Burden and management of severe asthma in Russia: results from international observational study

Aim. To assess clinical and demographic characteristics of severe asthma (SA) patients and their management in Russian Federation. Materials and methods. This publication provides data for Russian part of population of the international observational study. In Phase I, retrospective analysis of medical records of patients with SA was performed with assessment of clinical and demographic data, medical history, comorbidities, treatment approaches and healthcare utilization. Phase II was a cross-sectional collection of patient-reported outcomes: level of asthma control assessed by ACT (Asthma Control Test) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measured using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Phase I patients were enrolled into Phase II if they signed a written consent form. Results. A total of 315 patients were included in Phase I of the study, 106 (33.6%) of them entered Phase II. Majority of study participants were either obese (n=103; 39.8%) or overweight (n=94; 36.3%). The most common comorbidities were cardiovascular diseases (n=217; 71.4%), followed by chronic respiratory diseases (n=198; 68.8%). There were 268 (85.1%) patients who had at least one exacerbation during last 12 months. Data for blood eosinophil count were available in 176 patients; 81.3% of them (n=143) had only one test in the last 12 months. The mean (SD) last available blood eosinophil count was 161.2 (181.2) cells/mm3. Serum Immunoglobulin E (IgE) value was known for 88 patients, and the mean (SD) last measured IgE value was 254.3 (249.7) ng/mL. Only 4.7% of Phase II participants had ACT scores indicative of controlled asthma (20). As much as 74.5% had scores ≤15 suggesting uncontrolled disease. Most patients also had impaired HRQoL. Conclusion. Most SA patients had poor disease control with frequent exacerbations and high number of comorbidities. Blood eosinophils and IgE level measurements were not evaluated routinely which might be a barrier for appropriate phenotyping and treatment selection

The feasibility of canine rabies elimination in Africa: dispelling doubts with data

<p><b>Background:</b> Canine rabies causes many thousands of human deaths every year in Africa, and continues to increase throughout much of the continent.</p> <p><b>Methodology/Principal Findings:</b> This paper identifies four common reasons given for the lack of effective canine rabies control in Africa: (a) a low priority given for disease control as a result of lack of awareness of the rabies burden; (b) epidemiological constraints such as uncertainties about the required levels of vaccination coverage and the possibility of sustained cycles of infection in wildlife; (c) operational constraints including accessibility of dogs for vaccination and insufficient knowledge of dog population sizes for planning of vaccination campaigns; and (d) limited resources for implementation of rabies surveillance and control. We address each of these issues in turn, presenting data from field studies and modelling approaches used in Tanzania, including burden of disease evaluations, detailed epidemiological studies, operational data from vaccination campaigns in different demographic and ecological settings, and economic analyses of the cost-effectiveness of dog vaccination for human rabies prevention.</p> <p><b>Conclusions/Significance:</b> We conclude that there are no insurmountable problems to canine rabies control in most of Africa; that elimination of canine rabies is epidemiologically and practically feasible through mass vaccination of domestic dogs; and that domestic dog vaccination provides a cost-effective approach to the prevention and elimination of human rabies deaths.</p&gt

Outcomes among trauma patients with duodenal leak following primary versus complex repair of duodenal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial

BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). RESULTS: The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p \u3c 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p \u3c 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p \u3e 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p \u3c 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p \u3c 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA. CONCLUSION: Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV