Search

Superconducting circuits are promising candidates for constructing quantum bits (qubits) in a quantum computer; single- qubit operations are now routine (1,2), and several examples (3-9) of two-qubit interactions and gates [...]

Author(s): D. I. Schuster [1, 2]; A. A. Houck [1, 2]; J. A. Schreier [1]; A. Wallraff [1, 3]; J. M. Gambetta [1]; A. Blais [1, 3]; L. Frunzio [1]; [...]

The bacterial pathogen Enterococcus cecorum is economically highly relevant in broiler production. After intestinal colonization in the first week of life, pathogenic E. cecorum strains may translocate from the gut to the blood stream, leading to septicemia and a subsequent skeletal infection phase. Little is known about the role of intestinal integrity and cecal microbiota in E. cecorum infection. As a consequence, a PhD project was conducted to gain further insight into early pathogenesis of E. cecorum infection. The present PhD project had three main aims: (1) to establish an experimental infection model in day-old chicks, (2) to investigate the effects of antibiotic treatment on E. cecorum infection and the cecal microbial community, and (3) to investigate the effects of heat stress on E. cecorum pathogenesis, the cecal microbiota, and intestinal integrity. The establishment of a reproducible and resilient experimental infection model was successful. However, different virulence levels of different E. cecorum strains were observed in vivo for the first time. It was shown that prediction of virulence by embryo lethality assays is limited and that possible virulence factors of E. cecorum still need to be identified. E. cecorum represents only a minor population in the cecal microbial community. Nevertheless, it may be a key species in diseased broilers. Heat stress was shown to impair intestinal integrity, and the course of E. cecorum infection was accelerated and more severe in heat stressed birds. However, translocation mechanisms of E. cecorum remain unknown, and further research is needed to understand E. cecorum pathogenesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context.—: Laboratory testing, beyond what is essential for managing health, is considered low-value care, posing patient risks and wasting resources. Measuring excess testing on a national level is crucial to identify waste and optimize healthcare resource allocation for maximum impact., Objective.—: To measure inappropriate laboratory testing and its cost across Medicare and many US commercial payers., Design.—: A retrospective analysis on 2019 claims data measured the frequency of 4 commonly used laboratory tests among 64 million individuals with Medicare and 168 million with commercial insurance. Tests included 25-hydroxy vitamin D, prostate-specific antigen, lipid panel, and hemoglobin A1c. Clinical guidelines, medical literature, and payer recommendations were used to determine appropriate testing frequencies. Costs of excessive testing were calculated using the 2019 clinical lab fee schedule. A targeted analysis of 2022 data confirmed 2019 trends., Results.—: Analysis of ∼84 million tests from ∼1 billion outpatient test claim records revealed that 7% to 51% of tests exceeded recommended frequencies, with some egregious overuse: for example hemoglobin-A1c or prostate-specific antigen every week. The conservative cost estimate for 4 excess tests surpassed $350 million., Conclusions.—: This extensive study, involving 232 million people, found that 14.4 million of 60.5 million individuals (23.8%) tested had undergone excessive laboratory testing, with likely little benefit and possible harm. Extrapolating findings to all laboratory testing suggests that Medicare alone may have incurred direct excess expenses from $1.95 to $3.28 billion in 2019, without factoring the hidden costs of excessive testing (eg, downstream care). Addressing unnecessary testing is crucial to lowering costs and redirecting resources for greater patient benefit., (© 2024 College of American Pathologists.)

Background: Obesity and the presence of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) before and/or after chemotherapy are associated with poor outcome in breast cancer (BC) patients. The activation of oncogenic pathways in fatty tissue leads to cell proliferation, suggesting a possible link between obesity and CTCs., Materials and Methods: In the phase III SUCCESS A trial, 3754 patients with early BC were randomized to 3 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by 3 cycles of docetaxel with or without gemcitabine. Data of 1088 patients with CTC assessments (CellSearch-System; Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Italy) and body mass index (BMI) measurements both before and after chemotherapy were available. Patients were classified according to the WHO's international definitions as underweight, normal weight, overweight, or obese, and according to their weight-change during chemotherapy into a weight-loss group (> 5% decrease), stable-weight group (≤ 5% weight-change) or weight-gain group (>5% increase). Associations between CTC positivity and, BMI or weight-change group were analyzed using frequency-table methods., Results: At study entry, 47.4% patients were underweight or normal weight, 33.6% were overweight and 18.9% were obese. Before and after chemotherapy, CTCs were detected in 20.1% and 22.6% of patients, respectively. There was no association between CTC positivity and BMI before (P = 0.104) or after (P = 0.051) chemotherapy. Furthermore, there was no association between weight-change group and CTC status before/after chemotherapy (P = 0.332)., Conclusions: According to our analysis, the risk factors obesity and prevalence of CTCs are not associated and may represent independent prognostic factors., Competing Interests: Disclosure TWP: Personal fees from Lilly and Novartis. FS: Grants from AstraZeneca, Roche and Karyopharm. Personal fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, MSD, Clovis and Eisai. TF: Personal fees from Medconcept, Onkowissen. KP: Grants from: EU/IMI CANCER-ID EFPIA, Personal fees from: BMS, Agena, Menarini, Novartis, Sanofi, Illumina, Abcam, MSD, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eppendorf and Hummingbird. AS: Grants from Celgene, Roche and AbbVie. Personal fees from Celgene, Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, MSD, Tesaro, Lilly, Seagen, Gilead, GSK, Bayer, Amgen and Pierre Fabre. HT: Personal fees from Novartis, Roche, GSK, Seagan, Pfizer, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, Daiichi, Exact Science, Vifor and Seagan. Shares/stocks from CHOP GmbH, VISION MED GmbH, Care and Coach GmbH, Onco Medical Consult GmbH. VA-F: Honoraria from Novartis. PF: Grants from Pfizer, Cepheid and Biontech. Personal fees from Novartis Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer Astra Zeneca, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lilly, Pierre Fabre, SeaGen, Roche, Agendia, Sanofi Aventis, Gilead, Mylan and Menarini., WJ: honoraria from Sanofi-Aventis, Novartis and Pfizer. BR: honoraria from AstraZeneca, Chugai, Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, and Jannssen-Cilag. All other authors have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)