Genomic Surveillance of Yellow Fever Virus Epizootic in São Paulo, Brazil, 2016 – 2018

São Paulo, a densely inhabited state in southeast Brazil that contains the fourth most populated city in the world, recently experienced its largest yellow fever virus (YFV) outbreak in decades. YFV does not normally circulate extensively in São Paulo, so most people were unvaccinated when the outbreak began. Surveillance in non-human primates (NHPs) is important for determining the magnitude and geographic extent of an epizootic, thereby helping to evaluate the risk of YFV spillover to humans. Data from infected NHPs can give more accurate insights into YFV spread than when using data from human cases alone. To contextualise human cases, identify epizootic foci and uncover the rate and direction of YFV spread in São Paulo, we generated and analysed virus genomic data and epizootic case data from NHPs in São Paulo. We report the occurrence of three spatiotemporally distinct phases of the outbreak in São Paulo prior to February 2018. We generated 51 new virus genomes from YFV positive cases identified in 23 different municipalities in São Paulo, mostly sampled from NHPs between October 2016 and January 2018. Although we observe substantial heterogeneity in lineage dispersal velocities between phylogenetic branches, continuous phylogeographic analyses of generated YFV genomes suggest that YFV lineages spread in São Paulo at a mean rate of approximately 1km per day during all phases of the outbreak. Viral lineages from the first epizootic phase in northern São Paulo subsequently dispersed towards the south of the state to cause the second and third epizootic phases there. This alters our understanding of how YFV was introduced into the densely populated south of São Paulo state. Our results shed light on the sylvatic transmission of YFV in highly fragmented forested regions in São Paulo state and highlight the importance of continued surveillance of zoonotic pathogens in sentinel species

Consensus and Diversity in the Management of Varicocele for Male Infertility: Results of a Global Practice Survey and Comparison with Guidelines and Recommendations

Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility

A randomized trial of planned cesarean or vaginal delivery for twin pregnancy

Background: Twin birth is associated with a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes than singleton birth. It is unclear whether planned cesarean section results in a lower risk of adverse outcomes than planned vaginal delivery in twin pregnancy.\ud \ud Methods: We randomly assigned women between 32 weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation with twin pregnancy and with the first twin in the cephalic presentation to planned cesarean section or planned vaginal delivery with cesarean only if indicated. Elective delivery was planned between 37 weeks 5 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation. The primary outcome was a composite of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, with the fetus or infant as the unit of analysis for the statistical comparison.\ud \ud Results: A total of 1398 women (2795 fetuses) were randomly assigned to planned cesarean delivery and 1406 women (2812 fetuses) to planned vaginal delivery. The rate of cesarean delivery was 90.7% in the planned-cesarean-delivery group and 43.8% in the planned-vaginal-delivery group. Women in the planned-cesarean-delivery group delivered earlier than did those in the planned-vaginal-delivery group (mean number of days from randomization to delivery, 12.4 vs. 13.3; P = 0.04). There was no significant difference in the composite primary outcome between the planned-cesarean-delivery group and the planned-vaginal-delivery group (2.2% and 1.9%, respectively; odds ratio with planned cesarean delivery, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.77 to 1.74; P = 0.49).\ud \ud Conclusion: In twin pregnancy between 32 weeks 0 days and 38 weeks 6 days of gestation, with the first twin in the cephalic presentation, planned cesarean delivery did not significantly decrease or increase the risk of fetal or neonatal death or serious neonatal morbidity, as compared with planned vaginal delivery

Consensus and diversity in the management of varicocele for male infertility: Results of a global practice survey and comparison with guidelines and recommendations

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions: This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men