Current Wildland Fire Patterns and Challenges in Europe : A Synthesis of National Perspectives

Changes in climate, land use, and land management impact the occurrence and severity of wildland fires in many parts of the world. This is particularly evident in Europe, where ongoing changes in land use have strongly modified fire patterns over the last decades. Although satellite data by the European Forest Fire Information System provide large-scale wildland fire statistics across European countries, there is still a crucial need to collect and summarize in-depth local analysis and understanding of the wildland fire condition and associated challenges across Europe. This article aims to provide a general overview of the current wildland fire patterns and challenges as perceived by national representatives, supplemented by national fire statistics (2009-2018) across Europe. For each of the 31 countries included, we present a perspective authored by scientists or practitioners from each respective country, representing a wide range of disciplines and cultural backgrounds. The authors were selected from members of the COST Action "Fire and the Earth System: Science & Society" funded by the European Commission with the aim to share knowledge and improve communication about wildland fire. Where relevant, a brief overview of key studies, particular wildland fire challenges a country is facing, and an overview of notable recent fire events are also presented. Key perceived challenges included (1) the lack of consistent and detailed records for wildland fire events, within and across countries, (2) an increase in wildland fires that pose a risk to properties and human life due to high population densities and sprawl into forested regions, and (3) the view that, irrespective of changes in management, climate change is likely to increase the frequency and impact of wildland fires in the coming decades. Addressing challenge (1) will not only be valuable in advancing national and pan-European wildland fire management strategies, but also in evaluating perceptions (2) and (3) against more robust quantitative evidence.Peer reviewe

Assessment of the likelihood of hypothyroidism in dogs diagnosed with and treated for hypothyroidism at primary care practices: 102 cases (2016‐2021)

Abstract Background There is a possibility that an incorrect diagnosis of hypothyroidism could be made in euthyroid dogs, and the prevalence of hypothyroidism in the dog population remains unknown. Objectives To retrospectively assess the percentage of dogs diagnosed with, and treated for, hypothyroidism at first opinion practice which are likely to be hypothyroid and require levothyroxine supplementation. Animals One hundred two client‐owned dogs were included in this study. Materials and Methods The computerized databases of 7 first opinion practices were searched to identify dogs treated with levothyroxine supplementation. Three European College of Veterinary Internal Medicine—Companian Animals (ECVIM‐CA) diplomates independently assigned 1 of 4 clinical assessments to each case as follows: confirmed or likely hypothyroid, hypothyroidism suspected but not confirmed, hypothyroidism considered unlikely, and no reason to suspect hypothyroidism. They commented as to whether or not they thought levothyroxine supplementation was appropriate. Results The clinical assessments of “confirmed or likely hypothyroid”; “Hypothyroidism suspected but not confirmed”; “Hypothyroidism considered unlikely”; and “No reason to suspect hypothyroidism” was assigned respectively by Clinician 1 to 38.2%, 5.9%, 3.9%, and 52% of cases, by Clinician 2 to 48%, 22.6%, 22.6%, 6.9% of cases, and by Clinician 3 to 55.9%, 11.8%, 13.7% and 18.6%. Clinician 1, Clinician 2, and Clinician 3 considered levothyroxine supplementation not indicated in 58.8%, 52.9%, and 45.1% of cases, respectively. Conclusion These results support the concern that hypothyroidism might be overly and incorrectly diagnosed in first opinion practice, and that thyroid function testing should be performed only in those dogs with a high pretest probability of the disease

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with paediatric cancer in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES: Paediatric cancer is a leading cause of death for children. Children in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) were four times more likely to die than children in high-income countries (HICs). This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the COVID-19 pandemic had affected the delivery of healthcare services worldwide, and exacerbated the disparity in paediatric cancer outcomes between LMICs and HICs. DESIGN: A multicentre, international, collaborative cohort study. SETTING: 91 hospitals and cancer centres in 39 countries providing cancer treatment to paediatric patients between March and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were included if they were under the age of 18 years, and newly diagnosed with or undergoing active cancer treatment for Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, Wilms' tumour, sarcoma, retinoblastoma, gliomas, medulloblastomas or neuroblastomas, in keeping with the WHO Global Initiative for Childhood Cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: All-cause mortality at 30 days and 90 days. RESULTS: 1660 patients were recruited. 219 children had changes to their treatment due to the pandemic. Patients in LMICs were primarily affected (n=182/219, 83.1%). Relative to patients with paediatric cancer in HICs, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 12.1 (95% CI 2.93 to 50.3) and 7.9 (95% CI 3.2 to 19.7) times the odds of death at 30 days and 90 days, respectively, after presentation during the COVID-19 pandemic (p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, patients with paediatric cancer in LMICs had 15.6 (95% CI 3.7 to 65.8) times the odds of death at 30 days (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has affected paediatric oncology service provision. It has disproportionately affected patients in LMICs, highlighting and compounding existing disparities in healthcare systems globally that need addressing urgently. However, many patients with paediatric cancer continued to receive their normal standard of care. This speaks to the adaptability and resilience of healthcare systems and healthcare workers globally