Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Health Risks of Hypovitaminosis D: A Review of New Molecular Insights

Hypovitaminosis D has become a pandemic, being observed in all ethnicities and age groups worldwide. Environmental factors, such as increased air pollution and reduced ultraviolet B (UVB) irradiation, as well as lifestyle factors, i.e., decreased outdoor activities and/or poor intake of vitamin D-rich food, are likely involved in the etiology of a dramatic reduction of vitamin D circulating levels. The insufficiency/deficiency of vitamin D has long been known for its association with osteoporosis and rickets. However, in the last few decades it has become a serious public health concern since it has been shown to be independently associated with various chronic pathological conditions such as cancer, coronary heart disease, neurological diseases, type II diabetes, autoimmune diseases, depression, with various inflammatory disorders, and with increased risk for all-cause mortality in the general population. Prevention strategies for these disorders have recently involved supplementation with either vitamin D2 or vitamin D3 or their analogs at required daily doses and tolerable upper-limit levels. This review will focus on the emerging evidence about non-classical biological functions of vitamin D in various disorders

Transglutaminase 2 Up-Regulation Is Associated with Inflammatory Response in PBMC from Healthy Subjects with Hypovitaminosis D

Recent evidence indicated that transglutaminase 2 (TG2) is involved in the adaptive immune response. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) have largely been used to characterize molecular mechanisms occurring in the activation of immune response. Given that the maintenance of immune system functions requires an optimal vitamin D status, we aimed to assess the involvement of TG2/NF-κB signaling in cytokine production in PBMC isolated from adult subjects with different vitamin D status. We observed TG2 up-regulation and a significant positive correlation between TG2 expression and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α mRNA levels in PBMC of recruited patients. The mRNA levels of TG2 and TNF-α were higher in PBMC of subjects having hypovitaminosis D, namely plasma 25(OH)vitamin D3 levels lower than 50 nmol/L, than in those with normal vitamin D levels. Moreover, NF-κB up-regulation and nuclear translocation were detected, concomitantly with TG2 as well as TNF-α increased expression, in PBMC of vitamin D-deficient subjects. The present findings confirm that an increase in TG2 expression exacerbates the activation of NF-κB and the production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, and suggest a link between vitamin D deficiency, TG2 up-regulation, and inflammation

How to Deal with Second Line Dilemma in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Monoclonal antibodies targeting epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) have demonstrated efficacy with chemotherapy (CT) as second line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The right sequence of the treatments in all RAS (KRAS/NRAS) wild type (wt) patients has not precisely defined. We evaluated the impact of aforementioned targeted therapies in second line setting, analyzing efficacy and safety data from phase III clinical trials. We performed both direct and indirect comparisons between anti-EGFR and anti-VEGF. Outcomes included disease control rate (DCR), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and G3-G5 toxicities. Our results showed significantly improved OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72–0.94) and DCR (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04–1.54) favouring anti-VEGF combinations in overall population; no statistically significant differences in all RAS wt patients was observed (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70–1.09). Anti-EGFR combinations significantly increased ORR in all patients (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31–0.96), showing a trend also in all RAS wt patients (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.48–0.83). No significant difference in PFS and DCR all RAS was registered. Our results provided for the first time a strong rationale to manage both targeted agents in second line setting

Diagnostic Yield of 2 Strategies for Adult Celiac Disease Identification in Primary Care

Goals: To compare the diagnostic yield and cost-consequences of 2 strategies, screening regardless of symptoms versus case finding (CF), using a point-of-care test (POCT), for the detection of celiac disease (CD) in primary care, to bridge the diagnostic gap of CD in adults. Materials and Methods: All subjects under 75 years of age who consecutively went to their general practitioners' offices were offered POCT for anti-transglutaminase immunoglobulin A antibodies. The POCT was performed on all subjects who agreed, and then a systematic search for symptoms or conditions associated with higher risk for CD was performed, immediately after the test but before knowing the test results. The 2 resulting groups were: (a) POCT positive and (b) symptomatic subject at CF. Subjects were defined as symptomatic at CF in the presence of 1 or more symptoms. All POCT-positive or symptomatic subjects at CF were referred to the CD Centers for confirmation of CD. Data on resource consumption were gathered from patients' charts. Cost of examinations, and diagnostic and laboratory tests were estimated with regional outpatient tariffs (Sicily), and a price of €2.5 was used for each POCT. Results: Of a total of 2197 subjects who agreed to participate in the study, 36 (1.6%) and 671 (30.5%) were POCT positive and symptomatic at CF, respectively. The yield from the screening and CF was 5 new celiac patients. The total cost and mean cost for each new CD case were €7497.35 and €1499.47 for the POCT screening strategy, and €9855.14 and €1971.03 for the CF strategy, respectively. Assuming consecutive use of both strategies, performing POCT only in symptomatic subjects at CF, the calculated yield would be 4 new diagnoses with a total cost of €2345.84 and a mean cost of €586.46 for each newly diagnosed patient. Only 1 patient was celiac despite a negative POCT. Conclusions: Testing symptomatic subjects at CF only by POCT seems the most cost-effective strategy to bridge the diagnostic gap of adult CD in primary care. © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved