6 research outputs found

    Ecological approaches in veterinary epidemiology: mapping the risk of bat-borne rabies using vegetation indices and night-time light satellite imagery

    Get PDF
    Rabies remains a disease of significant public health concern. In the Americas, bats are an important source of rabies for pets, livestock, and humans. For effective rabies control and prevention, identifying potential areas for disease occurrence is critical to guide future research, inform public health policies, and design interventions. To anticipate zoonotic infectious diseases distribution at coarse scale, veterinary epidemiology needs to advance via exploring current geographic ecology tools and data using a biological approach. We analyzed bat-borne rabies reports in Chile from 2002 to 2012 to establish associations between rabies occurrence and environmental factors to generate an ecological niche model (ENM). The main rabies reservoir in Chile is the bat species Tadarida brasiliensis; we mapped 726 occurrences of rabies virus variant AgV4 in this bat species and integrated them with contemporary Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). The correct prediction of areas with rabies in bats and the reliable anticipation of human rabies in our study illustrate the usefulness of ENM for mapping rabies and other zoonotic pathogens. Additionally, we highlight critical issues with selection of environmental variables, methods for model validation, and consideration of sampling bias. Indeed, models with weak or incorrect validation approaches should be interpreted with caution. In conclusion, ecological niche modeling applications for mapping disease risk at coarse geographic scales have a promising future, especially with refinement and enrichment of models with additional information, such as night-time light data, which increased substantially the model’s ability to anticipate human rabies

    Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Surgical services are preparing to scale up in areas affected by COVID-19. This study aimed to evaluate the association between preoperative SARS-CoV-2 testing and postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing elective cancer surgery. METHODS: This international cohort study included adult patients undergoing elective surgery for cancer in areas affected by SARS-CoV-2 up to 19 April 2020. Patients suspected of SARS-CoV-2 infection before operation were excluded. The primary outcome measure was postoperative pulmonary complications at 30 days after surgery. Preoperative testing strategies were adjusted for confounding using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Of 8784 patients (432 hospitals, 53 countries), 2303 patients (26.2 per cent) underwent preoperative testing: 1458 (16.6 per cent) had a swab test, 521 (5.9 per cent) CT only, and 324 (3.7 per cent) swab and CT. Pulmonary complications occurred in 3.9 per cent, whereas SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed in 2.6 per cent. After risk adjustment, having at least one negative preoperative nasopharyngeal swab test (adjusted odds ratio 0.68, 95 per cent confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; P = 0.040) was associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications. Swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in areas with a high 14-day SARS-CoV-2 case notification rate, but not before minor surgery or in low-risk areas. To prevent one pulmonary complication, the number needed to swab test before major or minor surgery was 18 and 48 respectively in high-risk areas, and 73 and 387 in low-risk areas. CONCLUSION: Preoperative nasopharyngeal swab testing was beneficial before major surgery and in high SARS-CoV-2 risk areas. There was no proven benefit of swab testing before minor surgery in low-risk areas

    Elective Cancer Surgery in COVID-19–Free Surgical Pathways During the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: An International, Multicenter, Comparative Cohort Study

    No full text
    corecore