Building cooperation through health initiatives: an Arab and Israeli case study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ongoing conflict in the Middle East poses a major threat to health and security. A project screening Arab and Israeli newborns for hearing loss provided an opportunity to evaluate ways for building cooperation. The aims of this study were to: a) examine what attracted Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian participants to the project, b) describe challenges they faced, and c) draw lessons learned for guiding cross-border health initiatives.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A case study method was used involving 12 key informants stratified by country (3 Israeli, 3 Jordanian, 3 Palestinian, 3 Canadian). In-depth interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using an inductive qualitative approach to derive key themes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Major reasons for getting involved included: concern over an important health problem, curiosity about neighbors and opportunities for professional advancement. Participants were attracted to prospects for opening the dialogue, building relationships and facilitating cooperation in the region. The political situation was a major challenge that delayed implementation of the project and placed participants under social pressure. Among lessons learned, fostering personal relationships was viewed as critical for success of this initiative.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Arab and Israeli health professionals were prepared to get involved for two types of reasons: a) Project Level: opportunity to address a significant health issue (e.g. congenital hearing loss) while enhancing their professional careers, and b) Meta Level: concern about taking positive steps for building cooperation in the region. We invite discussion about roles that health professionals can play in building "cooperation networks" for underpinning health security, conflict resolution and global health promotion.</p

De Novo Transcriptomic Analysis of an Oleaginous Microalga: Pathway Description and Gene Discovery for Production of Next-Generation Biofuels

Background: Eustigmatos cf. polyphem is a yellow-green unicellular soil microalga belonging to the eustimatophyte with high biomass and considerable production of triacylglycerols (TAGs) for biofuels, which is thus referred to as an oleaginous microalga. The paucity of microalgae genome sequences, however, limits development of gene-based biofuel feedstock optimization studies. Here we describe the sequencing and de novo transcriptome assembly for a non-model microalgae species, E. cf. polyphem, and identify pathways and genes of importance related to biofuel production. Results: We performed the de novo assembly of E. cf. polyphem transcriptome using Illumina paired-end sequencing technology. In a single run, we produced 29,199,432 sequencing reads corresponding to 2.33 Gb total nucleotides. These reads were assembled into 75,632 unigenes with a mean size of 503 bp and an N50 of 663 bp, ranging from 100 bp to.3,000 bp. Assembled unigenes were subjected to BLAST similarity searches and annotated with Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) orthology identifiers. These analyses identified the majority of carbohydrate, fatty acids, TAG and carotenoids biosynthesis and catabolism pathways in E. cf. polyphem. Conclusions: Our data provides the construction of metabolic pathways involved in the biosynthesis and catabolism of carbohydrate, fatty acids, TAG and carotenoids in E. cf. polyphem and provides a foundation for the molecular genetics and functional genomics required to direct metabolic engineering efforts that seek to enhance the quantity and character o

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Comparing non-sterile with sterile gloves for minor surgery: a prospective randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

Objective: To compare the incidence of infection after minor surgery conducted using non-sterile clean boxed gloves with surgery conducted using sterile gloves.\ud \ud Design: Prospective randomised controlled single-centre trial testing for non-inferiority in infection rates.\ud \ud Setting: Primary care regional centre, Queensland, Australia.\ud \ud Participants: Consecutive patients presenting to participating general practitioners for a minor skin excision, between 30 June 2012 and 28 March 2013, were eligible to participate.\ud \ud Intervention: The use of non-sterile clean boxed gloves was compared with normal treatment using sterile gloves in the control group.\ud \ud Main outcome measures: Wound infection, assessed at the time of removal of sutures, and other adverse events.\ud \ud Results: Four hundred and ninety-three consecutive patients presenting for minor skin excisions were randomly allocated to the two treatment groups: non-sterile clean boxed gloves (n = 250) or sterile gloves (n = 243). Four hundred and seventy-eight patients contributed data for analysis (241 non-sterile, 237 sterile gloves). The incidence of infection in the non-sterile gloves group (8.7%; 95% CI, 4.9%–12.6%) was significantly non-inferior compared with the incidence in the control group (9.3%; 95% CI, 7.4%–11.1%). The two-sided 95% CI for the difference in infection rate (− 0.6%) was − 4.0% to 2.9%, and did not reach the predetermined margin of 7% which had been assumed as the non-inferiority limit. Results of the intention-to-treat analysis were confirmed by per-protocol and sensitivity analyses. There were no important adverse effects.\ud \ud Conclusion: Our study suggests that in regard to wound infection, non-sterile clean boxed gloves are not inferior to sterile gloves for minor skin excisions in general practice