Biology subjects

Hayward, W. A.

Publications and source records attributed to Hayward, W. A..

4 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2021

CONTROLLING COCKROACH POPULATIONS IN HUMAN AND ANIMAL HABITATIONS BY REDUCING FOOD AVAILABILITY

BackgroundCockroaches, carriers of pathogenic organisms that cause human and animal disease, typically have access to human or pet food in bowls, allowing cockroaches to expand their colonies and infestations. HypothesisWe hypothesized that existing anti-ant technology could be converted to anti-cockroach technology by simple design changes. MethodsA base of various heights was affixed to the bottom of an anti-ant bowl to increase the distance of the anti-ant shield from the native height "x" to the hypothesized cockroach-resistant height "z". The effects of z =0, 12.7, 15.9, 19.1, 25.4, 44.5, and 57.2 mm were studied. 118.3 cc (4 oz) of dry cat food was used as cockroach bait. The modified anti-ant bowls were placed in a high-intensity cockroach environment during summer nights where the temperatures varied between 23.9-29.4 degrees Celsius for 3 hours and then cockroach counts were performed. Ten runs at each height z were performed. ResultsMean numbers of infesting cockroaches {+/-} SD at each height z were 21.3{+/-}2.9 at 0 mm, 22.0{+/-}2.9 at 12.7 mm, 11.2{+/-}2.6 at 15.9 mm, 0.9{+/-}0.8 at 19.1mm, 0.4{+/-}0.5 at 25.4 mm, 0{+/-}0 at 44.5 mm, and 0{+/-}0 at 57.2 mm (p<0.001 with z[≥]15.9 mm for all). Cockroach numbers began declining when z = 15.9 mm and declined to only large cockroaches at z = 25.4 mm. The cockroaches that were able to overcome the z =25.4 mm were the larger American cockroaches that can exceed 76.2 mm (3 inch) in length. However, at z = 44.5 mm and 57.2 mm no cockroaches penetrated the modified bowl. ConclusionsTo defeat the majority of species of cockroaches the anti-insect shield should be at a height of at least 25.4 mm and to defeat the larger American cockroaches preferably greater than 25.4 mm with 44.5 mm and 57.2 mm defeating all tested cockroaches

animal behavior and cognition↗

bioRxiv2018

Glenohumeral Injection Using Anatomic Landmark Versus Sonographic Needle Guidance

ObjectiveWe hypothesized ultrasound (US) guidance improves outcomes of corticosteroid injection of the painful shoulder.\n\nMethods30 patients with symptomatic shoulders due to osteoarthritis were randomized to glenohumeral injection with 3 milliliters of 1% lidocaine and 60 mg of triamcinolone acetonide using the anterior approach with 1) conventional anatomic landmark palpation-guidance or 2) US-guidance. Injection pain (visual analogue pain scale (VAS)), pain at outcome (2 weeks and 6 months), therapeutic duration, time-to-next-injection, and costs were determined.\n\nResultsInjection pain was less with US (VAS: 0.3{+/-}0.6 cm) vs. landmark-guidance (VAS: 1.4{+/-}2.4 cm, 95% CI of difference: 0.5<1.1<1.7, p=0.05). Pain scores were similar at 2 weeks: US: 2.2{+/-}2.4 cm; Landmark: 1.8{+/-}2.7 cm, 95% CI of difference: -2.2<-0.4<1.4, p=0.66 and 6 months: US: 5.8{+/-}2.8 cm; Landmark: 6.4{+/-}2.9 cm, 95% CI of difference: -0.4<0.6< 1.1, p =0.71. Therapeutic duration (US: 3.9{+/-}1.5 months; Landmark: 3.0{+/-}1.2 months, 95% CI of difference: - 1.4 <-0.9<-0.4, p=0.045) and time-to-next-injection (US: 8.1{+/-}3.5 months; Landmark: 5.7{+/-}2.9 months, 95% CI of difference: -3.6<-2.4<-1.3, p=0.025) were longer, and fewer injections per year (29% less) were required: US: 1.5{+/-}0.2 injections/year; Landmark: 2.1{+/-}0.2 injections/year (p<0.037; 95% CI of difference -0.9<-0.6<-0.3). However, cost/patient/year was modestly greater with US (US: $318{+/-}89, Landmark: $301{+/-}67; p=0.28).\n\nConclusionAnatomic landmark guidance in the short-term is equally effective as US for injection of the osteoarthritic shoulder and modestly less costly, however, US may reduce the need for repetitive injections by prolonging the therapeutic effect and thus time to next injection.\n\nIRB StatementThis project was in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration, was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) as ultrasound subset of a syringe safety trial (Human Research Review Committee approval 04-347), and was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Clinical Trial Identifier NCT00651625). The subjects gave informed consent to participate prior to all studies and interventions. Patient confidentiality was protected according to the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and all data was de-identified.

clinical trials↗

bioRxiv2018

Prescription Opioid Analgesic Use and Mortality in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

ObjectivesThis research investigated the prevalence of opioid analgesic use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).\n\nMethodsThis 5-year prospective cohort study of 275 SLE patients focused on prescription opioid use and 5-year outcome. Associations were determined with univariable regression analysis and then multivariable models were created to determine independent effects on dependent variables\n\nResultsPrescription opioid use was common in SLE with 24% using opioid analgesics chronically and 76% not using opioids. Opioid users had a higher rate of tobacco use (p<0.01), cocaine use (p<0.002), mean pain scores (p<0.001), disease activity (SLEDAI-2K) (p<0.001), disease damage (SLICC/ACRDI) (p<0.001), non-adherence to medical therapy (p<0.01), and total deaths at 5 years (opioids: 48.0%, no opioids 19.0%, p<0.001). Logistic regression analysis predicting death revealed opioid use (hazard ratio 2.6, p<0.001) and SLEDAI-2K (1.1, p<0.001) respectively; and opioid use (hazard ratio 2.5, p<0.002), SLEDAI-2K (hazard ratio 1.1, p<0.001), and non-adherence (hazard ratio 1.6, p=0.11), respectively. Multivariable Cox Model analysis estimating probability of death with covariates: opioid use (hazard ratio 2.6, p<0.001) and SLEDAI-2K (hazard ratio 1.1, p<0.001); opioid use (hazard ratios 3.0, p<0.001), and cocaine use (hazard ratio 3.2, p<0.001). The Kaplan-Meir survival analysis revealed a significantly higher probability of death for SLE patients using opioid analgesics.\n\nConclusionsPrescription opioid analgesic use is common in SLE and is associated with markedly increased mortality. Preferably, non-opioid approaches to treat chronic pain should be used in SLE patients.\n\nClinical trial registration numberThis was not a clinical trial.\n\nKEY MESSAGES1. Chronic opioid analgesic use is common in SLE (24%).\n\n2. Opioid use is associated with greater disease severity, tobacco use, non-adherence, and increased mortality.\n\n3. Opioids should be used cautiously in SLE; alternative non-opioid management of pain is recommended.\n\nACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND FUNDING INFORMATIONThis work was supported by US National Institutes of Health research grants to Dr. Sibbitt (R01 NS035708) and to the Clinical and Translational Research Center (UL1TR001449).

epidemiology↗

bioRxiv2018

Compression-Assisted Arthrocentesis of the Knee as a Quality Improvement Intervention

ObjectiveThe present study reports the introduction of mechanical compression of the knee for arthrocentesis as quality improvement intervention in a procedure clinic.\n\nMethods430 consecutive symptomatic osteoarthritic knees underwent arthrocentesis followed by corticosteroid injection (1mg/kg of triamcinolone acetonide). The first 215 consecutive knees underwent conventional arthrocentesis and injection; the quality intervention of a mechanical compression brace was introduced, and the next 215 consecutive knees underwent mechanical compression-assisted arthrocentesis follow by injection. Pain scores, arthrocentesis success, fluid yield, time-to-next-intervention, injections/year, and medical costs were measured.\n\nResultsNo serious adverse events occurred in 430 subjects. Diagnostic synovial fluid ([≥]2 ml) was obtained in 9.3% (20/215) without compression and 40.9% (88/215) with compression (p=0.00001, z for 95% CI= 1.96, Pierson). Mechanical compression was associated with a 231% increase in mean arthrocentesis volume: compression 5.3{+/-}11.2 ml, conventional 1.6{+/-}6.4 ml (CI of difference 2.0 <3.7< 5.4; p=0.00001). Time-to-next-intervention after compression-assisted arthrocentesis was longer: 6.9{+/-}3.5 months compared to conventional: 5.1{+/-}2.7 months (p<0.00001, 95% CI of difference 1.2 <1.8< 2.3). Mechanical compression was associated with a reduction in the number of corticosteroid injections administered per year: mechanical compression: 1.7{+/-}0.9 injections/year; conventional: 2.4{+/-}0.5 injections/year (p<0.00001, 95% CI of difference -0.83 < -0.70< -0.56). Mechanical compression did not increase overall yearly costs associated with management of the symptomatic knee (mechanical compression: $293.30/year/knee, conventional: $373.29/year/knee) (p<0.0001, 95% CI of difference 47 <80< 112).\n\nConclusionsRoutine mechanical compression of the knee for arthrocentesis and injection is an effective bioengineering quality improvement intervention in a procedure clinic.

bioengineering↗