80 questions for UK biological security.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

Pattern of Intermediate Uveitis in an Egyptian Cohort.

Purpose: To describe the clinical experience with intermediate uveitis at six Egyptian tertiary eye centers.Methods: A multicenter retrospective chart review of all patients with intermediate uveitis seen at six ocular inflammation referral clinics in Egypt between January 2010 and January 2017.Results: The study included a total of 781 patients with intermediate uveitis. The study cohort comprised of 282 male and 499 female patients. In over half of our cohort (58.77%), no specific cause could be confirmed. The remaining patients had sarcoidosis (16.26%), tuberculosis (14.85%), multiple sclerosis (9.09%), and TINU (1.02%). By the end of our study, 62% of the affected eyes had a BCVA better than 20/40Conclusion: More than 40% of our patients with intermediate uveitis had sarcoidosis, tuberculosis, multiple sclerosis, or TINU as the underlying etiology. Owing to their potential morbidity, these diseases need to be considered in Egyptian patients presenting with intermediate uveitis.

Pattern of Retinal Vasculitis in an Egyptian Cohort.

Purpose: To describe the clinical experience with retinal vasculitis at 4 Egyptian tertiary eye centers. Methods: A multicenter retrospective chart review of all patients with retinal vasculitis encountered at 4 ocular inflammation referral clinics in Egypt between February 2013 and February 2018. Results: The study included 618 patients (327 males and 291 females). Of these, 284 patients had isolated retinal vasculitis, whereas 233 patients had an associated systemic inflammatory disease, the most frequent being Behçet's disease, followed by sarcoidosis. In 101 patients, retinal vasculitis could be attributed to an infectious etiology, and among this category, the most common was tuberculosis, followed by toxoplasmosis. Conclusion: In our Egyptian cohort, more than half the patients had their retinal vasculitis as part of a serious systemic disease, or as part of an infectious process, as tuberculosis. And in view of the significant potential morbidity of these conditions, the local ophthalmologists need to be aware of these entities when faced with patients presenting with retinal vasculitis.

Intraocular pressure and haemodynamic responses to insertion of the i-gel, laryngeal mask airway or endotracheal tube.

CONTEXT: We hypothesised that the effects of insertion of an i-gel supraglottic airway management device on intraocular pressure (IOP) and haemodynamic variables would be milder than those associated with insertion of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or an endotracheal tube. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated IOP and haemodynamic responses following insertion of an i-gel airway, LMA or endotracheal tube. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a randomised controlled study in a tertiary care centre in which 60 adults scheduled for elective non-ophthalmic procedures under general anaesthesia were allocated to one of three groups. Patients with pre-existing glaucoma, cardiovascular, pulmonary or metabolic diseases or anticipated difficult intubation were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: Following induction of general anaesthesia, an endotracheal tube, LMA or i-gel device was inserted. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: IOP, SBP, DBP, heart rate (HR) and perfusion index were measured before induction of anaesthesia and before and after insertion of the airway device. RESULTS: Insertion of the i-gel did not increase IOP. Insertion of an endotracheal tube increased IOP from 11.6 ± 1.6 to 16.5 ± 1.7 mmHg (P < 0.001). The post-insertion IOP exceeded the pre-induction value (P < 0.05). Insertion of the LMA increased IOP from 13.0 ± 1.5 to 14.7 ± 1.8 mmHg (P < 0.01), but this did not exceed the pre-induction value. Tracheal intubation significantly increased HR, SBP and DBP. Insertion of the LMA significantly increased HR and SBP. These increases were significantly higher than those which followed insertion of the i-gel device. Insertion of the endotracheal tube or LMA resulted in a significant decrease in perfusion index which was maintained for 5 min following tracheal intubation and for 2 min after insertion of the LMA. Insertion of the i-gel device did not change perfusion index significantly. CONCLUSION: Insertion of the i-gel device provides better stability of IOP and the haemodynamic system compared with insertion of an endotracheal tube or LMA in patients undergoing elective non-ophthalmic surgery.