Materials and Methods: The authors prepared C. striatus extract in chloroform-methanol solvents. Next, the authors took subgingival microbiological samples from 16 cats that had periodontal disease. The authors determined the antibacterial properties of C. striatus extract against the isolated bacteria using the disk diffusion method and a broth microdilution-based resazurin microtiter assay. Finally, the authors used the Vero cell line to evaluate the cytotoxic activity, and they assessed the cell availability using the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay.
Results: The results showed weak antibacterial activity of C. striatus extract against Pseudomonas spp. and Escherichia coli. In addition, the authors found that minimum inhibition concentration values ranged between 400 and 500 mg/mL, and minimum bactericidal concentration values ranged between 650 and 550 mg/mL. However, the cytotoxic results were promising, showing that C. striatus extract increased the cell viability and growth when it was at a higher concentration. The extract also promotes growth and cell proliferation.
Conclusion: These findings suggest that C. striatus extract promoted cell proliferation in vitro and could be a plausible therapeutic wound healing alternative for periodontal disease in cats.
Methods: This study was conducted to compare the outcomes of early and late tracheostomies in severe TBI. Only severe TBI patients who were admitted to the Neurosurgery High Dependency Unit (NHDU), Hospital Sultanah Aminah (HSA), Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia and who had underwent a tracheostomy were recruited. Three main outcomes noted: duration on ventilation, length of NHDU stay and rate of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP).
Results: Out of 155 patients, 72 (46.5%) were in early tracheostomy group (ETG) and 83 (53.5%) were in late tracheostomy group (LTG). The majority of the participants, 95 (61.3%) were ethnic Malays. The mean duration on ventilator use was 2.65 days (1.57) for ETG and 5.63 days (2.35) for LTG. While, mean NHDU stay was 4.75 days (1.98) for ETG and 9.77 days (2.70) for LTG. Upon independent t-test, early duration of tracheostomies had shown significant outcome in reducing length of NHDU stay, (P < 0.001) and had shortening participants' time on mechanical ventilator (P < 0.001). Then, based on forward multiple logistic regression test, there were significant association between comorbid (P = 0.003) and tracheostomy (P = 0.020) towards presence of VAP when adjusted for other variables.
Conclusion: In this study it was found that early tracheostomy was significant in shortening the duration on ventilator, reducing the length of NHDU stay and reducing the rate of VAP.
METHODS: A pilot study was conducted in four primary healthcare (PHC) centers in Malaysia. The model's key features included on-site HCV ribonucleic acid (RNA) testing using a shared GeneXpert® system; noninvasive biomarkers for cirrhosis diagnosis; and extended care to PWID referred from nearby PHC centers and outreach programs. The feasibility assessment focused on three aspects of the model: demand (i.e., uptake of HCV RNA testing and treatment), implementation (i.e., achievement of each step in the HCV care cascade), and practicality (i.e., ability to identify PWID with HCV and expedite treatment initiation despite resource constraints).
RESULTS: A total of 199 anti-HCV-positive PWID were recruited. They demonstrated high demand for HCV care, with a 100% uptake of HCV RNA testing and 97.4% uptake of direct-acting antiviral treatment. The rates of HCV RNA positivity (78.4%) and sustained virologic response (92.2%) were comparable to standard practice, indicating the successful implementation of the model. The model was also practical, as it covered non-opioid-substitution-therapy-receiving individuals and enabled same-day treatment in 71.1% of the participants.
CONCLUSIONS: The modified same-day test-and-treat model is feasible in improving HCV care for rural PWID. The study finding suggests its potential for wider adoption in HCV care for hard-to-reach populations.
METHODS: Contents from the Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) Classification System and GSCI care pathway papers provided a foundation for the resources list. A seed document was developed that included resources for spine care that could be delivered in primary, secondary and tertiary settings, as well as resources needed for self-care and community-based settings for a wide variety of spine concerns (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spine injury, neurological conditions, pathology and spinal diseases). An iterative expert consensus process was used using electronic surveys.
RESULTS: Thirty-five experts completed the process. An iterative consensus process was used through an electronic survey. A consensus was reached after two rounds. The checklist of resources included the following categories: healthcare provider knowledge and skills, materials and equipment, human resources, facilities and infrastructure. The list identifies resources needed to implement a spine care program in any community, which are based upon spine care needs.
CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first international and interprofessional attempt to develop a list of resources needed to deliver care in an evidence-based care pathway for the management of people presenting with spine-related concerns. This resource list needs to be field tested in a variety of communities with different resource capacities to verify its utility. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) care pathway development team extracted interventions recommended for the management of spinal disorders from six GSCI articles that synthesized the available evidence from guidelines and relevant literature. Sixty-eight international and interprofessional clinicians and scientists with expertise in spine-related conditions were invited to participate. An iterative consensus process was used.
RESULTS: After three rounds of review, 46 experts from 16 countries reached consensus for the care pathway that includes five decision steps: awareness, initial triage, provider assessment, interventions (e.g., non-invasive treatment; invasive treatment; psychological and social intervention; prevention and public health; specialty care and interprofessional management), and outcomes. The care pathway can be used to guide the management of patients with any spine-related concern (e.g., back and neck pain, deformity, spinal injury, neurological conditions, pathology, spinal diseases). The pathway is simple and can be incorporated into educational tools, decision-making trees, and electronic medical records.
CONCLUSION: A care pathway for the management of individuals presenting with spine-related concerns includes evidence-based recommendations to guide health care providers in the management of common spinal disorders. The proposed pathway is person-centered and evidence-based. The acceptability and utility of this care pathway will need to be evaluated in various communities, especially in low- and middle-income countries, with different cultural background and resources. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: World Spine Care convened the GSCI to develop an evidence-based, practical, and sustainable healthcare model for spinal care. The initiative aims to improve the management, prevention, and public health for spine-related disorders worldwide; thus, global representation was essential. A series of meetings established the initiative's mission and goals. Electronic surveys collected contributorship and demographic information, and experiences with spinal conditions to better understand perceptions and potential biases that were contributing to the model of care.
RESULTS: Sixty-eight clinicians and scientists participated in the deliberations and are authors of one or more of the GSCI articles. Of these experts, 57 reported providing spine care in 34 countries, (i.e., low-, middle-, and high-income countries, as well as underserved communities in high-income countries.) The majority reported personally experiencing or having a close family member with one or more spinal concerns including: spine-related trauma or injury, spinal problems that required emergency or surgical intervention, spinal pain referred from non-spine sources, spinal deformity, spinal pathology or disease, neurological problems, and/or mild, moderate, or severe back or neck pain. There were no substantial reported conflicts of interest.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI participants have broad professional experience and wide international distribution with no discipline dominating the deliberations. The GSCI believes this set of papers has the potential to inform and improve spine care globally. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: The Global Spine Care Initiative (GSCI) meetings and literature reviews were synthesized into a seed document and distributed to spine care experts. After three rounds of a modified Delphi process, all participants reached consensus on the final model of care and implementation steps.
RESULTS: Sixty-six experts representing 24 countries participated. The GSCI model of care has eight core principles: person-centered, people-centered, biopsychosocial, proactive, evidence-based, integrative, collaborative, and self-sustaining. The model of care includes a classification system and care pathway, levels of care, and a focus on the patient's journey. The six steps for implementation are initiation and preparation; assessment of the current situation; planning and designing solutions; implementation; assessment and evaluation of program; and sustain program and scale up.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based, practical, sustainable, and scalable model of care representing eight core principles with a six-step implementation plan. The aim of this model is to help transform spine care globally, especially in low- and middle-income countries and underserved communities. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
METHODS: Leading spine clinicians and scientists around the world were invited to participate. The interprofessional, international team consisted of 68 members from 24 countries, representing most disciplines that study or care for patients with spinal symptoms, including family physicians, spine surgeons, rheumatologists, chiropractors, physical therapists, epidemiologists, research methodologists, and other stakeholders.
RESULTS: Literature reviews on the burden of spinal disorders and six categories of evidence-based interventions for spinal disorders (assessment, public health, psychosocial, noninvasive, invasive, and the management of osteoporosis) were completed. In addition, participants developed a stratification system for surgical intervention, a classification system for spinal disorders, an evidence-based care pathway, and lists of resources and recommendations to implement the GSCI model of care.
CONCLUSION: The GSCI proposes an evidence-based model that is consistent with recent calls for action to reduce the global burden of spinal disorders. The model requires testing to determine feasibility. If it proves to be implementable, this model holds great promise to reduce the tremendous global burden of spinal disorders. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.