21 research outputs found

    O 6º objetivo da agenda dos ODS da ONU: Debates sobre água segura y saneamento básico universalizado.

    Get PDF
    El proyecto de Trabajo Comunal Universitario (TCU) No. 540: Procesos pedagógicos y didácticos para la enseñanza de los derechos humanos y la convivencia pacífica, coordinado por la Dra. Marcela Moreno Buján, con la cooperación académica del proyecto de extensión docente Grupo de Pesquisa Derecho y Sustentabilidad (GPDS), coordinado por el Dr. Carlos Peralta Montero, han unido esfuerzos para organizar y publicar la Colección “Comunidad Académica y COVID 19”. Esta colección, conformada por tres volúmenes, forma parte de la sistematización de experiencias relacionadas con las temáticas abordadas por el TCU No. 540 y el GPDS. Este volumen está compuesto por doce capítulos, desarrollados por veintiocho académicos costarricenses, brasileños y colombianos donde se reflexiona de manera interdisciplinaria sobre el sexto objetivo de la agenda de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) de la ONU en el contexto de pandemia actual.UCR::Vicerrectoría de Acción Social::Trabajo Comunal Universitario (TCU

    Diretrizes Brasileiras de Medidas da Pressão Arterial Dentro e Fora do Consultório – 2023

    Get PDF
    Hypertension is one of the primary modifiable risk factors for morbidity and mortality worldwide, being a major risk factor for coronary artery disease, stroke, and kidney failure. Furthermore, it is highly prevalent, affecting more than one-third of the global population. Blood pressure measurement is a MANDATORY procedure in any medical care setting and is carried out by various healthcare professionals. However, it is still commonly performed without the necessary technical care. Since the diagnosis relies on blood pressure measurement, it is clear how important it is to handle the techniques, methods, and equipment used in its execution with care. It should be emphasized that once the diagnosis is made, all short-term, medium-term, and long-term investigations and treatments are based on the results of blood pressure measurement. Therefore, improper techniques and/or equipment can lead to incorrect diagnoses, either underestimating or overestimating values, resulting in inappropriate actions and significant health and economic losses for individuals and nations. Once the correct diagnosis is made, as knowledge of the importance of proper treatment advances, with the adoption of more detailed normal values and careful treatment objectives towards achieving stricter blood pressure goals, the importance of precision in blood pressure measurement is also reinforced. Blood pressure measurement (described below) is usually performed using the traditional method, the so-called casual or office measurement. Over time, alternatives have been added to it, through the use of semi-automatic or automatic devices by the patients themselves, in waiting rooms or outside the office, in their own homes, or in public spaces. A step further was taken with the use of semi-automatic devices equipped with memory that allow sequential measurements outside the office (ABPM; or HBPM) and other automatic devices that allow programmed measurements over longer periods (HBPM). Some aspects of blood pressure measurement can interfere with obtaining reliable results and, consequently, cause harm in decision-making. These include the importance of using average values, the variation in blood pressure during the day, and short-term variability. These aspects have encouraged the performance of a greater number of measurements in various situations, and different guidelines have advocated the use of equipment that promotes these actions. Devices that perform HBPM or ABPM, which, in addition to allowing greater precision, when used together, detect white coat hypertension (WCH), masked hypertension (MH), sleep blood pressure alterations, and resistant hypertension (RHT) (defined in Chapter 2 of this guideline), are gaining more and more importance. Taking these details into account, we must emphasize that information related to diagnosis, classification, and goal setting is still based on office blood pressure measurement, and for this reason, all attention must be given to the proper execution of this procedure.La hipertensión arterial (HTA) es uno de los principales factores de riesgo modificables para la morbilidad y mortalidad en todo el mundo, siendo uno de los mayores factores de riesgo para la enfermedad de las arterias coronarias, el accidente cerebrovascular (ACV) y la insuficiencia renal. Además, es altamente prevalente y afecta a más de un tercio de la población mundial. La medición de la presión arterial (PA) es un procedimiento OBLIGATORIO en cualquier atención médica o realizado por diferentes profesionales de la salud. Sin embargo, todavía se realiza comúnmente sin los cuidados técnicos necesarios. Dado que el diagnóstico se basa en la medición de la PA, es claro el cuidado que debe haber con las técnicas, los métodos y los equipos utilizados en su realización. Debemos enfatizar que una vez realizado el diagnóstico, todas las investigaciones y tratamientos a corto, mediano y largo plazo se basan en los resultados de la medición de la PA. Por lo tanto, las técnicas y/o equipos inadecuados pueden llevar a diagnósticos incorrectos, subestimando o sobreestimando valores y resultando en conductas inadecuadas y pérdidas significativas para la salud y la economía de las personas y las naciones. Una vez realizado el diagnóstico correcto, a medida que avanza el conocimiento sobre la importancia del tratamiento adecuado, con la adopción de valores de normalidad más detallados y objetivos de tratamiento más cuidadosos hacia metas de PA más estrictas, también se refuerza la importancia de la precisión en la medición de la PA. La medición de la PA (descrita a continuación) generalmente se realiza mediante el método tradicional, la llamada medición casual o de consultorio. Con el tiempo, se han agregado alternativas a través del uso de dispositivos semiautomáticos o automáticos por parte del propio paciente, en salas de espera o fuera del consultorio, en su propia residencia o en espacios públicos. Se dio un paso más con el uso de dispositivos semiautomáticos equipados con memoria que permiten mediciones secuenciales fuera del consultorio (AMPA; o MRPA) y otros automáticos que permiten mediciones programadas durante períodos más largos (MAPA). Algunos aspectos en la medición de la PA pueden interferir en la obtención de resultados confiables y, en consecuencia, causar daños en las decisiones a tomar. Estos incluyen la importancia de usar valores promedio, la variación de la PA durante el día y la variabilidad a corto plazo. Estos aspectos han alentado la realización de un mayor número de mediciones en diversas situaciones, y diferentes pautas han abogado por el uso de equipos que promuevan estas acciones. Los dispositivos que realizan MRPA o MAPA, que además de permitir una mayor precisión, cuando se usan juntos, detectan la hipertensión de bata blanca (HBB), la hipertensión enmascarada (HM), las alteraciones de la PA durante el sueño y la hipertensión resistente (HR) (definida en el Capítulo 2 de esta guía), están ganando cada vez más importancia. Teniendo en cuenta estos detalles, debemos enfatizar que la información relacionada con el diagnóstico, la clasificación y el establecimiento de objetivos todavía se basa en la medición de la presión arterial en el consultorio, y por esta razón, se debe prestar toda la atención a la ejecución adecuada de este procedimiento.A hipertensão arterial (HA) é um dos principais fatores de risco modificáveis para morbidade e mortalidade em todo o mundo, sendo um dos maiores fatores de risco para doença arterial coronária, acidente vascular cerebral (AVC) e insuficiência renal. Além disso, é altamente prevalente e atinge mais de um terço da população mundial. A medida da PA é procedimento OBRIGATÓRIO em qualquer atendimento médico ou realizado por diferentes profissionais de saúde. Contudo, ainda é comumente realizada sem os cuidados técnicos necessários. Como o diagnóstico se baseia na medida da PA, fica claro o cuidado que deve haver com as técnicas, os métodos e os equipamentos utilizados na sua realização. Deve-se reforçar que, feito o diagnóstico, toda a investigação e os tratamentos de curto, médio e longo prazos são feitos com base nos resultados da medida da PA. Assim, técnicas e/ou equipamentos inadequados podem levar a diagnósticos incorretos, tanto subestimando quanto superestimando valores e levando a condutas inadequadas e grandes prejuízos à saúde e à economia das pessoas e das nações. Uma vez feito o diagnóstico correto, na medida em que avança o conhecimento da importância do tratamento adequado, com a adoção de valores de normalidade mais detalhados e com objetivos de tratamento mais cuidadosos no sentido do alcance de metas de PA mais rigorosas, fica também reforçada a importância da precisão na medida da PA. A medida da PA (descrita a seguir) é habitualmente feita pelo método tradicional, a assim chamada medida casual ou de consultório. Ao longo do tempo, foram agregadas alternativas a ela, mediante o uso de equipamentos semiautomáticos ou automáticos pelo próprio paciente, nas salas de espera ou fora do consultório, em sua própria residência ou em espaços públicos. Um passo adiante foi dado com o uso de equipamentos semiautomáticos providos de memória que permitem medidas sequenciais fora do consultório (AMPA; ou MRPA) e outros automáticos que permitem medidas programadas por períodos mais prolongados (MAPA). Alguns aspectos na medida da PA podem interferir na obtenção de resultados fidedignos e, consequentemente, causar prejuízo nas condutas a serem tomadas. Entre eles, estão: a importância de serem utilizados valores médios, a variação da PA durante o dia e a variabilidade a curto prazo. Esses aspectos têm estimulado a realização de maior número de medidas em diversas situações, e as diferentes diretrizes têm preconizado o uso de equipamentos que favoreçam essas ações. Ganham cada vez mais espaço os equipamentos que realizam MRPA ou MAPA, que, além de permitirem maior precisão, se empregados em conjunto, detectam a HA do avental branco (HAB), HA mascarada (HM), alterações da PA no sono e HA resistente (HAR) (definidos no Capítulo 2 desta diretriz). Resguardados esses detalhes, devemos ressaltar que as informações relacionadas a diagnóstico, classificação e estabelecimento de metas ainda são baseadas na medida da PA de consultório e, por esse motivo, toda a atenção deve ser dada à realização desse procedimento

    Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

    Get PDF
    Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

    ATLANTIC EPIPHYTES: a data set of vascular and non-vascular epiphyte plants and lichens from the Atlantic Forest

    Get PDF
    Epiphytes are hyper-diverse and one of the frequently undervalued life forms in plant surveys and biodiversity inventories. Epiphytes of the Atlantic Forest, one of the most endangered ecosystems in the world, have high endemism and radiated recently in the Pliocene. We aimed to (1) compile an extensive Atlantic Forest data set on vascular, non-vascular plants (including hemiepiphytes), and lichen epiphyte species occurrence and abundance; (2) describe the epiphyte distribution in the Atlantic Forest, in order to indicate future sampling efforts. Our work presents the first epiphyte data set with information on abundance and occurrence of epiphyte phorophyte species. All data compiled here come from three main sources provided by the authors: published sources (comprising peer-reviewed articles, books, and theses), unpublished data, and herbarium data. We compiled a data set composed of 2,095 species, from 89,270 holo/hemiepiphyte records, in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay, recorded from 1824 to early 2018. Most of the records were from qualitative data (occurrence only, 88%), well distributed throughout the Atlantic Forest. For quantitative records, the most common sampling method was individual trees (71%), followed by plot sampling (19%), and transect sampling (10%). Angiosperms (81%) were the most frequently registered group, and Bromeliaceae and Orchidaceae were the families with the greatest number of records (27,272 and 21,945, respectively). Ferns and Lycophytes presented fewer records than Angiosperms, and Polypodiaceae were the most recorded family, and more concentrated in the Southern and Southeastern regions. Data on non-vascular plants and lichens were scarce, with a few disjunct records concentrated in the Northeastern region of the Atlantic Forest. For all non-vascular plant records, Lejeuneaceae, a family of liverworts, was the most recorded family. We hope that our effort to organize scattered epiphyte data help advance the knowledge of epiphyte ecology, as well as our understanding of macroecological and biogeographical patterns in the Atlantic Forest. No copyright restrictions are associated with the data set. Please cite this Ecology Data Paper if the data are used in publication and teaching events. © 2019 The Authors. Ecology © 2019 The Ecological Society of Americ

    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.

    Get PDF
    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

    Get PDF
    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

    AMAZONIA CAMTRAP: A data set of mammal, bird, and reptile species recorded with camera traps in the Amazon forest

    Get PDF
    The Amazon forest has the highest biodiversity on Earth. However, information on Amazonian vertebrate diversity is still deficient and scattered across the published, peer-reviewed, and gray literature and in unpublished raw data. Camera traps are an effective non-invasive method of surveying vertebrates, applicable to different scales of time and space. In this study, we organized and standardized camera trap records from different Amazon regions to compile the most extensive data set of inventories of mammal, bird, and reptile species ever assembled for the area. The complete data set comprises 154,123 records of 317 species (185 birds, 119 mammals, and 13 reptiles) gathered from surveys from the Amazonian portion of eight countries (Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela). The most frequently recorded species per taxa were: mammals: Cuniculus paca (11,907 records); birds: Pauxi tuberosa (3713 records); and reptiles: Tupinambis teguixin (716 records). The information detailed in this data paper opens up opportunities for new ecological studies at different spatial and temporal scales, allowing for a more accurate evaluation of the effects of habitat loss, fragmentation, climate change, and other human-mediated defaunation processes in one of the most important and threatened tropical environments in the world. The data set is not copyright restricted; please cite this data paper when using its data in publications and we also request that researchers and educators inform us of how they are using these data
    corecore