, p=0·29); in LUX-Lung 6, it was 19·6 months (95% CI 17·0–22·1) versus 24·3 months (19·0–27·0), respectively (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·81–1·83, p=0·34). In both trials, the most common afatinib-related grade 3–4 adverse events were rash or acne (37 [16%] of 229 patients in LUX-Lung 3 and 35 [15%] of 239 patients in LUX-Lung 6), diarrhoea (33 [14%] and 13 [5%]), paronychia (26 [11%] in LUX-Lung 3 only), and stomatitis or mucositis (13 [5%] in LUX-Lung 6 only). In LUX-Lung 3, neutropenia (20 [18%] of 111 patients), fatigue (14 [13%]) and leucopenia (nine [8%]) were the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events, while in LUX-Lung 6, the most common chemotherapy-related grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (30 [27%] of 113 patients), vomiting (22 [19%]), and leucopenia (17 [15%]). Interpretation Although afatinib did not improve overall survival in the whole population of either trial, overall survival was improved with the drug for patients with del19 EGFR mutations. The absence of an effect in patients with Leu858Arg EGFR mutations suggests that EGFR del19-positive disease might be distinct from Leu858Arg-positive disease and that these subgroups should be analysed separately in future trials.