Objective: This cross-sectional, prospective surveillance study sought to determine the prevalence of novel respiratory viruses among domestic ducks in Central Luzon that are known to have frequent contact with wild avian species. Such contact may lead to novel virus spillover events that may harm domestic poultry as well as humans. Methods: From March 2019 to January 2020, cross-sectional and prospective surveillance for viruses among domestic ducks (Anas luzonica) was conducted by periodically collecting oropharyngeal swabs from ducks on 54 farms across three municipalities within Central Luzon (Region III). A flock of 30 sentinel domestic ducks was also sampled four times after being confined in the Candaba swamp. The resultant 1740 swab samples were pooled (5 samples/pool, 348 pools) by site and screened with molecular assays for respiratory viruses from multiple viral families. Results: Two farms yielded samples positive for avian influenza virus in Candaba, where adolescent ducks are known to freely mix with wild birds as they graze in rice fields. Overall, the prevalence of avian influenza virus was 2.3% (8/348 pools). Sequencing revealed three pools with highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N6, one with low pathogenicity H5N8, and one with H5 with an unspecified neuraminidase. All the pooled specimens tested were negative for influenza C, adenoviruses, coronaviruses and enteroviruses. Discussion: Although this study had several limitations, it found supportive evidence that domestic ducks are acquiring avian influenza viruses from wild bird species. These findings underscore recommendations that duck farmers should seek to prevent domestic ducks from mixing with wild avian species.

In this report, we sought to demonstrate that freshwater sampling for migrating bird-associated novel respiratory virus incursions is possible and more desirable than the alternative approach of capturing and swabbing wild migrating birds. Freshwater sampling should be considered as an alternative approach for pre-pandemic pathogen surveillance.

Humans ; Informed Consent

Male ; Humans ; Prostatic Neoplasms ; Cell Line, Tumor ; Cell Differentiation ; Carcinoma, Neuroendocrine

Purpose: Prostate cancer (PCa) screening can lead to potential over-diagnosis/over-treatment of indolent cancers. There is a need to optimize practices to better risk-stratify patients. We examined initial longitudinal outcomes of mid-life men with an elevated baseline prostate-specific antigen (PSA) following initiation of a novel screening program within a system-wide network. Materials and Methods: We assessed our primary care network patients ages 40 to 49 years with a PSA measured following implementation of an electronic health record screening algorithm from 2/2/2017–2/21/2018. The multidisciplinary algorithm was developed taking factors including age, race, family history, and PSA into consideration to provide a personalized approach to urology referral to be used with shared decision-making. Outcomes of men with PSA ≥1.5 ng/mL were evaluated through 7/2021. Statistical analyses identified factors associated with PCa detection. Clinically significant PCa (csPCa) was defined as Gleason Grade Group (GGG) ≥2 or GGG1 with PSA ≥10 ng/mL. Results: The study cohort contained 564 patients, with 330 (58.5%) referred to urology for elevated PSA. Forty-nine (8.7%) underwent biopsy; of these, 20 (40.8%) returned with PCa. Eleven (2.0% of total cohort and 55% of PCa diagnoses) had csPCa. Early referral timing (odds ratio [OR], 4.58) and higher PSA (OR, 1.07) were significantly associated with PCa at biopsy on multivariable analysis (both p<0.05), while other risk factors were not. Referred patients had higher mean PSAs (2.97 vs. 1.98, p=0.001). Conclusions Preliminary outcomes following implementation of a multidisciplinary screening algorithm identified PCa in a small, important percentage of men in their forties. These results provide insight into baseline PSA measurement to provide early risk stratification and detection of csPCa in patients with otherwise extended life expectancy. Further follow-up is needed to possibly determine the prognostic significance of such mid-life screening and optimize primary care physician-urologist coordination.

Objective: We aimed to provide practical guidance on the scoping review process, building on the methodologies and general steps outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, Levac et al. and The Joanna Briggs Institute. Methods: We reviewed the methodologies of three scoping studies conducted by the authors in the College of Public Health, University of the Philippines Manila between 2016 and 2017. For each project, we outlined the steps, tools utilized, good practices performed, challenges encountered, and recommendations for improving the scoping review process in relation to existing guidelines. We compared the similarities and differences across the three reviews and guidelines to come up with a list of good practices and recommendations. Results: We propose an expanded 10-step and iterative framework based on our analysis of three scoping studies: Define your research question; 2. Specify your research statement according to population, concept, and context; Prepare the necessary tools, forms, and software packages; 4. Assemble your expert panel and/or consultants; Develop your search strategy; 6. Implement the search strategy and retrieve identified studies; 7. Screen and assess studies for inclusion in the scoping review; 8. Chart the data; 9. Synthesize your results; and 10. Prepare your final report. Conclusion Scoping reviews as a method of evidence synthesis are increasingly gaining popularity among researchers due to the scope of what can be reviewed in a relatively short amount of time. With only three scoping studies informing our proposed methodology, other issues and challenges in the conduct of a scoping review may have been missed in the expanded framework presented in this paper. We suggest future studies to apply existing scoping review methodologies, to further enhance this rapidly evolving framework in research, policy, and practice.
Review ; Methods