Atmospheric concentration, source identification, and health risk assessment of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in two countries: Peru and Turkey.

It is known that some persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are used worldwide, and these pollutants are dangerous for human health. However, there are still countries where measurements of these pollutants have not been adequately measured. Although many studies have been published for determining the concentrations of POPs in Turkey, there are limited studies in Latin American countries like Peru. For this reason, it is essential both to conduct a study in Peru and to compare the study with another country. This study is aimed at determining the atmospheric POPs such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), organochlorine pesticide (OCP), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentrations using passive air samplers in Yurimaguas (Peru) and Bursa (Turkey). Molecular diagnosis ratios and ring distribution methods were used to determine the sources of PAHs. According to these methods, coal and biomass combustions were among the primary sources of PAHs in Peru, while petrogenic and petroleum were the primary sources of PAHs in Turkey. Then, α-HCH/γ-HCH and ß-/(α+γ)-HCH ratios were used to determine the sources of OCPs. According to the α-HCH/γ-HCH ratios, the primary sources of OCPs in both countries were lindane. Similarly, according to ß-/(α+γ)-HCH ratios, the HCHs have been historically used in Peru while they were recently utilized in Turkey. Finally, homologous group distributions were used to determine the sources of PCBs. Similar distributions of homologous groups were observed in the sampling sites in both countries. Also, the homologous group distributions obtained have been determined that industrial activities could be effective in the sampling areas in both countries. When the cancer risks that could occur via inhalation were evaluated, no significant cancer risk has been determined in both countries.

Direct thrombin inhibitors versus vitamin K antagonists for preventing cerebral or systemic embolism in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Chronic anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) prevents ischaemic stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) but dose adjustment, coagulation monitoring and bleeding limits its use. Direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) are under investigation as potential alternatives. OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) the comparative efficacy of long-term anticoagulation using DTIs versus VKAs on vascular deaths and ischaemic events in people with non-valvular AF, and (2) the comparative safety of chronic anticoagulation using DTIs versus VKAs on (a) fatal and non-fatal major bleeding events including haemorrhagic strokes, (b) adverse events other than bleeding and ischaemic events that lead to treatment discontinuation and (c) all-cause mortality in people with non-valvular AF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (July 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, May 2013), MEDLINE (1950 to July 2013), EMBASE (1980 to October 2013), LILACS (1982 to October 2013) and trials registers (September 2013). We also searched the websites of clinical trials and pharmaceutical companies and handsearched the reference lists of articles and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DTIs versus VKAs for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in people with non-valvular AF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All three review authors independently performed data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. Primary analyses compared all DTIs combined versus warfarin. We performed post hoc analyses excluding ximelagatran because this drug was withdrawn from the market owing to safety concerns. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies involving a total of 27,557 participants with non-valvular AF and one or more risk factors for stroke; 26,601 of them were assigned to standard doses groups and included in the primary analysis. The DTIs: dabigatran 110 mg twice daily and 150 mg twice daily (three studies, 12,355 participants), AZD0837 300 mg once per day (two studies, 233 participants) and ximelagatran 36 mg twice per day (three studies, 3726 participants) were compared with the VKA warfarin (10,287 participants). Overall risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity of the studies included were low.The odds of vascular death and ischaemic events were not significantly different between all DTIs and warfarin (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). Sensitivity analysis by dose of dabigatran on reduction in ischaemic events and vascular mortality indicated that dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was superior to warfarin although the effect estimate was of borderline statistical significance (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99). Sensitivity analyses by other factors did not alter the results. Fatal and non-fatal major bleeding events, including haemorrhagic strokes, were less frequent with the DTIs (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97). Adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment were significantly more frequent with the DTIs (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.61). All-cause mortality was similar between DTIs and warfarin (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: DTIs were as efficacious as VKAs for the composite outcome of vascular death and ischaemic events and only the dose of dabigatran 150 mg twice daily was found to be superior to warfarin. DTIs were associated with fewer major haemorrhagic events, including haemorrhagic strokes. Adverse events that led to discontinuation of treatment occurred more frequently with the DTIs. We detected no difference in death from all causes.

Automatic language analysis identifies and predicts schizophrenia in first-episode of psychosis.

Automated language analysis of speech has been shown to distinguish healthy control (HC) vs chronic schizophrenia (SZ) groups, yet the predictive power on first-episode psychosis patients (FEP) and the generalization to non-English speakers remain unclear. We performed a cross-sectional and longitudinal (18 months) automated language analysis in 133 Spanish-speaking subjects from three groups: healthy control or HC (n = 49), FEP (n = 40), and chronic SZ (n = 44). Interviews were manually transcribed, and the analysis included 30 language features (4 verbal fluency; 20 verbal productivity; 6 semantic coherence). Our cross-sectional analysis showed that using the top ten ranked and decorrelated language features, an automated HC vs SZ classification achieved 85.9% accuracy. In our longitudinal analysis, 28 FEP patients were diagnosed with SZ at the end of the study. Here, combining demographics, PANSS, and language information, the prediction accuracy reached 77.5% mainly driven by semantic coherence information. Overall, we showed that language features from Spanish-speaking clinical interviews can distinguish HC vs chronic SZ, and predict SZ diagnosis in FEP patients.

Síndrome de infusión de propofol y COVID-19. Reporte de caso / Propofol and COVID-19 infusion syndrome. Case report

Resumen: La forma grave de neumonía por SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) cursa en la mayoría de los casos con un síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA). Es necesario emplear sedación durante su ventilación mecánica, el propofol es el que más de utiliza por su farmacocinética y farmacodinamia. El propofol es un anestésico que se usa ampliamente en las unidades de cuidados intensivos. Su empleo puede provocar un efecto adverso poco frecuente, pero en extremo grave, conocido como síndrome por infusión de propofol (SIP), el cual se encuentra estrechamente asociado a la velocidad de infusión aunado a factores de riesgos propios del paciente. Se caracteriza principalmente por inestabilidad hemodinámica, acidosis láctica y por progresión a disfunción multiorgánica. Se presenta un caso de SIP en paciente con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA) secundario a SARS-CoV-2 que desarrolla esta complicación asociada a la sedación. Se discute fisiopatológica clínica y consideraciones que deberán tomarse en cuenta al momento de su utilización en infusión continua.

Abstract: The severe form of SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia (COVID-19) occurs in most cases with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), requiring the use of sedation during mechanical ventilation, with propofol being the most widely used for its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Propofol is a widely used anesthetic in intensive care units (ICU). Its use can cause an infrequent but extremely serious adverse effect, known as propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS), which is closely associated with the speed of infusion coupled with risk factors specific to the patient, the clinical features of PRIS are hemodynamic instability, lactic acidosis and with progression to multi-organ dysfunction. We present a case of SIP in a patient with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) secondary to SARS-CoV-2 who develops this complication associated with sedation, discusses clinical pathophysiology and considerations that should be taken into account when using it in continuous infusion.