WRZ a Jasola: Centre d'atenció familiar.

Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible::5 - Igualtat de Gèner

A double blind randomised controlled trial comparing standard dose of iron supplementation for pregnant women with two screen-and-treat approaches using hepcidin as a biomarker for ready and safe to receive iron.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, WHO recommended daily iron supplementation for all pregnant women (60 mg/d iron combined with 400ug/d folic acid) where anaemia rates exceeded 40 %. Recent studies indicate that this may pose a risk to pregnant women. Therefore, there is a need to explore screen-and-treat options to minimise iron exposure during pregnancy using an overall lower dosage of iron that would achieve equivalent results as being currently recommended by the WHO. However, there is a lack of agreement on how to best assess iron deficiency when infections are prevalent. Here, we test the use of hepcidin a peptide hormone and key regulator of iron metabolism, as a potential index for 'safe and ready to receive' iron. DESIGN/METHODS: This is a 3-arm randomised-controlled proof-of-concept trial. We will test the hypothesis that a screen-and-treat approach to iron supplementation using a pre-determined hepcidin cut-off value of <2.5 ng/ml will achieve similar efficacy in preventing iron deficiency and anaemia at a lower iron dose and hence will improve safety. A sample of 462 pregnant women in rural Gambia will be randomly assigned to receive: a) UNU/UNICEF/WHO international multiple micronutrient preparation (UNIMMAP) containing 60 mg/d iron (reference arm); b) UNIMMAP containing 60 mg/d iron but based on a weekly hepcidin screening indicating if iron can be given for the next 7 days or not; c) or UNIMMAP containing 30 mg/d iron as in (b) for 12 weeks in rural Gambia. The study will test if the screen-and-treat approach is non-inferior to the reference arm using the primary endpoint of haemoglobin levels at a non-inferiority margin of 0.5 g/dl. Secondary outcomes of adverse effects, compliance and the impact of iron supplementation on susceptibility to infections will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: This trial is expected to contribute towards minimising the exposure of pregnant women to iron that may not be needed and therefore potentially harmful. If the evidence in this study shows that the overall lower dosage of iron is non-inferior to 60 mg/day iron, this may help decrease side-effects, improve compliance and increase safety. The potential for the use of hepcidin for a simple point-of-care (PoC) diagnostic for when it is most safe and effective to give iron may improve maternal health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN21955180

Efficacy and safety of hepcidin-based screen-and-treat approaches using two different doses versus a standard universal approach of iron supplementation in young children in rural Gambia: a double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency prevalence rates frequently exceed 50 % in young children in low-income countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommended universal supplementation of young children where anaemia rates are >40 %. However, large randomized trials have revealed that provision of iron to young children caused serious adverse effects because iron powerfully promotes microbial growth. Hepcidin - the master regulator of iron metabolism that integrates signals of infection and iron deficiency - offers the possibility of new solutions to diagnose and combat global iron deficiency. We aim to evaluate a hepcidin-screening-based iron supplementation intervention using hepcidin cut-offs designed to indicate that an individual requires iron, is safe to receive it and will absorb it. METHODS: The study is a proof-of-concept, three-arm, double blind, randomised controlled, prospective, parallel-group non-inferiority trial. Children will be randomised to receive, for a duration of 12 weeks, one of three multiple micronutrient powders (MNP) containing: A) 12 mg iron daily; B) 12 mg or 0 mg iron daily based on a weekly hepcidin screening indicating if iron can be given for the next seven days or not; C) 6 mg or 0 mg iron daily based on a weekly hepcidin screening indicating if iron can be given for the next seven days or not. The inclusion criteria are age 6-23 months, haemoglobin (Hb) concentration between 7 and 11 g/dL, z-scores for Height-for-Age, Weight-for-Age and Weight-for-Height > -3 SD and free of malaria. Hb concentration at 12 weeks will be used to test whether the screen-and-treat approaches are non-inferior to universal supplementation. Safety will be assessed using caregiver reports of infections, in vitro bacterial and P. falciparum growth assays and by determining the changes in the gut microbiota during the study period. DISCUSSION: A screen-and-treat approach using hepcidin has the potential to make iron administration safer in areas with widespread infections. If this proof-of-concept study shows promising results the development of a point-of-care diagnostic test will be the next step. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN07210906 , 07/16/2014

Respiratory infections drive hepcidin-mediated blockade of iron absorption leading to iron deficiency anemia in African children.

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is the most prevalent nutritional condition worldwide. We studied the contribution of hepcidin-mediated iron blockade to IDA in African children. We measured hepcidin and hemoglobin weekly, and hematological, inflammatory, and iron biomarkers at baseline, 7 weeks, and 12 weeks in 407 anemic (hemoglobin < 11 g/dl), otherwise healthy Gambian children (6 to 27 months). Each child maintained remarkably constant hepcidin levels (P < 0.0001 for between-child variance), with half consistently maintaining levels that indicate physiological blockade of iron absorption. Hepcidin was strongly predicted by nurse-ascribed adverse events with dominant signals from respiratory infections and fevers (all P < 0.0001). Diarrhea and fecal calprotectin were not associated with hepcidin. In multivariate analysis, C-reactive protein was the dominant predictor of hepcidin and contributed to iron blockade even at very low levels. We conclude that even low-grade inflammation, especially associated with respiratory infections, contributes to IDA in African children

Hepcidin-guided screen-and-treat interventions against iron-deficiency anaemia in pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial in The Gambia.

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends daily iron supplementation for pregnant women, but adherence is poor because of side-effects, effectiveness is low, and there are concerns about possible harm. The iron-regulatory hormone hepcidin can signal when an individual is ready-and-safe to receive iron. We tested whether a hepcidin-guided screen-and-treat approach to combat iron-deficiency anaemia could achieve equivalent efficacy to universal administration, but with lower exposure to iron. METHODS: We did a three-arm, randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial in 19 rural communities in the Jarra West and Kiang East districts of The Gambia. Eligible participants were pregnant women aged 18-45 years at between 14 weeks and 22 weeks of gestation. We randomly allocated women to either WHO's recommended regimen (ie, a daily UN University, UNICEF, and WHO international multiple-micronutrient preparation [UNIMMAP] containing 60 mg iron), a 60 mg screen-and-treat approach (ie, daily UNIMMAP containing 60 mg iron for 7 days if weekly hepcidin was <2·5 μg/L or UNIMMAP without iron if hepcidin was ≥2·5 μg/L), or a 30 mg screen-and-treat approach (ie, daily UNIMMAP containing 30 mg iron for 7 days if weekly hepcidin was <2·5 μg/L or UNIMMAP without iron if hepcidin was ≥2·5 μg/L). We used a block design stratified by amount of haemoglobin at enrolment (above and below the median amount of haemoglobin on every enrolment day) and stage of gestation (14-18 weeks vs 19-22 weeks). Participants and investigators were unaware of the random allocation. The primary outcome was the amount of haemoglobin at day 84 and was measured as the difference in haemoglobin in each screen-and-treat group compared with WHO's recommended regimen; the non-inferiority margin was set at -5·0 g/L. The primary outcome was assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all women who completed the study. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN21955180. FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2014, and March 3, 2016, 498 participants were randomised, of whom 167 were allocated to WHO's recommended regimen, 166 were allocated to the 60 mg per day screen-and-treat approach, and 165 were allocated to the 30 mg per day screen-and-treat approach. 78 participants were withdrawn or lost to follow-up during the study; thus, the per-protocol population comprised 140 women assigned to WHO's recommended regimen, 133 allocated to the 60 mg screen-and-treat approach, and 147 allocated to the 30 mg screen-and-treat approach. The screen-and-treat approaches did not exceed the non-inferiority margin. Compared with WHO's recommended regimen, the difference in the amount of haemoglobin at day 84 was -2·2 g/L (95% CI -4·6 to 0·1) with the 60 mg screen-and-treat approach and -2·7 g/L (-5·0 to -0·5) with the 30 mg screen-and-treat approach. Adherence, reported side-effects, and adverse events were similar between the three groups. The most frequent side-effect was stomachache, which was similar in the 60 mg screen-and-treat group (82 cases per 1906 person-weeks) and with WHO's recommended regimen (81 cases per 1974 person-weeks; effect 1·0, 95% CI 0·7 to 1·6); in the 30 mg screen-and-treat group the frequency of stomachache was slightly lower than with WHO's recommended regimen (58 cases per 2009 person-weeks; effect 0·7, 95% CI 0·5 to 1·1). No participants died during the study. INTERPRETATION: The hepcidin-guided screen-and-treat approaches had no advantages over WHO's recommended regimen in terms of adherence, side-effects, or safety outcomes. Our results suggest that the current WHO policy for iron administration to pregnant women should remain unchanged while more effective approaches continue to be sought. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the UK Medical Research Council

Impact of the presence of heart disease, cardiovascular medications and cardiac events on outcome in COVID-19

Background: Cardiovascular risk factors and usage of cardiovascular medication are prevalent among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Little is known about the cardiovascular implications of COVID-19. The goal herein, was to evaluate the prognostic impact of having heart disease (HD) and taking cardiovascular medications in a population diagnosed of COVID-19 who required hospitalization. Also, we studied the development of cardiovascular events during hospitalization. Methods: Consecutive patients with definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 made by a positive real time- -polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swabs who were admitted to the hospital from March 15 to April 14 were included in a retrospective registry. The association of HD with mortality and with mortality or respiratory failure were the primary and secondary objectives, respectively. Results: A total of 859 patients were included in the present analysis. Cardiovascular risk factors were related to death, particularly diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio in the multivariate analysis: 1.810 [1.159– –2.827], p = 0.009). A total of 113 (13.1%) patients had HD. The presence of HD identified a group of patients with higher mortality (35.4% vs. 18.2%, p &lt; 0.001) but HD was not independently related to prognosis; renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, diuretics and beta-blockers did not worsen prognosis. Statins were independently associated with decreased mortality (0.551 [0.329–0.921], p = 0.023). Cardiovascular events during hospitalization identified a group of patients with poor outcome (mortality 31.8% vs. 19.3% without cardiovascular events, p = 0.007). Conclusions: The presence of HD is related to higher mortality. Cardiovascular medications taken before admission are not harmful, statins being protective. The development of cardiovascular events during the course of the disease is related to poor outcome

Com o diabo no corpo: os terríveis papagaios do Brasil colônia

Desde a Antiguidade, papagaios, periquitos e afins (Psittacidae) fascinaram os europeus por seu vivo colorido e uma notável capacidade de interação com seres humanos. A descoberta do Novo Mundo nada faria além de acrescentar novos elementos ao tráfico de animais exóticos há muito estabelecido pelos europeus com a África e o Oriente. Sem possuir grandes mamíferos, a América tropical participaria desse comércio com o que tinha de mais atrativo, essencialmente felinos, primatas e aves - em particular os papagaios, os quais eram embarcados em bom número. Contudo, a julgar pelos documentos do Brasil colônia, esses voláteis podiam inspirar muito pouca simpatia, pois nenhum outro animal - exceto as formigas - foi tantas vezes mencionado como praga para a agricultura. Além disso, alguns psitácidas mostravam-se tão loquazes que inspiravam a séria desconfiança de serem animais demoníacos ou possessos, pois só três classes de entidades - anjos, homens e demônios - possuíam o dom da palavra. Nos dias de hoje, vários representantes dos Psittacidae ainda constituem uma ameaça para a agricultura, enquanto os indivíduos muito faladores continuam despertando a suspeita de estarem possuídos pelo demônio. Transcendendo a mera curiosidade, essa crença exemplifica o quão intrincadas podem ser as relações do homem com o chamado “mundo natural”, revelando um universo mais amplo e multifacetado do que se poderia supor a princípio. Nesse sentido, a existência de aves capazes de falar torna essa relação ainda mais complexa e evidencia que as dificuldades de estabelecer o limite entre o animal e o humano se estendem além dos primatas e envolvem as mais inusitadas espécies zoológicas.Since ancient times, parrots and their allies (Psittacidae) have fascinated Europeans by their striking colors and notable ability to interact with human beings. The discovery of the New World added new species to the international exotic animal trade, which for many centuries had brought beasts to Europe from Africa and the Orient. Lacking large mammals, tropical America participated in this trade with its most appealing species, essentially felines, primates and birds - especially parrots - which were shipped in large numbers. It should be noted, however, that at times these birds were not well liked. In fact, according to documents from colonial Brazil, only the ants rank higher than parrots as the animals most often mentioned as agricultural pests. On the other hand, some of these birds were so chatty that people suspected them to be demonic or possessed animals, since only three classes of beings - angels, men and demons - have the ability to speak. Nowadays, several Psittacidae still constitute a threat to agriculture, and the suspicion that extremely talkative birds were demon possessed has also survived. More than a joke or a mere curiosity, this belief exemplifies how intricate man’s relationships with the “natural world” may be. In this sense, the existence of birds that are able to speak adds a further twist to these relationships, demonstrating that the problem of establishing a boundary between the animal and the human does not only involve primates, but also includes some unusual zoological species

Desenvolupament de la dona a l'Índia

Postprint (published version