Pulmonary rehabilitation programs for patients with COPD = Programas de reabilitacao pulmonar em pacientes com DPOC

Published in English and PortuguesePulmonary rehabilitation programs are aimed at providing benefits to COPD patients, in various aspects. Our objective was to review the literature on COPD patient rehabilitation. This systematic review involved articles written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese; published between 2005 and 2009; and indexed in national and international databases. Articles were classified in accordance with the Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease criteria for the determination of the level of scientific evidence (grade of recommendation A, B, or C). The outcome measures were exercise, quality of life, symptoms, exacerbations, mortality, and pulmonary function. Treatments were classified as standard rehabilitation, partial rehabilitation, strength exercises, and resistance exercises. Of the 40 articles selected, 4, 18, and 18 were classified as grades A, B, and C, respectively. Of the 181 analyses made in these articles, 61, 50, 23, 23, 20, and 4, respectively, were related to the outcome measures quality of life, exercise, symptoms, exacerbations, pulmonary function, and mortality. The standard rehabilitation programs showed positive effects on all of the outcomes evaluated, except for mortality (because of the small number of analyses). However, we found no differences among the various rehabilitation programs regarding their effects on the outcomes studied. Rehabilitation programs can be considered important tools for the treatment of COPD. Therefore, health administrators should implement public policies including such programs in the routine of health care facilities. = Programas de reabilitação pulmonar visam à melhora do paciente com DPOC em vários aspectos. Esta revisão teve como objetivo avaliar a literatura sobre reabilitação em pacientes com DPOC. Foi realizada uma revisão sistemática incluindo artigos publicados entre 2005 e 2009, indexados em bases de dados nacionais e internacionais e escritos em inglês, espanhol ou português. Os artigos foram classificados segundo o critério da Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease para nível de evidência científica (grau de recomendação A, B e C). Os desfechos exercício, qualidade de vida, sintomas, exacerbações, mortalidade e função pulmonar foram pesquisados. Os tratamentos foram classificados como reabilitação padrão, reabilitação parcial, exercícios de força e exercícios de resistência. Dos 40 artigos selecionados, 4, 18 e 18 foram classificados com graus A, B e C, respectivamente. Das 181 análises oriundas desses artigos, 61, 50, 23, 23, 20 e 4, respectivamente, foram relacionadas aos desfechos qualidade de vida, exercício, sintomas, exacerbação, função pulmonar e mortalidade. Em todos os desfechos avaliados, os programas de reabilitação padrão tiveram efeitos positivos sobre os desfechos estudados, exceto para mortalidade pelo reduzido número de análises. Entretanto, não foram verificadas diferenças nos efeitos sobre os desfechos estudados quando os diferentes programas de reabilitação foram comparados. Programas de reabilitação pulmonar podem ser considerados importantes ferramentas no arsenal do tratamento da DPOC, merecendo atenção dos gestores em saúde para a implementação de políticas públicas que os incluam como rotina nos serviços de saúde.Fernando César Wehrmeister, Marli Knorst, José Roberto Jardim, Silvia Elaine Cardozo Macedo, Ricardo Bica Noal, Jeovany Martínez-Mesa, David Alejandro González, Samuel Carvalho Dumith, Maria de Fátima Maia, Pedro Curi Hallal, Ana Maria Baptista Meneze

A dimensão ambiental da educação geográfica

O texto tem por objetivo delinear uma introdução ao desenvolvimento da dimensão ambiental da educação geográfica no ensino básico, em sentido de fundamentação e orientação prática. Para tanto, são relacionadas a Educação Ambiental e a geografia escolar, de um perspectiva sociopolítica ao contexto das decisões curriculares; e, neste âmbito, são postas algumas orientações pedagógico-metodológicas

Temporal changes in the prevalence of childhood asthma and allergies in urban and rural areas of Cyprus: results from two cross sectional studies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The prevalence of childhood asthma and allergies in Cyprus was significantly higher in urban compared to rural areas back in the year 2000, against a background of an overall low prevalence (e.g. current wheeze 6.9%) by comparison to northern European countries. In this study we aimed to assess temporal changes in the prevalence of asthma and allergies in Cyprus after an 8-year interval and to examine whether any differential changes have occurred in urban and rural parts of the island.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>During the academic years 1999-2000 and 2007-2008, the parents of 7-8 year old children residing in the same set of urban and rural areas completed the ISAAC core questionnaire. In addition to providing prevalence estimates of allergic diseases in 2000 and 2008, changes between the two periods were expressed as odds ratios estimated in multiple logistic regression models adjusting for survey participants' characteristics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The prevalence of current wheeze was higher in 2008 (8.7%, 95% confidence interval 7.5%-9.9%, n = 2216) than the previously recorded figure in 2000 (6.9%, 95% CI 6.2%-7.6%, OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.53, n = 4944). Significant increases were also seen in the prevalence of lifetime asthma (11.3% vs. 17.4%, OR = 1.59, CI: 1.36-1.86), eczema (6.8% vs. 13.5%, OR = 1.91, CI: 1.59-2.29) and allergic rhinoconjuctivitis (2.6% vs. 5.2%, OR = 1.82, CI: 1.39-2.41). The prevalence of current wheeze nearly doubled between 2000 and 2008 in rural areas (5.4% vs. 9.7%, OR 1.81, CI: 1.24-2.64) while no significant change was observed in urban areas (7.5% vs. 8.4%, OR 1.08, CI: 0.84-1.37); p value for effect modification = 0.04. Rises in asthma and rhinitis prevalence, but not eczema were also more pronounced in rural compared to urban areas.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The prevalence of allergic diseases in Cyprus is still on the rise; recent increases appear more pronounced among children living in rural areas possibly indicating recent environmental and lifestyle changes in these communities</p

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Improving Smoking Cessation Outcomes Through Tailored-Risk Patient Messages at a University Hospital Tobacco Cessation Service

Background: Postdischarge follow-up is a critical step for increasing effectiveness of hospital smoking cessation treatment. A quality improvement project was undertaken at an academic medical center tobacco cessation consult service to evaluate whether a tailored message (TM) linking immediate risks of continued smoking—particularly carbon monoxide exposure— to hospital recovery would stimulate more patient interest in the hospital’s cessation treatment, including agreement to postdischarge follow-up, compared to patients receiving the usual treatment protocol with a standard message (SM) regarding more general health benefits of abstinence. Methods: Data from 697 smokers ordered/referred for smoking cessation treatment in 2013 who received either the SM (January–April; n = 323) or the TM (April–November; n = 374) were analyzed. Results: Multivariate regression analysis showed that the TM was associated with significantly greater agreement for follow- up (odds ratio [OR] = 10.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.66–32.04, p \u3c 0.0001) than the SM. Those patients who received the TM were more willing to try to remain abstinent postdischarge (willingness score = 10, p = 0.0052) and engaged in longer consults (consult time \u3e 10 minutes, p = 0.0075) than SM patients. TM patients also self-reported a higher continuous abstinence rate (OR = 2.07, 95% CI = 1.17–3.66, p = 0.0130] at follow-up than SM. Conclusion: Linking risks of continued smoking, particularly carbon monoxide exposure, to hospital patients’ immediate recovery following discharge in a treatment protocol resulted in longer consult times and increased agreement to follow-up compared to the usual protocol message. The TM was integrated into the hospital tobacco cessation intervention as standard of care