Infectious intestinal disease : do we know it all?

Infectious intestinal disease (IID), with associated high morbidity and considerable mortality worldwide, causes a wide spectrum of illness. This ranges from mild discomfort to illness with severe complications. The economic burden from direct and indirect costs may be high. It is acquired by oral ingestion of micro-organisms which are transmitted from person to person; via food or water or through contact with animals or contaminated objects. Viruses are the commonest cause in developed countries. In Malta, medical practitioners and laboratories are the main source of data on IID. However, under-reporting is a problem. In order to fill in the lacunae in information on the disease burden, population-based-studies are required. Along with other countries, Malta has embarked on a number of studies to describe and quantify under-reporting of IID. This may assist in strengthening the surveillance system which, in combination with other measures, should result in an improvement of the control of IID.peer-reviewe

Laboratory surveillance of communicable diseases : enteric pathogens

Laboratories represent a crucial link in the surveillance chain. Since only a small proportion of cases of enteric infections are asked to submit a stool sample, one needs to assess the practices for testing for enteric pathogens and their notification practices. Five local laboratories participated in this study. This included a description of the laboratory practices; capacity for stool sample analysis; awareness of the notification system and the factors which could improve the system at laboratory level.peer-reviewe

Iconic dishes, culture and identity: the Christmas pudding and its hundred years’ journey in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and India

Asserting that recipes are textual evidences reflecting the society that produced them, this article explores the evolution of the recipes of the iconic Christmas pudding in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and India between the mid-nineteenth and the mid-twentieth centuries. Combining a micro-analysis of the recipes and the cookbook that provided them with contemporary testimonies, the article observes the dynamics revealed by the preparation and consumption of the pudding in these different societies. The findings demonstrate the relevance of national iconic dishes to the study of notions of home, migration and colonization, as well as the development of a new society and identity. They reveal how the preservation, transformation and even rejection of a traditional dish can be representative of the complex and sometimes conflicting relationships between colonists, migrants or new citizens and the places they live in

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Comparison of several prognostic tools in traumatic brain injury including S100B

Primary objective: To identify which tool (a model, a biomarker or a combination of these) has better prognostic strength in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Design and methods: Data of 100 patients were analysed. TBI prognostic model B, constructed in Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN), was run on the dataset and then S100B was added to this model. Another model was developed containing only S100B and, subsequently, other important predictors were added to assess the enhancement of the predictive power. The outcome measures were survival and favourable outcome. Results: No difference between performance of the prognostic model or S100B in isolation is observed. Addition of S100B to the prognostic model improves the performance (e. g. AUC, R-2 Nagelkerke and classification accuracy of TARN model B to predict survival increase respectively from 0.66, 0.11 and 70% to 0.77, 0.25 and 75%). Similarly, the predictive power of S100B increases by adding other predictors (e. g. AUC (0.69 vs. 0.79), R-2 Nagelkerke (0.15 vs. 0.30) and classification accuracy (73% vs. 77%) for survival prediction). Conclusion: A better prognostic tool than those currently available may be a combination of clinical predictors with a biomarker

Making Sense of Complexity: Using SenseMaker as a Research Tool

There is growing interest in studying processes of human sensemaking, as this strongly influences human and organizational behavior as well as complex system dynamics due to the diverse lenses people use to interpret and act in the world. The Cognitive Edge SenseMaker® tool is one method for capturing and making sense of people’s attitudes, perceptions, and experiences. It is used for monitoring and evaluation; mapping ideas, mind-sets, and attitudes; and detecting trends and weak signals. However, academic literature describing the tool-set and method is lacking. This introduction aims to guide researchers in choosing when to use SenseMaker and to facilitate understanding of its execution and limitations. SenseMaker can provide nuanced insight into system-level patterns of human sensemaking that can provide insight to nudge systems towards more desirable futures, and enable researchers to measure beyond what they know