Occurrence of Acanthamoeba genotypes in Central West Malaysian environments

Acanthamoeba species are ubiquitous free-living protozoa that can be found worldwide. Occasionally, it can become parasitic and the causative agent of acanthamoebic keratitis (AK) and Granulomatous Amoebic Encephalitis (GAE) in man. A total of 160 environmental samples and 225 naturally-infected animal corneal swabs were collected for Acanthamoeba cultivation. Acanthamoeba was found to be high in samples collected from environments (85%, 136/160) compared to infected animal corneas (24.89%, 56/225) by microscopic examination. Analysis of nucleotide sequence of 18S rRNA gene of all the 192 cultivable Acanthamoeba isolates revealed 4 genotypes (T3, T4. T5 and T15) with T4 as the most prevalent (69.27%, 133/192) followed by T5 (20.31%), T15 (9.90%) and T3 (0.52%). Genotype T4 was from the strain of A. castellanii U07401 (44.27%), A. castellanii U07409 (20.83%) and A. polyphagaAY026243 (4.17%), but interestingly, only A. castellanii U07401 was detected in naturally infected corneal samples. In environmental samples, T4 was commonly detected in all samples including dry soil, dust, wet debris, wet soil and water. Among the T4, A. castellanii (U07409) strains were detected high occurrence in dry (45%) followed by aquatic (32.50%) and moist (22.50%) samples but however A. castellanii (U07401) strains were dominant in dry samples of soil and dust (93.10%). Subsequently, genotype T5 of A. lenticulata (U94741) strains were dominant in samples collected from aquatic environments (58.97%). In summary, A. castellanii (U07401) strains were found dominant in both environmental and corneal swab samples. Therefore, these strains are possibly the most virulent and dry soil or dusts are the most possible source of Acanthamoeba infection in cats and dogs corneas

SARS-CoV-2 vaccination modelling for safe surgery to save lives: data from an international prospective cohort study

Background: Preoperative SARS-CoV-2 vaccination could support safer elective surgery. Vaccine numbers are limited so this study aimed to inform their prioritization by modelling. Methods: The primary outcome was the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent one COVID-19-related death in 1 year. NNVs were based on postoperative SARS-CoV-2 rates and mortality in an international cohort study (surgical patients), and community SARS-CoV-2 incidence and case fatality data (general population). NNV estimates were stratified by age (18-49, 50-69, 70 or more years) and type of surgery. Best- and worst-case scenarios were used to describe uncertainty. Results: NNVs were more favourable in surgical patients than the general population. The most favourable NNVs were in patients aged 70 years or more needing cancer surgery (351; best case 196, worst case 816) or non-cancer surgery (733; best case 407, worst case 1664). Both exceeded the NNV in the general population (1840; best case 1196, worst case 3066). NNVs for surgical patients remained favourable at a range of SARS-CoV-2 incidence rates in sensitivity analysis modelling. Globally, prioritizing preoperative vaccination of patients needing elective surgery ahead of the general population could prevent an additional 58 687 (best case 115 007, worst case 20 177) COVID-19-related deaths in 1 year. Conclusion: As global roll out of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination proceeds, patients needing elective surgery should be prioritized ahead of the general population