PLANEACIÓN DIDÁCTICA GENERAL DE LA ASIGNATURA INGLÉS 4

GUÍA DIDÁCTICA / PLANEACIÓN DIDÁCTICA (NMS

PLANEACIÓN DIDÁCTICA GENERAL DE LA ASIGNATURA DE INGLÉS 3

GUÍA DIDÁCTICA / PLANEACIÓN DIDÁCTICA (NMS

PLANEACIÓN DIDÁCTICA GENERAL INGLÉS 1

GUÍA DIDÁCTICA / PLANEACIÓN DIDÁCTICA (NMS

Estudios de Caso sobre Ciencias Agropecuarias y Rurales en el siglo XXI.

Libro científico sobre estudios de casos en el medio agropecuario y ruralCon el advenimiento del siglo XXI y el avance de los procesos de globalización, el medio rural presenta diversos cambios económicos, sociales, políticos y culturales. Lo anterior significa que el campo es un objeto de estudio altamente dinámico, complejo e inasible. las ciencias agropecuarias y rurales, en la actualidad, requieren de un abordaje sistémico e interdisciplinario que den cuenta de la heterogeneidad de situaciones y contextos que enfrenta el campo mexicano. La presente obra agrupa 18 estudios de caso, que capturan algunas fotografías de las diversas problemáticas de la ruralidad mexicana, con lo cual se pretende dar cuenta tanto de los objetivos de estudio como de la perspectiva teórico metodológico desde que estos son abordados. lo anterior tiene que ver con el hecho de que las ciencias agropecuarias y rurales manifiestan un alto grado de observación empírica, motivo por el que los estudios de caso se convierten en la perspectiva metodológica idónea que permite ir y venir de la realidad a la teoría y viceversa para la construcción de objetos de estudio. En este volumen se aborda una gran diversidad de casos, que sintetizan la heterogeneidad de enfoques y perspectivas mediante las cuales los fenómenos agropecuarios y rurales han sido abordados en el Instituto de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Rurales de la Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, en los últimos 30 años

PLANEACIÓN DIDÁCTICA GENERAL PARA LA ASIGNATURA DE INGLÉS 2

GUÍA DIDÁCTICA / PLANEACIÓN DIDÁCTICA (NMS

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care units: analysis of the extended prevalence of infection in intensive care unit study

To provide a global, up-to-date picture of the prevalence, treatment, and outcomes of Candida bloodstream infections in intensive care unit patients and compare Candida with bacterial bloodstream infection. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of the Extended Prevalence of Infection in the ICU Study (EPIC II). Demographic, physiological, infection-related and therapeutic data were collected. Patients were grouped as having Candida, Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and combined Candida/bacterial bloodstream infection. Outcome data were assessed at intensive care unit and hospital discharge. SETTING: EPIC II included 1265 intensive care units in 76 countries. PATIENTS: Patients in participating intensive care units on study day. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 14,414 patients in EPIC II, 99 patients had Candida bloodstream infections for a prevalence of 6.9 per 1000 patients. Sixty-one patients had candidemia alone and 38 patients had combined bloodstream infections. Candida albicans (n = 70) was the predominant species. Primary therapy included monotherapy with fluconazole (n = 39), caspofungin (n = 16), and a polyene-based product (n = 12). Combination therapy was infrequently used (n = 10). Compared with patients with Gram-positive (n = 420) and Gram-negative (n = 264) bloodstream infections, patients with candidemia were more likely to have solid tumors (p < .05) and appeared to have been in an intensive care unit longer (14 days [range, 5-25 days], 8 days [range, 3-20 days], and 10 days [range, 2-23 days], respectively), but this difference was not statistically significant. Severity of illness and organ dysfunction scores were similar between groups. Patients with Candida bloodstream infections, compared with patients with Gram-positive and Gram-negative bloodstream infections, had the greatest crude intensive care unit mortality rates (42.6%, 25.3%, and 29.1%, respectively) and longer intensive care unit lengths of stay (median [interquartile range]) (33 days [18-44], 20 days [9-43], and 21 days [8-46], respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Candidemia remains a significant problem in intensive care units patients. In the EPIC II population, Candida albicans was the most common organism and fluconazole remained the predominant antifungal agent used. Candida bloodstream infections are associated with high intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates and resource use