Framingham risk score and alternatives for prediction of coronary heart disease in older adults

Background Guidelines for the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) recommend use of Framingham-based risk scores that were developed in white middle-aged populations. It remains unclear whether and how CHD risk prediction might be improved among older adults. We aimed to compare the prognostic performance of the Framingham risk score (FRS), directly and after recalibration, with refit functions derived from the present cohort, as well as to assess the utility of adding other routinely available risk parameters to FRS. Methods Among 2193 black and white older adults (mean age, 73.5 years) without pre-existing cardiovascular disease from the Health ABC cohort, we examined adjudicated CHD events, defined as incident myocardial infarction, CHD death, and hospitalization for angina or coronary revascularization. Results During 8-year follow-up, 351 participants experienced CHD events. The FRS poorly discriminated between persons who experienced CHD events vs. not (C-index: 0.577 in women; 0.583 in men) and underestimated absolute risk prediction by 51% in women and 8% in men. Recalibration of the FRS improved absolute risk prediction, particulary for women. For both genders, refitting these functions substantially improved absolute risk prediction, with similar discrimination to the FRS. Results did not differ between whites and blacks. The addition of lifestyle variables, waist circumference and creatinine did not improve risk prediction beyond risk factors of the FRS. Conclusions The FRS underestimates CHD risk in older adults, particularly in women, although traditional risk factors remain the best predictors of CHD. Re-estimated risk functions using these factors improve accurate estimation of absolute risk.

In vitro drug causality assessment in Stevens-Johnson syndrome - alternatives for lymphocyte transformation test

BACKGROUND Patients with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) are often exposed simultaneously to a few potentially culprit drugs. However, both the standard lymphocyte transformation tests (LTT) with proliferation as the assay end-point as well as skin tests, if done, are often negative. OBJECTIVE As provocation tests are considered too dangerous, there is an urgent need to identify the relevant drug in SJS/TEN and to improve sensitivity of tests able to identify the causative drug. METHODS Fifteen patients with SJS/TEN with the ALDEN score ≥ 6 and 18 drug-exposed controls were included. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were isolated and cultured under defined conditions with drugs. LTT was compared to the following end-points: cytokine levels in cell culture supernatant, number of granzyme B secreting cells by ELISpot and intracellular staining for granulysin and IFNγ in CD3(+) CD4(+), CD3(+) CD8(+) and NKp46(+) cells. To further enhance sensitivity, the effect of IL-7/IL-15 pre-incubation of PBMC was evaluated. RESULTS Lymphocyte transformation tests was positive in only 4/15 patients (sensitivity 27%, CI: 8-55%). Similarly, with granzyme B-ELISpot culprit drugs were positive in 5/15 patients (sensitivity 33%, CI: 12-62%). The expression of granulysin was significantly induced in NKp46(+) and CD3(+) CD4(+) cells (sensitivity 40%, CI: 16-68% and 53%, CI: 27-79% respectively). Cytokine production could be demonstrated in 38%, CI: 14-68% and 43%, CI: 18-71% of patients for IL-2 and IL-5, respectively, and in 55%, CI: 23-83% for IFNγ. Pre-incubation with IL-7/IL-15 enhanced drug-specific response only in a few patients. Specificities of tested assays were in the range of 95 (CI: 80-99%)-100% (CI: 90-100%). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Granulysin expression in CD3(+) CD4(+) , Granzyme B-ELISpot and IFNγ production considered together provided a sensitivity of 80% (CI: 52-96%) and specificity of 95% (80-99%). Thus, this study demonstrated that combining different assays may be a feasible approach to identify the causative drug of SJS/TEN reactions; however, confirmation on another group of patients is necessary.

Avant-garde or supplement? Advisory bodies of transnational associations as alternatives to the League’s Minority Protection System, 1919-1939

This exegesis focuses on the work of minority committees of transnational associations in the interwar period. Most of their members considered the League system to be inefficient and supported the establishment of non-state alternatives, which included private investigations on the spot, publicity for specific problems of minorities, and attempts to reconcile representatives of ethnic minorities with those of the majority. Members of non-involved states were pre-destined especially to act as neutral moderators. Only those in close contact with League officials avoided being misused by political forces that did not seek reconciliation but border revision. They learnt that the League rules looked inadequate from the outside but turned out to be useful in coming to applicable solutions once they started their own alternative methods. Their publications and investigative journeys turned out to deepen the problems, whilst their reconciliation work became an appreciated supplement of the League system.

Are land sparing and land sharing real alternatives for European agricultural landscapes?

There is a lively debate on whether biodiversity conservation and agricultural production could be better reconciled by land sparing (strictly separating production fields and conservation areas) or by land sharing (combining both, agricultural production and biodiversity conservation on the same land). The debate originates from tropical countries, where agricultural land use continues to increase at the expense of natural ecosystems. But is it also relevant for Europe, where agriculture is withdrawing from marginal regions whilst farming of fertile lands continues to be intensified? Based on recent research on farmland biodiversity we conclude that the land sharing – land sparing dichotomy is too simplistic for Europe. Instead we differentiate between productive and marginal farmland. On productive farmland, semi-natural habitats are required to yield ecosystem services relevant for agriculture, to promote endangered farmland species which society wants to conserve even in intensively farmed regions, and to allow migration of non-farmland species through the agricultural matrix. On marginal farmland, high-nature value farming is a traditional way of land sharing, yielding high quality agricultural products and conserving specialized species. To conserve highly disturbance-sensitive species, there is a need for nature reserves. In conclusion, land sparing is not a viable olution for Europe in both productive and marginal farmland but because of different reasons in each type of farmland.