Triple P Lifestyle Group: a study of the effects on food parenting practices, food consumption and child anthropometric measures

O excesso de peso e obesidade na infância são problemáticas de crescente preocupação mundialmente. Deste modo, o presente estudo integra-se no projeto "Intervenção no excesso de peso e na obesidade infantil: Eficácia de um programa para pais enquanto agentes de mudança (LifeStyle)", promovido pela Faculdade de Psicologia e Ciências da Educação da Universidade do Porto, que visa avaliar a eficácia do programa Triplo P Lifestyle de grupo (TPLG) em Portugal, para crianças entre cinco e dez anos no combate ao excesso de peso e obesidade, tendo os pais como agentes da mudança. O presente estudo procurou analisar o efeito da intervenção nas medidas antropométricas das crianças, na perceção dos pais relativamente ao consumo de alimentos dos seus filhos e nas práticas parentais de alimentação. Foram recrutados 57 participantes, que foram aleatoriamente distribuídos por um grupo de controlo com uma condição treatment-as-usual (TAU), consistindo em consultas de nutrição com pediatras do Centro Materno-Infantil do Norte (CMIN) e um grupo de intervenção, que adicionalmente recebeu a intervenção Lifestyle. Devido à pandemia COVID-19, o TPLG foi também implementado em formato online, mantendo-se, no entanto, os princípios gerais e estratégias da intervenção. Os resultados apontam para diferenças significativas na perceção do consumo de frutas e legumes no do grupo de intervenção, tendo este aumentado em relação ao grupo TAU. A nível das práticas parentais de alimentação, da perceção dos pais relativamente à alimentação e nas medidas antropométricas, não foram encontradas diferenças significativas embora se detetasse, em todas as variáveis, uma tendência positiva por parte do grupo de intervenção, podendo ser indicador de diferenças significativas no futuro e indiciando assim o impacto positivo do programa nos participantes e nas suas crianças. Os resultados são discutidos em função da pandemia de COVID-19, e da forma como afetou o estilo de vida dos pais e das crianças, concluindo-se pela necessidade de continuidade na implementação do programa TPLG, a fim de confirmar a sua eficácia na população portuguesa

Educomunicação e suas áreas de intervenção: Novos paradigmas para o diálogo intercultural

oai:omp.abpeducom.org.br:publicationFormat/1O material aqui divulgado representa, em essência, a contribuição do VII Encontro Brasileiro de Educomunicação ao V Global MIL Week, da UNESCO, ocorrido na ECA/USP, entre 3 e 5 de novembro de 2016. Estamos diante de um conjunto de 104 papers executivos, com uma média de entre 7 e 10 páginas, cada um. Com este rico e abundante material, chegamos ao sétimo e-book publicado pela ABPEducom, em seus seis primeiros anos de existência. A especificidade desta obra é a de trazer as “Áreas de Intervenção” do campo da Educomunicação, colocando-as a serviço de uma meta essencial ao agir educomunicativo: o diálogo intercultural, trabalhado na linha do tema geral do evento internacional: Media and Information Literacy: New Paradigms for Intercultural Dialogue

Diretriz da Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia sobre Diagnóstico e Tratamento de Pacientes com Cardiomiopatia da Doença de Chagas

This guideline aimed to update the concepts and formulate the standards of conduct and scientific evidence that support them, regarding the diagnosis and treatment of the Cardiomyopathy of Chagas disease, with special emphasis on the rationality base that supported it.  Chagas disease in the 21st century maintains an epidemiological pattern of endemicity in 21 Latin American countries. Researchers and managers from endemic and non-endemic countries point to the need to adopt comprehensive public health policies to effectively control the interhuman transmission of T. cruzi infection, and to obtain an optimized level of care for already infected individuals, focusing on diagnostic and therapeutic opportunistic opportunities.   Pathogenic and pathophysiological mechanisms of the Cardiomyopathy of Chagas disease were revisited after in-depth updating and the notion that necrosis and fibrosis are stimulated by tissue parasitic persistence and adverse immune reaction, as fundamental mechanisms, assisted by autonomic and microvascular disorders, was well established. Some of them have recently formed potential targets of therapies.  The natural history of the acute and chronic phases was reviewed, with enhancement for oral transmission, indeterminate form and chronic syndromes. Recent meta-analyses of observational studies have estimated the risk of evolution from acute and indeterminate forms and mortality after chronic cardiomyopathy. Therapeutic approaches applicable to individuals with Indeterminate form of Chagas disease were specifically addressed. All methods to detect structural and/or functional alterations with various cardiac imaging techniques were also reviewed, with recommendations for use in various clinical scenarios. Mortality risk stratification based on the Rassi score, with recent studies of its application, was complemented by methods that detect myocardial fibrosis.  The current methodology for etiological diagnosis and the consequent implications of trypanonomic treatment deserved a comprehensive and in-depth approach. Also the treatment of patients at risk or with heart failure, arrhythmias and thromboembolic events, based on pharmacological and complementary resources, received special attention. Additional chapters supported the conducts applicable to several special contexts, including t. cruzi/HIV co-infection, risk during surgeries, in pregnant women, in the reactivation of infection after heart transplantation, and others.     Finally, two chapters of great social significance, addressing the structuring of specialized services to care for individuals with the Cardiomyopathy of Chagas disease, and reviewing the concepts of severe heart disease and its medical-labor implications completed this guideline.Esta diretriz teve como objetivo principal atualizar os conceitos e formular as normas de conduta e evidências científicas que as suportam, quanto ao diagnóstico e tratamento da CDC, com especial ênfase na base de racionalidade que a embasou. A DC no século XXI mantém padrão epidemiológico de endemicidade em 21 países da América Latina. Investigadores e gestores de países endêmicos e não endêmicos indigitam a necessidade de se adotarem políticas abrangentes, de saúde pública, para controle eficaz da transmissão inter-humanos da infecção pelo T. cruzi, e obter-se nível otimizado de atendimento aos indivíduos já infectados, com foco em oportunização diagnóstica e terapêutica. Mecanismos patogênicos e fisiopatológicos da CDC foram revisitados após atualização aprofundada e ficou bem consolidada a noção de que necrose e fibrose sejam estimuladas pela persistência parasitária tissular e reação imune adversa, como mecanismos fundamentais, coadjuvados por distúrbios autonômicos e microvasculares. Alguns deles recentemente constituíram alvos potenciais de terapêuticas. A história natural das fases aguda e crônica foi revista, com realce para a transmissão oral, a forma indeterminada e as síndromes crônicas. Metanálises recentes de estudos observacionais estimaram o risco de evolução a partir das formas aguda e indeterminada e de mortalidade após instalação da cardiomiopatia crônica. Condutas terapêuticas aplicáveis aos indivíduos com a FIDC foram abordadas especificamente. Todos os métodos para detectar alterações estruturais e/ou funcionais com variadas técnicas de imageamento cardíaco também foram revisados, com recomendações de uso nos vários cenários clínicos. Estratificação de risco de mortalidade fundamentada no escore de Rassi, com estudos recentes de sua aplicação, foi complementada por métodos que detectam fibrose miocárdica. A metodologia atual para diagnóstico etiológico e as consequentes implicações do tratamento tripanossomicida mereceram enfoque abrangente e aprofundado. Também o tratamento de pacientes em risco ou com insuficiência cardíaca, arritmias e eventos tromboembólicos, baseado em recursos farmacológicos e complementares, recebeu especial atenção. Capítulos suplementares subsidiaram as condutas aplicáveis a diversos contextos especiais, entre eles o da co-infecção por T. cruzi/HIV, risco durante cirurgias, em grávidas, na reativação da infecção após transplante cardíacos, e outros.    Por fim, dois capítulos de grande significado social, abordando a estruturação de serviços especializados para atendimento aos indivíduos com a CDC, e revisando os conceitos de cardiopatia grave e suas implicações médico-trabalhistas completaram esta diretriz.&nbsp

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. METHODS: We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30-79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. FINDINGS: The number of people aged 30-79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306-359) million women and 317 (292-344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584-668) million women and 652 (604-698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55-62) of women and 49% (46-52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43-51) of women and 38% (35-41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20-27) for women and 18% (16-21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. INTERPRETATION: Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings. FUNDING: WHO

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30-79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30-79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306-359) million women and 317 (292-344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584-668) million women and 652 (604-698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55-62) of women and 49% (46-52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43-51) of women and 38% (35-41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20-27) for women and 18% (16-21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings. Copyright (C) 2021 World Health Organization; licensee Elsevier

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings

Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants

Background Hypertension can be detected at the primary health-care level and low-cost treatments can effectively control hypertension. We aimed to measure the prevalence of hypertension and progress in its detection, treatment, and control from 1990 to 2019 for 200 countries and territories. Methods We used data from 1990 to 2019 on people aged 30–79 years from population-representative studies with measurement of blood pressure and data on blood pressure treatment. We defined hypertension as having systolic blood pressure 140 mm Hg or greater, diastolic blood pressure 90 mm Hg or greater, or taking medication for hypertension. We applied a Bayesian hierarchical model to estimate the prevalence of hypertension and the proportion of people with hypertension who had a previous diagnosis (detection), who were taking medication for hypertension (treatment), and whose hypertension was controlled to below 140/90 mm Hg (control). The model allowed for trends over time to be non-linear and to vary by age. Findings The number of people aged 30–79 years with hypertension doubled from 1990 to 2019, from 331 (95% credible interval 306–359) million women and 317 (292–344) million men in 1990 to 626 (584–668) million women and 652 (604–698) million men in 2019, despite stable global age-standardised prevalence. In 2019, age-standardised hypertension prevalence was lowest in Canada and Peru for both men and women; in Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and some countries in western Europe including Switzerland, Spain, and the UK for women; and in several low-income and middle-income countries such as Eritrea, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Solomon Islands for men. Hypertension prevalence surpassed 50% for women in two countries and men in nine countries, in central and eastern Europe, central Asia, Oceania, and Latin America. Globally, 59% (55–62) of women and 49% (46–52) of men with hypertension reported a previous diagnosis of hypertension in 2019, and 47% (43–51) of women and 38% (35–41) of men were treated. Control rates among people with hypertension in 2019 were 23% (20–27) for women and 18% (16–21) for men. In 2019, treatment and control rates were highest in South Korea, Canada, and Iceland (treatment >70%; control >50%), followed by the USA, Costa Rica, Germany, Portugal, and Taiwan. Treatment rates were less than 25% for women and less than 20% for men in Nepal, Indonesia, and some countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Control rates were below 10% for women and men in these countries and for men in some countries in north Africa, central and south Asia, and eastern Europe. Treatment and control rates have improved in most countries since 1990, but we found little change in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania. Improvements were largest in high-income countries, central Europe, and some upper-middle-income and recently high-income countries including Costa Rica, Taiwan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Brazil, Chile, Turkey, and Iran. Interpretation Improvements in the detection, treatment, and control of hypertension have varied substantially across countries, with some middle-income countries now outperforming most high-income nations. The dual approach of reducing hypertension prevalence through primary prevention and enhancing its treatment and control is achievable not only in high-income countries but also in low-income and middle-income settings

Field and classroom initiatives for portable sequence-based monitoring of dengue virus in Brazil

This work was supported by Decit, SCTIE, Brazilian Ministry of Health, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico - CNPq (440685/ 2016-8, 440856/2016-7 and 421598/2018-2), Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES - (88887.130716/2016-00), European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under ZIKAlliance Grant Agreement (734548), STARBIOS (709517), Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro – FAPERJ (E-26/2002.930/2016), International Development Research Centre (IDRC) Canada (108411-001), European Union’s Horizon 2020 under grant agreements ZIKACTION (734857) and ZIKAPLAN (734548).Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil / Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil / Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil Latin American Genomic Surveillance Arboviral Network.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Leônidas e Maria Deane. Laboratório de Ecologia de Doenças Transmissíveis na Amazônia. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado da Bahia. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Milton Bezerra Sobral. Recife, PE, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso. Cuiabá, MT, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Distrito Federal. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde / Organização Mundial da Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde Coordenação Geral das Arboviroses. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Universidade Federal da Bahia. Vitória da Conquista, BA, Brazil.Laboratorio Central de Salud Pública. Asunción, Paraguay.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Bio-Manguinhos. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Coordenação Geral dos Laboratórios de Saúde Pública. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilFundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, BrazilMinistério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Salud. San Lorenzo, Paraguay.Secretaria de Estado de Saúde de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Campo Grande, MS, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Giovanni Cysneiros. Goiânia, GO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Dr. Milton Bezerra Sobral. Recife, PE, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Distrito Federal. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, Ba, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Hospital das Forças Armadas. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical. Lisboa, Portugal.University of Sydney. School of Life and Environmental Sciences and School of Medical Sciences. Marie Bashir Institute for Infectious Diseases and Biosecurity. Sydney, NSW, Australia.University of KwaZulu-Natal. College of Health Sciences. KwaZulu-Natal Research Innovation and Sequencing Platform. Durban, South Africa.University of Oxford. Peter Medawar Building. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Universidade de Brasília. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Salvador. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Ezequiel Dias. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Flavivírus. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Oswaldo Cruz. Laboratório de Hantaviroses e Rickettsioses. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Leônidas e Maria Deane. Laboratório de Ecologia de Doenças Transmissíveis na Amazônia. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Faculdade de Medicina Veterinária. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Fundação Oswaldo Cruz. Instituto Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Paraná. Curitiba, PR, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Rondônia. Porto Velho, RO, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Amazonas. Manaus, AM, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Natal, RN, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública do Estado de Mato Grosso. Cuiabá, MT, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Professor Gonçalo Moniz. Salvador, BA, Brazil.Laboratório Central de Saúde Pública Noel Nutels. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Instituto Adolfo Lutz. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.Universidade de São Paulo. Instituto de Medicina Tropical. São Paulo, SP, Brazil.University of Oxford. Peter Medawar Building. Department of Zoology. Oxford, UK.Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Virales Humanas Dr. Julio Maiztegui. Pergamino, Argentina.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Gorgas Memorial Institute for Health Studies. Panama, Panama.Instituto de Salud Pública de Chile. Santiago, Chile.Instituto de Diagnóstico y Referencia Epidemiológicos Dr. Manuel Martínez Báez. Ciudad de México, México.Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Infecciosas Dr Carlos G Malbrán. Buenos Aires, Argentina.Ministerio de Salud Pública de Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay.Instituto Costarricense de Investigación y Enseñanza em Nutrición y Salud. Tres Ríos, Costa Rica.Instituto Nacional de Investigacion en Salud Publica Dr Leopoldo Izquieta Pérez. Guayaquil, Ecuador.Instituto Nacional de Investigacion en Salud Publica Dr Leopoldo Izquieta Pérez. Guayaquil, Ecuador.Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Recife, PE, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde do Estado de Minas Gerais. Belo Horizonte. MG, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde. Brasília, DF, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Ouro Preto. Ouro Preto, MG, Brazil.Fundação Hemocentro de Ribeirão Preto. Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.Secretaria de Saúde de Feira de Santana. Feira de Santana, BA, Brazil.Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Biológicas. Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.Brazil experienced a large dengue virus (DENV) epidemic in 2019, highlighting a continuous struggle with effective control and public health preparedness. Using Oxford Nanopore sequencing, we led field and classroom initiatives for the monitoring of DENV in Brazil, generating 227 novel genome sequences of DENV1-2 from 85 municipalities (2015–2019). This equated to an over 50% increase in the number of DENV genomes from Brazil available in public databases. Using both phylogenetic and epidemiological models we retrospectively reconstructed the recent transmission history of DENV1-2. Phylogenetic analysis revealed complex patterns of transmission, with both lineage co-circulation and replacement. We identified two lineages within the DENV2 BR-4 clade, for which we estimated the effective reproduction number and pattern of seasonality. Overall, the surveillance outputs and training initiative described here serve as a proof-of-concept for the utility of real-time portable sequencing for research and local capacity building in the genomic surveillance of emerging viruses

Diretriz da SBC sobre Diagnóstico e Tratamento de Pacientes com Cardiomiopatia da Doença de Chagas – 2023

Note: These guidelines are for information purposes and should not replace the clinical judgment of a physician, who must ultimately determine the appropriate treatment for each patient