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

Efficacy of Bromhexine versus Standard of Care in Reducing Viral Load in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19 Disease Attended in Primary Care: A Randomized Open-Label Trial

A 28-day randomized open-label multicenter study was conducted to assess the efficacy of bromhexine plus standard of care (SOC) (n = 98) vs. SOC alone (n = 93) in 191 outpatients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in the primary health care setting. Bromhexine three daily doses of 10 mL (48 mg/day) were administered for seven days. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction of viral load estimated as the cycle thresholds (Ct) to detect ORF1ab, N Protein, and S Protein genes by RT-qPCR in saliva samples on day 4 as compared with baseline. Ct values of the three genes increased from baseline throughout days 4 to 14 (p < 0.001) but significant differences between the study groups were not found. Differences in the percentages of patients with low, medium, and high viral loads at 4, 7, and 14 days were not found either. In summary, treatment with bromhexine plus SCO was associated with a viral load reduction of ORF1ab, N Protein, and S Protein genes at day 4, which was not significantly different than similar viral load reductions observed with SOC alone. The present findings do not seem to favor the use of bromhexine as an antiviral in patients with COVID-19

Memoria del segundo congreso internacional sobre paz, democracia y desarrollo.

Los textos presentados reflejan el espíritu del encuentro que los reunió. Juntos expresan un ejercicio de interdisciplinariedad, pluralidad, debate de ideas, y difusión de diferentes puntos de vista, sobre temas relacionados con la cultura de paz, la violencia, el desarrollo y la democracia. Y contribuyen a la comprensión sobre los límites, heterogeneidades y lagunas del proceso de instauración y consolidación de las instituciones democráticas de los países de América Latina. También analizan la marginación, la desigualdad, la inequidad, la violencia, la inseguridad cotidiana y otros asuntos relacionados con la falta de recursos y opciones para los habitates de la región