151 research outputs found

    Serological markers of gluten sensitivity in Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles

    Get PDF
    Objectives To evaluate serological markers of gluten sensitivity in conjunction with cholecystokinin measurement in Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles. Materials and Methods Medical records from two referral hospitals were obtained between 2011 and 2019 to identify Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles, non‐Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles and control Border terriers with non‐biliary diseases. Enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays were performed on stored fasted serum samples for anti‐gliadin IgG, anti‐canine transglutaminase‐2‐IgA autoantibodies and cholecystokinin. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskall‐Wallis test to identify differences between the groups. Results Fifteen Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles, 17 non‐Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles and 14 control Border terriers with non‐biliary diseases were recruited. Median transglutaminase‐2‐IgA autoantibodies in Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles was 0.73 (range: 0.18 to 1.67), which was significantly greater than in control Border terriers at 0.41 (0.07 to 1.14). Median cholecystokinin concentration in Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles was 13 pg/mL (6 to 45 pg/mL), which was significantly lower than in control Border terriers at 103 pg/mL (9 to 397 pg/mL). There was no difference in the anti‐gliadin IgG between these groups. There was no difference observed in the non‐Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles with either of the other groups. Clinical Significance Reduced cholecystokinin and increased transglutaminase‐2‐IgA autoantibodies was detected in Border terriers with gall bladder mucocoeles; which is in part homologous to gall bladder disease identified in human coeliac disease. The results suggest an immunological disease with impaired cholecystokinin release may be affecting gall bladder motility and possibly contributing to mucocoele formation in Border terriers

    0111i I ll III ACTUATOR PLACEMENT FOR ACTIVE SURGE CONTROL IN A MULTI-STAGE AXIAL COMPRESSOR

    Get PDF
    ABSTRACT. This paper describes an actuator placement methodology for the active control of purely onedimensional instabilities of a seven-stage axial compressor using an air bleeding strategy. In this theoretical study, using stage-by-stage non-linear modelling based on the conservation equations of mass, momentum, and energy, a scheduling LQR (Linear Quadratic Regulator) controller is designed for several actuator locations in a compressor from the first stage to the plenum. In this controller design, the LQR weighting matrices are selected so that the associated cost function includes only air bleeding mass flow leading to the minimisation of the air bleed. The LQR cost function represents a measure of the consumption of air bleeding and can be calculated analytically using the solution of an Algebraic Riccati Equation. From analysis of the cost at different compressor stages, the location of an air bleeding actuator is selected at the stage with the minimum cost. Finally, using an ACSL simulation program, the scheduling controller has been integrated with a non-lineat stage-by-stage model and the time response of the air bleeding mass flow at different locations has been obtained to confirm the results from the analytical approach. Results are presented to show actively stabilised compressor flow beyond the surge point where the air bleed is minimised. These results also indicate the preferred location of the actuator at the compressor downstream stages for both low and high compressor speeds

    Target trial emulation: Do antimicrobials or gastrointestinal nutraceuticals prescribed at first presentation for acute diarrhoea cause a better clinical outcome in dogs under primary veterinary care in the UK?

    Get PDF
    Target trial emulation applies design principles from randomised controlled trials to the analysis of observational data for causal inference and is increasingly used within human epidemiology. Veterinary electronic clinical records represent a potentially valuable source of information to estimate real-world causal effects for companion animal species. This study employed the target trial framework to evaluate the usefulness on veterinary observational data. Acute diarrhoea in dogs was used as a clinical exemplar. Inclusion required dogs aged ≥ 3 months and < 10 years, presenting for veterinary primary care with acute diarrhoea during 2019. Treatment strategies were: 1. antimicrobial prescription compared to no antimicrobial prescription and 2. gastrointestinal nutraceutical prescription compared to no gastrointestinal nutraceutical prescription. The primary outcome was clinical resolution (defined as no revisit with ongoing diarrhoea within 30 days from the date of first presentation). Informed from a directed acyclic graph, data on the following covariates were collected: age, breed, bodyweight, insurance status, comorbidities, vomiting, reduced appetite, haematochezia, pyrexia, duration, additional treatment prescription and veterinary group. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance covariates between the treatment groups for each of the two target trials. The risk difference (RD) of 0.4% (95% CI -4.5% to 5.3%) was non-significant for clinical resolution in dogs treated with antimicrobials compared with dogs not treated with antimicrobials. The risk difference (RD) of 0.3% (95% CI -4.5% to 5.0%) was non-significant for clinical resolution in dogs treated with gastrointestinal nutraceuticals compared with dogs not treated with gastrointestinal nutraceuticals. This study successfully applied the target trial framework to veterinary observational data. The findings show that antimicrobial or gastrointestinal prescription at first presentation of acute diarrhoea in dogs causes no difference in clinical resolution. The findings support the recommendation for veterinary professionals to limit antimicrobial use for acute diarrhoea in dogs

    Efficacy of antimicrobial and nutraceutical treatment for canine acute diarrhoea: A systematic review and meta-analysis for European Network for Optimization of Antimicrobial Therapy (ENOVAT) guidelines

    Get PDF
    Systemic antimicrobial treatments are commonly prescribed to dogs with acute diarrhoea, while nutraceuticals (prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics) are frequently administered as an alternative treatment. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effectiveness of antimicrobials and nutraceutical preparations for treatment of canine acute diarrhoea (CAD). The results of this study will be used to create evidence-based treatment guidelines. PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome) were generated by a multidisciplinary expert panel taking into account opinions from stakeholders (general practitioners and dog owners). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. The systematic search yielded six randomised controlled trials (RCT) for antimicrobial treatment and six RCTs for nutraceutical treatment meeting the eligibility criteria. Categories of disease severity (mild, moderate, and severe) were created based on the presence of systemic signs and response to fluid therapy. Outcomes included duration of diarrhoea, duration of hospitalization, progression of disease, mortality, and adverse effects. High certainty evidence showed that antimicrobial treatment did not have a clinically relevant effect on any outcome in dogs with mild or moderate disease. Certainty of evidence was low for dogs with severe disease. Nutraceutical products did not show a clinically significant effect in shortening the duration of diarrhoea (based on very low to moderate certainty evidence). No adverse effects were reported in any of the studies

    Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. METHODS: We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. FINDINGS: We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). INTERPRETATION: Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. FUNDING: PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders
    corecore