The Relationship Between Work–Family Conflict, Correctional Officer Job Stress, and Job Satisfaction

Balancing demands between work and family domains can strain even the most resourceful employee. When the tipping point of conflict between the two is reached, a negative impact on employee well-being can result. Within correctional environments, the psychosocial well-being of officers is critical given the potentially significant impact of having a “bad day on the job.” This study examines work–family conflict as it relates to job stress and job satisfaction within a diverse sample of correctional officers (N = 441) employed at 13 public, adult correctional facilities in a Southern state. Findings indicate strain and behavior-based work–family conflict and family–work conflict were significantly related to both job stress and job satisfaction. Family and supervisory support were uniquely related to job stress, whereas supervisory support, education, and ethnicity were uniquely related to job satisfaction. Implications for correctional organizations are discussed

Latest Trends in the Heroin Epidemic and the Responsibility of the Pharmacist in Controlling Heroin Abuse

Over the last few years, there has been an exponential increase in morbidity and mortality associated with heroin abuse. The current rise in heroin abuse and overdose is attributed to widespread use and abuse of prescription opioids, which can produce significant euphoric effects in humans. In fact, reports suggest that heroin abusers initially become addicted to prescription opioids but subsequently switch to heroin because it is cheaper and more easily available than prescription opioids. Over the years, the purity of heroin available for illicit use has been on the decline. Smugglers and heroin vendors have started mixing heroin with other clandestinely prepared, potent, analgesic opioids such as fentanyl. Fentanyl is 30 to 50 times more potent than heroin, and the combination can be quite lethal to abusers due to the increased potency and effects on the body\u27s respiratory centers which may result in death. This review will mainly focus on some of the recent trends in heroin abuse and recent changes in laws with respect to dispensing and possession of naloxone, an effective antidote against heroin overdose. Finally, the role of the pharmacist in countering the current heroin epidemic by recognizing at-risk populations and providing the proper resources to addicts to prevent further heroin/opioid-related overdose fatalities will be discussed

Exposing the myths of household water insecurity in the global north: A critical review

Safe and secure water is a cornerstone of modern life in the global North. This article critically examines a set of prevalent myths about household water in high-income countries, with a focus on Canada and the United States. Taking a relational approach, we argue that household water insecurity is a product of institutionalized structures and power, manifests unevenly through space and time, and is reproduced in places we tend to assume are the most water-secure in the world. We first briefly introduce “modern water” and the modern infrastructural ideal, a highly influential set of ideas that have shaped household water provision and infrastructure development over the past two centuries. Against this backdrop, we consolidate evidence to disrupt a set of narratives about water in high-income countries: the notion that water access is universal, clean, affordable, trustworthy, and uniformly or equitably governed. We identify five thematic areas of future research to delineate an agenda for advancing scholarship and action—including challenges of legal and regulatory regimes, the housing-water nexus, water affordability, and water quality and contamination. Data gaps underpin the experiences of household water insecurity. Taken together, our review of water security for households in high-income countries provides a conceptual map to direct critical research in this area for the coming years. This article is categorized under: Human Water \u3e Human Water

Ellagic Acid Derivatives from Rubus ulmifolius Inhibit Staphylococcus aureus Biofilm Formation and Improve Response to Antibiotics

Biofilms contribute to the pathogenesis of many forms of Staphylococcus aureus infection. Treatment of these infections is complicated by intrinsic resistance to conventional antibiotics, thus creating an urgent need for strategies that can be used for the prevention and treatment of biofilm-associated infections.This study demonstrates that a botanical natural product composition (220D-F2) rich in ellagic acid and its derivatives can limit S. aureus biofilm formation to a degree that can be correlated with increased antibiotic susceptibility. The source of this composition is Rubus ulmifolius Schott. (Rosaceae), a plant used in complementary and alternative medicine in southern Italy for the treatment of skin and soft tissue infections. All S. aureus clonal lineages tested exhibited a reduced capacity to form a biofilm at 220D-F2 concentrations ranging from 50-200 µg/mL, which were well below the concentrations required to limit bacterial growth (530-1040 µg/mL). This limitation was therapeutically relevant in that inclusion of 220D-F2 resulted in enhanced susceptibility to the functionally-distinct antibiotics daptomycin, clindamycin and oxacillin. Testing with kidney and liver cell lines also demonstrated a lack of host cell cytotoxicity at concentrations of 220D-F2 required to achieve these effects.These results demonstrate that extract 220D-F2 from the root of Rubus ulmifolius can be used to inhibit S. aureus biofilm formation to a degree that can be correlated with increased antibiotic susceptibility without toxic effects on normal mammalian cells. Hence, 220D-F2 is a strong candidate for development as a botanical drug for use in the prevention and treatment of S. aureus biofilm-associated infections

Efficacy and Safety of Ixekizumab in the Treatment of Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis:Sixteen-Week Results From a Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial in Patients With Prior Inadequate Response to or Intolerance of Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of ixekizumab in patients with active radiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA) and prior inadequate response to or intolerance of 1 or 2 tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi). Methods: In this phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, adult patients with an inadequate response to or intolerance of 1 or 2 TNFi and an established diagnosis of axial SpA (according to the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society [ASAS] criteria for radiographic axial SpA, with radiographic sacroiliitis defined according to the modified New York criteria and ≥1 feature of SpA) were recruited and randomized 1:1:1 to receive placebo or 80-mg subcutaneous ixekizumab every 2 weeks (IXEQ2W) or 4 weeks (IXEQ4W), with an 80-mg or 160-mg starting dose. The primary end point was 40% improvement in disease activity according to the ASAS criteria (ASAS40) at week 16. Secondary outcomes and safety were also assessed. Results: A total of 316 patients were randomized to receive placebo (n = 104), IXEQ2W (n = 98), or IXEQ4W (n = 114). At week 16, significantly higher proportions of IXEQ2W patients (n = 30 [30.6%]; P = 0.003) or IXEQ4W patients (n = 29 [25.4%]; P = 0.017) had achieved an ASAS40 response versus the placebo group (n = 13 [12.5%]), with statistically significant differences reported as early as week 1 with ixekizumab treatment. Statistically significant improvements in disease activity, function, quality of life, and spinal magnetic resonance imaging–evident inflammation were observed after 16 weeks of ixekizumab treatment versus placebo. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) with ixekizumab treatment were more frequent than with placebo. Serious AEs were similar across treatment arms. One death was reported (IXEQ2W group). Conclusion: Ixekizumab treatment for 16 weeks in patients with active radiographic axial SpA and previous inadequate response to or intolerance of 1 or 2 TNFi yields rapid and significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of radiographic axial SpA versus placebo

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Hospital admission and emergency care attendance risk for SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) compared with alpha (B.1.1.7) variants of concern: a cohort study

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant was first detected in England in March, 2021. It has since rapidly become the predominant lineage, owing to high transmissibility. It is suspected that the delta variant is associated with more severe disease than the previously dominant alpha (B.1.1.7) variant. We aimed to characterise the severity of the delta variant compared with the alpha variant by determining the relative risk of hospital attendance outcomes. Methods: This cohort study was done among all patients with COVID-19 in England between March 29 and May 23, 2021, who were identified as being infected with either the alpha or delta SARS-CoV-2 variant through whole-genome sequencing. Individual-level data on these patients were linked to routine health-care datasets on vaccination, emergency care attendance, hospital admission, and mortality (data from Public Health England's Second Generation Surveillance System and COVID-19-associated deaths dataset; the National Immunisation Management System; and NHS Digital Secondary Uses Services and Emergency Care Data Set). The risk for hospital admission and emergency care attendance were compared between patients with sequencing-confirmed delta and alpha variants for the whole cohort and by vaccination status subgroups. Stratified Cox regression was used to adjust for age, sex, ethnicity, deprivation, recent international travel, area of residence, calendar week, and vaccination status. Findings: Individual-level data on 43 338 COVID-19-positive patients (8682 with the delta variant, 34 656 with the alpha variant; median age 31 years [IQR 17–43]) were included in our analysis. 196 (2·3%) patients with the delta variant versus 764 (2·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital within 14 days after the specimen was taken (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2·26 [95% CI 1·32–3·89]). 498 (5·7%) patients with the delta variant versus 1448 (4·2%) patients with the alpha variant were admitted to hospital or attended emergency care within 14 days (adjusted HR 1·45 [1·08–1·95]). Most patients were unvaccinated (32 078 [74·0%] across both groups). The HRs for vaccinated patients with the delta variant versus the alpha variant (adjusted HR for hospital admission 1·94 [95% CI 0·47–8·05] and for hospital admission or emergency care attendance 1·58 [0·69–3·61]) were similar to the HRs for unvaccinated patients (2·32 [1·29–4·16] and 1·43 [1·04–1·97]; p=0·82 for both) but the precision for the vaccinated subgroup was low. Interpretation: This large national study found a higher hospital admission or emergency care attendance risk for patients with COVID-19 infected with the delta variant compared with the alpha variant. Results suggest that outbreaks of the delta variant in unvaccinated populations might lead to a greater burden on health-care services than the alpha variant. Funding: Medical Research Council; UK Research and Innovation; Department of Health and Social Care; and National Institute for Health Research

Changes in symptomatology, reinfection, and transmissibility associated with the SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7: an ecological study

Background The SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 was first identified in December, 2020, in England. We aimed to investigate whether increases in the proportion of infections with this variant are associated with differences in symptoms or disease course, reinfection rates, or transmissibility. Methods We did an ecological study to examine the association between the regional proportion of infections with the SARS-CoV-2 B.1.1.7 variant and reported symptoms, disease course, rates of reinfection, and transmissibility. Data on types and duration of symptoms were obtained from longitudinal reports from users of the COVID Symptom Study app who reported a positive test for COVID-19 between Sept 28 and Dec 27, 2020 (during which the prevalence of B.1.1.7 increased most notably in parts of the UK). From this dataset, we also estimated the frequency of possible reinfection, defined as the presence of two reported positive tests separated by more than 90 days with a period of reporting no symptoms for more than 7 days before the second positive test. The proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections with the B.1.1.7 variant across the UK was estimated with use of genomic data from the COVID-19 Genomics UK Consortium and data from Public Health England on spike-gene target failure (a non-specific indicator of the B.1.1.7 variant) in community cases in England. We used linear regression to examine the association between reported symptoms and proportion of B.1.1.7. We assessed the Spearman correlation between the proportion of B.1.1.7 cases and number of reinfections over time, and between the number of positive tests and reinfections. We estimated incidence for B.1.1.7 and previous variants, and compared the effective reproduction number, Rt, for the two incidence estimates. Findings From Sept 28 to Dec 27, 2020, positive COVID-19 tests were reported by 36 920 COVID Symptom Study app users whose region was known and who reported as healthy on app sign-up. We found no changes in reported symptoms or disease duration associated with B.1.1.7. For the same period, possible reinfections were identified in 249 (0·7% [95% CI 0·6–0·8]) of 36 509 app users who reported a positive swab test before Oct 1, 2020, but there was no evidence that the frequency of reinfections was higher for the B.1.1.7 variant than for pre-existing variants. Reinfection occurrences were more positively correlated with the overall regional rise in cases (Spearman correlation 0·56–0·69 for South East, London, and East of England) than with the regional increase in the proportion of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant (Spearman correlation 0·38–0·56 in the same regions), suggesting B.1.1.7 does not substantially alter the risk of reinfection. We found a multiplicative increase in the Rt of B.1.1.7 by a factor of 1·35 (95% CI 1·02–1·69) relative to pre-existing variants. However, Rt fell below 1 during regional and national lockdowns, even in regions with high proportions of infections with the B.1.1.7 variant. Interpretation The lack of change in symptoms identified in this study indicates that existing testing and surveillance infrastructure do not need to change specifically for the B.1.1.7 variant. In addition, given that there was no apparent increase in the reinfection rate, vaccines are likely to remain effective against the B.1.1.7 variant. Funding Zoe Global, Department of Health (UK), Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (UK), National Institute for Health Research (UK), Medical Research Council (UK), Alzheimer's Society

Genomic assessment of quarantine measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 importation and transmission

Mitigation of SARS-CoV-2 transmission from international travel is a priority. We evaluated the effectiveness of travellers being required to quarantine for 14-days on return to England in Summer 2020. We identified 4,207 travel-related SARS-CoV-2 cases and their contacts, and identified 827 associated SARS-CoV-2 genomes. Overall, quarantine was associated with a lower rate of contacts, and the impact of quarantine was greatest in the 16–20 age-group. 186 SARS-CoV-2 genomes were sufficiently unique to identify travel-related clusters. Fewer genomically-linked cases were observed for index cases who returned from countries with quarantine requirement compared to countries with no quarantine requirement. This difference was explained by fewer importation events per identified genome for these cases, as opposed to fewer onward contacts per case. Overall, our study demonstrates that a 14-day quarantine period reduces, but does not completely eliminate, the onward transmission of imported cases, mainly by dissuading travel to countries with a quarantine requirement

Investigation of hospital discharge cases and SARS-CoV-2 introduction into Lothian care homes

Background The first epidemic wave of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Scotland resulted in high case numbers and mortality in care homes. In Lothian, over one-third of care homes reported an outbreak, while there was limited testing of hospital patients discharged to care homes. Aim To investigate patients discharged from hospitals as a source of SARS-CoV-2 introduction into care homes during the first epidemic wave. Methods A clinical review was performed for all patients discharges from hospitals to care homes from 1st March 2020 to 31st May 2020. Episodes were ruled out based on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) test history, clinical assessment at discharge, whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data and an infectious period of 14 days. Clinical samples were processed for WGS, and consensus genomes generated were used for analysis using Cluster Investigation and Virus Epidemiological Tool software. Patient timelines were obtained using electronic hospital records. Findings In total, 787 patients discharged from hospitals to care homes were identified. Of these, 776 (99%) were ruled out for subsequent introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into care homes. However, for 10 episodes, the results were inconclusive as there was low genomic diversity in consensus genomes or no sequencing data were available. Only one discharge episode had a genomic, time and location link to positive cases during hospital admission, leading to 10 positive cases in their care home. Conclusion The majority of patients discharged from hospitals were ruled out for introduction of SARS-CoV-2 into care homes, highlighting the importance of screening all new admissions when faced with a novel emerging virus and no available vaccine