Geriatric patients' expectations of their physicians: findings from a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Geriatric health is a neglected and under-explored area internationally and in Pakistan. We aimed to ascertain the expectations of the geriatric patients from their physicians and the factors associated with patient satisfaction in this particular age bracket.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey was carried out at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Data collection was carried out via face-to-face interviews based on structured, pre-tested questionnaires. All consenting individuals aged 65 years or above were recruited into the study. Convenience sampling was used to draw the sample. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 16. Geriatric patient's expectations from physicians were elicited using a set of 11 questions that were graded on a scale of 1-3 where 1 = not important, 2 = important, 3 = very important.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three hundred and eighty geriatric patients were interviewed. The response rate of this study was 89.8%. The mean age of the respondents was 73.4 ± 6.8 years. Two hundred and forty eight respondents (65.3%) were female. Diabetes mellitus (53.7%), hypertension (59.5%), arthritis (40.5%) and renal disease (32.1%) were common ailments among geriatric patients. More than 50% of the patients were visiting their physicians once every two to three months. Discussing treatment options and letting patients make the final decision (79.2%), prescribing minimum possible medications (84.5%), physician's holistic knowledge about the spectrum of care issues for geriatric patients (79.2%), being given a realistic but optimistic picture of future health by physicians (85.5%) were ranked as very important expectations by patients from their physicians. Cumulative household income (p = 0.005), most important health complaint (p = 0.01) and frequency of experiencing health complaint (p < 0.001) emerged as independent predictors of the satisfaction of geriatric patients from care provided by physicians.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We have documented the expectations of the geriatric patients from their physicians in a developing country. Physicians belonging to all disciplines should keep these expectations in mind during clinical encounters with geriatric patients.</p

The 2024 Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa

With the simultaneous growth in interest from the mycological community to discover fungal species and classify them, there is also an important need to assemble all taxonomic information onto common platforms. Fungal classification is facing a rapidly evolving landscape and organizing genera into an appropriate taxonomic hierarchy is central to better structure a unified classification scheme and avoid incorrect taxonomic inferences. With this in mind, the Outlines of Fungi and fungus-like taxa (2020, 2022) were published as an open-source taxonomic scheme to assist mycologists to better understand the taxonomic position of species within the Fungal Kingdom as well as to improve the accuracy and consistency of our taxonomic language. In this paper, the third contribution to the series of Outline of Fungi and fungus-like taxa prepared by the Global Consortium for the Classification of Fungi and fungus-like taxa is published. The former is updated considering our previous reviews and the taxonomic changes based on recent taxonomic work. In addition, it is more comprehensive and derives more input and consensus from a larger number of mycologists worldwide. Apart from listing the position of a particular genus in a taxonomic level, nearly 1000 notes are provided for newly established genera and higher taxa introduced since 2022. The notes section emphasizes on recent findings with corresponding references, discusses background information to support the current taxonomic status and some controversial taxonomic issues are also highlighted. To elicit maximum taxonomic information, notes/taxa are linked to recognized databases such as Index Fungorum, Faces of Fungi, MycoBank and GenBank, Species Fungorum and others. A new feature includes links to Fungalpedia, offering notes in the Compendium of Fungi and fungus-like Organisms. When specific notes are not provided, links are available to webpages and relevant publications for genera or higher taxa to ease data accessibility. Following the recent synonymization of Caulochytriomycota under Chytridiomycota, with Caulochytriomycetes now classified as a class within the latter, based on formally described and currently accepted data, the Fungi comprises 19 Phyla, 83 classes, 1,220 families, 10,685 genera and ca 140,000 species. Of the genera, 39.5% are monotypic and this begs the question whether mycologists split genera unnecessarily or are we going to find other species in these genera as more parts of the world are surveyed? They are 433 speciose genera with more than 50 species. The document also highlights discussion of some important topics including number of genera categorized as incertae sedis status in higher level fungal classification. The number of species at the higher taxonomic level has always been a contentious issue especially when mycologists consider either a lumping or a splitting approach and herein we provide figures. Herein a summary of updates in the outline of Basidiomycota is provided with discussion on whether there are too many genera of Boletales, Ceratobasidiaceae, and speciose genera such as Colletotrichum. Specific case studies deal with Cortinarius, early diverging fungi, Glomeromycota, a diverse early divergent lineage of symbiotic fungi, Eurotiomycetes, marine fungi, Myxomycetes, Phyllosticta, Hymenochaetaceae and Polyporaceae and the longstanding practice of misapplying intercontinental conspecificity. The outline will aid to better stabilize fungal taxonomy and serves as a necessary tool for mycologists and other scientists interested in the classification of the Fungi

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

<I>Cylindrocladium pseudonaviculatum </i>sp. nov. from New Zealand, and new <I>Cylindrocladium</i> records from Vietnam

AgriwetenskappePlantpatologiePlease help us populate SUNScholar with the post print version of this article. It can be e-mailed to: [email protected]