Twelve-month observational study of children with cancer in 41 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction Childhood cancer is a leading cause of death. It is unclear whether the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted childhood cancer mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish all-cause mortality rates for childhood cancers during the COVID-19 pandemic and determine the factors associated with mortality. Methods Prospective cohort study in 109 institutions in 41 countries. Inclusion criteria: children <18 years who were newly diagnosed with or undergoing active treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, Hodgkin lymphoma, retinoblastoma, Wilms tumour, glioma, osteosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, rhabdomyosarcoma, medulloblastoma and neuroblastoma. Of 2327 cases, 2118 patients were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was all-cause mortality at 30 days, 90 days and 12 months. Results All-cause mortality was 3.4% (n=71/2084) at 30-day follow-up, 5.7% (n=113/1969) at 90-day follow-up and 13.0% (n=206/1581) at 12-month follow-up. The median time from diagnosis to multidisciplinary team (MDT) plan was longest in low-income countries (7 days, IQR 3-11). Multivariable analysis revealed several factors associated with 12-month mortality, including low-income (OR 6.99 (95% CI 2.49 to 19.68); p<0.001), lower middle income (OR 3.32 (95% CI 1.96 to 5.61); p<0.001) and upper middle income (OR 3.49 (95% CI 2.02 to 6.03); p<0.001) country status and chemotherapy (OR 0.55 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.86); p=0.008) and immunotherapy (OR 0.27 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.91); p=0.035) within 30 days from MDT plan. Multivariable analysis revealed laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 5.33 (95% CI 1.19 to 23.84); p=0.029) was associated with 30-day mortality. Conclusions Children with cancer are more likely to die within 30 days if infected with SARS-CoV-2. However, timely treatment reduced odds of death. This report provides crucial information to balance the benefits of providing anticancer therapy against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in children with cancer

Effect of surgical experience and spine subspecialty on the reliability of the {AO} Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE The objective of this paper was to determine the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility of the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System based on surgeon experience (< 5 years, 5–10 years, 10–20 years, and > 20 years) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine surgery, neurosurgery, and "other" surgery). METHODS A total of 11,601 assessments of upper cervical spine injuries were evaluated based on the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System. Reliability and reproducibility scores were obtained twice, with a 3-week time interval. Descriptive statistics were utilized to examine the percentage of accurately classified injuries, and Pearson’s chi-square or Fisher’s exact test was used to screen for potentially relevant differences between study participants. Kappa coefficients (κ) determined the interobserver reliability and intraobserver reproducibility. RESULTS The intraobserver reproducibility was substantial for surgeon experience level (< 5 years: 0.74 vs 5–10 years: 0.69 vs 10–20 years: 0.69 vs > 20 years: 0.70) and surgical subspecialty (orthopedic spine: 0.71 vs neurosurgery: 0.69 vs other: 0.68). Furthermore, the interobserver reliability was substantial for all surgical experience groups on assessment 1 (< 5 years: 0.67 vs 5–10 years: 0.62 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.62), and only surgeons with > 20 years of experience did not have substantial reliability on assessment 2 (< 5 years: 0.62 vs 5–10 years: 0.61 vs 10–20 years: 0.61 vs > 20 years: 0.59). Orthopedic spine surgeons and neurosurgeons had substantial intraobserver reproducibility on both assessment 1 (0.64 vs 0.63) and assessment 2 (0.62 vs 0.63), while other surgeons had moderate reliability on assessment 1 (0.43) and fair reliability on assessment 2 (0.36). CONCLUSIONS The international reliability and reproducibility scores for the AO Spine Upper Cervical Injury Classification System demonstrated substantial intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver reliability regardless of surgical experience and spine subspecialty. These results support the global application of this classification system

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

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

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

Memecylon cerasiforme (Melastomataceae): a poorly known species rediscovered, redescribed and newly recorded for India

Volume: 68Start Page: 319End Page: 32

Impact of the national building rating system on electricity demand of India

The building sector is one of the biggest consumers of electricity in India. Climate change and global warming, as one of the most serious risks to human societies, are inextricably linked to energy usage and Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). With a population of nearly 1.38 billion, India is the world’s second largest country. The majority of Indian urbanization is involuted rather than evolved. Between 1991 and 2011, the urban population expanded by 73 percent, from 217 million to 377 million, while energy demand more than doubled from 1990 to 2009. GRIHA — Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment is an indigenous building rating system developed by Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Govt. of India. GRIHA is a rating system that compares the building’s performance to nationally accepted benchmarks. It assesses a building’s environmental performance over the course of its full life cycle. With annual electricity consumption data for both residential and commercial sectors of India, with the linear regression methodology, the electricity demand till the year 2050 was plotted. Similarly, using the data from the GRIHA council and the Reference Building model, the annual electricity savings for GRIHA certified buildings has been plotted. Using non-linear regression, the savings for the years 2030 and 2050, has been plotted. The results show a positive indication that with stricter implementation of the energy conservation policies similar to GRIHA, by the govt of India, there can be significant savings in the energy Sector

Community-based randomized controlled trial of non-pharmacological interventions in prevention and control of hypertension among young adults

Context : Hypertension is a major chronic lifestyle disease. Several non-pharmacological interventions are effective in bringing down the blood pressure (BP). This study focuses on the effectiveness of such interventions among young adults. Aims : To measure the efficacy of physical exercise, reduction in salt intake, and yoga, in lowering BP among young (20-25) pre-hypertensives and hypertensives, and to compare their relative efficacies. Settings and Design: The study was done in the urban service area of JIPMER . Pre-hypertensives and hypertensives, identified from previous studies, constituted the universe. The participants were randomized into one control and three interventional groups. Materials and Methods: A total of 113 subjects: 30, 28, 28 and 27 in four groups respectively participated for eight weeks: control (I), physical exercise (II) - brisk walking for 50-60 minutes, four days/week, salt intake reduction (III) - to at least half of their previous intake, and practice of yoga (IV) - for 30-45 minutes/day on at least five days/week. Statistical Analysis Used: Efficacy was assessed using paired t test and ANOVA with Games Howell post hoc test. An intention to treat analysis was also performed. Results : A total of 102 participants (29, 27, 25 and 21 in groups I, II, III and IV) completed the study. All three intervention groups showed a significant reduction in BP (SBP/DBP: 5.3/6.0 in group II, 2.6/3.7 in III, and 2.0/2.6 mm Hg in IV respectively). There was no significant change (SBP/DBP: 0.2/0.5 mmHg) of BP in control group (I). Physical exercise was most effective (considered individually); salt intake reduction and yoga were also effective. Conclusions : Physical exercise, salt intake reduction, and yoga are effective non-pharmacological interventions in significantly reducing BP among young hypertensives and pre-hypertensives. These can therefore be positively recommended for hypertensives. There is also a case to deploy these interventions in the general population