Changes in some factors of the innate immunity and serum zinc and iron concentrations in pigs following intravenous administration of Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide

The changes in some factors of the innate immunity (phagocytosis, complement, lysozyme); haematological parameters - leukocytes, erythrocytes, differential white blood cell counts, haemoglobin, haematocrit and the serum concentrations of the microelements zinc and iron in six 2- to 3-months-old female piglets after the intravenous administration of lipopolysaccharide from Escherichia coli 0111:B4 were determined. It was found out that 1 h after the administration of lipopolysaccharide at the dosage rate of 10 µg/kg body weight resulted in a decrease in the phagocytic parameters, i.e. the phagocytic number and the index of phagocytic activity, which was followed by an increase in their values between post treatment hours 2 and 4. The leukocyte counts had decreased by hour 2 after the injection, but thereafter increased, and at post treatment hour 72, a leukocytosis was observed. The differential white blood cell counts were characterized by a shift to the left between hours 2 and 4 and a statistically significant increase in lymphocyte counts at hour 48 of the experiment. The serum zinc concentrations were increased an hour after the lipopolysaccharide application; after which their average values were lower. The haemolytic activities (CH₅₀) of the classical and the alternative pathways of complement activation decreased. The haemolytic activity (CH₅₀) for the classical pathway began to increase at hour 48 following the treatment. Significant changes were not observed in lysozyme activity, serum iron concentrations or the related haematological parameters (erythrocytes and haemoglobin).The articles have been scanned in colour with a HP Scanjet 5590; 600dpi. Adobe Acrobat v.9 was used to OCR the text and also for the merging and conversion to the final presentation PDF-format

Susceptibility of Pigs and Chickens to SARS Coronavirus

An outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in humans, associated with a new coronavirus, was reported in Southeast Asia, Europe, and North America in early 2003. To address speculations that the virus originated in domesticated animals, or that domestic species were susceptible to the virus, we inoculated 6-week-old pigs and chickens intravenously, intranasally, ocularly, and orally with 106 PFU of SARS-associated coronavirus (SARS-CoV). Clinical signs did not develop in any animal, nor were gross pathologic changes evident on postmortem examinations. Attempts at virus isolation were unsuccessful; however, viral RNA was detected by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction in blood of both species during the first week after inoculation, and in chicken organs at 2 weeks after inoculation. Virus-neutralizing antibodies developed in the pigs. Our results indicate that these animals do not play a role as amplifying hosts for SARS-CoV

COVID-19 first lockdown as a window into language acquisition: Associations between caregiver-child activities and vocabulary gains

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the resulting closure of daycare centers worldwide, led to unprecedented changes in children’s learning environments. This period of increased time at home with caregivers, with limited access to external sources (e.g., daycares) provides a unique opportunity to examine the associations between the caregiver-child activities and children’s language development. The vocabularies of 1742 children aged8-36 months across 13 countries and 12 languages were evaluated at the beginning and end of the first lockdown period in their respective countries(from March to September 2020). Children who had less passive screen exposure and whose caregivers read more to them showed larger gains in vocabulary development during lockdown, after controlling for SES and other caregiver-child activities. Children also gained more words than expected (based on normative data) during lockdown; either caregivers were more aware of their child’s development or vocabulary development benefited from intense caregiver-child interaction during lockdown

Harnessing Wicked Problems in Multi-stakeholder Partnerships

Despite the burgeoning literature on the governance and impact of cross-sector partnerships in the past two decades, the debate on how and when these collaborative arrangements address globally relevant problems and contribute to systemic change remains open. Building upon the notion of wicked problems and the literature on governing such wicked problems, this paper defines harnessing problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) as the approach of taking into account the nature of the problem and of organizing governance processes accordingly. The paper develops an innovative analytical framework that conceptualizes MSPs in terms of three governance processes (deliberation, decision-making and enforce-ment) harnessing three key dimensions of wicked problems (knowledge uncertainty, value conflict and dynamic complexity). The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil provides an illustrative case study on how this analytical framework describes and explains organizational change in partnerships from a problem-based perspective. The framework can be used to better understand and predict the complex relationships between MSP governance processes, systemic change and societal problems, but also as a guiding tool in (re-)organizing governance processes to continuously re-assess the problems over time and address them accordingly

Primary stroke prevention worldwide : translating evidence into action

Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis ?erimagi? (Poliklinika Glavi?, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo Ant?nio, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Cz?onkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), Jo?o Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universit?rio de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gon?alves (Hospital S?o Jos? do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurj?ns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, ?zmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Micha? Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Migl?ne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gda?sk, Gda?sk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: The stroke services survey reported in this publication was partly supported by World Stroke Organization and Auckland University of Technology. VLF was partly supported by the grants received from the Health Research Council of New Zealand. MOO was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (SIREN U54 HG007479) under the H3Africa initiative and SIBS Genomics (R01NS107900, R01NS107900-02S1, R01NS115944-01, 3U24HG009780-03S5, and 1R01NS114045-01), Sub-Saharan Africa Conference on Stroke Conference (1R13NS115395-01A1), and Training Africans to Lead and Execute Neurological Trials & Studies (D43TW012030). AGT was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. SLG was supported by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Future Leader Fellowship and an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council synergy grant. We thank Anita Arsovska (University Clinic of Neurology, Skopje, North Macedonia), Manoj Bohara (HAMS Hospital, Kathmandu, Nepal), Denis Čerimagić (Poliklinika Glavić, Dubrovnik, Croatia), Manuel Correia (Hospital de Santo António, Porto, Portugal), Daissy Liliana Mora Cuervo (Hospital Moinhos de Vento, Porto Alegre, Brazil), Anna Członkowska (Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland), Gloria Ekeng (Stroke Care International, Dartford, UK), João Sargento-Freitas (Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal), Yuriy Flomin (MC Universal Clinic Oberig, Kyiv, Ukraine), Mehari Gebreyohanns (UT Southwestern Medical Centre, Dallas, TX, USA), Ivete Pillo Gonçalves (Hospital São José do Avai, Itaperuna, Brazil), Claiborne Johnston (Dell Medical School, University of Texas, Austin, TX, USA), Kristaps Jurjāns (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Rizwan Kalani (University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA), Grzegorz Kozera (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland), Kursad Kutluk (Dokuz Eylul University, İzmir, Turkey), Branko Malojcic (University Hospital Centre Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia), Michał Maluchnik (Ministry of Health, Warsaw, Poland), Evija Miglāne (P Stradins Clinical University Hospital, Riga, Latvia), Cassandra Ocampo (University of Botswana, Princess Marina Hospital, Botswana), Louise Shaw (Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, UK), Lekhjung Thapa (Upendra Devkota Memorial-National Institute of Neurological and Allied Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal), Bogdan Wojtyniak (National Institute of Public Health, Warsaw, Poland), Jie Yang (First Affiliated Hospital of Chengdu Medical College, Chengdu, China), and Tomasz Zdrojewski (Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland) for their comments on early draft of the manuscript. The views expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and they do not necessarily reflect the views, decisions, or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated. We thank WSO for funding. The funder had no role in the design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of the study results, writing of the report, or the decision to submit the study results for publication. Funding Information: VLF declares that the PreventS web app and Stroke Riskometer app are owned and copyrighted by Auckland University of Technology; has received grants from the Brain Research New Zealand Centre of Research Excellence (16/STH/36), Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC; APP1182071), and World Stroke Organization (WSO); is an executive committee member of WSO, honorary medical director of Stroke Central New Zealand, and CEO of New Zealand Stroke Education charitable Trust. AGT declares funding from NHMRC (GNT1042600, GNT1122455, GNT1171966, GNT1143155, and GNT1182017), Stroke Foundation Australia (SG1807), and Heart Foundation Australia (VG102282); and board membership of the Stroke Foundation (Australia). SLG is funded by the National Health Foundation of Australia (Future Leader Fellowship 102061) and NHMRC (GNT1182071, GNT1143155, and GNT1128373). RM is supported by the Implementation Research Network in Stroke Care Quality of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (project CA18118) and by the IRIS-TEPUS project from the inter-excellence inter-cost programme of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic (project LTC20051). BN declares receiving fees for data management committee work for SOCRATES and THALES trials for AstraZeneca and fees for data management committee work for NAVIGATE-ESUS trial from Bayer. All other authors declare no competing interests. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseStroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide and its burden is increasing rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries, many of which are unable to face the challenges it imposes. In this Health Policy paper on primary stroke prevention, we provide an overview of the current situation regarding primary prevention services, estimate the cost of stroke and stroke prevention, and identify deficiencies in existing guidelines and gaps in primary prevention. We also offer a set of pragmatic solutions for implementation of primary stroke prevention, with an emphasis on the role of governments and population-wide strategies, including task-shifting and sharing and health system re-engineering. Implementation of primary stroke prevention involves patients, health professionals, funders, policy makers, implementation partners, and the entire population along the life course.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme