South Carolina Human Affairs Commission : a history, 1972-1997

This is a history of the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission that chronicles the agency's significant changes in size and mission. The finished product is a combination of research, interviews with people who have been involved with the agency over the years

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: What are the big questions?

Background: Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment. Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas. Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance. Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management. Conclusions: A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic.Centro de Investigaciones del Medioambient

Genetic mechanisms of critical illness in COVID-19.

Host-mediated lung inflammation is present1, and drives mortality2, in the critical illness caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Host genetic variants associated with critical illness may identify mechanistic targets for therapeutic development3. Here we report the results of the GenOMICC (Genetics Of Mortality In Critical Care) genome-wide association study in 2,244 critically ill patients with COVID-19 from 208 UK intensive care units. We have identified and replicated the following new genome-wide significant associations: on chromosome 12q24.13 (rs10735079, P = 1.65 × 10-8) in a gene cluster that encodes antiviral restriction enzyme activators (OAS1, OAS2 and OAS3); on chromosome 19p13.2 (rs74956615, P = 2.3 × 10-8) near the gene that encodes tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2); on chromosome 19p13.3 (rs2109069, P = 3.98 ×  10-12) within the gene that encodes dipeptidyl peptidase 9 (DPP9); and on chromosome 21q22.1 (rs2236757, P = 4.99 × 10-8) in the interferon receptor gene IFNAR2. We identified potential targets for repurposing of licensed medications: using Mendelian randomization, we found evidence that low expression of IFNAR2, or high expression of TYK2, are associated with life-threatening disease; and transcriptome-wide association in lung tissue revealed that high expression of the monocyte-macrophage chemotactic receptor CCR2 is associated with severe COVID-19. Our results identify robust genetic signals relating to key host antiviral defence mechanisms and mediators of inflammatory organ damage in COVID-19. Both mechanisms may be amenable to targeted treatment with existing drugs. However, large-scale randomized clinical trials will be essential before any change to clinical practice

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

'A fracture in time': a cup attributed to the Euaion painter from the Bothmer collection

In February 2013 Christos Tsirogiannis linked a fragmentary Athenian red-figured cup from the collection formed by Dietrich von Bothmer, former chairman of Greek and Roman Art at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, to a tondo in the Villa Giulia, Rome. The Rome fragment was attributed to the Euaion painter. Bothmer had acquired several fragments attributed to this same painter, and some had been donated to the Metropolitan Museum of Art as well as to the J. Paul Getty Museum. Other fragments from this hand were acquired by the San Antonio Museum of Art and the Princeton University Art Museum. In January 2012 it was announced that some fragments from the Bothmer collection would be returned to Italy, because they fitted vases that had already been repatriated from North American collections. The Euaion painter fragments are considered against the phenomenon of collecting and donating fractured pots

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: What are the big questions?

Background: Over the past 10-15 years, a substantial amount of work has been done by the scientific, regulatory, and business communities to elucidate the effects and risks of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the environment. Objective: This review was undertaken to identify key outstanding issues regarding the effects of PPCPs on human and ecological health in order to ensure that future resources will be focused on the most important areas. Data sources: To better understand and manage the risks of PPCPs in the environment, we used the "key question" approach to identify the principle issues that need to be addressed. Initially, questions were solicited from academic, government, and business communities around the world. A list of 101 questions was then discussed at an international expert workshop, and a top-20 list was developed. Following the workshop, workshop attendees ranked the 20 questions by importance. Data synthesis: The top 20 priority questions fell into seven categories: a) prioritization of substances for assessment, b) pathways of exposure, c) bioavailability and uptake, d) effects characterization, e) risk and relative risk, f) antibiotic resistance, and g) risk management. Conclusions: A large body of information is now available on PPCPs in the environment. This exercise prioritized the most critical questions to aid in development of future research programs on the topic.Fil: Boxall, Alistair B. A.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Rudd, Murray A.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Brooks, Bryan W.. Baylor University; Estados UnidosFil: Caldwell, Daniel J.. Johnson & Johnson; Estados UnidosFil: Choi, Kyungho. Seoul National University; Corea del SurFil: Hickmann, Silke. Umweltbundesamt; AlemaniaFil: Innes, Elizabeth. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Ostapyk, Kim. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Staveley, Jane P.. Exponent; Estados UnidosFil: Verslycke, Tim. Gradient; Estados UnidosFil: Ankley, Gerald T.. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Estados UnidosFil: Beazley, Karen F.. Dalhousie University Halifax; CanadáFil: Belanger, Scott E.. Procter And Gamble; Estados UnidosFil: Berninger, Jason P.. Baylor University; Estados UnidosFil: Carriquiriborde, Pedro. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - La Plata; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de La Plata. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas. Departamento de Química. Centro de Investigaciones del Medio Ambiente; ArgentinaFil: Coors, Anja. Ect Oekotoxikologie Gmbh; AlemaniaFil: DeLeo, Paul C.. American Cleaning Institute; Estados UnidosFil: Dyer, Scott D.. Procter And Gamble; Estados UnidosFil: Ericson, Jon F.. Pfizer Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: Gagné, François. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Giesy, John P.. University of Saskatchewan; CanadáFil: Gouin, Todd. Unilever; Reino UnidoFil: Hallstrom, Lars. University of Alberta; CanadáFil: Karlsson, Maja V.. University of York; Reino UnidoFil: Joakim Larsson, D.G.. University of Göteborg; AlemaniaFil: Lazorchak, James M.. United States Environmental Protection Agency; Estados UnidosFil: Mastrocco, Frank. Pfizer Inc.; Estados UnidosFil: McLaughlin, Alison. Health Canada; CanadáFil: McMaster, Mark E.. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Meyerhoff, Roger D.. Eli Lilly And Company; Estados UnidosFil: Moore, Roberta. Health Canada; CanadáFil: Parrott, Joanne L.. Environment Canada; CanadáFil: Snape, Jason R.. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Murray-Smith, Richard. AstraZeneca UK Ltd.; Reino UnidoFil: Servos, Mark R.. University of Waterloo; CanadáFil: Sibley, Paul K.. University of Guelph; CanadáFil: Straub, Jürg Oliver. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.; SuizaFil: Szabo, Nora D.. University of Ottawa; CanadáFil: Topp, Edward. Agriculture Et Agroalimentaire Canada; CanadáFil: Tetreault, Gerald R.. University of Waterloo; CanadáFil: Trudeau, Vance L.. University of Ottawa; CanadáFil: Van Der Kraak, Glen. University of Guelph; Canad