Article Outline

Road safety is no accident. Over a million people are killed each year on the world’s roadways; over 3,000 die each day, and tens of millions more are injured. Road trafficrelated crashes impose an enormous public health burden globally. In 2000, road traffic injuries were the ninth leading cause of disability-adjusted-life years lost worldwide and are projected to become third by 2020 (Peden et al., 2001). The costs are staggering. From the ambulance that transports an injured person to the emergency room, through hospitalization, rehabilitation, earnings loss, and social and family disruption, the economic consequences are far-reaching. Yet few governments or organizations acknowledge the problem’s magnitude. These types of injuries are preventable, and lives will be saved and injuries and suffering reduced once effective road traffic injury prevention strategies are implemented. Our roadways are becoming more crowded, creating a spectrum of problems ranging from pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle occupant, and motorcycle injuries to environmental pollution, noise, and health problems. These are worldwide problems that will grow more serious as travel and population size increase, as society ages, and as our predictable reliance on carscontinues. As motorization increases in the world, any investment to improve transportation or to make it safer will have global implications. So why do the rates of public investment fo

2015 revised Utstein-style recommended guidelines for uniform reporting of data from drowning-related resuscitation An ILCOR advisory statement

Background: Utstein-style guidelines use an established consensus process, endorsed by the international resuscitation community, to facilitate and structure resuscitation research and publication. The first "Guidelines for Uniform Reporting of Data From Drowning" were published over a decade ago. During the intervening years, resuscitation science has advanced considerably, thus making revision of the guidelines timely. In particular, measurement of cardiopulmonary resuscitation elements and neurological outcomes reporting have advanced substantially. The purpose of this report is to provide updated guidelines for reporting data from studies of resuscitation from drowning. Methods: An international group with scientific expertise in the fields of drowning research, resuscitation research, emergency medical services, public health, and development of guidelines met in Potsdam, Germany, to determine the data that should be reported in scientific articles on the subject of resuscitation from drowning. At the Utstein-style meeting, participants discussed data elements in detail, defined the data, determined data priority, and decided how data should be reported, including scoring methods and category details. Results: The template for reporting data from drowning research was revised extensively, with new emphasis on measurement of quality of resuscitation, neurological outcomes, and deletion of data that have proved to be less relevant or difficult to capture. Conclusions: The report describes the consensus process, rationale for selecting data elements to be reported, definitions and priority of data, and scoring methods. These guidelines are intended to improve the clarity of scientific communication and the comparability of scientific investigations. (C) 2017 European Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

2015 Revised Utstein-Style Recommended Guidelines for Uniform Reporting of Data From Drowning-Related Resuscitation:An ILCOR Advisory Statement

Background: Utstein-style guidelines use an established consensus process, endorsed by the international resuscitation community, to facilitate and structure resuscitation research and publication. The first "Guidelines for Uniform Reporting of Data From Drowning" were published over a decade ago. During the intervening years, resuscitation science has advanced considerably, thus making revision of the guidelines timely. In particular, measurement of cardiopulmonary resuscitation elements and neurological outcomes reporting have advanced substantially. The purpose of this report is to provide updated guidelines for reporting data from studies of resuscitation from drowning. Methods: An international group with scientific expertise in the fields of drowning research, resuscitation research, emergency medical services, public health, and development of guidelines met in Potsdam, Germany, to determine the data that should be reported in scientific articles on the subject of resuscitation from drowning. At the Utstein-style meeting, participants discussed data elements in detail, defined the data, determined data priority, and decided how data should be reported, including scoring methods and category details. Results: The template for reporting data from drowning research was revised extensively, with new emphasis on measurement of quality of resuscitation, neurological outcomes, and deletion of data that have proved to be less relevant or difficult to capture. Conclusions: The report describes the consensus process, rationale for selecting data elements to be reported, definitions and priority of data, and scoring methods. These guidelines are intended to improve the clarity of scientific communication and the comparability of scientific investigations. (C) 2017 European Resuscitation Council and American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved

Immunogenicity of NVX-CoV2373 heterologous boost against SARS-CoV-2 variants

Abstract As part of a multicenter study evaluating homologous and heterologous COVID-19 booster vaccines, we assessed the magnitude, breadth, and short-term durability of binding and pseudovirus-neutralizing antibody (PsVNA) responses following a single booster dose of NVX-CoV2373 in adults primed with either Ad26.COV2.S, mRNA-1273, or BNT162b2 vaccines. NVX-CoV2373 as a heterologous booster was immunogenic and associated with no safety concerns through Day 91. Fold-rises in PsVNA titers from baseline (Day 1) to Day 29 were highest for prototypic D614G variant and lowest for more recent Omicron sub-lineages BQ.1.1 and XBB.1. Peak humoral responses against all SARS-CoV-2 variants were lower in those primed with Ad26.COV2.S than with mRNA vaccines. Prior SARS CoV-2 infection was associated with substantially higher baseline PsVNA titers, which remained elevated relative to previously uninfected participants through Day 91. These data support the use of heterologous protein-based booster vaccines as an acceptable alternative to mRNA or adenoviral-based COVID-19 booster vaccines. This trial was conducted under ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04889209

Immunogenicity of a Two Dose Regimen of Moderna mRNA Beta/Omicron BA.1 Bivalent Variant Vaccine Boost in a Randomized Clinical Trial

We compared the serologic responses of one versus two doses of a variant vaccine (Moderna mRNA-1273 Beta/Omicron BA.1 bivalent vaccine) in adults. A two-dose boosting regimen with a variant vaccine did not increase the magnitude or the durability of the serological responses compared to a single variant vaccine boost

Immunogenicity of the BA.1 and BA.4/BA.5 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Bivalent Boosts: Preliminary Results From the COVAIL Randomized Clinical Trial

In a randomized clinical trial, we compare early neutralizing antibody responses after boosting with bivalent severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines based on either BA.1 or BA.4/BA.5 Omicron spike protein combined with wild-type spike. Responses against SARS-CoV-2 variants exhibited the greatest reduction in titers against currently circulating Omicron subvariants for both bivalent vaccines

Immunogenicity of a Two Dose Regimen of Moderna mRNA Beta/Omicron BA.1 Bivalent Variant Vaccine Boost in a Randomized Clinical Trial.

We compared the serologic responses of one versus two doses of a variant vaccine (Moderna mRNA-1273 Beta/Omicron BA.1 bivalent vaccine) in adults. A two-dose boosting regimen with a variant vaccine did not increase the magnitude or the durability of the serological responses compared to a single variant vaccine boost