Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the blood of obligate and facultative European avian scavengers.

The widespread use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) and their high persistence in animal tissues has led to these compounds becoming ubiquitous in rodent-predator-scavenger food webs. Exposure to SGARs has usually been investigated in wildlife species found dead, and despite growing evidence of the potential risk of secondary poisoning of predators and scavengers, the current worldwide exposure of free-living scavenging birds to SGARs remains scarcely investigated. We present the first active monitoring of blood SGAR concentrations and prevalence in the four European obligate (i.e., vultures) and facultative (red and black kites) avian scavengers in NE Spain. We analysed 261 free-living birds and detected SGARs in 39.1% (n = 102) of individuals. Both SGAR prevalence and concentrations (ΣSGARs) were related to the age and foraging behaviour of the species studied. Black kites showed the highest prevalence (100%), followed by red kites (66.7%), Egyptian (64.2%), bearded (20.9%), griffon (16.9%) and cinereous (6.3%) vultures. Overall, both the prevalence and average ΣSGARs were higher in non-nestlings than nestlings, and in species such as kites and Egyptian vultures foraging in anthropic landscapes (e.g., landfill sites and livestock farms) and exploiting small/medium-sized carrions. Brodifacoum was most prevalent (28.8%), followed by difenacoum (16.1%), flocoumafen (12.3%) and bromadiolone (7.3%). In SGAR-positive birds, the ΣSGAR (mean ± SE) was 7.52 ± 0.95 ng mL-1; the highest level detected being 53.50 ng mL-1. The most abundant diastereomer forms were trans-bromadiolone and flocoumafen, and cis-brodifacoum and difenacoum, showing that lower impact formulations could reduce secondary exposures of non-target species. Our findings suggest that SGARs can bioaccumulate in scavenging birds, showing the potential risk to avian scavenging guilds in Europe and elsewhere. We highlight the need for further studies on the potential adverse effects associated with concentrations of SGARSs in the blood to better interpret active monitoring studies of free-living birds.

Does Influenza Vaccination Reduce the Risk of Contracting COVID-19?

The concurrent timing of the COVID-19 pandemic and the seasonal occurrence of influenza, makes it especially important to analyze the possible effect of the influenza vaccine on the risk of contracting COVID-19, or in reducing the complications caused by both diseases, especially in vulnerable populations. There is very little scientific information on the possible protective role of the influenza vaccine against the risk of contracting COVID-19, particularly in groups at high-risk of influenza complications. Reducing the risk of contracting COVID-19 in high-risk patients (those with a higher risk of infection, complications, and death) is essential to improve public well-being and to reduce hospital pressure and the collapse of primary health centers. Apart from overlapping in time, COVID-19 and flu share common aspects of transmission, so that measures to protect against flu might be effective in reducing the risk of contracting COVID-19. In this study, we conclude that the risk of contracting COVID-19 is reduced if patients are vaccinated against flu, but the reduction is small (0.22%) and therefore not clinically important. When this reduction is analysed based on the risk factor suffered by the patient, statistically significant differences have been obtained for patients with cardiovascular problems, diabetics, chronic lung and chronic kidney disease; in all four cases the reduction in the risk of contagion does not reach 1%. It is worth highlighting the behaviour that is completely different from the rest of the data for institutionalized patients. The data for these patients does not suggest a reduction in the risk of contagion for patients vaccinated against the flu, but rather the opposite, a significant increase of 6%. Socioeconomic conditions, as measured by the MEDEA deprivation index, explain increases in the risk of contracting COVID-19, and awareness campaigns should be increased to boost vaccination programs.

Effectiveness of a healthcare-based mobile intervention on sedentary patterns, physical activity, mental well-being and clinical and productivity outcomes in office employees with type 2 diabetes: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged sedentary time is associated with an increased incidence of chronic disease including type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). Given that occupational sedentary time contributes significantly to the total amount of daily sedentariness, incorporating programmes to reduce occupational sedentary time in patients with chronic disease would allow for physical, mental and productivity benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the short-, medium- and long-term effectiveness of a mHealth programme for sitting less and moving more at work on habitual and occupational sedentary behaviour and physical activity in office staff with DM2. Secondary aims. To evaluate the effectiveness on glycaemic control and lipid profile at 6- and 12-month follow-up; anthropometric profile, blood pressure, mental well-being and work-related post-intervention outcomes at 3, 6 and 12 months. METHODS: Multicentre randomized controlled trial. A sample size of 220 patients will be randomly allocated into a control (n = 110) or intervention group (n = 110), with post-intervention follow-ups at 6 and 12 months. Health professionals from Spanish Primary Health Care units will randomly invite patients (18-65 years of age) diagnosed with DM2, who have sedentary office desk-based jobs. The control group will receive usual healthcare and information on the health benefits of sitting less and moving more. The intervention group will receive, through a smartphone app and website, strategies and real-time feedback for 13 weeks to change occupational sedentary behaviour. VARIABLES: (1) Subjective and objective habitual and occupational sedentary behaviour and physical activity (Workforce Sitting Questionnaire, Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool, activPAL3TM); 2) Glucose, HbA1c; 3) Weight, height, waist circumference; 4) Total, HDL and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides; (5) Systolic, diastolic blood pressure; (6) Mental well-being (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being); (7) Presenteeism (Work Limitations Questionnaire); (8) Impact of work on employees´ health, sickness absence (6th European Working Conditions Survey); (9) Job-related mental strain (Job Content Questionnaire). Differences between groups pre- and post- intervention on the average value of the variables will be analysed. DISCUSSION: If the mHealth intervention is effective in reducing sedentary time and increasing physical activity in office employees with DM2, health professionals would have a low-cost tool for the control of patients with chronic disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04092738. Registered September 17, 2019.

Modelling the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak: Assessing the usefulness of protective measures to reduce the pandemic at population level.

A new bioinspired computational model was developed for the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic using the available epidemiological information, high-resolution population density data, travel patterns, and the average number of contacts between people. The effectiveness of control measures such as contact reduction measures, closure of communities (lockdown), protective measures (social distancing, face mask wearing, and hand hygiene), and vaccination were modelled to examine possibilities for control of the disease under several protective vaccination levels in the population. Lockdown and contact reduction measures only delay the spread of the virus in the population because it resumes its previous dynamics as soon as the restrictions are lifted. Nevertheless, these measures are probably useful to avoid hospitals being overwhelmed in the short term. Our model predicted that 56% of the Spanish population would have been infected and subsequently recovered over a 130 day period if no protective measures were taken but this percentage would have been only 34% if protective measures had been put in place. Moreover, this percentage would have been further reduced to 41.7, 27.7, and 13.3% if 25, 50 and 75% of the population had been vaccinated, respectively. Finally, this percentage would have been even lower at 25.5, 12.1 and 7.9% if 25, 50 and 75% of the population had been vaccinated in combination with the application of protective measures, respectively. Therefore, a combination of protective measures and vaccination would be highly efficacious in decreasing not only the number of those who become infected and subsequently recover, but also the number of people who die from infection, which falls from 0.41% of the population over a 130 day period without protective measures to 0.15, 0.08 and 0.06% if 25, 50 and 75% of the population had been vaccinated in combination with protective measures at the same time, respectively.

Modeling of Vaccination and Contact Tracing as Tools to Control the COVID-19 Outbreak in Spain.

We developed an agent-based stochastic model, based on P Systems methodology, to decipher the effects of vaccination and contact tracing on the control of COVID-19 outbreak at population level under different control measures (social distancing, mask wearing and hand hygiene) and epidemiological scenarios. Our findings suggest that without the application of protection social measures, 56.1% of the Spanish population would contract the disease with a mortality of 0.4%. Assuming that 20% of the population was protected by vaccination by the end of the summer of 2021, it would be expected that 45% of the population would contract the disease and 0.3% of the population would die. However, both of these percentages are significantly lower when social measures were adopted, being the best results when social measures are in place and 40% of contacts traced. Our model shows that if 40% of the population can be vaccinated, even without social control measures, the percentage of people who die or recover from infection would fall from 0.41% and 56.1% to 0.16% and 33.5%, respectively compared with an unvaccinated population. When social control measures were applied in concert with vaccination the percentage of people who die or recover from infection diminishes until 0.10% and 14.5%, after vaccinating 40% of the population. Vaccination alone can be crucial in controlling this disease, but it is necessary to vaccinate a significant part of the population and to back this up with social control measures.