The Current Standing and Future Prospects of ARTS and Culture in Ethiopia

This research article explores the current state of affairs of arts and culture sector in Ethiopia. An in-depth analysis of various dimensions of art and culture highlights where the country is presently lacking in governance and socio-economic progress in the sector. A qualitative research was carried out to collect primary data. 52 respondents were chosen to be interviewed from Bahir Dar University by the method of quota sampling and the results were analyzed. Secondary data was also analyzed through academic literature from universities in Ethiopia, reports from government and development organizations. Survey results and existing academic literature have guided to single out major hindrances to this sector. In this research it can be confirmed, that the arts and culture sector needs a major intervention in terms of governance and marketing. This research gives out a very structural strategy, based on cultural governance, cultural economics and strategies of new business development as it pillars to support the prosperity of this sector in Ethiopia. The existing academic research provides data on different arts and culture and problems which are specific to a particular region of the country. Whereas this article goes a step further in enforcing the ordinance of cultural governance to the responsible government bodies both locally and nationally and simultaneously highlights how economic progress can be achieved through this sector. Cultural governance as a directive has never been implemented in transition economies and this article will serve as a directive for the future. This article shall be very beneficial for further research in this sector and structuring the work of government bodies, stake holders and the people involved in the sector within Ethiopia

Colorectal Cancer Stage at Diagnosis Before vs During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy

IMPORTANCE Delays in screening programs and the reluctance of patients to seek medical attention because of the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 could be associated with the risk of more advanced colorectal cancers at diagnosis. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic was associated with more advanced oncologic stage and change in clinical presentation for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This retrospective, multicenter cohort study included all 17 938 adult patients who underwent surgery for colorectal cancer from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 (pandemic period), and from January 1, 2018, to February 29, 2020 (prepandemic period), in 81 participating centers in Italy, including tertiary centers and community hospitals. Follow-up was 30 days from surgery. EXPOSURES Any type of surgical procedure for colorectal cancer, including explorative surgery, palliative procedures, and atypical or segmental resections. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was advanced stage of colorectal cancer at diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were distant metastasis, T4 stage, aggressive biology (defined as cancer with at least 1 of the following characteristics: signet ring cells, mucinous tumor, budding, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, and lymphangitis), stenotic lesion, emergency surgery, and palliative surgery. The independent association between the pandemic period and the outcomes was assessed using multivariate random-effects logistic regression, with hospital as the cluster variable. RESULTS A total of 17 938 patients (10 007 men [55.8%]; mean [SD] age, 70.6 [12.2] years) underwent surgery for colorectal cancer: 7796 (43.5%) during the pandemic period and 10 142 (56.5%) during the prepandemic period. Logistic regression indicated that the pandemic period was significantly associated with an increased rate of advanced-stage colorectal cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95%CI, 1.01-1.13; P = .03), aggressive biology (OR, 1.32; 95%CI, 1.15-1.53; P < .001), and stenotic lesions (OR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.01-1.31; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This cohort study suggests a significant association between the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the risk of a more advanced oncologic stage at diagnosis among patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer and might indicate a potential reduction of survival for these patients

Disease-Modifying Therapies and Coronavirus Disease 2019 Severity in Multiple Sclerosis

Objective: This study was undertaken to assess the impact of immunosuppressive and immunomodulatory therapies on the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Methods: We retrospectively collected data of PwMS with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. All the patients had complete follow-up to death or recovery. Severe COVID-19 was defined by a 3-level variable: mild disease not requiring hospitalization versus pneumonia or hospitalization versus intensive care unit (ICU) admission or death. We evaluated baseline characteristics and MS therapies associated with severe COVID-19 by multivariate and propensity score (PS)-weighted ordinal logistic models. Sensitivity analyses were run to confirm the results. Results: Of 844 PwMS with suspected (n = 565) or confirmed (n = 279) COVID-19, 13 (1.54%) died; 11 of them were in a progressive MS phase, and 8 were without any therapy. Thirty-eight (4.5%) were admitted to an ICU; 99 (11.7%) had radiologically documented pneumonia; 96 (11.4%) were hospitalized. After adjusting for region, age, sex, progressive MS course, Expanded Disability Status Scale, disease duration, body mass index, comorbidities, and recent methylprednisolone use, therapy with an anti-CD20 agent (ocrelizumab or rituximab) was significantly associated (odds ratio [OR] = 2.37, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18-4.74, p = 0.015) with increased risk of severe COVID-19. Recent use (<1 month) of methylprednisolone was also associated with a worse outcome (OR = 5.24, 95% CI = 2.20-12.53, p = 0.001). Results were confirmed by the PS-weighted analysis and by all the sensitivity analyses. Interpretation: This study showed an acceptable level of safety of therapies with a broad array of mechanisms of action. However, some specific elements of risk emerged. These will need to be considered while the COVID-19 pandemic persists

Correction to: Two years later: Is the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still having an impact on emergency surgery? An international cross-sectional survey among WSES members

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is still ongoing and a major challenge for health care services worldwide. In the first WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey, a strong negative impact on emergency surgery (ES) had been described already early in the pandemic situation. However, the knowledge is limited about current effects of the pandemic on patient flow through emergency rooms, daily routine and decision making in ES as well as their changes over time during the last two pandemic years. This second WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey investigates the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on ES during the course of the pandemic. Methods: A web survey had been distributed to medical specialists in ES during a four-week period from January 2022, investigating the impact of the pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring ES, structural problems due to the pandemic and time-to-intervention in ES routine. Results: 367 collaborators from 59 countries responded to the survey. The majority indicated that the pandemic still significantly impacts on treatment and outcome of surgical emergency patients (83.1% and 78.5%, respectively). As reasons, the collaborators reported decreased case load in ES (44.7%), but patients presenting with more prolonged and severe diseases, especially concerning perforated appendicitis (62.1%) and diverticulitis (57.5%). Otherwise, approximately 50% of the participants still observe a delay in time-to-intervention in ES compared with the situation before the pandemic. Relevant causes leading to enlarged time-to-intervention in ES during the pandemic are persistent problems with in-hospital logistics, lacks in medical staff as well as operating room and intensive care capacities during the pandemic. This leads not only to the need for triage or transferring of ES patients to other hospitals, reported by 64.0% and 48.8% of the collaborators, respectively, but also to paradigm shifts in treatment modalities to non-operative approaches reported by 67.3% of the participants, especially in uncomplicated appendicitis, cholecystitis and multiple-recurrent diverticulitis. Conclusions: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic still significantly impacts on care and outcome of patients in ES. Well-known problems with in-hospital logistics are not sufficiently resolved by now; however, medical staff shortages and reduced capacities have been dramatically aggravated over last two pandemic years

COVID-19 Severity in Multiple Sclerosis: Putting Data Into Context

Background and objectives: It is unclear how multiple sclerosis (MS) affects the severity of COVID-19. The aim of this study is to compare COVID-19-related outcomes collected in an Italian cohort of patients with MS with the outcomes expected in the age- and sex-matched Italian population. Methods: Hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death after COVID-19 diagnosis of 1,362 patients with MS were compared with the age- and sex-matched Italian population in a retrospective observational case-cohort study with population-based control. The observed vs the expected events were compared in the whole MS cohort and in different subgroups (higher risk: Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score > 3 or at least 1 comorbidity, lower risk: EDSS score ≤ 3 and no comorbidities) by the χ2 test, and the risk excess was quantified by risk ratios (RRs). Results: The risk of severe events was about twice the risk in the age- and sex-matched Italian population: RR = 2.12 for hospitalization (p < 0.001), RR = 2.19 for ICU admission (p < 0.001), and RR = 2.43 for death (p < 0.001). The excess of risk was confined to the higher-risk group (n = 553). In lower-risk patients (n = 809), the rate of events was close to that of the Italian age- and sex-matched population (RR = 1.12 for hospitalization, RR = 1.52 for ICU admission, and RR = 1.19 for death). In the lower-risk group, an increased hospitalization risk was detected in patients on anti-CD20 (RR = 3.03, p = 0.005), whereas a decrease was detected in patients on interferon (0 observed vs 4 expected events, p = 0.04). Discussion: Overall, the MS cohort had a risk of severe events that is twice the risk than the age- and sex-matched Italian population. This excess of risk is mainly explained by the EDSS score and comorbidities, whereas a residual increase of hospitalization risk was observed in patients on anti-CD20 therapies and a decrease in people on interferon

DMTs and Covid-19 severity in MS: a pooled analysis from Italy and France

We evaluated the effect of DMTs on Covid-19 severity in patients with MS, with a pooled-analysis of two large cohorts from Italy and France. The association of baseline characteristics and DMTs with Covid-19 severity was assessed by multivariate ordinal-logistic models and pooled by a fixed-effect meta-analysis. 1066 patients with MS from Italy and 721 from France were included. In the multivariate model, anti-CD20 therapies were significantly associated (OR = 2.05, 95%CI = 1.39–3.02, p < 0.001) with Covid-19 severity, whereas interferon indicated a decreased risk (OR = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.18–0.99, p = 0.047). This pooled-analysis confirms an increased risk of severe Covid-19 in patients on anti-CD20 therapies and supports the protective role of interferon

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

Do neurosurgeons follow the guidelines? A world-based survey on severe traumatic brain injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is going to be the third-leading cause of death worldwide, according to the WHO. Two European surveys suggested that adherence to brain trauma guidelines is poor. No study has compared compliance between low- (LMICs) and high-income (UHICs) countries. Hence, this study aimed to investigate differences in the management of severe TBI patients, comparing low- and high-income, and adherence to the BTF guidelines