A Flight Evaluation of a VTOL Jet Transport Under Visual and Simulated Instrument Conditions

Transition, approach, and vertical landing tests for VTOL transport in terminal are

Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 influenza outbreak in Australia : impact on emergency departments

Executive summary\ud Objective:\ud The aims of this study were to identify the impact of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza on Australian Emergency Departments (EDs) and their staff, and to inform planning, preparedness, and response management arrangements for future pandemics, as well as managing infectious patients presenting to EDs in everyday practice.\ud Methods\ud This study involved three elements:\ud 1. The first element of the study was an examination of published material including published statistics. Standard literature research methods were used to identify relevant published articles. In addition, data about ED demand was obtained from Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing (DoHA) publications, with several state health departments providing more detailed data.\ud 2. The second element of the study was a survey of Directors of Emergency Medicine identified with the assistance of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM). This survey retrieved data about demand for ED services and elicited qualitative comments on the impact of the pandemic on ED management.\ud 3. The third element of the study was a survey of ED staff. A questionnaire was emailed to members of three professional colleges—the ACEM; the Australian College of Emergency Nursing (ACEN); and the College of Emergency Nursing Australasia (CENA). The overall response rate for the survey was 18.4%, with 618 usable responses from 3355 distributed questionnaires. Topics covered by the survey included ED conditions during the (H1N1) 2009 influenza pandemic; information received about Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza; pandemic plans; the impact of the pandemic on ED staff with respect to stress; illness prevention measures; support received from others in work role; staff and others’ illness during the pandemic; other factors causing ED staff to miss work during the pandemic; and vaccination against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected and analysed.\ud Results:\ud The results obtained from Directors of Emergency Medicine quantifying the impact of the pandemic were too limited for interpretation. Data sourced from health departments and published sources demonstrated an increase in influenza-like illness (ILI) presentations of between one and a half and three times the normal level of presentations of ILIs. Directors of Emergency Medicine reported a reasonable level of preparation for the pandemic, with most reporting the use of pandemic plans that translated into relatively effective operational infection control responses. Directors reported a highly significant impact on EDs and their staff from the pandemic. Growth in demand and related ED congestion were highly significant factors causing distress within the departments. Most (64%) respondents established a ‘flu clinic’ either as part of Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza Outbreak in Australia: Impact on Emergency Departments.\ud the ED operations or external to it. They did not note a significantly higher rate of sick leave than usual.\ud Responses relating to the impact on staff were proportional to the size of the colleges. Most respondents felt strongly that Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza had a significant impact on demand in their ED, with most patients having low levels of clinical urgency. Most respondents felt that the pandemic had a negative impact on the care of other patients, and 94% revealed some increase in stress due to lack of space for patients, increased demand, and filling staff deficits. Levels of concern about themselves or their family members contracting the illness were less significant than expected. Nurses displayed significantly higher levels of stress overall, particularly in relation to skill-mix requirements, lack of supplies and equipment, and patient and patients’ family aggression. More than one-third of respondents became ill with an ILI. Whilst respondents themselves reported taking low levels of sick leave, respondents cited difficulties with replacing absent staff. Ranked from highest to lowest, respondents gained useful support from ED colleagues, ED administration, their hospital occupational health department, hospital administration, professional colleges, state health department, and their unions. Respondents were generally positive about the information they received overall; however, the volume of information was considered excessive and sometimes inconsistent. The media was criticised as scaremongering and sensationalist and as being the cause of many unnecessary presentations to EDs. Of concern to the investigators was that a large proportion (43%) of respondents did not know whether a pandemic plan existed for their department or hospital. A small number of staff reported being redeployed from their usual workplace for personal risk factors or operational reasons. As at the time of survey (29 October –18 December 2009), 26% of ED staff reported being vaccinated against Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza. Of those not vaccinated, half indicated they would ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ not get vaccinated, with the main reasons being the vaccine was ‘rushed into production’, ‘not properly tested’, ‘came out too late’, or not needed due to prior infection or exposure, or due to the mildness of the disease.\ud Conclusion:\ud Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Influenza had a significant impact on Australian Emergency Departments. The pandemic exposed problems in existing plans, particularly a lack of guidelines, general information overload, and confusion due to the lack of a single authoritative information source. Of concern was the high proportion of respondents who did not know if their hospital or department had a pandemic plan. Nationally, the pandemic communication strategy needs a detailed review, with more engagement with media networks to encourage responsible and consistent reporting. Also of concern was the low level of immunisation, and the low level of intention to accept vaccination. This is a problem seen in many previous studies relating to seasonal influenza and health care workers. The design of EDs needs to be addressed to better manage infectious patients. Significant workforce issues were confronted in this pandemic, including maintaining appropriate staffing levels; staff exposure to illness; access to, and appropriate use of, personal protective equipment (PPE); and the difficulties associated with working in PPE for prolonged periods. An administrative issue of note was the reporting requirement, which created considerable additional stress for staff within EDs. Peer and local support strategies helped ensure staff felt their needs were provided for, creating resilience, dependability, and stability in the ED workforce. Policies regarding the establishment of flu clinics need to be reviewed. The ability to create surge capacity within EDs by considering staffing, equipment, physical space, and stores is of primary importance for future pandemics

WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature: Providing a common language

A systematic nomenclature for allergens originated in the early 1980s, when few protein allergens had been described. A group of scientists led by Dr. David G. Marsh developed a nomenclature based on the Linnaean taxonomy, and further established the World Health Organization/International Union of Immunological Societies (WHO/IUIS) Allergen Nomenclature Sub-Committee in 1986. Its stated aim was to standardize the names given to the antigens (allergens) that caused IgE-mediated allergies in humans. The Sub-Committee first published a revised list of allergen names in 1986, which continued to grow with rare publications until 1994. Between 1994 and 2007 the database was a text table online, then converted to a more readily updated website. The allergen list became the Allergen Nomenclature database (www.allergen.org), which currently includes approximately 880 proteins from a wide variety of sources. The Sub-Committee includes experts on clinical and molecular allergology. They review submissions of allergen candidates, using evidence-based criteria developed by the Sub-Committee. The review process assesses the biochemical analysis and the proof of allergenicity submitted, and aims to assign allergen names prior to publication. The Sub-Committee maintains and revises the database, and addresses continuous challenges as new “omics” technologies provide increasing data about potential new allergens. Most journals publishing information on new allergens require an official allergen name, which involves submission of confidential data to the WHO/IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Sub-Committee, sufficient to demonstrate binding of IgE from allergic subjects to the purified protein

Biosensor immunoassay for traces of hazelnut protein in olive oil

The fraudulent addition of hazelnut oil to more expensive olive oil not only causes economical loss but may also result in problems for allergic individuals as they may inadvertently be exposed to potentially allergenic hazelnut proteins. To improve consumer safety, a rapid and sensitive direct biosensor immunoassay, based on a highly specific monoclonal antibody, was developed to detect the presence of hazelnut proteins in olive oils. The sample preparation was easy (extraction with buffer); the assay time was fast (4.5 min only) and the limit of detection was low (0.08 μg/g of hazelnut proteins in olive oil). Recoveries obtained with an olive oil mixed with different amounts of a hazelnut protein containing hazelnut oil varied between 93% and 109%

Standardization of double blind placebo controlled food challenge with soy within a multicentre trial

Background: Multicentre trials investigating food allergies by double blind placebo controlled food challenges (DBPCFC) need standardized procedures, challenge meals and evaluation criteria. We aimed at developing a standardized approach for identifying patients with birch related soy allergy by means of DBPCFC to soy, including determination of threshold levels, in a multicentre setting. Methods: Microbiologically stable soy challenge meals were composed of protein isolate with consistent Gly m 4 levels. Patients sensitized to main birch allergen Bet v 1 and concomitant sensitization to its soy homologue Gly m 4 underwent DBPCFC. Outcome was defined according to presence and/or absence of ten objective signs and intensity of eight subjective symptoms as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS). Results: 138 adult subjects (63.8% female, mean age 38 years) underwent DBPCFC. Challenge meals and defined evaluation criteria showed good applicability in all centres involved. 45.7% presented with objective signs and 65.2% with subjective symptoms at soy challenge. Placebo challenge meals elicited non-cardiovascular objective signs in 11.6%. In 82 (59.4%) subjects DBPCFC was judged as positive. 70.7% of DPBCFC+ showed objective signs and 85.4% subjective symptoms at soy challenge. Subjective symptoms to soy challenge meal in DBPCFC+ subjects started at significantly lower dose levels than objective signs (p < 0.001). Median cumulative eliciting doses for first objective signs in DBPCFC+ subjects were 4.7 g [0.7–24.7] and 0.7 g [0.2–4.7] total soy protein for first subjective symptoms (p = 0.01). Conclusions: We present the hitherto largest group of adults with Bet v 1 and Gly m 4 sensitization being investigated by DBPCFC. In this type of food allergy evaluation of DBPCFC outcome should not only include monitoring of objective signs but also scoring of subjective symptoms. Our data may contribute to standardize DBPCFC in pollen-related food allergy in multicentre settings. Trial registration EudraCT: 2009-011737-27

Analytical criteria for performance characteristics of IgE binding methods for evaluating safety of biotech food products

There is detailed guidance on how to perform bioinformatic analyses and enzymatic degradation studies for genetically modified crops under consideration for approval by regulatory agencies; however, there is no consensus in the scientific community on the details of how to perform IgE serum studies. IgE serum studies are an important safety component to acceptance of genetically modified crops when the introduced protein is novel, the introduced protein is similar to known allergens, or the crop is allergenic. In this manuscript, we describe the characteristics of the reagents, validation of assay performance, and data analysis necessary to optimize the information obtained from serum testing of novel proteins and genetically modified (GM) crops and to make results more accurate and comparable between different investigation