Search

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection causes chronic gastritis, peptic ulcers and gastric cancer. Although H. pylori prevalence is decreasing worldwide, regional variations exist in Europe, with the lowest infection prevalence in Northern Europe, and the highest in Eastern and Southern Europe (1). Changes in the treatment recommendations and the increasing available evidence have justified the implementation of new recommendations since last Belgian consensus in 1998 (2). Several non-H. pylori Helicobacter species (NH.PYLORI-H), colonizing the stomach of domestic animals, also have the ability to cause gastric disease in humans, although to a lesser extent. These zoonotic NH. PYLORIH are not the subject of the current recommendations.

INTRODUCTION The evaluation of new animal husbandry concepts includes, beyond the exploration of chosen parameters, that the question is addressed whether economic benefits for producers and ethical benefits for society result of the new system when compared to traditional systems. In a previous study, a novel management and housing concept for veal production («outdoor veal calf», OVC) was tested from October 2016 to July 2018. The OVC concept was associated with distinctly lower antimicrobial use while average daily weight gain was similar and calf welfare better; furthermore mortality was lower compared to conventional label fattening. The aim of the present study was to compare economics between the OVC concept on intervention farms (IF) and the IP-SUISSE label concept on control farms (CF) by calculating contribution margins (CM). The CM indicates the difference between the performance of a production branch (e. g. slaughter return) and the allocable costs for this production branch (e. g. feed costs). In the present study, two different approaches were used for CM calculation to analyze the available data in detail. No substantial differences in CM between the OVC concept and the IP-SUISSE concept were found in either approach. However, the specific CM varied between the approaches as different calculation criteria for quantities and prices were applied (approach «real» with accurate costs and returns from the OVC study and approach «standardized» with costs and returns based on the CM catalogue). The CM varied slightly for the CM per man-hour (IF «real»: 6.96 CHF/man-hour, «standardized»: 4.49 CHF/man-hour; CF: 7.90 CHF/man-hour and 8.08 CHF/man-hour, respectively) and considerably for the CM per fattening space and year (IF «real»: -380.36 CHF, «standardized»: -559.50 CHF; CF: -244.70 CHF and -318.80 CHF, -respectively). Producing veal with the OVC concept -allowed for achieving comparable CM/man-hour as in conventional label production. Thus, the farmers' economic interests should be warranted when implementing the OVC concept.

Background: As endoscopists are at risk to get infected by the novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 during endoscopic procedures, the European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) published recommendations regarding protection for the paediatric endoscopist and endoscopy suite staff. The aim of this survey was to investigate whether European paediatric gastroenterology centres applied the recommendations and how this extraordinary situation was handled by the different centres.Results: Twelve Paediatric European gastroenterology centers (from Belgium, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, and United Kingdom) participated. Nine centres (75%) screened their patients for a possible COVID-19 infection before the procedure, the same amount of hospitals changed their practice based on the ESPGHAN recommendations. 67% of the centres reduced the staff in the endoscopy suite, 83% of the units used FFP2/3 masks and protective goggles during the procedure and 75% wore waterproof gowns.Conclusion: The global situation caused by COVID-19 changed so rapidly, and hospitals had to react immediately to protect staff and patients and could not wait for guidelines to be published. Furthermore, uniform guidelines could not be applied by all European hospitals at a certain time point of the viral spread, as different regions of Europe were not only affected differently by COVID-19, but also had different access to personal protective equipment.