Completing the Donor History Questionnaire before the Donation Visit Can Improve Blood Safety.

Background and Objectives: In Germany, the donor history questionnaire (DHQ) is traditionally filled in at the donation center to avoid any influence of others. Since March 2020, it has been suggested to donors to answer the DHQ already at home and to call if they have any concerns to reduce the number of ineligible donors on-site during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: We evaluated the rate of ineligible donors before and after March 2020. Additionally, an anonymous online survey asking for the donors' attitude towards the DHQ was performed. It included questions on whether and for what reason the DHQ had been answered incorrectly in the past. Results: The rate of ineligible donors decreased by 27% (from 7.1% to 5.2%). In total, 5,556 of 10,252 invited donors completed the survey (54.2%). 88.6% reported either going through the DHQ at home or knowing all questions from their previous donations. 444 donors (8.0%) had at least once postponed a donation after reading the DHQ at home. 68 donors (1.2%) admitted having intentionally provided false answers in the past (9 at home, 43 on-site, 14 both, 2 unknown). Not wanting to be rejected once arriving at the donation center was an important motivation for 42% of donors answering incorrectly on-site. Details on 46 incorrect answers were provided: only 17 had no influence on donor eligibility or product quality. In 5 cases, some blood products might have had impaired quality. Truthful answers to 17 questions would have led to deferral, mostly due to increased risk for unrecognized viral infections transmitted by sexual contacts. For a further 7 questions, there was insufficient information available to determine possible consequences. Asked about their general opinion, 753 (13.6%) of all donors estimated the risk of incorrect answers being greater on-site, while 239 (4.3%) presumed an increased risk at home. Conclusion: Answering the DHQ prior to a donation visit prevented ineligible donors from visiting the donation center. Furthermore, it might improve honesty, as the discomfort of being deferred after arriving at the donation center was an important reason to answer incorrectly. Overall, there was no increased risk of donor or product safety, and potentially even a benefit.

Neuroprotective effects of AT1 receptor antagonists after experimental ischemic stroke: what is important?

The present study conducted in rats defines the requirements for neuroprotective effects of systemically administered AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs) in acute ischaemic stroke. The inhibition of central effects to angiotensin II (ANG II) after intravenous (i.v.) treatment with candesartan (0.3 and 3 mg/kg) or irbesartan and losartan (3 and 30 mg/kg) was employed to study the penetration of these ARBs across the blood-brain barrier. Verapamil and probenecid were used to assess the role of the transporters, P-glycoprotein and the multidrug resistance-related protein 2, in the entry of losartan and irbesartan into the brain. Neuroprotective effects of i.v. treatment with the ARBs were investigated after transient middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) for 90 min. The treatment with the ARBs was initiated 3 h after the onset of MCAO and continued for two consecutive days. Blood pressure was continuously recorded before and during MCAO until 5.5 h after the onset of reperfusion. The higher dose of candesartan completely abolished, and the lower dose of candesartan and higher doses of irbesartan and losartan partially inhibited the drinking response to intracerebroventricular ANG II. Only 0.3 mg/kg candesartan improved the recovery from ischaemic stroke, and 3 mg/kg candesartan did not exert neuroprotective effects due to marked blood pressure reduction during reperfusion. Both doses of irbesartan and losartan had not any effect on the stroke outcome. An effective, long-lasting blockade of brain AT1 receptors after systemic treatment with ARBs without extensive blood pressure reductions is the prerequisite for neuroprotective effects in ischaemic stroke.

História, nação e raça no contexto da Exposição do Centenário em 1922 / History, nation and race in the context of the Centennial Exhibition of 1922

Tem como tema os debates públicos e acadêmicos sobre a história do Brasil que ocorreram no contexto da Exposição do Centenário, em 1922, na cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Pretende-se destacar a maneira como certos conceitos sobre ‘nação’ e ‘raça’ foram debatidos em conferências acadêmicas sobre história, antropologia e arqueologia, como foram conectados à história nacional e como se tornaram, finalmente, parte da autoimagem nacional. Além disso, o artigo indaga como e por quem esses ideais foram contestados.

The subjects addressed in this article are the public and academic debates about the history of Brazil that took place in the context of the Centennial Exhibition held in 1922 in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The aim is to highlight how certain concepts of nation and race were debated in academic discussions about history, anthropology and archaeology, how they were related to the nation’s history, and how they ultimately became a part of the nation’s self-image. Furthermore, the article investigates how and by whom these ideals were contested.

[History, nation and race in the context of the Centennial Exhibition of 1922]. / História, nação e raça no contexto da Exposição do Centenário em 1922.

The subjects addressed in this article are the public and academic debates about the history of Brazil that took place in the context of the Centennial Exhibition held in 1922 in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The aim is to highlight how certain concepts of nation and race were debated in academic discussions about history, anthropology and archaeology, how they were related to the nation's history, and how they ultimately became a part of the nation's self-image. Furthermore, the article investigates how and by whom these ideals were contested.