Ultrafast spectrum observation based on visualized spectro-temporal analyzer (ViSTA)

We present an ultrafast optical spectrum analyzing modality known as visualized spectro-temporal analyzer, which leverages the time-lens focusing mechanism, can realize frame rate as high as 100 MHz, with 0.02-nm resolution and –30-dBm detection sensitivity. © 2013 Optical Society of Americapublished_or_final_versio

Recruitment of Rad51 and Rad52 to Short Telomeres Triggers a Mec1-Mediated Hypersensitivity to Double-Stranded DNA Breaks in Senescent Budding Yeast

Telomere maintenance is required for chromosome stability, and telomeres are typically replicated by the action of telomerase. In both mammalian tumor and yeast cells that lack telomerase, telomeres are maintained by an alternative recombination mechanism. Here we demonstrated that the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae type I survivors derived from telomerase-deficient cells were hypersensitive to DNA damaging agents. Assays to track telomere lengths and drug sensitivity of telomerase-deficient cells from spore colonies to survivors suggested a correlation between telomere shortening and bleomycin sensitivity. Our genetic studies demonstrated that this sensitivity depends on Mec1, which signals checkpoint activation, leading to prolonged cell-cycle arrest in senescent budding yeasts. Moreover, we also observed that when cells equipped with short telomeres, recruitments of homologous recombination proteins, Rad51 and Rad52, were reduced at an HO-endonuclease-catalyzed double-strand break (DSB), while their associations were increased at chromosome ends. These results suggested that the sensitive phenotype may be attributed to the sequestration of repair proteins to compromised telomeres, thus limiting the repair capacity at bona fide DSB sites

Simultaneous dual-band optical coherence tomography for endoscopic applications

published_or_final_versio

Association of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics and Oral Antipsychotics With Disease Relapse, Health Care Use, and Adverse Events Among People With Schizophrenia

IMPORTANCE: Evidence for improved clinical outcomes with long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIAs) vs oral antipsychotics (OAs) is limited in Asian populations and special patient groups, including older people (>65 years), people with substance use, and early initiators of LAIAs. OBJECTIVE: To compare the risk of disease relapse, health care use, and adverse events associated with the use of LAIAs vs OAs among people in Hong Kong with schizophrenia. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this self-controlled case series study, individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia who were prescribed LAIAs and OAs between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2019, were identified from the Clinical Database Analysis and Reporting System of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. Data analysis was conducted from May to August in 2021. EXPOSURES: Use of LAIAs vs OAs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk of disease relapse (hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders, hospitalizations for schizophrenia, and suicide attempts), health care use (all-cause emergency department visits and hospitalizations), and adverse events (hospitalizations for somatic disorders, hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases, and extrapyramidal symptoms) between the period in which patients were treated with LAIAs and the period in which patients were treated with OAs were compared using Poisson regression. RESULTS: Of the 70 396 individuals with schizophrenia (37 200 women [52.8%]; mean [SD] age, 44.2 [15.8] years), 23 719 (33.7%) were prescribed both LAIAs and OAs. Compared with OAs, LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of hospitalizations for any cause (n = 20 973; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.61-0.65]), hospitalizations for psychiatric disorders (n = 19 283; IRR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.50-0.53]), hospitalizations for schizophrenia (n = 18 385; IRR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.51-0.55]), and incident suicide attempts (n = 1453; IRR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.44-0.71]). During full treatment with LAIAs, there was a reduction in hospitalizations for somatic disorders (n = 15 396; IRR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.85-0.91]), hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases (n = 3710; IRR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.96]), and extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 22 182; IRR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.91]) compared with full treatment with OAs. No significant difference was found for emergency department visits. Similar associations were observed during the subsequent treatment periods (beyond 90 days) and among older people and those with substance use, except for an increased risk of extrapyramidal symptoms among older people when initiating LAIAs (first 90 days). Compared with late initiators, early LAIA initiators had a greater reduction in these outcome events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This self-controlled case series study of people in Hong Kong with schizophrenia suggests that LAIAs were associated with a lower risk of disease relapse and hospitalization than OAs, without an increased risk of adverse events. Clinicians should more broadly consider the long-term use of LAIAs for Chinese people with schizophrenia, especially early in the course of illness

Global psychotropic medicine consumption in 65 countries and regions from 2008 to 2019

Background: The WHO Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2013–2030 encourages routine collection and reporting of a set of essential mental health indicators, including the availability of psychotropic medicines. The global monitoring of country-level psychotropic medicine consumption trends can provide information on the extent of the availability of psychotropic medicines. The primary objective of this study was to investigate global trends in psychotropic medicines consumption from 2008 to 2019 across 65 countries and regions according to country income level and geographical region. // Methods: In this longitudinal trends study, we used pharmaceutical sales data from the IQVIA-Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System (IQVIA-MIDAS). We analysed monthly sales data of psychotropic medicines between Jan 1, 2008, and Dec 31, 2019. Total psychotropic medicine consumption included sales of antidepressants, antipsychotics, tranquilisers, sedatives or hypnotics, and mood stabilisers. Population estimates of each country or region (eight lower-middle-income countries, 19 upper-middle-income countries, and 38 high-income countries) were based on the UN World Population Prospects 2019 report. Average annual sales trends of psychotropic medicines, expressed as defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day, were estimated using a random-effects model adjusted for income level and region. Relative changes in the annual consumption of psychotropic medicines by income, expressed as DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day, were assessed as percentage change for each medicine class. // Findings: Psychotropic medicine sales increased from 28·54 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day in 2008 to 34·77 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day in 2019, corresponding to a 4·08% (95% CI 2·96–5·21) relative average increase annually. The absolute annual increase was greater in high-income countries (3·31 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day, 95% CI 3·01–3·61) compared with upper-middle-income countries (1·94 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day, 1·45–2·44) and low-middle-income countries (0·88 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day, 0·62–1·13; p<0·0001). The relative average annual increase in psychotropic medicine sales from 2008 to 2019 was greater in upper-middle-income countries (7·88%, 95% CI 6·99–8·77) than in lower-middle-income countries (2·90%, 2·40–3·39) and high-income countries (1·02%, 0·80–1·24). In 2019, the regional consumption of psychotropic medicines varied greatly, with the highest sales of all psychotropic medicine classes reported in northern America (167·54 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day) and lowest sales reported in Asia (5·59 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day). 17 countries had very low consumption of psychotropic medicines in 2019, including high-income countries and countries with a high prevalence of mental disorders. // Interpretation: The consumption of psychotropic medicines has increased over a 12-year period, and although the absolute growth rate was highest in high-income countries, the relative growth is highest in middle-income countries and especially upper-middle-income countries. Disparities in psychotropic medicine consumption of countries can only partly be explained by geographical location and income. Greater efforts are needed to increase the availability of psychotropic medicines in countries with very low consumption, which is probably due to financial or cultural reasons as well as scarcity of trained health-care professionals to prescribe psychotropic medicines

Global trends in symptomatic medication use against dementia in 66 countries/regions from 2008 to 2018

Background and purpose: The aim was to determine trends and patterns of symptomatic medication used against dementia in 66 countries and regions. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study that used the wholesale data from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis System database. Sale data for symptomatic medication against dementia from 66 countries and regions from 2008 to 2018 were analysed and stratified by income level (low/middle-income countries [LMICs], n = 27; high-income countries [HICs], n = 37; regions, n = 2). The medication use volume was estimated by defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 inhabitants per day (World Health Organization DDD harmonized the size, strength and form of each pack and reflects average dosing). Changes in medication use over time were quantified as percentage changes in compound annual growth rates (CAGRs). Results: Total symptomatic medication against dementia sales increased from 0.85 to 1.33 DDD per 1000 inhabitants per day between 2008 and 2018 (LMICs 0.094–0.396; HICs 3.88–5.04), which is an increase of CAGR of 4.53% per year. The increase was mainly driven by the LMICs (CAGR = 15.42%) in comparison to the HICs (CAGR = 2.65%). The overall medication use from 2008 to 2018 increased for all four agents: memantine (CAGR = 8.51%), rivastigmine (CAGR = 6.91%), donepezil (CAGR = 2.72%) and galantamine (CAGR = 0.695%). In 2018, the most commonly used medication globally was donepezil, contributing to 49.8% of total use volume, followed by memantine (32.7%), rivastigmine (11.24%) and galantamine (6.36%). Conclusion: There was an increasing trend in the use of symptomatic medications against dementia globally, but the use remained low in LMICs. Interventions may be needed to support the medication use in some countries

Safety of two-dose COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2 and CoronaVac) in adults with cancer: a territory-wide cohort study

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization has defined a list of adverse events of special interest (AESI) for safety surveillance of vaccines. AESI have not been adequately assessed following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with cancer contributing to vaccine hesitancy in this population. We aimed to evaluate the association between BNT162b2 and CoronaVac vaccines and the risk of AESI in adults with active cancer or a history of cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a territory-wide cohort study using electronic health records managed by the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and vaccination records provided by the Department of Health. Patients with a cancer diagnosis between January 1, 2018, and September 30, 2021, were included and stratified into two cohorts: active cancer and history of cancer. Within each cohort, patients who received two doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac were 1:1 matched to unvaccinated patients using the propensity score. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AESI 28 days after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: A total of 74,878 patients with cancer were included (vaccinated: 25,789 [34%]; unvaccinated: 49,089 [66%]). Among patients with active cancer, the incidence of AESI was 0.31 and 1.02 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.13 and 0.88 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Among patients with history of cancer, the incidence was 0.55 and 0.89 per 10,000 person-days with BNT162b2 versus unvaccinated patients and 0.42 and 0.93 per 10,000 person-days with CoronaVac versus unvaccinated patients. Neither vaccine was associated with a higher risk of AESI for patients with active cancer (BNT162b2: HR 0.30, 95% CI 0.08-1.09; CoronaVac: 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-1.18) or patients with history of cancer (BNT162b2: 0.62, 95% CI 0.30-1.28; CoronaVac: 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: In this territory-wide cohort study of patients with cancer, the incidence of AESI following vaccination with two doses of either BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines was low. The findings of this study can reassure clinicians and patients with cancer about the overall safety of BNT162b2 and CoronaVac in patients with cancer, which could increase the COVID-19 vaccination rate in this vulnerable group of patients

BNT162b2 or CoronaVac Vaccinations Are Associated With a Lower Risk of Myocardial Infarction and Stroke After SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Among Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

Background: COVID‐19 vaccines have demonstrated effectiveness against SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, and mortality. The association between vaccination and risk of cardiovascular complications shortly after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among patients with cardiovascular disease remains unknown. Methods and Results: A case–control study was conducted with cases defined as patients who had myocardial infarction or stroke within 28 days after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection between January 1, 2022 and August 15, 2022. Controls were defined as all other patients who attended any health services and were not cases. Individuals without history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. Each case was randomly matched with 10 controls according to sex, age, Charlson comorbidity index, and date of hospital admission. Adjusted odds ratio with 95% CI was estimated using conditional logistic regression. We identified 808 cases matched with 7771 controls among all patients with cardiovascular disease. Results showed that vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac was associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction or stroke after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection with a dose–response relationship. For BNT162b2, risk decreased from 0.49 (95% CI, 0.29–0.84) to 0.30 (95% CI, 0.20–0.44) and 0.17 (95% CI, 0.08–0.34) from 1 to 3 doses, respectively. Similar trends were observed for CoronaVac, with risk decreased from 0.69 (95% CI, 0.57–0.85) to 0.42 (95% CI, 0.34–0.52) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.21–0.49) from 1 to 3 doses, respectively. Conclusions: Vaccination with BNT162b2 or CoronaVac is associated with a lower risk of myocardial infarction or stroke after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection among patients with cardiovascular disease

Safety of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccines in patients with heart failure: A self-controlled case series study

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccines are important for patients with heart failure (HF) to prevent severe outcomes but the safety concerns could lead to vaccine hesitancy. This study aimed to investigate the safety of two COVID-19 vaccines, BNT162b2 and CoronaVac, in patients with HF. METHODS: We conducted a self-controlled case series analysis using the data from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority and the Department of Health. The primary outcome was hospitalization for HF and the secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all hospitalization. We identified patients with a history of HF before February 23, 2021 and developed the outcome event between February 23, 2021 and March 31, 2022 in Hong Kong. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated using conditional Poisson regression to evaluate the risks following the first three doses of BNT162b2 or CoronaVac. FINDINGS: We identified 32,490 patients with HF, of which 3035 were vaccinated and had a hospitalization for HF during the observation period (BNT162b2 = 755; CoronaVac = 2280). There were no increased risks during the 0–13 days (IRR 0.64 [95% confidence interval 0.33–1.26]; 0.94 [0.50–1.78]; 0.82 [0.17–3.98]) and 14–27 days (0.73 [0.35–1.52]; 0.95 [0.49–1.84]; 0.60 [0.06–5.76]) after the first, second and third doses of BNT162b2. No increased risks were observed for CoronaVac during the 0–13 days (IRR 0.60 [0.41–0.88]; 0.71 [0.45–1.12]; 1.64 [0.40–6.77]) and 14–27 days (0.91 [0.63–1.32]; 0.79 [0.46–1.35]; 1.71 [0.44–6.62]) after the first, second and third doses. We also found no increased risk of MACE or all hospitalization after vaccination. INTERPRETATION: Our results showed no increased risk of hospitalization for HF, MACE or all hospitalization after receiving BNT162b2 or CoronaVac vaccines in patients with HF. FUNDING: The project was funded by a Research Grant from the Food and Health Bureau, The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Ref. No. COVID19F01). F.T.T.L. (Francisco T.T. Lai) and I.C.K.W. (Ian C.K. Wong)'s posts were partly funded by the D24H; hence this work was partly supported by AIR@InnoHK administered by Innovation and Technology Commission