Islet allotransplantation in the United States (US) is facing an imminent demise. Despite nearly three decades of progress in the field, an archaic regulatory framework has stymied US clinical practice. Current regulations do not reflect the state‐of‐the‐art in clinical or technical practices. In the US, islets are considered biologic drugs and “more than minimally manipulated” human cell and tissue products (HCT/Ps). In contrast, across the world, human islets are appropriately defined as “minimally manipulated tissue” and not regulated as a drug, which has led to islet allotransplantation (allo‐ITx) becoming a standard‐of‐care procedure for selected patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This regulatory distinction impedes patient access to islets for transplantation in the US. As a result only 11 patients underwent allo‐ITx in the US between 2016 and 2019, and all as investigational procedures in the settings of a clinical trials. Herein, we describe the current regulations pertaining to islet transplantation in the United States. We explore the progress which has been made in the field and demonstrate why the regulatory framework must be updated to both better reflect our current clinical practice and to deal with upcoming challenges. We propose specific updates to current regulations which are required for the renaissance of ethical, safe, effective, and affordable allo‐ITx in the United States.

Epidemiologic & therapeutic study; level II.

Background. In Haiti, breast cancer patients present at such advanced stages that even modern therapies offer modest survival benefit. Identifying the personal, sociocultural, and economic barriers-to-care delaying patient presentation is crucial to controlling disease. Methods. Patients presenting to the Hôpital Bon Sauveur in Cange were prospectively accrued. Delay was defined as 12 weeks or longer from initial sign/symptom discovery to presentation, as durations greater than this cutoff correlate with reduced survival. A matched case-control analysis with multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors predicting delay. Results. Of N = 123 patients accrued, 90 (73%) reported symptom-presentation duration and formed the basis of this study: 52 patients presented within 12 weeks of symptoms, while 38 patients waited longer than 12 weeks. On logistic regression, lower education status (OR = 5.6, P = 0.03), failure to initially recognize mass as important (OR = 13.0, P < 0.01), and fear of treatment cost (OR = 8.3, P = 0.03) were shown to independently predict delayed patient presentation. Conclusion. To reduce stage at presentation, future interventions must educate patients on the recognition of initial breast cancer signs and symptoms and address cost concerns by providing care free of charge and/or advertising that existing care is already free.

No abstract

No abstract

Natural disasters significantly contribute to human death and suffering. Moreover, they exacerbate pre-existing health inequalities by imposing an additional burden on the most vulnerable populations. Robust local health systems can greatly mitigate this burden by absorbing the extraordinary patient volume and case complexity immediately after a disaster. This resilience is largely determined by the predisaster local surgical capacity, with trauma, neurosurgical, obstetrical and anaesthesia care of particular importance. Nevertheless, the disaster management and global surgery communities have not coordinated the development of surgical systems in low/middle-income countries (LMIC) with disaster resilience in mind. Herein, we argue that an appropriate peridisaster response requires coordinated surgical and disaster policy, as only local surgical systems can provide adequate disaster care in LMICs.We highlight three opportunities to help guide this policy collaboration. First, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction set forth independent roadmaps for global surgical care and disaster risk reduction; however, ultimately both advocate for health system strengthening in LMICs. Second, the integration of surgical and disaster planning is necessary. Disaster risk reduction plans could recognise the role of surgical systems in disaster preparedness more explicitly and pre-emptively identify deficiencies in surgical systems. Based on these insights, National Surgical, Obstetric, and Anesthesia Plans, in turn, can better address deficiencies in systems and ensure increased disaster resilience. Lastly, the recent momentum for national surgical planning in LMICs represents a political window for the integration of surgical policy and disaster risk reduction strategies.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is highly transmissible disease and entails significant mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic has already affected over 89 million people globally, with a fatality rate of 2%-6%. 1 The infection is of significant health concern in the elderly as well as populations with underlying comorbidities such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic lung diseases. SARS-CoV-2 carries a higher risk of adverse outcomes in patients with specific disease states including chronic liver disease. SARS-CoV-2 virus can have higher adverse outcomes in patients with comorbidities, including chronic liver disease and liver

No abstract