at the inappropriate dosing of DOACs occurred in approximately 20% of AF patients, and was more frequent in outpatients (vs. inpatients) and in those with a higher risk of bleeding. It is recommended that pharmacists play a greater role in assisting in the prescription process to help physicians make better decisions. © The Author(s). 2020.Background Since 1992 ART clinics have been required to report outcome data. Our objective was to assess practitioners' opinions of the impact of public reporting of assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes on treatment strategies, medical decision-making, and fellow training. Methods Survey study performed in an academic medical center. Members of the Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility and the Society of Reproductive Surgery were recruited to participate in an online survey in April 2012. Categorical survey responses were expressed as percentages. Written responses were categorized according to common themes regarding effects of reporting on participants' medical management of patients. The study was primarily qualitative and was not powered to make statistical conclusions. Results Of 1019 surveys sent, 323 participants (31.7%) responded from around the United States, and 275 provided complete data. Nearly all (273 of 282; 96.8%) participants responded that public reporting sometime; 76%) believed that most centers that advertised their success rates did so in ways that were misleading to patients. Conclusions Public reporting of ART clinical outcomes is intended to drive improvement, promote trust between patients and providers, and inform consumers and payers. However, providers reported that they modified their practices, felt others denied care to poor-prognosis patients, and limited participation of trainees in procedures in response to public reporting of ART outcomes. © The Author(s) 2020.Background Botulinum neurotoxins type A (BoNT-As) are commonly used treatments for cervical dystonia (CD). Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of them in these patients, but data from real-life clinical practice as well as comparative data on the cost and outcome of different BoNT-A formulations are limited. The aim of this study was to compare abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) on their clinical outcomes and drug costs in real-life clinical practice. Methods This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (n = 253) or onaBoNT-A (n = 103) from 38 centres across Europe and Australia (NCT00833196). The clinical outcome measures were treatment responses, changes in TWSTRS scores and changes in health utility scores from baseline to study visit 2 and 3. Health utility score was mapped from the TWSTRS total scale, using a previous publication. Costs included drug cost for France. Results The aboBoNT-A treated group had 2.06 (95% CI 1.15 to 3.69) times higher odds of achieving treatment response than the onaBoNT-A treated group. https://www.selleckchem.com/products/valproic-acid.html The adjusted mean change in TWSTRS total score from baseline to visit 3 were - 6.42 (95% CI - 7.52 to - 5.33) for aboBoNT-A and - 3.94 (95% CI - 5.68 to - 2.2) for onaBoNT-A, with a difference of - 2.48 (95% CI - 4.57 to - 0.39). The corresponding difference in the adjusted mean change for health utility score was 0.008 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.014). Mean treatment costs for aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A were 314.1 (95% CI 299.1 to 329.0) and 346.6 (95% CI 322.9 to 370.4) Euros, respectively. Conclusions This comparative analysis indicated that treatment with aboBoNT-A may be less costly and lead to improved clinical outcomes when compared with onaBoNT-A, from a French healthcare system perspective. Additional comparative clinical data from larger patient cohorts, as well as more information about cost consequences of an improvement in clinical outcome would be of value to further confirm the findings. © The Author(s). 2020.Testing for vector-borne pathogens in livestock is largely reliant upon blood and tissue. The role of biopsy samples remains poorly explored for detecting tick-borne bacteria in animals. In a 2-year survey, animals of veterinary importance from farms throughout the northern part of Greece were routinely checked for the presence of biopsy samples. Where detected, either a portion or a biopsy was collected together with whole blood samples and any ticks at the site of the biopsy sample. Molecular testing was carried out by real-time PCR targeting the internal transcribed spacer gene of Bartonella species. A total of 68 samples (28 blood samples, 28 biopsy samples and 12 ticks (nine Rhipicephalus bursa and three Rhipicephalus turanicus)) were collected from goats (64 samples) and cattle (four samples). Eight (11.8%) of the 68 samples were positive for Bartonella species. Of the biopsy and whole blood samples, four (14.3%) of each type were positive for Bartonella species. None of the ticks tested positive for Bartonella species. All pairs of positive biopsy samples/whole blood samples originated from the same animals. Positive samples were identified as Bartonella vinsonii subsp. arupensis. Although many more samples from a much wider spectrum of animal species is required before concluding upon the merit of biopsy samples in the study of tick-borne diseases, the significance of our finding warrants further study, both for clinical consequences in small ruminants and for those humans who are farming infected animals. © 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.Vagococcus lutrae belongs to the Vagococcus genus; it is possible to isolate vagococci from marine hosts, contaminated food and soil. To our knowledge, this is the first case of bloodstream infection with V. lutrae and only the second reported human infection in the literature. As in the first reported case of clinical infection with V. lutrae, this woman had several wounds. The clinical investigation showed no other foci for the bloodstream infection, so we hypothesize that the wounds were colonized, although they showed no signs of infection and skin swabs did not reveal V. lutrae. © 2020 The Author(s).