Atmospheric Plasma Treatment Enhances the Biosensing Properties of Graphene Oxide-Silver Nanoparticle Composite

This work presents an approach to tailor the properties of the graphene oxide- silver nanoparticle (GO-AgNPs) composite using room temperature atmospheric plasma treatment. In particular, the aerosolized deposition of graphene oxide-silver nanoparticle composite (GO-AgNPs), the rapid reduction of GO at room temperature, and AgNPs surface excitation are investigated in this work. The plasma treatment of aerosolized GO leads to the reduced graphene oxide (rGO) formation which is observed from the increase in D to G band ratio from 0.65 for GO to 1.2 for rGO in the Raman spectra. Scanning Electron Microscopy, Transmission Electron Microscopy, and Selected Area Electron Diffraction patterns show that the plasma treatment leads to the morphological changes and the Electrochemical Impedance spectroscopy results show the improvement in the conductivity of the rGO-AgNP composite. To demonstrate the efficacy of the technique, plasma treated GO and silver nanoparticles (AgNPs) composite is used for the electrode surface modification of the commercial screen-printed electrodes for the cortisol detection. The cyclic voltammetry scans to detect cortisol shows that the sensitivity of the surface modified electrodes is increased after plasma treatment. This room temperature atmospheric plasma annealing technique is of specific interest for rapid processing of nanoparticles on flexible surfaces without subjecting them to elevated temperatures

Hydrothermal Growth of Zinc Oxide (ZnO) Nanorods (NRs) on Screen Printed IDEs for pH Measurement Application

There is considerable interest in nanostructured materials with interdigitated electrodes (IDEs) platforms to detect and monitor the level of various ions in numerous applications. Herein, we report the design and fabrication of IDEs based pH sensor by using hydrothermal growth of ZnO nanorods (NRs). A four-step deposition of ZnO seed layer followed by a hydrothermal treatment lead to the heavily ordered ZnO NRs patterns on the screen printed IDEs. The structural, chemical compositional and electrical properties of the NRs were investigated and examined by using field emission scanning electron microscopy (FeSEM), atomic force microscopy (AFM), energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS), X-ray diffraction (XRD) technique and Keithley 4200 semiconductor characterization system respectively. The sensor capacitance and pH were found to be inversely proportional at a working frequency of 1 kHz. The sensor displayed sensitivity of 1.06 nF/pH in the range of pH 4−10

Magnetic Properties of Ni-Fe Nanowire Arrays: Effect of Template Material and Deposition Conditions

The objective of this work is to study the magnetic properties of arrays of Ni-Fe nanowires electrodeposited in different template materials such as porous silicon, polycarbonate and alumina. Magnetic properties were studied as a function of template material, applied magnetic field (parallel and perpendicular) during deposition, wire length, as well as magnetic field orientation during measurement. The results show that application of magnetic field during deposition strongly influences the c-axis preferred orientation growth of Ni-Fe nanowires. The samples with magnetic field perpendicular to template plane during deposition exhibits strong perpendicular anisotropy with greatly enhanced coercivity and squareness ratio, particularly in Ni-Fe nanowires deposited in polycarbonate templates. In case of polycarbonate template, as magnetic field during deposition increases, both coercivity and squareness ratio also increase. The wire length dependence was also measured for polycarbonate templates. As wire length increases, coercivity and squareness ratio decrease, but saturation field increases. Such magnetic behavior (dependence on template material, magnetic field, wire length) can be qualitatively explained by preferential growth phenomena, dipolar interactioComment: 26 pages, 7 figures, 5 Tables Submitted to Physical Review

Assessment of efficacy and safety of artesunate plus sulfadoxine pyrimethamine combination for treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria

Background: Resistance of Plasmodium falciparum to antimalarial drugs is common in India. World Health Organization (WHO) recommends artemisinin‑based combination therapy (ACT) to counter the development of resistance in P. falciparum. WHO recommends that ideally antimalarial drug treatment policy or guidelines should be reviewed regularly and updated at least once every 24 months. In consideration to the above recommendation, we planned to conduct the following study. The objective was to determine the efficacy and safety of artesunate + sulphadoxine‑pyrimethamine (AS + SP) in patients with uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria.Methods: The study included 60 patients of uncomplicated P. falciparum. Each patient received AS + SP as per WHO guidelines. Diagnosis was confirmed by peripheral blood film. All patients were followed‑up on days 1, 3, 14, and 28 for detailed clinical and parasitological examination.Results: Of a total 60 patients, 55 patients were followed‑up for 28 days. Remaining 5 patients were lost in follow‑up. As per protocol analysis, 91% (50) of patients had demonstrated adequate clinical and parasitological response. Remaining 9% (5) had treatment failure in which 5.5% (3) had late parasitological failure and 3.6% (2) had late clinical failure. In our study, mean parasite clearance time was 45.2 ± 4.2 hrs.Conclusion: AS + SP is safe and effective drug for the treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. However, the efficacy of this ACT needs to be carefully monitored periodically since treatment failure can occur due to resistance

Effect of gabapentin on haloperidol induced inhibition of conditioned avoidance response in rat

Background: Haloperidol, an antipsychotic adversely affects acquisition and retention of a learned task. We decided to test the effect of Gabapentin, a new anti-epileptic drug using conditioned avoidance response model with cook’s pole climbing apparatus and haloperidol.Methods: Four groups of six rats were taken for this purpose. All the rats were first given drugs for five days and then trained for a period of 15 days. Gabapentin was given in a dose of 100mg/kg intra peritoneal, while haloperidol was given 0.5mg/kg intra peritoneal.Results: At the end of the training duration rats in the vehicle and gabapentin treated group achieved ≥85% acquisition responses. While the haloperidol and haloperidol + gabapentin group did not achieve the desired percentage of learning. A learning curve was plotted by using the percentage of conditioned responses in each group versus number of days. The mean ± SD percentage of conditioned responses of day 14 and 15 were for haloperidol group 26.19 ±11.90, for vehicle group 86.90 ± 4.29, for the gabapentin treated group 95.24 ± 2.38 and for the gabapentin + haloperidol group 46.42 ± 12.20. These figures and the learning curve suggest that gabapentin treated rats had a better acquisition response and haloperidol depressed learning.Conclusions: At the end of study duration we found that gabapentin significantly improved the acquisition response than the vehicle control group. Also haloperidol depressed the acquisition response. Gabapentin did not lead to reversal of haloperidol induced depression of acquisition process

Randomized double-blind study comparing the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine and amitriptyline in painful diabetic neuropathy

WSTĘP. Celem niniejszej pracy było porównanie skuteczności oraz bezpieczeństwa stosowania lamotryginy i amitryptyliny w opanowywaniu przewlekłego bólu spowodowanego obwodową neuropatią u chorych na cukrzycę. MATERIAŁ I METODY. Badanie kliniczne z randomizacją przeprowadzono w układzie naprzemiennym metodą podwójnie ślepej próby, z grupą kontrolną otrzymującą terapię standardową. W badaniu wzięły udział 53 osoby. Zastosowano różne dawki leków. Amitryptylinę stosowano w 3 dawkach doustnie: 10, 25 lub 50 mg, jednorazowo na noc przez 2 tygodnie, a lamotryginę - doustnie, 2 × na dobę, w 3 dawkach: 25, 50 lub 100 mg; każdą z dawek stosowano przez 2 tygodnie. Między zamianą leków zastosowano 2-tygodniową przerwę, podczas której chorzy otrzymywali placebo. Oceniano wpływ terapii na zmniejszenie bólu, ogólne polepszenie stanu zdrowia oraz wystąpienie działań niepożądanych. WYNIKI. W ogólnej ocenie pacjentów zniesienie bólu w dużym, umiarkowanym i małym stopniu zanotowano odpowiednio u 19 (41%), 6 (13%) i 7 (15%) osób przyjmujących lamotryginę oraz u 13 (28%), 5 (11%) i 15 (33%) osób stosujących amitryptylinę. Ogólna ocena przeprowadzona przez pacjentów i lekarzy, kwestionariusz McGilla i skala bólu Likerta nie wykazały różnic istotnych statystycznie. Poprawę obserwowano już po 2 tygodniach stosowania obu leków. Odnotowano 44 przypadki działań niepożądanych, 33 (75%) dotyczyły amitryptyliny, z czego najczęściej stwierdzano działanie nasenne (19 pacjentów, 43%); 11 przypadków (25%) dotyczyło lamotryginy, najczęściej była to wysypka (3 chorych, 7%) i podwyższenie stężenia kreatyniny (4 osoby, 9%). Preferowana dawka lamotryginy to 25 mg 2 × na dobę. WNIOSKI. Mimo że wykazano niewiele różnic w skuteczności obu leków, wybór lamotryginy w dawce 25 mg 2 × na dobę wydaje się lepszy, ze względu na mniejszą liczbę działań niepożądanych wywołanych w badanej populacji.AIMS. To compare the efficacy and safety of lamotrigine and amitriptyline in controlling chronic painful peripheral neuropathy in diabetic patients. METHODS. A randomized, double-blind, crossover, active-control, clinical trial with variable dose titration was carried out (n = 53). Amitriptyline orally, at doses of 10, 25 and 50 mg at night-time, each dose for 2 weeks, and lamotrigine orally, at doses of 25, 50 and 100 mg twice daily, each dose for 2 weeks, by optional titration were used. There was a placebo washout period for 2 weeks between the two drugs. Assessment for pain relief, overall improvement and adverse events were carried out. RESULTS. Good, moderate and mild pain relief were noted in 19 (41%), six (13%) and seven (15%) patients on lamotrigine and 13 (28%), five (11%) and 15 (33%) patients on amitriptyline, respectively, by patient’s global assessment of efficacy and safety. Patient and physicians global assessment, McGill pain questionnaire and Likert pain scale showed no significant difference between the treatments, although improvement with both treatments was seen from 2 weeks. Of the 44 adverse events reported, 33 (75%) were with amitriptyline, sedation being the commonest [in 19 (43%) patients]. Lamotrigine caused adverse events in 11 (25%), of which rash in three (7%) and elevations of creatinine in four (9%) were the most common. The preferred lamotrigine dose was 25 mg twice daily. CONCLUSIONS. As there are few differences between the two treatments in efficacy, lamotrigine 25 mg twice daily might be the first choice as it is associated with fewer adverse effects in our population