Waste prevention and education in five european countries

Artigo desenvolvido no âmbito de uma Unidade Curricular que funcionou em rede entre várias Universidades Europeias. Este artigo foi desenvolvido num trabalho em rede desenvolvido entre estudantes de diversas universidade e que avaliaram a implementação da diretiva quadro de resíduos em diversos países da União Europeia e apresentarem um conjunto de recomendações para se uniformizar e melhorar a gestão de resíduos na Europa com a aplicação da hierarquia dos resíduos.This research assessed the different goals of the EU Waste Framework Directive (2008) concerning waste prevention in five countries of the EU. The countries under research are the home countries of the EVS group members: Austria, Belgium, Germany, Netherlands and Portugal. The research about the status quo of waste prevention revealed that waste preven-tion has not reached yet. All the countries have high recycling rates and low dumping rate, ex-cept Portugal. Although decoupling trends start to appear and the countries are climbing up the waste hierarchy, waste prevention is still a mountain too far. The EVS group also checked if education was included in the waste prevention programmes and education plays a very im-portant role. The group looked for good examples of waste prevention and analyzed them with SWOT. The examples are a success in the home countries and can be implemented in other EU or even worldwide countries.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Use of the WHO Access, Watch, and Reserve classification to define patterns of hospital antibiotic use (AWaRe): an analysis of paediatric survey data from 56 countries

BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of hospital antibiotic use is a major goal of WHO's global action plan to combat antimicrobial resistance. The WHO Essential Medicines List Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) classification could facilitate simple stewardship interventions that are widely applicable globally. We aimed to present data on patterns of paediatric AWaRe antibiotic use that could be used for local and national stewardship interventions. METHODS: 1-day point prevalence survey antibiotic prescription data were combined from two independent global networks: the Global Antimicrobial Resistance, Prescribing, and Efficacy in Neonates and Children and the Global Point Prevalence Survey on Antimicrobial Consumption and Resistance networks. We included hospital inpatients aged younger than 19 years receiving at least one antibiotic on the day of the survey. The WHO AWaRe classification was used to describe overall antibiotic use as assessed by the variation between use of Access, Watch, and Reserve antibiotics, for neonates and children and for the commonest clinical indications. FINDINGS: Of the 23 572 patients included from 56 countries, 18 305 were children (77·7%) and 5267 were neonates (22·3%). Access antibiotic use in children ranged from 7·8% (China) to 61·2% (Slovenia) of all antibiotic prescriptions. The use of Watch antibiotics in children was highest in Iran (77·3%) and lowest in Finland (23·0%). In neonates, Access antibiotic use was highest in Singapore (100·0%) and lowest in China (24·2%). Reserve antibiotic use was low in all countries. Major differences in clinical syndrome-specific patterns of AWaRe antibiotic use in lower respiratory tract infection and neonatal sepsis were observed between WHO regions and countries. INTERPRETATION: There is substantial global variation in the proportion of AWaRe antibiotics used in hospitalised neonates and children. The AWaRe classification could potentially be used as a simple traffic light metric of appropriate antibiotic use. Future efforts should focus on developing and evaluating paediatric antibiotic stewardship programmes on the basis of the AWaRe index. FUNDING: GARPEC was funded by the PENTA Foundation. GARPEC-China data collection was funded by the Sanming Project of Medicine in Shenzhen (SZSM2015120330). bioMérieux provided unrestricted funding support for the Global-PPS

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

Background Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. Methods The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. Findings We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2–11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75–1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58–1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91–1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70–1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11–0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50–0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38–0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45–0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. Funding Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

COVID-19 in children and adolescents in Europe: a multinational, multicentre cohort study

Background To date, few data on paediatric COVID-19 have been published, and most reports originate from China. This study aimed to capture key data on children and adolescents with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection across Europe to inform physicians and health-care service planning during the ongoing pandemic. Methods This multicentre cohort study involved 82 participating health-care institutions across 25 European countries, using a well established research network—the Paediatric Tuberculosis Network European Trials Group (ptbnet)—that mainly comprises paediatric infectious diseases specialists and paediatric pulmonologists. We included all individuals aged 18 years or younger with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, detected at any anatomical site by RT-PCR, between April 1 and April 24, 2020, during the initial peak of the European COVID-19 pandemic. We explored factors associated with need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission and initiation of drug treatment for COVID-19 using univariable analysis, and applied multivariable logistic regression with backwards stepwise analysis to further explore those factors significantly associated with ICU admission. Findings 582 individuals with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included, with a median age of 5·0 years (IQR 0·5–12·0) and a sex ratio of 1·15 males per female. 145 (25%) had pre-existing medical conditions. 363 (62%) individuals were admitted to hospital. 48 (8%) individuals required ICU admission, 25 (4%) mechanical ventilation (median duration 7 days, IQR 2–11, range 1–34), 19 (3%) inotropic support, and one (<1%) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Significant risk factors for requiring ICU admission in multivariable analyses were being younger than 1 month (odds ratio 5·06, 95% CI 1·72–14·87; p=0·0035), male sex (2·12, 1·06–4·21; p=0·033), pre-existing medical conditions (3·27, 1·67–6·42; p=0·0015), and presence of lower respiratory tract infection signs or symptoms at presentation (10·46, 5·16–21·23; p<0·0001). The most frequently used drug with antiviral activity was hydroxychloroquine (40 [7%] patients), followed by remdesivir (17 [3%] patients), lopinavir–ritonavir (six [1%] patients), and oseltamivir (three [1%] patients). Immunomodulatory medication used included corticosteroids (22 [4%] patients), intravenous immunoglobulin (seven [1%] patients), tocilizumab (four [1%] patients), anakinra (three [1%] patients), and siltuximab (one [<1%] patient). Four children died (case-fatality rate 0·69%, 95% CI 0·20–1·82); at study end, the remaining 578 were alive and only 25 (4%) were still symptomatic or requiring respiratory support. Interpretation COVID-19 is generally a mild disease in children, including infants. However, a small proportion develop severe disease requiring ICU admission and prolonged ventilation, although fatal outcome is overall rare. The data also reflect the current uncertainties regarding specific treatment options, highlighting that additional data on antiviral and immunomodulatory drugs are urgently needed. Funding ptbnet is supported by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

Using gestures to help children with specific language impairment in word learning

Children with developmental language disorder show significantly lower word-learning performance than typically developing age-matched children do. Although gesture is used to support speech in some special education classrooms for children with developmental language disorder, only a limited amount of research has shown empirical evidence for a multimodality effect on word learning. This study aimed to investigate the role of gestures in word learning with children presenting with developmental language disorder (aged 5–10) in comparison to typically developing children. Ten children with developmental language disorder were compared to 10 chronological-age-matched children and 10 language-age-matched children. These 30 children learned new phonological labels for common concepts under three conditions: with the help of iconic gestures, with arbitrary gestures, and without gestures. The results indicate a scaffolding effect of both types of gesture for novel-word retrieval in comparison to the control condition. No group differences were reported: All children benefited from gesture. These data suggest that using gestures with both children with developmental language disorder and typically developing children may support their spoken language development. Theoretical and clinical implications are discussed

Effects of semantic variables on the subject-verb agreement processes in writing

Two experiments are reported in which participants were orally presented with French sentences that they were required to write down. In a single-task condition, only single sentences were presented and the written recall concerned only these sentences. In a dual-task condition, a second task was added: to memorize an additional list of words or to do mental addition while writing down the sentences. The experimental sentences were all of the type 'Prep. + N1 + verb + subject' (e.g. Dans les trains passe le controleur, Along the trains comes the inspector) in which the preverbal noun constituted either a plausible or an implausible subject for the verb following. Results showed that: (a) number agreement was more likely to be correct when the preverbal noun was implausible as the subject of the sentence, (b) but when they had to transcribe sentences with an implausible preverbal noun, the participants' performance at a concurrent task was poorer. These two findings indicate that the plausibility of the subject role of the preverbal noun provides information that can be used to control the procedures which underlie the construction of the agreement