Stephen F Austin State University Journal of Education Vol. 1 No. 1

https://scholarworks.sfasu.edu/edjournal/1000/thumbnail.jp

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42\ub74% vs 44\ub72%; absolute difference \u20131\ub769 [\u20139\ub758 to 6\ub711] p=0\ub767; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5\u20138] vs 6 [5\u20138] cm H2O; p=0\ub70011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30\ub75% vs 19\ub79%; p=0\ub70004; adjusted effect 16\ub741% [95% CI 9\ub752\u201323\ub752]; p<0\ub70001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0\ub780 [95% CI 0\ub775\u20130\ub786]; p<0\ub70001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status. Funding: No funding

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on twelve research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant 2 R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC-5-2107National Institutes of Health Grant 2 R01 DC00100U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0002U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0635U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-97-1-0655U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 NS33778Massachusetts General Hospital, Center for Innovative Minimally Invasive Therapy Research Fellowship Gran

Sensory Communication

Contains table of contents for Section 2, an introduction and reports on fourteen research projects.National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC00117National Institutes of Health Grant RO1 DC02032National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant R01 DC00126National Institutes of Health Grant R01 DC00270National Institutes of Health Contract N01 DC52107U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-95-K-0014U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-96-K-0003U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-96-1-0379U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-95-1-0176U.S. Air Force - Office of Scientific Research Grant F49620-96-1-0202U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Subcontract 40167U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research/Naval Air Warfare Center Contract N61339-96-K-0002National Institutes of Health Grant R01-NS33778U.S. Navy - Office of Naval Research Grant N00014-92-J-184

Scenario archetypes:converging rather than diverging themes

Future scenarios provide challenging, plausible and relevant stories about how the future could unfold. Urban Futures (UF) research has identified a substantial set (>450) of seemingly disparate scenarios published over the period 1997–2011 and within this research, a sub-set of >160 scenarios has been identified (and categorized) based on their narratives according to the structure first proposed by the Global Scenario Group (GSG) in 1997; three world types (Business as Usual, Barbarization, and Great Transitions) and six scenarios, two for each world type (Policy Reform—PR, Market Forces—MF, Breakdown—B, Fortress World—FW, Eco-Communalism—EC and New Sustainability Paradigm—NSP). It is suggested that four of these scenario archetypes (MF, PR, NSP and FW) are sufficiently distinct to facilitate active stakeholder engagement in futures thinking. Moreover they are accompanied by a well-established, internally consistent set of narratives that provide a deeper understanding of the key fundamental drivers (e.g., STEEP—Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental and Political) that could bring about realistic world changes through a push or a pull effect. This is testament to the original concept of the GSG scenarios and their development and refinement over a 16 year period

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health