Harveyschmitt2440

Objective To determine the time of oogenic development and the length of the gonotrophic cycle of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus in laboratory. Materials and methods Bloodfed females of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus were dissected every 4 h to determine the development status of the follicles according to the Christophers' stages. Results The minimum time of oocyte maturation in Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus was 64-82 h and 52-64 h post-feeding, respectively. We found that the gonotrophic cycle of Ae. aegypti (3.7-4.2 d) is longer than that of Ae. albopictus (3.2-3.7 d). The follicle length showed significant differences between species at Christophers' stages 2" and 5, whereas follicle amplitude was different between the two mosquitoes at stages 2", 3 and 4. Conclusions The study provided new evidence on the reproductive strategies of Ae. aegypti and Ae. albopictus females that coexist in the Neotropical region of Mexico.Objective To determine the presence of Rickettsia typhi in Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.l. and Amblyomma mixtum in southern Mexico. Materials and methods Ticks were collected in humans and domestic animals. The presence of Rickettsia was determined by PCR and sequencing. Results 10/39 work vials amplified fragments of the gltA, htrA and ompB genes. On 7/10 from Rh. sanguineus s.l. collected from dogs and in 3/10 of A. mixtum collected from horse and human. Sequencing indicated R. typhi in Rh. sanguineus and A. mixtum with 100% homology (LS992663.1) for a region of the htrA gene and 99% (LS992663.1) with the regions of the gltA and OmpB genes. The minimum infection rate (TMI) for R. typhi was 3.88. Conclusions Rhipicephalus sanguineus s.l. and Amblyomma mixtum are naturally infected with R. typhi in Southern Mexico.Purpose To provide a summary and recommendations for the set-up of strategies for cancer patients care in genitourinary oncology clinics during the pandemic and in the recovery period. Material and methods A non-systematic review of available literature on the management of urological malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic was performed to summarize recommendations to improve the diagnosis and treatment of urological cancers during and after the contingence, including clinical and research aspects. Results Urological cancer diagnosis and management should be tailored according to the severity of the COVID-19 crisis in each region and the aggressiveness of each tumor. Clinicians should adhere to strict protocols in order to prioritize the attention of patients with high-risk malignancies while optimizing resources to avoid the saturation of critical care services. Conclusions During the COVID-19 pandemic urological cancer care has been severely impaired. For proper patient management, multidisciplinary approach is encouraged tailoring therapy according to COVID-19 regional behavior and local institutional resources. Patients with high-risk malignancies should be prioritized.Known laparoscopic and robotic assisted approaches and techniques for the surgical management of urological malignant and benign diseases are commonly used around the World. During the global pandemic COVID19, urology surgeons had to reorganize their daily surgical practice. A concern with the use of minimally invasive techniques arose due to a proposed risk of viral transmission of the coronavirus disease with the creation of pneumoperitoneum. Due to this, we reviewed the literature to evaluate the use of laparoscopy and robotics during the pandemic COVID19. A literature review of viral transmission in surgery and of the available literature regarding the transmission of the COVID19 virus was performed up to April 30, 2020. We additionally reviewed surgical society guidelines and recommendations regarding surgery during this pandemic. Few studies have been performed on viral transmission during surgery. No study has been made regarding this area during minimally invasive urology cases. To date there is no study that demonstrates or can suggest the ability for a virus to be transmitted during surgical treatment whether open, laparoscopic or robotic. There is no society consensus on restricting laparoscopic or robotic surgery. However, there is expert consensus on modification of standard practices to minimize any risk of transmission. During the pandemic COVID19 we recommend the use of specific personal protective equipment for the surgeon, anesthesiologist and nursing staff in the operating room. Modifications of standard practices during minimally invasive surgery such as using lowest intra-abdominal pressures possible, controlled smoke evacuation systems, and minimizing energy device usage are recommended.Introduction Recently the COVID-19 pandemic became the main global priority; main efforts and health infrastructures have been prioritized in favor of COVID-19 battle and the treatment of benign diseases has been postponed. Renal cell cancer (RCC) patients configure a heterogenous populations some of them present indolent cases which can safely have postponed their treatments, others present aggressive tumors, deserving immediate care. These scenarios must be properly identified before a tailored therapeutic choice. Objectives We propose a risk- based approach for patients with RCC, to be used during this unprecedented viral infection time. Materials and methods After a literature review focused in COVID-19 and current RCC treatments, we suggest therapeutic strategies of RCC in two sections surgical approach and systemic therapy, in all stages of this malignance. Results Patients with cT1a tumors (and complex cysts, Bosniak III/IV), must be put under active surveillance and delayed intervention. cT1b-T2a/b caof RCC, aiming to not compromise the oncological outcomes of the patients.The COVID-19 outbreak has led to the deferral of a great number of surgeries in an attempt to reduce transmission of infection, free up hospital beds, intensive care and anaesthetists, and limit aerosol-generating procedures. Guidelines and suggestions have been provided to categorize Urological diseases into risk groups and recommendations are available on procedures that can be or cannot be deferred. We aim to summarise updates on diagnosis, treatment and follow up of bladder cancer during the COVID-19 outbreaks.Purpose Propose an approach of prostate cancer (PCa) patients during COVID-19 pandemic. Material and methods We conducted a review of current literature related to surgical and clinical management of patients during COVID-19 crisis paying special attention to oncological ones and especially those suffering from PCa. Based on these publications and current urological guidelines, a manual to manage PCa patients is suggested. Results Patients suffering from cancer are likely to develop serious complications from COVID-19 disease together with an increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the management of oncological patients should be taken into special consideration and most of the treatments postponed. find more In case the procedure is not deferrable, it should be adapted to the current situation. While the shortest radiotherapy (RT) regimens should be applied, surgical procedures must undergo the following recommendations proposed by main surgical associations. PCa prognosis is generally favoherapies with abiraterone, apalutamide, darolutamide or enzalutamide could be considered. Chemotherapy, Radium-223 and immunotherapy are discouraged.Although urological diseases are not directly related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), urologists need to make comprehensive plans for this disease. link2 Urological conditions such as benign prostatic hyperplasia and tumors are very common in elderly patients. This group of patients is often accompanied by underlying comorbidities or immune dysfunction. They are at higher risk of COVID-19 infection and they tend to have severe manifestations. Although fever can occur along with urological infections, it is actually one of the commonest symptoms of COVID-19; urologists must always maintain a high index of suspicion in their clinical practices. As a urological surgeon, how we can protect medical staff during surgery is a major concern. Our hospital had early adoption of a series of strict protective and control measures, and was able to avoid cross-infection and outbreak of COVID-19. This paper discusses the effective measures that can be useful when dealing with urological patients with COVID-19.The SARS-CoV-2, a newly identified β-coronavirus, is the causative agent of the third large-scale pandemic from the last two decades. The outbreak started in December 2019 in Wuhan City, Hubei province in China. The patients presented clinical symptoms of dry cough, fever, dyspnea, and bilateral lung infiltrates on imaging. By February 2020, The World Health Organization (WHO) named the disease as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). The Coronavirus Study Group (CSG) of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) recognized and designated this virus as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 uses the same host receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), used by SARS-CoV to infect humans. One hypothesis of SARSCoV-2 origin indicates that it is likely that bats serve as reservoir hosts for SARSCoV-2, being the intermediate host not yet determined. The predominant route of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 is from human to human. As of May 10th 2020, the number of worldwide confirmed COVID-19 cases is over 4 million, while the number of global deaths is around 279.000 people. The United States of America (USA) has the highest number of COVID-19 cases with over 1.3 million cases followed by Spain, Italy, United Kingdom, Russia, France and Germany with over 223.000, 218.000, 215.000, 209.000, 176.000, and 171.000 cases, respectively.Objectives The Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program (MDPP) launched in April 2018, offering an unprecedented opportunity to reach the estimated 48.3% of older adults with prediabetes. Success of the innovative policy is likely to depend on adequate supplier availability. We examined supplier data from CMS to assess beneficiaries' potential access to MDPP services. Study design We conducted a descriptive analysis of MDPP suppliers using data extracted from the CMS registry of suppliers as of July 2019 and data about beneficiary populations. Methods Identifying the location, type, and number of MDPP suppliers and their respective sites, including within states, US territories, and the District of Columbia (hereafter, states), we mapped geographic coverage of MDPP access. link3 Results There are 126 unique supplier organizations that offer the MDPP across 601 sites, equating to only 1 site per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. Seventy-five percent of states have no MDPP sites, fewer than 1 site per 100,000 beneficiaries, and/or availability limited to a single municipality. Although only 10.3% of MDPP suppliers are community-based organizations, they represent more than half (55.7%) of sites where beneficiaries can access the program. Conclusions Findings show inadequate MDPP access, with relatively few suppliers and locations where beneficiaries can receive services. Insufficient reimbursement relative to costs for suppliers may largely account for limited availability. Strategies to facilitate access are urgently needed, which may include partnering with large organizations for greater per capita reach and rural organizations for broader geographic coverage, along with setting fiscally sustainable rates based on refined program implementation and cost analysis.