Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic

Clonal chromosomal mosaicism and loss of chromosome Y in elderly men increase vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) had an estimated overall case fatality ratio of 1.38% (pre-vaccination), being 53% higher in males and increasing exponentially with age. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, we found 133 cases (1.42%) with detectable clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations (mCA) and 226 males (5.08%) with acquired loss of chromosome Y (LOY). Individuals with clonal mosaic events (mCA and/or LOY) showed a 54% increase in the risk of COVID-19 lethality. LOY is associated with transcriptomic biomarkers of immune dysfunction, pro-coagulation activity and cardiovascular risk. Interferon-induced genes involved in the initial immune response to SARS-CoV-2 are also down-regulated in LOY. Thus, mCA and LOY underlie at least part of the sex-biased severity and mortality of COVID-19 in aging patients. Given its potential therapeutic and prognostic relevance, evaluation of clonal mosaicism should be implemented as biomarker of COVID-19 severity in elderly people. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, individuals with clonal mosaic events (clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations and/or loss of chromosome Y) showed an increased risk of COVID-19 lethality

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

VIII Encuentro de Docentes e Investigadores en Historia del Diseño, la Arquitectura y la Ciudad

Acta de congresoLa conmemoración de los cien años de la Reforma Universitaria de 1918 se presentó como una ocasión propicia para debatir el rol de la historia, la teoría y la crítica en la formación y en la práctica profesional de diseñadores, arquitectos y urbanistas. En ese marco el VIII Encuentro de Docentes e Investigadores en Historia del Diseño, la Arquitectura y la Ciudad constituyó un espacio de intercambio y reflexión cuya realización ha sido posible gracias a la colaboración entre Facultades de Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Diseño de la Universidad Nacional y la Facultad de Arquitectura de la Universidad Católica de Córdoba, contando además con la activa participación de mayoría de las Facultades, Centros e Institutos de Historia de la Arquitectura del país y la región. Orientado en su convocatoria tanto a docentes como a estudiantes de Arquitectura y Diseño Industrial de todos los niveles de la FAUD-UNC promovió el debate de ideas a partir de experiencias concretas en instancias tales como mesas temáticas de carácter interdisciplinario, que adoptaron la modalidad de presentación de ponencias, entre otras actividades. En el ámbito de VIII Encuentro, desarrollado en la sede Ciudad Universitaria de Córdoba, se desplegaron numerosas posiciones sobre la enseñanza, la investigación y la formación en historia, teoría y crítica del diseño, la arquitectura y la ciudad; sumándose el aporte realizado a través de sus respectivas conferencias de Ana Clarisa Agüero, Bibiana Cicutti, Fernando Aliata y Alberto Petrina. El conjunto de ponencias que se publican en este Repositorio de la UNC son el resultado de dos intensas jornadas de exposiciones, cuyos contenidos han posibilitado actualizar viejos dilemas y promover nuevos debates. El evento recibió el apoyo de las autoridades de la FAUD-UNC, en especial de la Secretaría de Investigación y de la Biblioteca de nuestra casa, como así también de la Facultad de Arquitectura de la UCC; va para todos ellos un especial agradecimiento

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Análisis de los factores de riesgo de la hipertensión arterial en Colima, México Analysis of risk factors for hypertension in Colima, Mexico

OBJETIVO: Evaluar la posible asociación de la edad, el sexo, el sobrepeso, los antecedentes familiares de hipertensión arterial (HTA), el alcoholismo y el sedentarismo con la HTA en la población adulta de la ciudad de Colima, México. MÉTODOS: Estudio transversal analítico de base poblacional. Se aplicó una encuesta estructurada a 280 adultos mayores de 30 años que residían en la ciudad mexicana de Colima en 2001 y 2002. Las variables estudiadas fueron el sexo, la edad, el peso, la talla, los antecedentes familiares de HTA, la práctica de ejercicio físico, el tabaquismo y el consumo de alcohol. La presión arterial (PA) se midió por el método auscultatorio. Las mediciones limítrofes o dudosas se repitieron cuatro o cinco días después. Se consideró que había HTA cuando la PA sistólica era >140 mm Hg y la presión arterial diastólica era > 90 mm Hg, o la persona estaba bajo tratamiento antihipertensivo. Se calcularon las razones de posibilidades (odds ratios, RP) de las variables estudiadas y sus intervalos de confianza de 95% (IC95%). La asociación entre las variables y la HTA se estimó mediante regresión logística y la interacción mediante el coeficiente de productos de interacción. RESULTADOS: La prevalencia bruta de HTA fue de 28,6%. La prevalencia fue mayor en hombres que en mujeres (42,1% frente a 19,2%, respectivamente; RP = 3,04; IC95%: 1,8 a 5,2) y en personas mayores de 49 años que en personas de 30 a 49 años (36,8% frente a 21,9%, respectivamente; RP = 2,07; IC95%: 1,22 a 3,50). Los antecedentes familiares de HTA y el sobrepeso mostraron asociación con la HTA, mientras que la práctica de ejercicio físico tuvo un efecto protector (RP = 0,45; 0,23 a 0,86). Se encontró interacción entre la HTA y la edad (> 50 años), los antecedentes familiares de HTA, el sobrepeso y la práctica de ejercicio físico, particularmente en mujeres. CONCLUSIONES: La prevalencia de HTA en Colima es muy semejante a la encontrada a nivel nacional en México. Su fuerte asociación con el sexo masculino, independientemente de las otras variables, resalta la necesidad de promover campañas preventivas más enfocadas en los hombres.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the possible association that age, sex, excess weight, family history of hypertension, alcoholism, and sedentary lifestyle have with hypertension in the adult population of the city of Colima, Mexico. METHODS: This was a population-based analytic cross-sectional study. A structured survey was used with 280 adults older than 30 years of age who were living in the city of Colima in 2001 and 2002. The variables studied were sex, age, weight, height, family history of hypertension, engaging in physical exercise, smoking, and consuming alcohol. Blood pressure (BP) was measured with the auscultatory method. Borderline or doubtful measurements were checked again four or five days later. Hypertension was defined as systolic BP > 140 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure > 90 mm Hg, or as the person being under antihypertensive treatment. The odds ratios (ORs) of the variables studied were calculated, along with their 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The association between the variables and hypertension was estimated through logistic regression, and their interaction through the coefficient of the interaction products. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of hypertension was 28.6%. The prevalence was higher in men than in women (42.1% vs. 19.2%; OR = 3.04, 95% CI: 1.8 to 5.2) and in people older than 49 years than in people 30 to 49 years old (36.8% vs. 21.9%; OR = 2.07, 95% CI: 1.22 to 3.50). A family history of hypertension and excess weight were associated with hypertension, while physical exercise had a protective effect (OR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.86). There was interaction between hypertension and age > 50 years, a family history of hypertension, overweight, and physical exercise, especially among women. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of hypertension in Colima is very similar to that for Mexico as a whole. The strong association that hypertension had with male gender, regardless of the other variables, emphasizes the need for promoting prevention campaigns that focus more on men

Efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate in ten countries in Europe and Latin America (HERALD): a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 trial

Background: Additional safe and efficacious vaccines are needed to control the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of the CVnCoV SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine candidate. Methods: HERALD is a randomised, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, phase 2b/3 clinical trial conducted in 47 centres in ten countries in Europe and Latin America. By use of an interactive web response system and stratification by country and age group (18–60 years and ≥61 years), adults with no history of virologically confirmed COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intramuscularly either two 0·6 mL doses of CVnCoV containing 12 μg of mRNA or two 0·6 mL doses of 0·9% NaCl (placebo) on days 1 and 29. The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 of any severity and caused by any strain from 15 days after the second dose. For the primary endpoint, the trial was considered successful if the lower limit of the CI was greater than 30%. Key secondary endpoints were the occurrence of a first episode of virologically confirmed moderate-to-severe COVID-19, severe COVID-19, and COVID-19 of any severity by age group. Primary safety outcomes were solicited local and systemic adverse events within 7 days after each dose and unsolicited adverse events within 28 days after each dose in phase 2b participants, and serious adverse events and adverse events of special interest up to 1 year after the second dose in phase 2b and phase 3 participants. Here, we report data up to June 18, 2021. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04652102, and EudraCT, 2020–003998–22, and is ongoing. Findings: Between Dec 11, 2020, and April 12, 2021, 39 680 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either CVnCoV (n=19 846) or placebo (n=19 834), of whom 19 783 received at least one dose of CVnCoV and 19 746 received at least one dose of placebo. After a mean observation period of 48·2 days (SE 0·2), 83 cases of COVID-19 occurred in the CVnCoV group (n=12 851) in 1735·29 person-years and 145 cases occurred in the placebo group (n=12 211) in 1569·87 person-years, resulting in an overall vaccine efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19 of 48·2% (95·826% CI 31·0–61·4; p=0·016). Vaccine efficacy against moderate-to-severe COVID-19 was 70·7% (95% CI 42·5–86·1; CVnCoV 12 cases in 1735·29 person-years, placebo 37 cases in 1569·87 person-years). In participants aged 18–60 years, vaccine efficacy against symptomatic disease was 52·5% (95% CI 36·2–64·8; CVnCoV 71 cases in 1591·47 person-years, placebo, 136 cases in 1449·23 person-years). Too few cases occurred in participants aged 61 years or older (CVnCoV 12, placebo nine) to allow meaningful assessment of vaccine efficacy. Solicited adverse events, which were mostly systemic, were more common in CVnCoV recipients (1933 [96·5%] of 2003) than in placebo recipients (1344 [67·9%] of 1978), with 542 (27·1%) CVnCoV recipients and 61 (3·1%) placebo recipients reporting grade 3 solicited adverse events. The most frequently reported local reaction after any dose in the CVnCoV group was injection-site pain (1678 [83·6%] of 2007), with 22 grade 3 reactions, and the most frequently reported systematic reactions were fatigue (1603 [80·0%] of 2003) and headache (1541 [76·9%] of 2003). 82 (0·4%) of 19 783 CVnCoV recipients reported 100 serious adverse events and 66 (0·3%) of 19 746 placebo recipients reported 76 serious adverse events. Eight serious adverse events in five CVnCoV recipients and two serious adverse events in two placebo recipients were considered vaccination-related. None of the fatal serious adverse events reported (eight in the CVnCoV group and six in the placebo group) were considered to be related to study vaccination. Adverse events of special interest were reported for 38 (0·2%) participants in the CVnCoV group and 31 (0·2%) participants in the placebo group. These events were considered to be related to the trial vaccine for 14 (<0·1%) participants in the CVnCoV group and for five (<0·1%) participants in the placebo group. Interpretation: CVnCoV was efficacious in the prevention of COVID-19 of any severity and had an acceptable safety profile. Taking into account the changing environment, including the emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants, and timelines for further development, the decision has been made to cease activities on the CVnCoV candidate and to focus efforts on the development of next-generation vaccine candidates. Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and CureVac

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health