Defining the research agenda to measure and reduce tuberculosis stigmas

This is an Open Access article, © 2017 International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. Content in the UH Research Archive is made available for personal research, educational, and non-commercial purposes only. Unless otherwise stated, all content is protected by copyright, and in the absence of an open license, permissions for further re-use should be sought from the publisher, the author, or other copyright holder.Crucial to finding and treating the 4 million tuberculosis (TB) patients currently missed by National TB Programs, TB stigma is receiving well-deserved and long-delayed attention at the global level. However, the ability to measure and evaluate the success of TB stigma reduction efforts is limited by the need for additional tools. At a 2016 TB stigma measurement meeting held in The Hague, stigma experts discussed and proposed a research agenda around four themes: (1) Drivers: What are the main drivers and domains of TB stigma(s)?; (2) Consequences: How consequential are TB stigmas? How are negative impacts most felt?; (3) Burden: What is the global prevalence and distribution of TB stigma(s)? What explains any variation? (4): Intervention: What can be done to reduce the extent and impact of TB stigma(s)? Each theme was further subdivided into research topics to be addressed to move the agenda forward. These include more clarity on what causes TB stigmas to emerge and thrive, the difficulty of measuring the complexity of stigma, and the improbability of a universal stigma ‘cure’. Notwithstanding, these challenges should not hinder investments in TB stigma measurement and reduction. We believe it is time to focus on how and not whether the global community should measure and reduce TB stigma.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Polymorphism in the Tumor Necrosis Factor alpha promoter region and its Influence on Colorectal Cancer Predispositiom risk in Malaysian Population

Objective: A case control study was designed to investigate the TNF-,1 -308 G>A polymorphism allele frequencies and to determine the influence of the polymorphic gcnot.ype on sporadic CRC susceptibility risk in Malaysian population. Material. and Method!: Peripheral blood samples of 164 normal controls and 161 clinically and histopathologically con­firmed CRC patients were genotyped for TNF-u -308 G>A polymorphism employing allele specific PCR. The relative associa­tions of various genotypes with CRC susceptibility risk was determined by calculating Odds Ratios. Corresponding chi-square tests on the CRC patients and controls were carried out and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were determined using Fisher e,acts tests. Results: On comparing the frequencies of genotypes of patients and controls, the homozygous ,·ariant AA was significantly higher in CRC patients (p = 0.030) compared to controls. On investigating the association of the polymorphic genotypes with CRC susceptibility risk, the homozygous variant TNF-a -308 AA showed significantly increased risk with OR 2.5842. Conclusion: Our results suggest that, pol) morphic genotJpe of inflammation response gene TNF-a is significantly associat­ed with CRC susceptibility risk and could be considered as a high risk variant for CRC predisposition

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative sars-cov-2 infection: An international cohort study

Background The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (740%) had emergency surgery and 280 (248%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (261%) patients. 30-day mortality was 238% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (512%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 380% (219 of 577), accounting for 817% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 175 [95% CI 128-240], p<00001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (230 [165-322], p<00001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3-5 versus grades 1-2 (235 [157-353], p<00001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (155 [101-239], p=0046), emergency versus elective surgery (167 [106-263], p=0026), and major versus minor surgery (152 [101-231], p=0047). Interpretation Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Defining the research agenda to measure and reduce tuberculosis stigmas

Crucial to finding and treating the 4 million tuberculosis (TB) patients currently missed by national TB programmes, TB stigma is receiving well-deserved and longdelayed attention at the global level. However, the ability to measure and evaluate the success of TB stigmareduction efforts is limited by the need for additional tools. At a 2016 TB stigma-measurement meeting held in The Hague, The Netherlands, stigma experts discussed and proposed a research agenda around four themes: 1) drivers: what are the main drivers and domains of TB stigma(s)?; 2) consequences: how consequential are TB stigmas and how are negative impacts most felt?; 3) burden: what is the global prevalence and distribution of TB stigma(s) and what explains any variation? 4): intervention: what can be done to reduce the extent and impact of TB stigma(s)? Each theme was further subdivided into research topics to be addressed to move the agenda forward. These include greater clarity on what causes TB stigmas to emerge and thrive, the difficulty of measuring the complexity of stigma, and the improbability of a universal stigma 'cure'. Nevertheless, these challenges should not hinder investments in the measurement and reduction of TB stigma.We believe it is time to focus on how, and not whether, the global community should measure and reduce TB stigma

Are trauma surgeons prepared? A survey of trauma surgeons’ disaster preparedness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective US trauma centers (TCs) must remain prepared for mass casualty incidents (MCIs). However, trauma surgeons may lack formal MCI training. The recent COVID-19 pandemic drove multiple patient surges, overloaded Emergency Medical Services (EMS) agencies, and stressed TCs. This survey assessed trauma surgeons’ MCI training, experience, and system and personal preparedness before the pandemic compared with the pandemic’s third year.Methods Survey invitations were emailed to all 1544 members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in 2019, and then resent in 2022 to 1575 members with additional questions regarding the pandemic. Questions assessed practice type, TC characteristics, training, experience, beliefs about personal and hospital preparedness, likelihood of MCI scenarios, interventions desired from membership organizations, and pandemic experiences.Results The response rate was 16.7% in 2019 and 12% in 2022. In 2022, surgeons felt better prepared than their hospitals for pandemic care, mass shootings, and active shooters, but remained feeling less well prepared for cyberattack and hazardous material events, compared with 2019. Only 35% of the respondents had unintentional MCI response experience in 2019 or 2022, and even fewer had experience with intentional MCI. 78% had completed a Stop the Bleed (STB) course and 63% own an STB kit. 57% had engaged in family preparedness activities; less than 40% had a family action plan if they could not come home during an MCI. 100% of the respondents witnessed pandemic-related adverse events, including colleague and coworker illness, patient surges, and resource limitations, and 17% faced colleague or coworker death.Conclusions Trauma surgeons thought that they became better at pandemic care and rated themselves as better prepared than their hospitals for MCI care, which is an opportunity for them to take greater leadership roles. Opportunities remain to improve surgeons’ family and personal MCI preparedness. Surgeons’ most desired professional organization interventions include advocacy, national standards for TC preparedness, and online training.Level of evidence VII, survey of expert opinion