Synergising tools for capacity assessment and One Health operationalisation.

Multisectoral, One Health collaboration is essential for addressing national and international health threats that arise at the human-animal-environment interface. Thanks to the efforts of multiple organisations, countries now have an array of One Health tools available to assess capacities within and between sectors, plan and prioritise activities, and strengthen multisectoral, One Health coordination, communication, and collaboration. By doing so, they are able to address health threats at the human-animal-environment interface, including emerging zoonotic and infectious diseases, more efficiently. However, to ensure optimal outcomes for the countries using these One Health tools, the partners responsible for implementation should regularly collaborate and share information such as implementation timelines, results and lessons learned, so that one process can inform the next. This paper presents a consensus framework on how commonly implemented One Health tools might align to best support countries in strengthening One Health systems. Twelve One Health tools were selected based on their high implementation rates, authors' experience with these tools and their focus on multisectoral, One Health coordination. Through a four-step process, the authors: a) jointly carried out a landscape analysis of One Health tools, using a Cloudbased spreadsheet to share the unique characteristics and applications of each tool; b) performed an implementation analysis to identify and share implementation dynamics and identify respective outcomes and synergies; c) jointly created a consensus conceptual model of how the authors suggest the tools might logically work together; and d) extrapolated from steps 1-3 an agreed-upon overarching conceptual framework for how current and future One Health tools could be categorised to best support One Health system strengthening at the national level. Highlighted One Health tools include the States Parties Annual Reporting Tool under the International Health Regulations (IHR), the World Organisation for Animal Health Performance of Veterinary Services (PVS) Pathway, the Joint External Evaluation process, IHR/PVS National Bridging Workshops, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention One Health Zoonotic Disease Prioritization Tool, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Laboratory Mapping Tool, the FAO Assessment Tool for Laboratories and Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Systems, the FAO Surveillance Evaluation Tool, the One Health Systems Mapping and Analysis Resource Toolkit, the National Action Plan for Health Security, and IHR Monitoring and Evaluation Framework tools for After Action Reviews and Simulation Exercises. A new guidance document entitled, Taking a Multisectoral, One Health Approach: A Tripartite Guide to Addressing Zoonotic Diseases in Countries was also included as a framework that provides guidance to support the implementation of the outputs of the tools described.

La collaboration multisectorielle suivant l'approche Une seule santé est essentielle pour répondre aux menaces sanitaires survenant à l'interface homme­animal­ environnement à l'échelle nationale et internationale. Grâce aux efforts conjugués de nombreuses organisations, les pays disposent désormais d'une gamme d'outils Une seule santé permettant à la fois d'évaluer les capacités intra et intersectorielles, de planifier et prioriser les activités, et de renforcer la coordination, la communication et la collaboration multisectorielles suivant cette approche. Grâce à ces outils, les pays sont mieux armés pour faire face avec efficacité aux menaces sanitaires à l'interface homme­animal­environnement, en particulier celles liées aux maladies zoonotiques et infectieuses émergentes. Néanmoins, pour optimiser les retombées pour les pays du recours aux outils Une seule santé, les partenaires chargés de leur mise en oeuvre devraient régulièrement collaborer et partager leurs informations, notamment le calendrier de mise en oeuvre, les résultats obtenus et les enseignements tirés, afin que chaque processus contribue à l'amélioration des suivants. Les auteurs présentent un cadre consensuel sur la manière dont les outils Une seule santé les plus courants peuvent converger afin d'aider le mieux possible les pays à renforcer leurs systèmes basés sur cette approche. Douze outils ont été choisis en fonction de leur fréquence d'utilisation, de l'expérience acquise par les auteurs et de l'accent mis sur la coordination multisectorielle Une seule santé. Les auteurs ont ensuite procédé à un examen en quatre étapes, comme suit : a) analyse générale des outils sélectionnés, au moyen d'un tableur sur serveur dématérialisé permettant de saisir et de partager les caractéristiques et les applications spécifiques de chaque outil ; b) analyse de la mise en oeuvre des outils, visant à déterminer et à partager la dynamique et les caractéristiques de mise en oeuvre, ainsi que les résultats respectifs et les synergies qui en ressortent ; c) création d'un modèle conceptuel consensuel contenant les propositions des auteurs en vue d'une convergence raisonnée des fonctionnalités de ces outils ; d) à partir des trois étapes précédentes, conception d'un cadre conceptuel transversal destiné à catégoriser les outils Une seule santé actuels et futurs afin d'apporter un soutien optimal au renforcement des systèmes Une seule santé à l'échelle des pays. Parmi les outils examinés figurent l'Outil d'autoévaluation pour l'établissement de rapports annuels par les États Parties de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), qui concerne l'application du Règlement sanitaire international (RSI) ; le Processus sur les Performances des Services vétérinaires (PVS) de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé animale (OIE) ; le processus d'Évaluation extérieure conjointe ; les ateliers nationaux de liaison RSI/PVS ; l'outil Une seule santé de priorisation des maladies zoonotiques des Centres pour le contrôle et la prévention des maladies (CDC) ; l'Outil de cartographie des laboratoires de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture (FAO) ; l'Outil d'évaluation de la FAO pour les laboratoires et les systèmes de surveillance de l'antibiorésistance ; l'Outil d'évaluation de la FAO sur la surveillance ; la Boîte à outils cartographiques et analytiques sur les systèmes Une seule santé ; les Plans d'action nationaux de sécurité sanitaire ; et enfin les outils d'examen après action et protocoles de simulation du Cadre de suivi et d'évaluation du RSI. Le document d'orientation récemment publié sous le titre Taking a multisectoral One Health approach: a Tripartite guide to addressing zoonotic diseases in countries [Adopter une approche multisectorielle Une seule santé : Guide tripartite pour lutter contre les maladies zoonotiques] est également présenté, en tant qu'il fournit un cadre directeur en appui de la mise en oeuvre des résultats des outils d'évaluation ci-dessus.

La colaboración multisectorial en clave de Una sola salud es esencial para responder a las amenazas sanitarias de dimensión nacional e internacional que surgen en la confluencia de personas, animales y medio ambiente. Gracias al trabajo de numerosas organizaciones, los países disponen ahora de un repertorio de herramientas concebidas desde la óptica de Una sola salud para evaluar las capacidades existentes dentro de los sectores y entre ellos, planificar y jerarquizar actividades y potenciar las labores de coordinación, comunicación y colaboración multisectoriales en clave de Una sola salud. Gracias a todo ello, los países están en condiciones de luchar más eficazmente contra las amenazas sanitarias en la interfaz de personas, animales y medio ambiente, en particular las enfermedades infecciosas y zoonóticas emergentes. No obstante, para que los países obtengan resultados óptimos del uso de estas herramientas de Una sola salud es preciso que los distintos colaboradores encargados de aplicarlas colaboren e intercambien información periódicamente, por ejemplo sobre plazos de ejecución, resultados obtenidos y enseñanzas extraídas, de tal manera que un proceso pueda alimentar el siguiente. Los autores presentan un conjunto de principios consensuados sobre el modo en que cabría armonizar entre sí las herramientas de Una sola salud utilizadas con frecuencia para que los países cuenten con un apoyo idóneo a la hora de fortalecer los sistemas de Una sola salud. Ante todo, los autores seleccionaron doce de esas herramientas atendiendo a su (elevado) nivel de utilización, la experiencia de los propios autores con ellas y la medida en que privilegian la coordinación multisectorial en clave de Una sola salud. Después, siguiendo un proceso en cuatro etapas: a) efectuaron colectivamente un análisis general de las herramientas existentes, empleando una hoja de cálculo situada en la «nube¼ para poner en común las características y aplicaciones únicas de cada herramienta; b) analizaron la utilización práctica de esas herramientas de Una sola salud para dilucidar y poner en común la dinámica de aplicación de cada una y determinar sus respectivos resultados y sinergias; c) elaboraron de forma concertada un modelo teórico del modo en que, a su juicio, sería lógico que las herramientas funcionaran conjuntamente; y d) a partir de los pasos 1 a 3, extrapolaron consensuadamente un marco teórico global con el que se podrían clasificar las herramientas de Una sola salud, actuales y futuras, para prestar un apoyo idóneo al fortalecimiento del sistema de Una sola salud en cada país. Las herramientas de Una sola salud seleccionadas son: el instrumento de evaluación para la presentación anual de informes de los Estados Partes que forma parte del Reglamento Sanitario Internacional (RSI); el proceso PVS (Prestaciones de los Servicios Veterinarios) de la Organización Mundial de Sanidad Animal (OIE); la herramienta de evaluación externa conjunta del RSI; los talleres nacionales de coordinación RSI-PVS; la herramienta de jerarquización de enfermedades zoonóticas en clave de Una sola salud de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC); la herramienta de inventario de laboratorios de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO); la herramienta de evaluación de laboratorios y sistemas de vigilancia de las resistencias a los antimicrobianos de la FAO; la herramienta de evaluación de la vigilancia de la FAO; el juego de herramientas y material de análisis y cartografía de los sistemas de Una sola salud; los planes de acción nacional de seguridad sanitaria de la OMS; las herramientas del marco de seguimiento y evaluación del RSI para la realización de exámenes posteriores a la acción y ejercicios de simulación. También se incluyó una nueva guía de la Tripartita para combatir las enfermedades zoonóticas en los países desde la lógica multisectorial de Una sola salud (Taking a multisectoral One Health approach: a Tripartite guide to addressing zoonotic diseases in countries), en el cual se ofrecen pautas para secundar la aplicación en la práctica de los resultados obtenidos con las citadas herramientas.

Importance of a One Health approach in advancing global health security and the Sustainable Development Goals.

The One Health approach supports global health security by improving coordination, collaboration and communication at the human-animal-environment interface to address shared health threats such as zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, food safety and others. Over the past decade, country after country has implemented the One Health approach and demonstrated recognised benefits. However, in order to build sustainability of One Health in these efforts, One Health champions and implementers need to collect and provide government decision-makers with country-level data on One Health's impact to help justify policy decisions and resource allocations. Due to the broad, often seemingly all encompassing, nature of One Health in promoting synergies of multiple disciplines and sectors, the One Health community has faced difficulties in determining specific One Health impact indicators for formally evaluating One Health successes. In this paper, the author a) briefly reviews the ongoing commentary on the recognised benefits of the implementation of a One Health approach in the global health security context, b) discusses challenges in measuring the impact of One Health, and c) proposes possible solutions for evaluating the impact of One Health on global health security.

L'approche Une seule santé soutient la sécurité sanitaire mondiale en améliorant la coordination, la collaboration et la communication à l'interface entre les humains, les animaux et l'environnement afin de répondre aux menaces qui leur sont communes, qu'il s'agisse des maladies zoonotiques, de la résistance aux agents antimicrobiens, de la sécurité sanitaire des aliments ou d'autres encore. Au cours de la dernière décennie, les pays ont peu à peu adopté l'approche. Une seule santé et perçu les bénéfices qu'elle apporte. Toutefois, pour asseoir la durabilité des efforts déployés selon l'approche Une seule santé, les principaux pionniers et acteurs de sa mise en œuvre doivent recueillir des données sur l'impact de cette approche au niveau national et les communiquer aux décideurs politiques afin de les aider à justifier les politiques menées et les allocations de ressources. En raison de l'ampleur de l'approche Une seule santé et du caractère souvent globalisant qu'elle peut présenter dans la promotion des synergies pluridisciplinaires et intersectorielles, la communauté Une seule santé rencontre quelques difficultés à déterminer des indicateurs d'impact spécifiques permettant d'évaluer formellement les résultats positifs d'Une seule santé. Dans cet article, l'auteur a) fait le point sur la perception actuelle des bénéfices reconnus de la mise en œuvre de l'approche Une seule santé dans le contexte de la sécurité sanitaire mondiale ; b) examine les défis liés à l'estimation de l'impact d'Une seule santé ; c) propose quelques solutions envisageables pour évaluer cet impact sur la sécurité sanitaire mondiale.

La filosofía de Una sola salud favorece la seguridad sanitaria mundial porque mejora la labor de coordinación, colaboración y comunicación en la confluencia de personas, animales y medio ambiente para afrontar amenazas sanitarias comunes, como puedan ser enfermedades zoonóticas, resistencias a los antimicrobianos o peligros para la inocuidad de los alimentos. De un decenio a esta parte, en un país tras otro, la noción de Una sola salud ha sido aplicada en la práctica y deparado indudables beneficios. Sin embargo, para inscribirla duraderamente en este quehacer, quienes la promueven y pugnan por aplicarla deben reunir datos que demuestren su incidencia real en cada país y hacer llegar esos datos a las instancias decisorias de los gobiernos para que estos puedan fundamentar en ellos sus decisiones sobre políticas y sobre distribución de los recursos. Por la propia amplitud de la noción de Una sola salud, percibida a menudo como una filosofía global para promover sinergias entre múltiples disciplinas y sectores, quienes trabajan en el tema han tenido dificultades para dar con indicadores referidos específicamente al impacto de Una sola salud que ayuden a evaluar oficialmente los éxitos que haya podido deparar. El autor procede: a) repasar brevemente las observaciones actuales sobre las reconocidas ventajas de abordar las cuestiones de seguridad sanitaria mundial desde la óptica de Una sola salud; b) examinar los problemas que se plantean para cuantificar el impacto de esta filosofía; y c) proponer posibles soluciones para determinar el impacto de Una sola salud en la seguridad sanitaria mundia.

Public Health Implications of Changing Rodent Importation Patterns - United States, 1999-2013.

The United States imports a large volume of live wild and domestic animal species; these animals pose a demonstrated risk for introduction of zoonotic diseases. Rodents are imported for multiple purposes, including scientific research, zoo exhibits and the pet trade. Current U.S. public health regulatory restrictions specific to rodent importation pertain only to those of African origin. To understand the impacts of these regulations and the potential public health risks of international rodent trade to the United States, we evaluated live rodent import records during 1999-2013 by shipment volume and geographic origin, source (e.g. wild-caught versus captive- or commercially bred), intended purpose and rodent taxonomy. Live rodent imports increased from 2737 animals during 1999 to 173 761 animals during 2013. Increases in both the number and size of shipments contributed to this trend. The proportion of wild-captured imports declined from 75% during 1999 to <1% during 2013. Nearly all shipments during these years were imported for commercial purposes. Imports from Europe and other countries in North America experienced notable increases in volume. Gerbils and hamsters arriving from Europe and chinchillas, guinea pigs and hamsters arriving from other countries in North America were predominant taxa underlying this trend. After 2003, African-origin imports became sporadic events under the federal permit process. These patterns suggest development of large-scale captive rodent breeding markets abroad for commercial sale in the United States. While the shift from wild-captured imports alleviates many conservation concerns and risks for novel disease emergence, such consolidated sourcing might elevate exposure risks for zoonotic diseases associated with high-density rodent breeding (e.g. lymphocytic choriomeningitis or salmonellosis). A responsive border health system must periodically re-evaluate importation regulations in conjunction with key stakeholders to ensure a balance between the economic benefits of rodent trade against the potential public health risks.

State and Local Perspective on Implementation of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Dog Confinement Agreement.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) works in conjunction with state, territorial, local and tribal agencies (STLTAs) to prevent the transmission of infectious agents. Issuance of confinement agreements using CDC Form 75.37 'Notice to Owners and Importers of Dogs' to importers of dogs that are not vaccinated or incompletely vaccinated against rabies is part of the agency's regulatory programme to prevent the entry of dogs infected with rabies. Although this is a regulatory programme that depends heavily on partnerships between CDC and STLTAs, CDC had never formally evaluated the acceptability of the confinement agreement process with these partners. Thus, a short survey of nine STLTAs was conducted to evaluate whether these partners have enough personnel and resources to implement the regulation and their general opinions of the confinement agreement process. The results illustrate that CDC partners are dissatisfied to some extent with the process, and there are multiple issues limiting their success in enforcing the regulation.

Dogs Entering the United States from Rabies-Endemic Countries, 2011-2012.

International dog imports pose a risk because of the potential movement of disease agents, including the canine rabies virus variant which has been eliminated from the United States since 2007. US regulations require a rabies vaccination certificate for dogs arriving from rabies-endemic countries, but permit the importation of dogs that have not been adequately immunized against rabies, provided that the dogs are confined under conditions that restrict their contact with humans and other animals until they have been immunized. CDC Form 75.37, 'Notice to Owners and Importers of Dogs', explains the confinement requirements and serves as a binding confinement agreement with the importer. In this evaluation, we describe the characteristics of unimmunized dogs imported into the United States over a 1-year period based upon dog confinement agreements recorded at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) quarantine stations. Confinement agreements were issued for nearly 2800 unimmunized dogs that entered the United States during 1 June 2011-31 May 2012, the majority of which travelled to the United States by air and without any seasonal pattern in import volume. Over 60% of these animals were puppies <3 months of age and included a wide variety of breeds. The dogs arrived from 81 countries, with the majority arriving from North America or Europe. Dogs placed on confinement agreements had final destinations in 49 states. California, New York, Texas, Washington and Florida received the largest number of dogs on confinement agreements. These results (which do not reflect human travel or US dog ownership data) suggest that a large portion of unimmunized dogs arrive from rabies-endemic countries for commercial, shelter and rescue purposes. Further evaluation and key stakeholder involvement are needed to assess whether the current dog importation regulations are an adequate compromise between the benefits and risks of dog importation.

Characterization of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates associated with two multistate food-borne outbreaks that occurred in 2006.

Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from two 2006 outbreaks were compared to other O157:H7 isolates for virulence genotype, biofilm formation, and stress responses. Spinach- and lettuce-related-outbreak strains had similar pulsed-field gel electrophoresis patterns, and all carried both stx2 and stx2c variant genes. Cooperative biofilm formation involving an E. coli O157:H7 strain and a non-O157:H7 strain was also demonstrated.

Characterization of neuropeptide Y-expressing cells in the mouse retina using immunohistochemical and transgenic techniques.

The amacrine cells of the retina are a complex family of interneurons. They are made up of numerous subgroups, each with different morphologic and/or biochemical properties and each presumably serving a different function. In this study, we characterized one subgroup, defined by its expression of a peptide, neuropeptide Y (NPY). The cells were identified using antibodies to NPY and characterized using a transgenic mouse line that expressed the reporter enzyme, beta-galactosidase, in the NPY-immunoreactive (NPY-IR) cells. We found that NPY-IR cells were present in two layers, the inner nuclear layer (INL) and the ganglion cell layer (GCL). The cells in both layers were densely distributed, with those in the INL having a mean density of 1452 +/- 65 cells/mm(2), and those in the GCL having a mean density of 644 +/- 41 cells/mm(2). The cells in the INL extended their processes in the sublamina of the inner plexiform layer (IPL) closest to the INL/IPL border, the presumptive OFF sublamina, and the cells in the GCL extended their processes in the sublamina near the GCL/IPL border, the presumptive ON sublamina. Both populations of cells were immunoreactive to a GABA transporter and, thus, likely GABAergic. The high density of these cells suggests that they play a prominent role in IPL processing. The location of their processes suggests that one population acts in the pathway that mediates OFF responses, and the other in the pathway that mediates ON responses, and their expression of a GABA marker indicates that their actions are likely inhibitory.

Multiple cytochrome P-450s involved in the metabolism of terbinafine suggest a limited potential for drug-drug interactions.

Biotransformation pathways and the potential for drug-drug interactions of the orally active antifungal terbinafine were characterized using human liver microsomes and recombinant human cytochrome P-450s (CYPs). The terbinafine metabolites represented four major pathways: 1) N-demethylation, 2) deamination, 3) alkyl side chain oxidation, and 4) dihydrodiol formation. Michaelis-Menten kinetics for the pathways revealed mean K(m) values ranging from 4.4 to 27.8 microM, and V(max) values of 9.8 to 82 nmol/h/mg protein. At least seven CYP enzymes are involved in terbinafine metabolism. Recombinant human CYPs predict that CYP2C9, CYP1A2, and CYP3A4 are the most important for total metabolism. N-demethylation is primarily mediated by CYP2C9, CYP2C8, and CYP1A2; dihydrodiol formation by CYP2C9 and CYP1A2; deamination by CYP3A4; and side chain oxidation equally by CYP1A2, CYP2C8, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19. Additionally, characteristic CYP substrates inhibited pathways of terbinafine metabolite formation, confirming the involvement of multiple enzymes. The deamination pathway was mainly inhibited by CYP3A inhibitors, including troleandomycin and azole antifungals. Dihydrodiol formation was inhibited by the CYP1A2 inhibitor furafylline. Terbinafine had little or no effect on the metabolism of many characteristic CYP substrates. Terbinafine, however, is a competitive inhibitor of the CYP2D6 reaction, dextromethorphan O-demethylation (K(i) = 0.03 microM). In summary, terbinafine is metabolized by at least seven CYPs. The potential for terbinafine interaction with other drugs is predicted to be insignificant with the exception that it may inhibit the metabolism of CYP2D6 substrates. Clinical trials are needed to assess the relevance of these findings.

A comparison of APACHE II and a clinical sickness score. A study of 97 consecutive admissions to a district general hospital intensive care unit.

The aim of this study was to compare the predictive power of a simple illness severity score (Clinical Sickness Score) to that of APACHE II in a District General Hospital intensive therapy unit. A prospective comparison was carried out on 97 consecutive adult patients whose severity of illness was scored one hour after admission using both the Clinical Sickness Score and APACHE II. Intensive Therapy Unit and hospital outcomes were recorded for each patient. The Clinical Sickness Score and APACHE II identified survivors and nonsurvivors with similar power (p less than 0.001). There was a highly significant correlation between the two scoring systems for hospital survivors and nonsurvivors together (r = 0.5418, r2 = 0.28, p = less than 0.0001) and for hospital survivors alone (r = 0.6102, r2 = 0.37, p = 0.0001). Correlation for hospital nonsurvivors was not significant (r = 0.1629, r2 = 0.027, p = 0.3134). The positive predictive values of APACHE II were between 5% and 10% more sensitive than the Clinical Sickness Score for hospital outcome. Admission Clinical Sickness Score and APACHE II scores had similar predictive power in this study.

Perioperative mortality in Zambia.

An audit of 10,592 consecutive operations performed during 7 months in a central African teaching hospital is presented. Eighty deaths occurred within 6 days of operation, an overall mortality rate (OMR) of 7.55 per 1000 operations. Deaths are classified as avoidable or unavoidable. Avoidable deaths are those for which there was evidence of mismanagement of a type and degree sufficient to account for the death. There were 35 avoidable deaths, an avoidable mortality rate (AMR) of 3.3 per 1000 operations. Avoidable factors which contributed to death are classified as surgical, anaesthetic, and administrative. Surgery and anaesthesia at this hospital are described, and possible means of decreasing avoidable mortality discussed. The value of combined anaesthetic and surgical audit is emphasised.

A clinical sickness score for the critically ill in Central Africa.

Scoring systems provide a means for comparing results, ensuring consistent standards and evaluating changes in therapy. The APACHE II system depends partly on the results of laboratory tests which are not normally available in Central Africa. The aim of this study was to develop a scoring system based only on clinical observations. Six hundred and twenty-four consecutive admissions to the intensive care unit (ICU) were allocated a clinical sickness score (CSS) according to pulse rate, blood pressure, respiration rate, urine output, Glasgow Coma Scale, temperature and age. CSS was significantly associated with outcome, there being no significant difference between actual and predicted outcomes calculated by logistic regression analysis. There was a significant difference between mean scores for survivors and non-survivors in all diagnostic groups except diabetes. The proportional change in score from admission was also significantly associated with outcome on each subsequent day in ICU. The CSS provides an objective measure of illness severity for critically ill patients in Africa.

Non-traumatic coma in Zambia.

A series of 170 patients with non-traumatic coma seen over a 16-month period is reported. The Glasgow coma scale significantly correlated with outcome (P less than 0.001). The diagnosis was also important in determining outcome. Hospital mortality was lowest in patients with cerebral malaria (22.7%), eclamptic coma (36.4%), and organophosphorous poisoning (30.4%). A diagnostic approach to non-traumatic coma is outlined and the management of the different causes is discussed. Most hospitals in tropical Africa should be able to diagnose up to 90% of cases with non-traumatic coma and simple therapy is likely to be effective in the majority of cases.

A drawover Boyle's machine. Development and evaluation in Zambia.

A standard Boyle International anaesthetic machine was modified to allow operation in either a continuous flow or a drawover mode. This was achieved by fitting a valve in the backbar which allows entrainment of air under drawover conditions. The details of the valve and modification are discussed and an evaluation of the machine in a Central African hospital is presented.

Outcome of mechanical ventilation in Central Africa.

The outcome of mechanical ventilation is reported in a prospective series of 200 patients managed in an intensive care unit in Zambia. Fifty two patients survived (26%), and 46 patients were subsequently discharged from hospital (23%). Ten patients died in whom a complication of ventilation was a factor. Patients not expected to survive by the authors had a 96.3% mortality whereas patients with a chance of survival had a mortality rate of 58.8%. Two diagnostic groups were found to have a high mortality: head injury (85.1%) and non-traumatic coma (76.4%). This series is compared with similar series from developed countries and recommendations are made for the institution of mechanical ventilation in the developing world.

Buprenorphine versus morphine. A comparison of intra-operative and postoperative analgesia.

A randomised double-blind trial comparing morphine and buprenorphine and postoperative analgesia combined with droperidol was conducted in 60 patients. Compared with morphine, taken as the standard analgesic, buprenorphine was shown to be a satisfactory analgesic for major surgery, with no difference in the incidence of unwanted effects.

Ankylosing spondylitis. The case for awake intubation.

The major problems of long-standing ankylosing spondylitis are described and the surgical and anaesthetic literature reviewed. The upper airway problems are discussed with reference to four cases and the advantages of an awake intubation technique are stressed.