The culling of animals that are infected, or suspected to be infected, with COVID-19 has fuelled outcry. What might have contributed to the ongoing debates and discussions about animal rights protection amid global health crises is the lack of a unified understanding and internationally agreed-upon definition of “One Health”. The term One Health is often utilised to describe the imperative to protect the health of humans, animals, and plants, along with the overarching ecosystem in an increasingly connected and globalized world. However, to date, there is a dearth of research on how to balance public health decisions that could impact all key stakeholders under the umbrella of One Health, particularly in contexts where human suffering has been immense. To shed light on the issue, this paper discusses whether One Health means “human-centred connected health” in a largely human-dominated planet, particularly amid crises like COVID-19. The insights of this study could help policymakers make more informed decisions that could effectively and efficiently protect human health while balancing the health and well-being of the rest of the inhabitants of our shared planet Earth.

Introduction: Industrialization and urbanization led to a significant increase in the environment. Lead inhibits the activity of numerous enzymes, triggers oxidative stress, and causes protein biosynthesis dysregulation. Inhalation of lead particles is the most common route of intoxication associated with occupational exposure. This study aims to evaluate laboratory methods and biomarkers in the assessment of lead exposure. Methods: For non-experimental qualitative research, available scientific articles in English published in the relevant databases (MEDLINE and ScienceDirect) were used. The database search was performed using the keywords “Laboratory diagnostics”, “occupational exposure”, and “lead”. Results: Atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) is the gold standard in laboratory monitoring of occupational lead exposure. Inductively coupled plasma with mass spectrometry is a commonly used method described as more sensitive than AAS due to its low detection limit. Lead concentrations can be determined in various samples, but blood and urine are the most commonly used in laboratory practice. The most important exposure biomarker is the enzyme δ-aminolevulinic acid dehydratase (ALAD) in the blood, which is characterized by progressive inactivation by lead and a negative correlation with its concentration. The concentration of urinary delta-aminolevulinic acid (δ-ALA-U) reflects the state of impaired enzyme function in heme biosynthesis. In addition, determining blood zinc protoporphyrin and urinary coproporphyrin levels significantly aids in assessing occupational lead exposure disorders. Conclusion: The availability of the laboratory methods used and the biomarker specificity and sensitivity play an important role in the adequacy of lead exposure monitoring. Accurate determination of ALAD and δ-ALA-U concentrations, along with other biomarkers, is critical for assessing individuals exposed to lead.

https:

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause a wide clinical spectrum, ranging from asymptomatic to severe disease with a high mortality rate. In view of the current pandemic and the increasing influx of patients into healthcare facilities, there is a need to identify simple and reliable tools for stratifying patients. Objective: Study aimed to analyze whether hemogram-derived ratios (HDRs) can be used to identify patients with a risk of developing a severe clinical form and admission to hospital. Methods: This cross-sectional and observational study included 500 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. Data on clinical features and laboratory parameters were collected from medical records and 13 HDRs were calculated and analyzed. Descriptive and inferential statistics were included in the analysis. Results: Of the 500 patients, 43.8% had a severe form of the disease. Lymphocytopenia, monocytopenia, higher C-reactive protein (CRP), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) were found in severe patients (p < 0.05). Significantly higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), derived NLR (dNLR), neutrophil-to-platelet ratio (NPR), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte-to-platelet ratio (NLPR) and CRP-to-lymphocyte ratio (CRP/Ly) values were found in severe patients (p < 0.001). In addition, they have statistically significant prognostic potential (p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) for CRP/Ly, dNLR, NLPR, NLR, and NPR were 0.693, 0.619, 0.619, 0.616, and 0.603, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity were 65.7% and 65.6% for CRP/Ly, 51.6% and 70.8 for dNLR, 61.6% and 57.3% for NLPR, 40.6% and 80.4% for NLR, and 48.8% and 69.1% for NPR. Conclusion: The results of the study suggest that NLR, dNLR, CRP/Ly, NPR, and NLPR can be considered as potentially useful markers for stratifying patients with a severe form of the disease. HDRs derived from routine blood tests results should be included in common laboratory practice since they are readily available, easy to calculate, and inexpensive.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.795841.].

Background: Correct measuring of blood and urine creatinine level is necessary for identification and tracking of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Objective: The aim of this study is a comparison of Jaffe and enzymatic methods for measuring creatinine in serum and in urine, in order to determine whether there are any statistical significant differences between them, and whether they are reflected on creatinine clearance calculation and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Methods: Creatinine in serum and urine was measured for the group of patients (N=60; female=34, male=26) from 24 to 69 years of age by using Jaffe’s method on Dimension RxL biochemical analyzer, and enzymatic method on integrated biochemical and immunochemical analyzer Architect ci8200, and obtained levels are used for creatinine clearance calculation and eGFR. Results: The methods correlate well, both in measuring serum creatinine (r 1 = 0.990) and in measuring urine creatinine (r 2 =0.974). There are no statistically significant differences between them (p=0.57). Measuring creatinine using different methods showed no statistically significant differences in the calculated clearances (p=0.93), they significantly correlate (r=0.9722). eGFR, using the MDRD and CKD-EPI formulas, were not statistically significantly different, regardless of the used method. Conclusion: Apart from significant correlations between the used methods, the results of using the Jaffe and enzymatic methods showed no significant differences at measuring serum creatinine level, or creatinine clearance and glomerular filtration rate.

Introduction: Laboratory personnel (LP) represent a high-risk group of healthcare workers for whom the primary laboratory environment and specific work activities are a major source of potential exposure to health hazards. This study aimed to evaluate the developed matrix and assess risk based on self-assessment. Methods: This multicenter, qualitative, and cross-sectional study was conducted on LP employed in biomedical laboratories. The respondents were divided into groups according to their territorial affiliation. The data collection tool used was a six-area questionnaire distributed online through a network of professional associations. For the risk assessment, a matrix was developed with scores ranging from 0 to 650, dividing the risk level into four categories. Descriptive and inferential statistical methods were used for the statistical analysis. Results: The developed model combined the classification of risk and risk factors with a certainty of p < 0.001. The regression analysis showed that working conditions had the greatest influence on overall risk, followed by physical, biological, and physical hazards. Of the 640 respondents, the medium risk category was the highest in European Union (EU) countries (81.2%). Comparing the values in the high-risk category between the Bosnians and Herzegovinians (BiH) group and the Republic of Serbia, Republic of Northern Macedonia, and Montenegro (SCM) group with the EU group, a doubling (16.6%: 36.7%) and tripling (16.6%: 52.1%) of the proportion was found, respectively (p < 0.001). Overall, 1.7% of the LPs from BiH fell into the high-risk category. Conclusions: The designed matrix provides a reliable basis for identifying risk predictors in the study population and can serve as a useful tool for conducting risk assessments in biomedical laboratories. The results of the risk assessment indicate significant differences between the studied groups and highlight the need for increased control of BiH workplaces through new regulatory requirements.

Background Pandemics, such as COVID-19, are dangerous and socially disruptive. Though no one is immune to COVID-19, older persons often bear the brunt of its consequences. This is particularly true for older women, as they often face more pronounced health challenges relative to other segments in society, including complex care needs, insufficient care provisions, mental illness, neglect, and increased domestic abuse. To further compound the situation, because protective measures like lockdowns can result in unintended consequences, many health services older women depend on can become disrupted or discontinued amid pandemics. While technology-based interventions have the potential to provide near-time, location-free, and virtually accessible care, there is a dearth of systematic insights into this mode of care in the literature. To bridge the research gaps, this investigation aims to examine the characteristics and effectiveness of technology-based interventions that could address health challenges older women face amid COVID-19. Methods A systematic review of randomized trials reporting on technology-based interventions for older women (≥65 years) during COVID-19 will be conducted. The databases of Web of Science, ScienceDirect, PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Scopus will be searched. Retrieved citations will be screened independently by at least two reviewers against the eligibility criteria. Included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane ROB-2 tool. Data will be extracted independently by the reviewers. Where possible, meta-analyses will be performed on relevant study outcomes and analysed via odds ratios on the dichotomized outcomes. Where applicable, heterogeneity will be measured using the Cochrane Q test, and publication bias will be assessed via funnel plots and Egger’s regression test. Discussion Technology has the potential to transform healthcare for the better. To help society better safeguard vulnerable populations’ health and quality of life, this investigation sets out to gauge the state-of-the-art development of technology-based interventions tailored to the health challenges older women face amid COVID-19. In light of the growing prevalence of population ageing and the inevitability of infectious disease outbreaks, greater research efforts are needed to ensure the timely inception and effective implementation of technology-based health solutions for vulnerable populations like older women, amid public health crises like COVID-19 and beyond. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020194003