IMPORTANCE The Mycoplasma genus contains bacteria generally parasitic to animals and plants. Some Mycoplasma species form a protrusion at a pole, bind to solid surfaces, and glide by a special mechanism linked to their infection and survival. The special machinery for gliding can be divided into surface and internal structures that have evolved from rotary motors represented by ATP synthases. This study succeeded in visualizing the real-time movements of the internal structure by scanning from the outside of the cell using an innovative high-speed atomic force microscope and then analyzing their behaviors.Background COVID-19 was temporally associated with an increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, but the underlying mechanisms are unclear. We sought to determine if patients with implantable defibrillators residing in areas with high COVID-19 activity experienced an increase in defibrillator shocks during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods and Results Using the Medtronic (Mounds View, MN) Carelink database from 2019 and 2020, we retrospectively determined the incidence of implantable defibrillator shock episodes among patients residing in New York City, New Orleans, LA, and Boston, MA. A total of 14 665 patients with a Medtronic implantable defibrillator (age, 66±13 years; and 72% men) were included in the analysis. Comparing analysis time periods coinciding with the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020 with the same periods in 2019, we observed a larger mean rate of defibrillator shock episodes per 1000 patients in New York City (17.8 versus 11.7, respectively), New Orleans (26.4 versus 13.5, respectively), and Boston (30.9 versus 20.6, respectively) during the COVID-19 surge. Age- and sex-adjusted hurdle model showed that the Poisson distribution rate of defibrillator shocks for patients with ≥1 shock was 3.11 times larger (95% CI, 1.08-8.99; P=0.036) in New York City, 3.74 times larger (95% CI, 0.88-15.89; P=0.074) in New Orleans, and 1.97 times larger (95% CI, 0.69-5.61; P=0.202) in Boston in 2020 versus 2019. However, the binomial odds of any given patient having a shock episode was not different in 2020 versus 2019. Conclusions Defibrillator shock episodes increased during the higher COVID-19 activity in New York City, New Orleans, and Boston. These observations may provide insights into COVID-19-related increase in cardiac arrests.Background Eribulin shows some activity in controlling brain metastasis in breast cancer. Methods This observational, multicenter study evaluated brain disease control rates, survival and safety in patients with brain metastatic breast cancer treated with eribulin in clinical practice. Results A total of 34 patients were enrolled (mean age 49 years, 91% with visceral metastases) and 29 were evaluable for brain disease. Fourteen achieved disease control and showed a longer time without progression 10 months (95% CI 2.3-17.7) versus 4 months (95% CI 3.3-4.7) in the control group (p = 0.029). Patients with clinical benefits at 6 months had longer survival. Leukopenia and neutropenia were the most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities. Conclusion Eribulin confirms its effectiveness in patients with brain metastatic breast cancer. Further studies on larger cohorts are needed to confirm the results.Current treatment options for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are noncurative, and median survival upon development of mCRPC is approximately 3 years. The novel hormonal agent enzalutamide has an established role in the mCRPC treatment paradigm, and emerging evidence suggests potential synergism with enzalutamide and the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in men with mCRPC. Here, we describe the design and rationale for the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, Phase III KEYNOTE-641 study, which will be conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus enzalutamide with that of enzalutamide plus placebo in mCRPC.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/proxalutamide-gt0918.html  Clinical trial registration NCT03834493 (ClinicalTrials.gov).Real-world evidence (RWE) can provide insights into patient profiles, disease detection, treatment choice, dosing strategies, treatment sequencing, adverse event management and financial toxicity associated with oncology treatment. However, the full potential of RWE is untapped in emerging economies due to structural and behavioral factors. Structural barriers include lack of regulatory engagement, real-world data availability, quality and integrity. Behavioral barriers include entrenched healthcare professional behaviors that impede rapid RWE understanding and adoption. These barriers can be addressed with close collaboration of healthcare stakeholders; of whom, regulators need to be at the forefront given their ability to facilitate use of RWE in healthcare policy and legislation.
  The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up.
 
  A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric344-350.
 The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence Level I. Cite this article Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5)344-350.