A review of Brazilian scientific output on crack - contributions to the political agenda

Object: scientific literature about crack abuse published in Brazilian journals indexed in SCIELO.Objective: systematic review of literature treating findings as a framework for agenda-setting orienting policy decision makers.Methodology: SCIELO online journals research since 02/06/2013 on tag crack as "key word searched" and in indexes as "research amplitude". An amount of 199 references were identified and their abstracts were analyzed getting to a final group of 59 articles specifically studying crack issues in Brazil. Analysis: institutional criteria (journal, subject area, and publishing time) and analytical categories created by the authors: "Social Risk", "Treatment", "Use/Abuse", "Profile", "Social Relations", and "Study".Results: crack use impact Brazilian journals since 2011; health field is prominent; articles about "Associated Risk" and "Treatment" prevail; SUS cannot face demand;investment improvement in CAP and harm reduction; therapeutic communities need to match with SUS standards; youngers, black people and poor express users profile; rave style use; repressive policies were not well succeeded; and multidisciplinary approach are necessary

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

Linalool from Lippia alba: Study of the reproducibility of the essential oil profile and the enantiomeric purity

A new chemotype of the aromatic Verbenaceae species Lippia alba Mill. N. E. Br. from southeastern Brazil has recently been shown to have a high content of linalool in the leaf essential oil, Vegetative propagation of this chemotype was conducted at six different locations in Brazil, and the variation of the content and the optical purity of linalool in the oils were verified. Yields (0.6-0.9%, hydrodistillation), chemical composition, linalool content, and optical purity of the oils from all the plants were compared, using GC-FID, GC-MS, chiral chromatography, and retention index calculation. No plant exceeded the matrix in linalool content (46.5 to 90.7%), and the chemical profile of the oils was the same for all the samples. Purification of linalool to a content close to 100% was effected by vacuum distillation of the crude oil. Chiral analysis showed exclusively the presence of S-linalool in all the crude oils and in the distilled samples.50123518352

Uma revisão sistemática sobre a produção científica com ênfase na relação entre saúde e meio ambiente A systematic review about the scientific production with focus on the relation between health and environment

A discussão de questões ligadas à interface entre meio ambiente e saúde têm tomado importante dimensão na atualidade. Neste sentido, este artigo busca apresentar um levantamento da produção científica nacional e internacional sobre o assunto, visando identificar as temáticas mais freqüentes da referida produção. Os dados foram coletados durante os meses de março e abril de 2005, junto a dois portais de busca de publicações científicas disponíveis na web, sendo que 603 foram utilizadas como material de análise, por meio de categorização. Os dados evidenciaram que há um número significativo de países com produção científica na área, com supremacia de produção norte-americana e russa, cuja temática de maior relevância está relacionada com avaliação de riscos. O Brasil aparece como terceiro maior produtor, sendo que a maioria de sua produção está direcionada para o estudo de vetores transmissores de doenças infecto-contagiosas. Nos demais países, há diversificação de linhas de investigação. De uma forma geral, percebe-se que a produção de conhecimento na área ainda ocorre de forma muito isolada e fragmentada, sem valorizar a diversidade de fatores envolvidos nas questões ambientais, bem como sem dar espaço para a interdisciplinaridade e intersetorialidade tão importantes na análise da interface saúde meio ambiente.<br>The discussion on points linked to the interface between the environment and health has turned into a very important subject of interest nowadays. Thus, this article aims to show a survey of the national and international scientific production about this subject, in an attempt to identify the most frequent themes of this production. The data were collected during the months of March and April of 2005, from two homepages where scientific publications are available on the web, from which, 603 publications were used as analysis material, by means of categorization. The data showed that there is a very significant number of countries with scientific production on this area, being the most frequent the USA and Russia, whose most relevant theme area is related to risk evaluation. Brazil appears as the third most frequent country in terms of production and most of its work is directed to the study of vectors (transmitters) of infecting-contagious diseases. About the other countries, there is a diversification of lines of investigation. In general, it is perceived that the production of knowledge of this area still occurs in a very isolated and fragmented way, with little importance to the diversity of factors involved in the environmental questions, as well as with little space to interdisciplinary and inter sectorial work, so important in the analysis of the interface health-environment