DIY/DIWO media architecture: The InstaBooth

Building on previous discourse regarding the ability of media architecture to be more open and accessible for the purposes of community engagement (Caldwell & Foth, 2014), this chapter explores a particular case study that was designed, constructed and implemented with the intention of allowing city users to participate in the development and creation of media architecture, the InstaBooth. In this chapter, we first explore DIY (do it yourself) and DIWO (do it with others) phenomena to examine what motivates the DIY cultures, communities, and practices. Secondly, in this chapter, we define and discuss our implementation of a DIY / DIWO media architecture example, the InstaBooth. The InstaBooth project pro-vides an opportunity to question the effectiveness of a DIY driven media architec-ture artefact to see to what extent it impacts on the experience of its users and for what benefit.

Zaburoni HIV case: The law can sometimes be an ass, but not in this case

Lana Nowakowski's opinion piece on the High Court decision in the Zaburoni HIV case attacks "Queensland's absurd necessity to prove intention on transmission" and argues that "changes to the law are long overdue". Both claims are wrong...

Evaluating the effectiveness of a self-management exercise intervention on wound healing, functional ability and health-related quality of life outcomes in adults with venous leg ulcers: a randomised controlled trial

Exercise that targets ankle joint mobility may lead to improvement in calf muscle pump function and subsequent healing. The objectives of this research were to assess the impact of an exercise intervention in addition to routine evidence-based care on the healing rates, functional ability and health-related quality of life for adults with venous leg ulcers (VLUs). This study included 63 patients with VLUs. Patients were randomised to receive either a 12-week exercise intervention with a telephone coaching component or usual care plus telephone calls at the same timepoints. The primary outcome evaluated the effectiveness of the intervention in relation to wound healing. The secondary outcomes evaluated physical activity, functional ability and health-related quality of life measures between groups at the end of the 12 weeks. A per protocol analysis complemented the effectiveness (intention-to-treat) analysis to highlight the importance of adherence to an exercise intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses for the primary outcome showed 77% of those in the intervention group healed by 12 weeks compared to 53% of those in the usual care group. Although this difference was not statistically significant due to a smaller than expected sample size, a 24% difference in healing rates could be considered clinically significant. The per protocol analysis for wound healing, however, showed that those in the intervention group who adhered to the exercise protocol 75% or more of the time were significantly more likely to heal and showed higher rates for wound healing than the control group (P = 0·01), that is, 95% of those who adhered in the intervention group healed in 12 weeks. The secondary outcomes of physical activity, functional ability and health-related quality of life were not significantly altered by the intervention. Among the secondary outcomes (physical activity, functional ability and health-related quality of life), intention-to-treat analyses did not support the effectiveness of the intervention. However, per protocol analyses revealed encouraging results with those participants who adhered more than 75% of the time (n = 19) showing significantly improved Range of Ankle Motion from the self-management exercise programme (P = 0·045). This study has shown that those participants who adhere to the exercise programme as an adjunctive treatment to standard care are more likely to heal and have better functional outcomes than those who do not adhere to the exercises in conjunction with usual care.

The InstaBooth: Making common ground for media architectural design

Media architecture has emerged from and relies upon a range of different disciplinary traditions and areas of expertise. As this field develops, it is timely to reflect upon the ways in which designers of different disciplinary stripes can be brought together to collaborate in a design process. What are the means by which design teams can establish a ‘common ground’ where design work can take place while recognizing the diversity of ways of working those different disciplines bring to the process? A co-design approach has been the fundamental backbone of the InstaBooth project, which has brought together a multidisciplinary design team of academics and practitioners. The intention of this project has been to explore the combination of digital and physical interactions within a small media architecture installation to intervene with urban environments and public places for the purposes of community engagement. It is by exploring the design process of the InstaBooth project that we highlight the value of multi-disciplinary collaborations, the lessons that can be learned, and the struggles and hurdles along the way. This paper highlights the iterative process of design, the materials and physical prototypes that were employed to ultimately create a working version of the InstaBooth, a media architecture that evolves as users push its boundaries and take ownership of the installation. The concept of the InstaBooth continues to develop not only as more data are collected on its mechanics and potentials through observations, interviews and workshops, but also as more and more users engage with the installation in their individual ways.

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.

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.