La Educación Virtual y sus Efectos en la Educación Presencial Postpandemia en Estudiantes Universitarios

The main objective of this work was to analyze the impact that virtual education has had on the post-pandemic face-to-face education model in university students, designing a questionnaire for a sample of students from the three main public universities in the State of Sinaloa. A qualitative cut methodology was used, the type of design used is non-experimental, cross-sectional and descriptive. The selection of the sample was carried out through non-probability sampling, which is characterized in that the choice of the sample elements does not depend on probability; but of causes related to the characteristics considered by the investigator. The type of non-probabilistic sampling corresponds to that of Convenience, which involves samples made up of captive informants or volunteers. The results of the research are conclusive that previous virtual education favored the use of new technological tools applied more regularly in the teaching-learning process of the new post-pandemic face-to-face model. On the other hand, virtual education generated learning loss and increased educational disengagement, reflected in the new face-to-face model, ending with the fact that university students mostly prefer the new face-to-face model that has emerged after the pandemic.El presente trabajo tuvo como objetivo principal analizar el impacto que ha tenido la educación virtual sobre el modelo de educación presencial post-pandemia en estudiantes universitarios, diseñandose para ello un cuestionario dirigido a una muestra de estudiantes de las tres principales universidades públicas del Estado de Sinaloa. Se utilizó una metodología de corte cualitativa, el tipo de diseño utilizado es no experimental, transversal descriptivo. La selección de la muestra se llevó a cabo mediante el muestreo no probabílistico, el cual se caracteriza porque la elección de los elementos muestrales no depende de la probabilidad; sino de causas relacionadas con las características consideradas por el investigador. El tipo de muestreo no probabílistico corresponde al de Conveniencia, que se trata de muestras integradas por informantes cautivos o por voluntarios. Los resultados de la investigación son concluyentes en que la educación virtual previa, favoreció el uso de nuevas herramientas tecnológicas aplicadas con mayor regularidad en el proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje del nuevo modelo presencial postpandemia. Por contraparte, la educación virtual generó perdida de aprendizaje y aumento en la desvinculación educativa, reflejándose en el nuevo modelo presencial, finalizando con el hecho de que los universitarios prefieren mayormente el nuevo modelo presencial que ha emergido posterior a la pandemia

3‑Nitroasterric Acid Derivatives from an Antarctic Sponge-Derived <i>Pseudogymnoascus</i> sp. Fungus

Four new nitroasterric acid derivatives, pseudogymnoascins A–C (<b>1</b>–<b>3</b>) and 3-nitroasterric acid (<b>4</b>), along with the two known compounds questin and pyriculamide, were obtained from the cultures of a <i>Pseudogymnoascus</i> sp. fungus isolated from an Antarctic marine sponge belonging to the genus <i>Hymeniacidon</i>. The structures of the new compounds were determined by extensive NMR and MS analyses. These compounds are the first nitro derivatives of the known fungal metabolite asterric acid. Several asterric acid derivatives isolated from other fungal strains have shown antibacterial and antifungal activities. However, the new compounds described in this work were inactive against a panel of bacteria and fungi (MIC > 64 μg/mL)

COVID-19 vaccine safety during pregnancy and breastfeeding in women with autoimmune diseases: results from the COVAD study

Objectives: We investigated COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID) in the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods: Delayed-onset (>7 days) vaccine-related adverse events (AE), disease flares (DF), and AID-related treatment modifications were analyzed upon diagnosis of AID versus healthy controls (HC) and the pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of at least one dose of vaccine. Results: Among the 9201 participants to the self-administered online survey, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Forty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding patients with AID were identified, of whom the majority had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (100% and 96.2%, respectively). AE were reported significantly more frequently in pregnant than in non-pregnant patients (overall AE 45% vs 26%, p= 0.01; minor AE 40% vs 25.9%, p= 0.03; major AE 17.5% vs 4.6%, p< 0.01), but no difference was found in comparison with pregnant HC. No difference was observed between breastfeeding patients and HC with respect to AE. Post-vaccination DF were reported by 17.5% of pregnant and 20% of breastfeeding patients, and by 18.3% of age- and disease-matched non-pregnant and non-breastfeeding patients (n = 262). All pregnant/breastfeeding patients who experienced a DF were managed with glucocorticoids; 28.6% and 20% of them required initiation or change in immunosuppressants, respectively. Conclusion: This study provides reassuring insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccines administered to women with AID during the gestational and post-partum periods, helping overcome hesitant attitudes, as the benefits for the mother and the fetus by passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks

Documenting the Recovery of Vascular Services in European Centres Following the Initial COVID-19 Pandemic Peak: Results from a Multicentre Collaborative Study

Objective: To document the recovery of vascular services in Europe following the first COVID-19 pandemic peak. Methods: An online structured vascular service survey with repeated data entry between 23 March and 9 August 2020 was carried out. Unit level data were collected using repeated questionnaires addressing modifications to vascular services during the first peak (March - May 2020, "period 1"), and then again between May and June ("period 2") and June and July 2020 ("period 3"). The duration of each period was similar. From 2 June, as reductions in cases began to be reported, centres were first asked if they were in a region still affected by rising cases, or if they had passed the peak of the first wave. These centres were asked additional questions about adaptations made to their standard pathways to permit elective surgery to resume. Results: The impact of the pandemic continued to be felt well after countries' first peak was thought to have passed in 2020. Aneurysm screening had not returned to normal in 21.7% of centres. Carotid surgery was still offered on a case by case basis in 33.8% of centres, and only 52.9% of centres had returned to their normal aneurysm threshold for surgery. Half of centres (49.4%) believed their management of lower limb ischaemia continued to be negatively affected by the pandemic. Reduced operating theatre capacity continued in 45.5% of centres. Twenty per cent of responding centres documented a backlog of at least 20 aortic repairs. At least one negative swab and 14 days of isolation were the most common strategies used for permitting safe elective surgery to recommence. Conclusion: Centres reported a broad return of services approaching pre-pandemic "normal" by July 2020. Many introduced protocols to manage peri-operative COVID-19 risk. Backlogs in cases were reported for all major vascular surgeries