Citizen science reveals unexpected solute patterns in semiarid river networks.

Human modification of water and nutrient flows has resulted in widespread degradation of aquatic ecosystems. The resulting global water crisis causes millions of deaths and trillions of USD in economic damages annually. Semiarid regions have been disproportionately affected because of high relative water demand and pollution. Many proven water management strategies are not fully implemented, partially because of a lack of public engagement with freshwater ecosystems. In this context, we organized a large citizen science initiative to quantify nutrient status and cultivate connection in the semiarid watershed of Utah Lake (USA). Working with community members, we collected samples from ~200 locations throughout the 7,640 km2 watershed on a single day in the spring, summer, and fall of 2018. We calculated ecohydrological metrics for nutrients, major ions, and carbon. For most solutes, concentration and leverage (influence on flux) were highest in lowland reaches draining directly to the lake, coincident with urban and agricultural sources. Solute sources were relatively persistent through time for most parameters despite substantial hydrological variation. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus species showed critical source area behavior, with 10-17% of the sites accounting for most of the flux. Unlike temperate watersheds, where spatial variability often decreases with watershed size, longitudinal variability showed an hourglass shape: high variability among headwaters, low variability in mid-order reaches, and high variability in tailwaters. This unexpected pattern was attributable to the distribution of human activity and hydrological complexity associated with return flows, losing river reaches, and diversions in the tailwaters. We conclude that participatory science has great potential to reveal ecohydrological patterns and rehabilitate individual and community relationships with local ecosystems. In this way, such projects represent an opportunity to both understand and improve water quality in diverse socioecological contexts.

Effect of anticoagulant therapy in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, an increased incidence of thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis and stroke, has been reported. It is unknown whether anticoagulation can prevent these complications and improve outcome. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the question: What is the effect of (prophylactic and therapeutic dose) anticoagulation therapy in COVID-19 patients on cardiovascular and thromboembolic complications and clinical outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality (crucial), hospital admission, length of stay, thromboembolic complications (pulmonary embolism, stroke, transient ischaemic attack), need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury and use of renal replacement therapy. Medline and Embase databases were searched with relevant search terms until 17 July 2020. After systematic analysis, eight studies were included. Analysis was stratified for the start of anticoagulation before or during hospital admission. RESULTS: There was insufficient evidence that therapeutic anticoagulation could improve the outcome in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. None of the studies demonstrated improved mortality, except for one very small Italian study. Furthermore, none of the studies showed a positive effect of anticoagulation on other outcome measures in COVID-19, such as ICU admission, length of hospital stay, thromboembolic complications, need for mechanical ventilation, acute kidney failure or need for renal replacement therapy, except for two studies demonstrating an association between anticoagulation and a lower incidence of pulmonary embolism. However, the level of evidence of all studies varied from 'low' to 'very low', according to the GRADE methodology. CONCLUSION: Analysis of the literature showed that there was insufficient evidence to answer our objective on the effect of anticoagulation on outcome in COVID-19 patients, especially due to the low scientific quality of the described studies. Randomised controlled studies are needed to answer this question.

Impact of cardiovascular disease and cardiovascular risk factors in hospitalised COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalised COVID-19 patients with underlying cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cardiovascular risk factors appear to be at risk of poor outcome. It is unknown if these patients should be considered a vulnerable group in healthcare delivery and healthcare recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to answer the following question: In which hospitalised patients with proven COVID-19 and with underlying CVD and cardiovascular risk factors should doctors be alert to a poor outcome? Relevant outcome measures were mortality and intensive care unit admission. Medline and Embase databases were searched using relevant search terms until 9 June 2020. After systematic analysis, 8 studies were included. RESULTS: Based on the literature search, there was insufficient evidence that CVD and cardiovascular risk factors are significant predictors of mortality and poor outcome in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. Due to differences in methodology, the level of evidence of all studies was graded 'very low' according to the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. It is expected that in the near future, two multinational and multicentre European registries (CAPACITY-COVID and LEOSS) will offer more insight into outcome in COVID-19 patients. CONCLUSION: This literature review demonstrated there was insufficient evidence to identify CVD and cardiovascular risk factors as important predictors of poor outcome in hospitalised COVID-19 patients. However, patients with CVD and cardiovascular risk factors remain vulnerable to infectious disease outbreaks. As such, governmental and public health COVID-19 recommendations for vulnerable groups apply to these patients.

How often and to what extent do admitted COVID-19 patients have signs of cardiac injury?

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can cause myocardial injury in a significant proportion of patients admitted to the hospital and seems to be associated with worse prognosis. The aim of this review was to study how often and to what extent COVID-19 causes myocardial injury and whether this is an important contributor to outcome with implications for management. METHODS: A literature search was performed in Medline and Embase. Myocardial injury was defined as elevated cardiac troponin (cTn) levels with at least one value > 99th percentile of the upper reference limit. The primary outcome measure was mortality, whereas secondary outcome measures were intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Four studies and one review were included. The presence of myocardial injury varied between 9.6 and 46.3%. Myocardial injury was associated with a higher mortality rate (risk ratio (RR) 5.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.48-8.80) and more ICU admissions (RR 3.78, 95% CI 2.07-6.89). The results regarding length of hospital stay were inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Patients with myocardial injury might be classified as high-risk patients, with probably a higher mortality rate and a larger need for ICU admission. cTn levels can be used in risk stratification models and can indicate which patients potentially benefit from early medication administration. We recommend measuring cTn levels in all COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital or who deteriorate during admission.

[Responsiveness and sustainability of psychiatric care in France during COVID-19 epidemic]. / Réactivité et pérennité des soins psychiatriques en France à l'épreuve du COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: The sudden changes of healthcare system due to COVID-19 particularly affect the organization of psychiatry. The objective of this review is to examine the adaptations of psychiatric care in France during this pandemic. METHOD: This narrative review is based on the observation of changes made in French psychiatric hospitals and on an analysis of the literature. RESULTS: Regarding psychiatric hospitalization, the COVID-19 epidemic required rapid measures that profoundly modified the conditions of patients' reception, forcing the medical staffs to adapt their methods of care. The authors noted the creation of at least 89 wards specifically dedicated to patients with COVID-19 needing psychiatric hospitalization, allowing dual care of general medicine and psychiatry. Regarding ambulatory care, maintaining patients with long-term follow-up was a priority. Patients recalling and teleconsultation have been precious resources but cannot entirely replace face-to-face consultations. DISCUSSION: COVID-19 epidemic created unprecedented situation of large-scale upheavals in the healthcare system and in society. Despite the absence of previous recommendations on the subject, French psychiatry has shown great adaptability. Some changes could inspire post-COVID-19 care.

Medicine in motion: Opportunities, challenges and data analytics-based solutions for traditional medicine integration into western medical practice.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Traditional pharmacopeias have been developed by multiple cultures and evaluated for efficacy and safety through both historical/empirical iteration and more recently through controlled studies using Western scientific paradigms and an increasing emphasis on data science methodologies for network pharmacology. Traditional medicines represent likely sources of relatively inexpensive drugs for symptomatic management as well as potential libraries of new therapeutic approaches. Leveraging this potential requires hard evidence for efficacy that separates science from pseudoscience. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a review of non-Western medical systems and developed case studies that illustrate the epistemological and practical translative barriers that hamper their transition to integration with Western approaches. We developed a new data analytics approach, in silico convergence analysis, to deconvolve modes of action, and potentially predict desirable components of TM-derived formulations based on computational consensus analysis across cultures and medical systems. RESULTS: Abstraction, simplification and altered dose and delivery modalities were identified as factors that influence actual and perceived efficacy once a medicine is moved from a non-Western to Western setting. Case studies on these factors highlighted issues with translation between non-Western and Western epistemologies, including those where epistemological and medicinal systems drive markets that can be epicenters for zoonoses such as the novel Coronavirus. The proposed novel data science approach demonstrated the ability to identify and predict desirable medicinal components for a test indication, pain. CONCLUSIONS: Relegation of traditional therapies to the relatively unregulated nutraceutical industry may lead healthcare providers and patients to underestimate the therapeutic potential of these medicines. We suggest three areas of emphasis for this field: First, vertical integration and embedding of traditional medicines into healthcare systems would subject them to appropriate regulation and evidence-based practice, as viable integrative implementation mode. Second, we offer a new Bradford-Hill-like framework for setting research priorities and evaluating efficacy, with the goal of rescuing potentially valuable therapies from the nutraceutical market and discrediting those that are pseudoscience. Third, data analytics pipelines offer new capacity to generate new types of TMS-inspired medicines that are rationally-designed based on integrated knowledge across cultures, and also provide an evaluative framework against which to test claims of fidelity and efficacy to TMS made for nutraceuticals.