Seasonality of antimicrobial use in Dutch food-producing animals

Due to globally increasing antimicrobial resistance (AMR), it is pivotal to understand factors contributing to antimicrobial use (AMU) to enable development and implementation of AMR-reducing interventions. Therefore, we explored seasonal variations of systemic AMU in food-producing animals in the Netherlands. Dutch surveillance data from January 2013 to December 2018 from cattle, pig, and broiler farms were used. AMU was expressed as the number of Defined Daily Dosages Animal per month (DDDA/animal-month) per farm by animal sector, antimicrobial line (first, second, and third), antimicrobial class, and farm type. Seasonality of AMU was analyzed using Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) with DDDA/animal-month as outcome variable, and year and month as independent variables. Year and month were modelled as smooth terms represented with penalized regression splines.Significant seasonality of AMU was found in the cattle and pig sectors, but not in broilers. Significant seasonality of AMU was found mainly for first-line antimicrobials. In the cattle sector, a significant increase during winter was found for the use of amphenicols (an increase of 23.8%) and long-acting macrolides (an increase of 3.4%). In the pig sector, seasonality of AMU was found for pleuromutilins (p < 0.001) with an increase of 20% in October-November. The seasonality of pleuromutilins was stronger in sows/piglets (an increase of 47%) than in fattening pigs (16% increase). Only in fattening pigs, the use of amphenicols showed a significant seasonality with an increase of 11% during winter (P < 0.001). AMU in cattle and pig sectors shows seasonal variations likely caused by seasonality of diseases. In broilers, no AMU seasonality was observed, possibly due to the controlled environment in Dutch farms. In the context of the one health concept, future studies are necessary to explore whether this seasonality is present in other populations and whether it has implications for antimicrobial resistance in humans through the food chain

Ecos de la academia: Revista de la Facultad de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología - FECYT Nro 6

Ecos de la academia, Revista de la Facultad de Educación Ciencia y Tecnología es una publicación científica de la Universidad Técnica del Norte, con revisión por pares a doble ciego que publica artículos en idioma español, quichua, portugués e inglés. Se edita con una frecuencia semestral con dos números por año.En ella se divulgan trabajos originales e inéditos generados por los investigadores, docentes y estudiantes de la FECYT, y contribuciones de profesionales de instituciones docentes e investigativas dentro y fuera del país, con calidad, originalidad y relevancia en las áreas de ciencias sociales y tecnología aplicada.Modelos multidimensionales del bienestar en contextos de enseñanza- aprendizaje: una revisión sistemática. Nuevas tendencias para el área académica de la Publicidad en la zona 1 del Ecuador. Propuesta de un curso de escritura académica bajo la base de modelos experienciales. Aproximación al estudio de las emociones. Seguimiento a egresados y graduados para actualizar el perfil de egreso y profesional. Impacto de la Gerencia de Calidad en el clima organizacional en Educación Básica. Comunicación efectiva del gerente educativo orientada al manejo de conflictos en el personal docente. Meritocracia: Democratización o exclusión en el acceso a la educación superior en Ecuador. Asertividad y desempeño académico en estudiantes universitarios. La creatividad en la formación profesional. Aspectos metodológicos en el proceso de enseñanza- aprendizaje de la gimnasia en estudiantes de Educación Física. English Language Learning Interaction through Web 2.0 Technologies. La sistematización de la práctica educativa y su relación con la metodología de la investigación. El ozono y la oxigenación hiperbárica: una vía para mejorar la recuperación en lesiones deportivas. La labor tutorial: Independencia del aprendizaje en el contexto universitario. Motivación hacia la profesión docente en la Enseñanza Secundaria. El uso académico de Facebook y WhatsApp en estudiantes universitarios... La educación superior en Ecuador: situación actual y factores de mejora de la calidad. El Proyecto de Investigación “Imbabura Étnica”

Retos, avances y reflexiones transdisciplinares desde contextos educativos diversos

La publicación de las ponencias que conformaron el V Congreso Internacional de Educación de la Universidad Nacional de Educación, titulado Retos, avances y reflexiones transdisciplinares desde contextos educativos diversos, ofrece una visión comprensiva y multifacética de la educación contemporánea. A través de ocho ejes temáticos, entre los que se incluye la formación integral y el desarrollo profesional, la teoría y la práctica en la formación profesional docente, la relación entre sociedad y escuela, la gestión educativa y las tecnologías para la educación, esta recopilación busca contribuir al conocimiento académico sobre la educación y, al mismo tiempo, ser fuente de información e inspiración para educadores, investigadores y todas aquellas personas interesadas en el desarrollo educativo

Quantitative risk analysis of Equine encephalosis introduction into The Netherlands

Abstract Equine encephalosis (EE) is a midge-borne viral disease of equines caused by EEV (Orbivirus, Reoviridae). EEV is closely related with African horse sickness virus (AHSV). EEV and AHSV share common vectors, Culicoides spp., and show similar transmission patterns. However, there is little information available on the EE epidemiology and it is unclear how the disease would spread into new free areas. For these reasons, the goals of this study were to provide insight in the risk posed by infected vectors and hosts on EEV introduction into the Netherlands, contribution of potential source areas (risk regions) and evaluation of the effectiveness of preventive measures (sanitary regimens). To reach these goals a stochastic model constructed for AHS was adapted to EE epidemiology

Quantitative analysis of the probability of introducing equine encephalosis virus (EEV) into The Netherlands

Equine encephalosis is a midge-borne viral disease of equines caused by equine encephalosis virus (EEV, Orbivirus, Reoviridae), and closely related to African horse sickness virus (AHSV). EEV and AHSV share common vectors and show similar transmission patterns. Until now EEV has caused outbreaks in Africa and Israel. This study aimed to provide insight in the probability of an EEV outbreak in The Netherlands caused by infected vectors or hosts, the contribution of potential source areas (risk regions) to this probability, and the effectiveness of preventive measures (sanitary regimes). A stochastic risk model constructed for risk assessment of AHSV introduction was adapted to EEV. Source areas were categorized in risk regions (high, low, and very low risk) based on EEV history and the presence of competent vectors. Two possible EEV introduction pathways were considered: importation of infected equines and importation of infected vectors along with their vertebrate hosts. The probability of EEV introduction (PEEV) was calculated by combining the probability of EEV release by either pathway and the probability of EEV establishment. The median current annual probability of EEV introduction by an infected equine was estimated at 0.012 (90% uncertainty interval 0.002–0.020), and by an infected vector at 4.0 10−5 (90% uncertainty interval 5.3 10−6–2.0 10−4). Equines from high risk regions contributed most to the probability of EEV introduction with 74% on the EEV introduction by equines, whereas low and very low risk regions contributed 18% and 8%, respectively. International movements of horses participating in equestrian events contributed most to the probability of EEV introduction by equines from high risk regions (86%), but also contributed substantially for low and very low risk regions with 47% and 56%. The probability of introducing EEV into The Netherlands is much higher than the probability of introducing AHSV with equines from high risk countries contributing most. The introduction by an infected equine is the most likely pathway. Control measures before exportation of equines showed to have a strong mitigating effect on the probability of EEV introduction. The risk of EEV outbreaks should be taken into account when altering these import regulations

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