Mortality from gastrointestinal congenital anomalies at 264 hospitals in 74 low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries: a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study

Summary Background Congenital anomalies are the fifth leading cause of mortality in children younger than 5 years globally. Many gastrointestinal congenital anomalies are fatal without timely access to neonatal surgical care, but few studies have been done on these conditions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared outcomes of the seven most common gastrointestinal congenital anomalies in low-income, middle-income, and high-income countries globally, and identified factors associated with mortality. Methods We did a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of patients younger than 16 years, presenting to hospital for the first time with oesophageal atresia, congenital diaphragmatic hernia, intestinal atresia, gastroschisis, exomphalos, anorectal malformation, and Hirschsprung’s disease. Recruitment was of consecutive patients for a minimum of 1 month between October, 2018, and April, 2019. We collected data on patient demographics, clinical status, interventions, and outcomes using the REDCap platform. Patients were followed up for 30 days after primary intervention, or 30 days after admission if they did not receive an intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause, in-hospital mortality for all conditions combined and each condition individually, stratified by country income status. We did a complete case analysis. Findings We included 3849 patients with 3975 study conditions (560 with oesophageal atresia, 448 with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, 681 with intestinal atresia, 453 with gastroschisis, 325 with exomphalos, 991 with anorectal malformation, and 517 with Hirschsprung’s disease) from 264 hospitals (89 in high-income countries, 166 in middleincome countries, and nine in low-income countries) in 74 countries. Of the 3849 patients, 2231 (58·0%) were male. Median gestational age at birth was 38 weeks (IQR 36–39) and median bodyweight at presentation was 2·8 kg (2·3–3·3). Mortality among all patients was 37 (39·8%) of 93 in low-income countries, 583 (20·4%) of 2860 in middle-income countries, and 50 (5·6%) of 896 in high-income countries (p<0·0001 between all country income groups). Gastroschisis had the greatest difference in mortality between country income strata (nine [90·0%] of ten in lowincome countries, 97 [31·9%] of 304 in middle-income countries, and two [1·4%] of 139 in high-income countries; p≤0·0001 between all country income groups). Factors significantly associated with higher mortality for all patients combined included country income status (low-income vs high-income countries, risk ratio 2·78 [95% CI 1·88–4·11], p<0·0001; middle-income vs high-income countries, 2·11 [1·59–2·79], p<0·0001), sepsis at presentation (1·20 [1·04–1·40], p=0·016), higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score at primary intervention (ASA 4–5 vs ASA 1–2, 1·82 [1·40–2·35], p<0·0001; ASA 3 vs ASA 1–2, 1·58, [1·30–1·92], p<0·0001]), surgical safety checklist not used (1·39 [1·02–1·90], p=0·035), and ventilation or parenteral nutrition unavailable when needed (ventilation 1·96, [1·41–2·71], p=0·0001; parenteral nutrition 1·35, [1·05–1·74], p=0·018). Administration of parenteral nutrition (0·61, [0·47–0·79], p=0·0002) and use of a peripherally inserted central catheter (0·65 [0·50–0·86], p=0·0024) or percutaneous central line (0·69 [0·48–1·00], p=0·049) were associated with lower mortality. Interpretation Unacceptable differences in mortality exist for gastrointestinal congenital anomalies between lowincome, middle-income, and high-income countries. Improving access to quality neonatal surgical care in LMICs will be vital to achieve Sustainable Development Goal 3.2 of ending preventable deaths in neonates and children younger than 5 years by 2030

Revista de educación inclusiva

Resumen basado en el de la publicaciónTítulo, resumen y palabras clave en español y en inglésSe tiene como propósito comprender los sentidos sobre educación inclusiva que le otorgan los integrantes de las comunidades educativas de establecimientos de la Provincia de Concepción, Chile. Se sigue un método de investigación cualitativo con un enfoque fenomenológico de tipo hermenéutico complementado con elemento descriptivos cuantitativos. Para la recogida de información se realizaron grupos focales y se aplicó la guía para la Educación Inclusiva (Index) a 60 informantes, estudiantes, profesores y directivos. El análisis de la información se realizó en dos niveles, en primer lugar, un análisis descriptivo cuantitativo a partir de los datos recogidos por medio del cuestionario Index, para luego buscar los sentidos a partir de la hermenéutica reflexiva que contempla el análisis estructural del discurso. Los hallazgos muestran que, para los estudiantes, la inclusión educativa se asocia a los programas de integración escolar, concibiéndolos como apoyos especiales a los alumnos con dificultades de aprendizaje.ES

Supplementary_Figure_1 - Reduced FOXM1 Expression Limits Trophoblast Migration and Angiogenesis and Is Associated With Preeclampsia

<p>Supplementary_Figure_1 for Reduced FOXM1 Expression Limits Trophoblast Migration and Angiogenesis and Is Associated With Preeclampsia by Lara J. Monteiro, Sofia Cubillos, Marianela Sanchez, Stephanie Acuña-Gallardo, Pía Venegas, Valentina Herrera, Eric W.-F. Lam, Manuel Varas-Godoy, and Sebastián E. Illanes in Reproductive Sciences</p

Underlying Event measurements in pp collisions at s=0.9 \sqrt {s} = 0.9 and 7 TeV with the ALICE experiment at the LHC

We present measurements of Underlying Event observables in pp collisions at s√=0.9 and 7TeV. The analysis is performed as a function of the highest charged-particle transverse momentum p T,LT in the event. Different regions are defined with respect to the azimuthal direction of the leading (highest transverse momentum) track: Toward, Transverse and Away. The Toward and Away regions collect the fragmentation products of the hardest partonic interaction. The Transverse region is expected to be most sensitive to the Underlying Event activity. The study is performed with charged particles above three different p T thresholds: 0.15, 0.5 and 1.0 GeV/c. In the Transverse region we observe an increase in the multiplicity of a factor 2–3 between the lower and higher collision energies, depending on the track p T threshold considered. Data are compared to Pythia 6.4, Pythia 8.1 and Phojet. On average, all models considered underestimate the multiplicity and summed p T in the Transverse region by about 10–30%

Underlying Event measurements in pp collisions at root s=0.9 and 7 TeV with the ALICE experiment at the LHC

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)We present measurements of Underlying Event observables in pp collisions at root s = 0 : 9 and 7 TeV. The analysis is performed as a function of the highest charged-particle transverse momentum p(T),L-T in the event. Different regions are defined with respect to the azimuthal direction of the leading (highest transverse momentum) track: Toward, Transverse and Away. The Toward and Away regions collect the fragmentation products of the hardest partonic interaction. The Transverse region is expected to be most sensitive to the Underlying Event activity. The study is performed with charged particles above three different p(T) thresholds: 0.15, 0.5 and 1.0 GeV/c. In the Transverse region we observe an increase in the multiplicity of a factor 2-3 between the lower and higher collision energies, depending on the track p(T) threshold considered. Data are compared to PYTHIA 6.4, PYTHIA 8.1 and PHOJET. On average, all models considered underestimate the multiplicity and summed p(T) in the Transverse region by about 10-30%.7Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation from LisbonSwiss Fonds Kidagan, ArmeniaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Financiadora de Estudos e Projetos (FINEP)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)Chinese Ministry of Education (CMOE)Ministry of Science and Technology of China (MSTC)Ministry of Education and Youth of the Czech RepublicDanish Natural Science Research CouncilCarlsberg FoundationDanish National Research FoundationEuropean Research Council under European CommunityHelsinki Institute of PhysicsAcademy of FinlandFrench CNRS-IN2P3Region Pays de LoireRegion AlsaceRegion AuvergneCEA, FranceGerman BMBFHelmholtz AssociationGeneral Secretariat for Research and Technology, Ministry of Development, GreeceHungarian OTKANational Office for Research and Technology (NKTH)Department of Atomic EnergyDepartment of Science and Technology of the Government of IndiaIstituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) of ItalyMEXT, JapanJoint Institute for Nuclear Research, DubnaNational Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)CONACYTDGAPA, MexicoALFA-ECHELEN Program (High-Energy physics Latin-American-European Network)Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek der Materie (FOM)Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), NetherlandsResearch Council of Norway (NFR)Polish Ministry of Science and Higher EducationNational Authority for Scientific Research - NASR (Autoritatea Nationala pentru Cercetare Stiintifica - ANCS)Federal Agency of Science of the Ministry of Education and Science of Russian FederationInternational Science and Technology Center, Russian Academy of SciencesRussian Federal Agency of Atomic EnergyRussian Federal Agency for Science and InnovationsCERN-INTASMinistry of Education of SlovakiaDepartment of Science and Technology, South AfricaCIEMATEELAMinisterio de Educacion y Ciencia of SpainXunta de Galicia (Conselleria de Educacion)CEADENCubaenergia, CubaIAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency)Swedish Reseach Council (VR)Knut & Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW)Ukraine Ministry of Education and ScienceUnited Kingdom Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC)The United States Department of EnergyUnited States National Science FoundationState of TexasState of OhioFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq

NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES: a data set on carnivore distribution in the Neotropics

Mammalian carnivores are considered a key group in maintaining ecological health and can indicate potential ecological integrity in landscapes where they occur. Carnivores also hold high conservation value and their habitat requirements can guide management and conservation plans. The order Carnivora has 84 species from 8 families in the Neotropical region: Canidae; Felidae; Mephitidae; Mustelidae; Otariidae; Phocidae; Procyonidae; and Ursidae. Herein, we include published and unpublished data on native terrestrial Neotropical carnivores (Canidae; Felidae; Mephitidae; Mustelidae; Procyonidae; and Ursidae). NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES is a publicly available data set that includes 99,605 data entries from 35,511 unique georeferenced coordinates. Detection/non-detection and quantitative data were obtained from 1818 to 2018 by researchers, governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private consultants. Data were collected using several methods including camera trapping, museum collections, roadkill, line transect, and opportunistic records. Literature (peer-reviewed and grey literature) from Portuguese, Spanish and English were incorporated in this compilation. Most of the data set consists of detection data entries (n = 79,343; 79.7%) but also includes non-detection data (n = 20,262; 20.3%). Of those, 43.3% also include count data (n = 43,151). The information available in NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES will contribute to macroecological, ecological, and conservation questions in multiple spatio-temporal perspectives. As carnivores play key roles in trophic interactions, a better understanding of their distribution and habitat requirements are essential to establish conservation management plans and safeguard the future ecological health of Neotropical ecosystems. Our data paper, combined with other large-scale data sets, has great potential to clarify species distribution and related ecological processes within the Neotropics. There are no copyright restrictions and no restriction for using data from this data paper, as long as the data paper is cited as the source of the information used. We also request that users inform us of how they intend to use the data

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

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