High vs low CPAP strategy with aerosolized calfactant in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUND

Optimal CPAP strategy to prevent CPAP failure defined as need for endotracheal intubation is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the risk of CPAP failure in infants treated with high vs low CPAP strategy while receiving aerosolized calfactant in the AERO-02 clinical trial and AERO-03 expanded access program.

METHODS

Infants born between 29 0/7 to 36 6/7 weeks were included. Comparisons were made between low and high CPAP groups (Low, 4-7 cm H2O; High, 8-10 cm H2O).

RESULTS

CPAP failure and pneumothorax were not different between the groups. Odds of CPAP failure were not different after adjustment for baseline characteristics (OR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.29, 1.24).

CONCLUSION

We found no difference in CPAP failure among infants who received aerosolized calfactant that were treated with high vs low CPAP strategy. Efficacy of high CPAP strategy with aerosolized surfactant treatment needs to be evaluated in future studies.

Communicating risk during early phases of COVID-19: Comparing governing structures for emergency risk communication across four contexts

Background

Emergency risk communication (ERC) is key to achieving compliance with public health measures during pandemics. Yet, the factors that facilitated ERC during COVID-19 have not been analyzed. We compare ERC in the early stages of the pandemic across four socio-economic settings to identify how risk communication can be improved in public health emergencies (PHE).

Methods

To map and assess the content, process, actors, and context of ERC in Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore, we performed a qualitative document review, and thematically analyzed semi-structured key informant interviews with 155 stakeholders involved in ERC at national and sub-national levels. We applied Walt and Gilson's health policy triangle as a framework to structure the results.

Results

We identified distinct ERC strategies in each of the four countries. Various actors, including governmental leads, experts, and organizations with close contact to the public, collaborated closely to implement ERC strategies. Early integration of ERC into preparedness and response plans, lessons from previous experiences, existing structures and networks, and clear leadership were identified as crucial for ensuring message clarity, consistency, relevance, and an efficient use of resources. Areas of improvement primarily included two-way communication, community engagement, and monitoring and evaluation. Countries with recurrent experiences of pandemics appeared to be more prepared and equipped to implement ERC strategies.

Conclusion

We found that considerable potential exists for countries to improve communication during public health emergencies, particularly in the areas of bilateral communication and community engagement as well as monitoring and evaluation. Building adaptive structures and maintaining long-term relationships with at-risk communities reportedly facilitated suitable communication. The findings suggest considerable potential and transferable learning opportunities exist between countries in the global north and countries in the global south with experience of managing outbreaks.

A comparative analysis of experienced uncertainties in relation to risk communication during COVID19: a four-country study

Background

During outbreaks, uncertainties experienced by affected communities can influence their compliance to government guidance on public health. Communicators and authorities are, hence, encouraged to acknowledge and address such uncertainties. However, in the midst of public health crises, it can become difficult to define and identify uncertainties that are most relevant to address. We analyzed data on COVID-19-related uncertainties from four socio-economic contexts to explore how uncertainties can influence people’s perception of, and response to Risk Communication and Community Engagement (RCCE) strategies.

Results

This qualitative study, which adopts an interpretative approach, is based on data from a documentary review, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussions (FGD) with members of the general public and people with barriers to information from Germany, Guinea, Nigeria, and Singapore. Transcripts from the KII and FGD were coded and analyzed thematically. We interviewed a total of 155 KIs and conducted 73 FGD. Our analysis uncovered a divergence between uncertainties deemed relevant by stakeholders involved in policy making and uncertainties that people reportedly had to navigate in their everyday lives and which they considered relevant during the pandemic. We identified four types of uncertainties that seemed to have influenced people’s assessment of the disease risk and their trust in the pandemic control strategies including RCCE efforts: epidemiological uncertainties (related to the nature and severity of the virus), information uncertainties (related to access to reliable information), social uncertainties (related to social behavior in times of heightened risk), and economic uncertainties (related to financial insecurities).

Conclusion

We suggest that in future outbreaks, communicators and policy makers could improve the way in which affected communities assess their risk, and increase the trust of these communities in response efforts by addressing non-epidemiological uncertainties in RCCE strategies.

COVID-19 containment measures analysis

On a bi-weekly basis, COVID-19 control measures were analyzed through a deeper investigation by the Evidence-Based Public Health Unit at ZIG. The biweekly analysis focused on a list of countries selected on the basis of their accelerating or decelerating COVID-19 epidemiological trend. For this, a policy analysis framework was developed to contextualize the epidemiological trend in conjunction with the change in the public policy landscape.

[Dorsal capsulodesis versus triscaphe arthrodesis in patients with scapholunate dissociation. Do the results depend on the diagnosis or the operation?]

BACKGROUND

Dorsal capsulodesis and triscaphe arthrodesis are possible treatment modalities for patients with scapholunate dissociation. In light of overlapping indications for either operation for patients with carpal instability, it is important to compare the postoperative results.

METHODS

From 1998 until 2002, we operated on 87 patients suffering from scapholunate dissociation. 52 patients were treated by dorsal capsulodesis after R. Berger and 35 patients were treated by triscaphe arthrodesis as published by Watson. Of these 87 patients, we managed to follow-up 77 patients (47 dorsal capsulodesis und 30 triscaphe arthrodesis) with a physical examination, X-ray of the wrists and Krimmer Score.

RESULTS

In terms of grip-strength, range of motion, functional outcome (Krimmer Score), duration of the operation and hospitalisation, the dorsal capsulodesis group performed better (p < 0.05) than the triscaphe arthrodesis group at the time of follow-up. At follow-up, pain reduction was significant in both groups (p < 0.05). Krimmer Score (functional outcome) and the rate of complication was clearly better for the dorsal capsulodesis group as compared to the triscaphe arthrodesis group.

CONCLUSION

In case of non-static scapholunate dissociation, dorsal capsulodesis should be the first choice treatment. In case of a young manually working man with static scapholunate dissociation, it should be a case-to-case decision whether performing a triscaphe arthrodesis or a dorsal capsulodesis. With this investigation we wanted to discuss and demonstrate the difficulties with the differential-indication for the two operations. Generally speaking the postoperative results did not depend on the type of scapholunate dissociation (dynamic versus static) but rather on the chosen surgical procedure.