Eu quero saber: 60 perguntas e respostas sobre a COVID-19

COVID-19 is caused by the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the first cases were reported in December 2019 in Wuhan Province in China. Subsequently, the virus quickly reached Europe, the United States and landed in Brazil. Even after four months of the first confirmed case in the city of São Paulo (March 4, 2020), many doubts remain or arise as researchers learn more about COVID-19 and the rate at which the disease progresses. Interestingly, the concern about seeking to know more about the new disease and about the measures to combat it began to appear in the speeches and questions of patients and visitors of our Laboratory of the Research Group on Cardiorespiratory Evaluation and Rehabilitation (GECARE) of the Department of Physiotherapy at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). This allowed us to exercise a fundamental approach in the context of health care, to inform from listening to patients' doubts. Break the logic of imposing information. In this sense, GECARE's scientific initiation, master's and doctoral students began to catalog doubts about COVID-19. This happened based on groups of messages maintained with patients during the period of social distance for guidance and monitoring of health conditions. Then, we set up a multiprofessional health team to answer the questions and compiled this 3rd E-book on COVID-19 from our group. We believe that our patients' doubts and the quick question and answer format will allow people in general to know more about the context of COVID-19.A COVID-19 é provocada pelo novo coronavírus SARS-CoV-2 e os primeiros casos foram notificados em dezembro de 2019 na Província de Wuhan na China. Na sequência, rapidamente o vírus alcançou a Europa, Estados Unidos e desembarcou no Brasil. Mesmo depois de quatro meses do primeiro caso confirmado na cidade de São Paulo (04 de março de 2020), muitas dúvidas permanecem ou surgem à medida que os pesquisadores conhecem mais sobre a COVID-19 e na proporção que a doença avança. Interessantemente, a inquietação pela busca em saber mais sobre a nova doença e sobre as medidas para combatê-la começou a surgir nas falas e perguntas dos pacientes e frequentadores do nosso Laboratório do Grupo de Pesquisa em Avaliação e Reabilitação Cardiorrespiratória (GECARE) do Departamento de Fisioterapia da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Isso nos permitiu exercitar uma abordagem fundamental no contexto do cuidado em saúde, informar a partir da escuta das dúvidas dos pacientes. Quebrar a lógica da imposição da informação. Neste sentido, os alunos de iniciação científica, mestrado e doutorado do GECARE começaram a catalogar as dúvidas sobre a COVID-19. Isso aconteceu a partir dos grupos de mensagens mantidos com os pacientes durante o período de distanciamento social para orientações e acompanhamento das condições de saúde. Na sequência, montamos um time multiprofissional de saúde para responder as questões e compilamos neste 3º E-book sobre COVID-19 do nosso grupo. Acreditamos que as dúvidas dos nossos pacientes e o formato rápido de perguntas e respostas permitirão que as pessoas em geral possam conhecer mais sobre o contexto da COVID-19

A evolução clínica do paciente portador de abscesso pulmonar: Clinical evolution of patients with lung abscess

Atualmente, com a era da antibioticoterapia e demais meios terapêuticos, o abscesso pulmonar decaiu em termos de morbimortalidade, mas ainda permanece como um desafio em termos diagnósticos e manejo clínico. O abscesso pulmonar corresponde a uma cavidade com pus no pulmão, envolvido por tecido inflamado e geralmente oriunda de uma infecção. O artigo objetivou descrever de modo narrativo a evolução clínica do portador de abscesso pulmonar, ressaltando os principais dados para a compreensão deste fenômeno. Um abscesso pulmonar é causado principalmente por bactérias existentes na boca ou garganta, a qual são aspiradas até os pulmões. A sintomatologia é inespecífica, abordando fadiga, inapetência, sudorese noturna, febre, perda ponderal e tosse com expectoração. O quadro clínico geralmente necessita do complemento de exames de imagem, principalmente a radiografia torácica para diagnóstic

Generalidades sobre o quadro clínico da Rinossinusite: uma revisão narrativa de literatura: Generalities about the clinical picture of Rhinosinusitis: a narrative literature reviewv

A rinossinusite é um processo inflamatório da mucosa dos seios paranasais e da cavidade nasal. O sistema nasossinusal é responsável pelo balanço adequado entre a fabricação e o clearence de muco nas cavidades paranasais. A fisiologia deste é de vital importância para a proteção das vias aéreas superiores. No advém, determinados fatores podem acarretar um desbalanço nesse complexo, consequentemente um processo inflamatório. Qualquer fator que altere a drenagem, seja por obstrução, maior produção ou espessamento do muco, como processo infecciosos ou alérgicos, haverá uma impactação de secreções e a facilitação de colonização bacteriana, dando início ao processo infeccioso. A identificação da inflamação do nariz e seios paranasais é basicamente clínica. A suspeição desta ocorre através da manifestação de dois ou mais sintomatologias. As quais são o bloqueio ou obstrução nasal, a descarga nasal, pressão ou dor facial e redução ou perda do olfato. De modo geral, é essencial à prevenção básica das rinossinusites agudas é barrar a infecção viral. O suporte inclui medidas gerais de higiene, alimentação e hidratação, imunização para o combate de vírus respiratórios , administração de fármacos para turbinar o sistema imune se necessário

Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil: setting the baseline knowledge on the animal diversity in Brazil

The limited temporal completeness and taxonomic accuracy of species lists, made available in a traditional manner in scientific publications, has always represented a problem. These lists are invariably limited to a few taxonomic groups and do not represent up-to-date knowledge of all species and classifications. In this context, the Brazilian megadiverse fauna is no exception, and the Catálogo Taxonômico da Fauna do Brasil (CTFB) (http://fauna.jbrj.gov.br/), made public in 2015, represents a database on biodiversity anchored on a list of valid and expertly recognized scientific names of animals in Brazil. The CTFB is updated in near real time by a team of more than 800 specialists. By January 1, 2024, the CTFB compiled 133,691 nominal species, with 125,138 that were considered valid. Most of the valid species were arthropods (82.3%, with more than 102,000 species) and chordates (7.69%, with over 11,000 species). These taxa were followed by a cluster composed of Mollusca (3,567 species), Platyhelminthes (2,292 species), Annelida (1,833 species), and Nematoda (1,447 species). All remaining groups had less than 1,000 species reported in Brazil, with Cnidaria (831 species), Porifera (628 species), Rotifera (606 species), and Bryozoa (520 species) representing those with more than 500 species. Analysis of the CTFB database can facilitate and direct efforts towards the discovery of new species in Brazil, but it is also fundamental in providing the best available list of valid nominal species to users, including those in science, health, conservation efforts, and any initiative involving animals. The importance of the CTFB is evidenced by the elevated number of citations in the scientific literature in diverse areas of biology, law, anthropology, education, forensic science, and veterinary science, among others

NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES: a data set on carnivore distribution in the Neotropics

Mammalian carnivores are considered a key group in maintaining ecological health and can indicate potential ecological integrity in landscapes where they occur. Carnivores also hold high conservation value and their habitat requirements can guide management and conservation plans. The order Carnivora has 84 species from 8 families in the Neotropical region: Canidae; Felidae; Mephitidae; Mustelidae; Otariidae; Phocidae; Procyonidae; and Ursidae. Herein, we include published and unpublished data on native terrestrial Neotropical carnivores (Canidae; Felidae; Mephitidae; Mustelidae; Procyonidae; and Ursidae). NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES is a publicly available data set that includes 99,605 data entries from 35,511 unique georeferenced coordinates. Detection/non-detection and quantitative data were obtained from 1818 to 2018 by researchers, governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private consultants. Data were collected using several methods including camera trapping, museum collections, roadkill, line transect, and opportunistic records. Literature (peer-reviewed and grey literature) from Portuguese, Spanish and English were incorporated in this compilation. Most of the data set consists of detection data entries (n = 79,343; 79.7%) but also includes non-detection data (n = 20,262; 20.3%). Of those, 43.3% also include count data (n = 43,151). The information available in NEOTROPICAL CARNIVORES will contribute to macroecological, ecological, and conservation questions in multiple spatio-temporal perspectives. As carnivores play key roles in trophic interactions, a better understanding of their distribution and habitat requirements are essential to establish conservation management plans and safeguard the future ecological health of Neotropical ecosystems. Our data paper, combined with other large-scale data sets, has great potential to clarify species distribution and related ecological processes within the Neotropics. There are no copyright restrictions and no restriction for using data from this data paper, as long as the data paper is cited as the source of the information used. We also request that users inform us of how they intend to use the data

NEOTROPICAL XENARTHRANS: a data set of occurrence of xenarthran species in the Neotropics

Xenarthrans—anteaters, sloths, and armadillos—have essential functions for ecosystem maintenance, such as insect control and nutrient cycling, playing key roles as ecosystem engineers. Because of habitat loss and fragmentation, hunting pressure, and conflicts with domestic dogs, these species have been threatened locally, regionally, or even across their full distribution ranges. The Neotropics harbor 21 species of armadillos, 10 anteaters, and 6 sloths. Our data set includes the families Chlamyphoridae (13), Dasypodidae (7), Myrmecophagidae (3), Bradypodidae (4), and Megalonychidae (2). We have no occurrence data on Dasypus pilosus (Dasypodidae). Regarding Cyclopedidae, until recently, only one species was recognized, but new genetic studies have revealed that the group is represented by seven species. In this data paper, we compiled a total of 42,528 records of 31 species, represented by occurrence and quantitative data, totaling 24,847 unique georeferenced records. The geographic range is from the southern United States, Mexico, and Caribbean countries at the northern portion of the Neotropics, to the austral distribution in Argentina, Paraguay, Chile, and Uruguay. Regarding anteaters, Myrmecophaga tridactyla has the most records (n = 5,941), and Cyclopes sp. have the fewest (n = 240). The armadillo species with the most data is Dasypus novemcinctus (n = 11,588), and the fewest data are recorded for Calyptophractus retusus (n = 33). With regard to sloth species, Bradypus variegatus has the most records (n = 962), and Bradypus pygmaeus has the fewest (n = 12). Our main objective with Neotropical Xenarthrans is to make occurrence and quantitative data available to facilitate more ecological research, particularly if we integrate the xenarthran data with other data sets of Neotropical Series that will become available very soon (i.e., Neotropical Carnivores, Neotropical Invasive Mammals, and Neotropical Hunters and Dogs). Therefore, studies on trophic cascades, hunting pressure, habitat loss, fragmentation effects, species invasion, and climate change effects will be possible with the Neotropical Xenarthrans data set. Please cite this data paper when using its data in publications. We also request that researchers and teachers inform us of how they are using these data

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used