Tegumentary leishmaniasis and coinfections other than HIV

<div><p>Background</p><p>Tegumentary leishmaniasis (TL) is a disease of skin and/or mucosal tissues caused by <i>Leishmania</i> parasites. TL patients may concurrently carry other pathogens, which may influence the clinical outcome of TL.</p><p>Methodology and principal findings</p><p>This review focuses on the frequency of TL coinfections in human populations, interactions between <i>Leishmania</i> and other pathogens in animal models and human subjects, and implications of TL coinfections for clinical practice. For the purpose of this review, TL is defined as all forms of cutaneous (localised, disseminated, or diffuse) and mucocutaneous leishmaniasis. Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) coinfection, superinfection with skin bacteria, and skin manifestations of visceral leishmaniasis are not included. We searched MEDLINE and other databases and included 73 records: 21 experimental studies in animals and 52 studies about human subjects (mainly cross-sectional and case studies). Several reports describe the frequency of <i>Trypanosoma cruzi</i> coinfection in TL patients in Argentina (about 41%) and the frequency of helminthiasis in TL patients in Brazil (15% to 88%). Different hypotheses have been explored about mechanisms of interaction between different microorganisms, but no clear answers emerge. Such interactions may involve innate immunity coupled with regulatory networks that affect quality and quantity of acquired immune responses. Diagnostic problems may occur when concurrent infections cause similar lesions (e.g., TL and leprosy), when different pathogens are present in the same lesions (e.g., <i>Leishmania</i> and <i>Sporothrix schenckii</i>), or when similarities between phylogenetically close pathogens affect accuracy of diagnostic tests (e.g., serology for leishmaniasis and Chagas disease). Some coinfections (e.g., helminthiasis) appear to reduce the effectiveness of antileishmanial treatment, and drug combinations may cause cumulative adverse effects.</p><p>Conclusions and significance</p><p>In patients with TL, coinfection is frequent, it can lead to diagnostic errors and delays, and it can influence the effectiveness and safety of treatment. More research is needed to unravel how coinfections interfere with the pathogenesis of TL.</p></div

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

High doses of vitamin A impair iron absorption

Fab&amp;iacute;ola Rainato Gabriel, Vivian MM Suen, Julio Sergio Marchini, Jos&amp;eacute; Eduardo Dutra de OliveiraDivision of Clinical Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Ribeir&amp;atilde;o Preto School of Medicine, S&amp;atilde;o Paulo University, S&amp;atilde;o Paulo, BrazilObjective: The present study aimed to determine the influence of vitamin A on iron absorption when vitamin A and iron are administered together orally compared with the administration of iron alone.Methods: This was a randomized double-blind clinical trial conducted on healthy men with normal red blood cell indices. Five experiments were performed, with iron (10 mg); iron (10 mg) plus vitamin A (450, 900 and 1800 &amp;micro;g), and placebo. After an 8-hour fast, basal (T0) blood samples were collected: basal (T0), 2 hours (T1), and 4 hours (T2) after the ingestion of the compounds to be studied. Iron was determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Serum ferritin was determined by an immunometric method, ie, by chemoluminescent enzyme immunoassay. Plasma retinol was measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography. Serum curves and the sum of the area under the curve adjusted to the mixed effects linear model were determined (P &amp;lt; 0.05).Results: Vitamin A at the doses of 450 and 900 &amp;micro;g had a stimulating effect, which, however, did not differ significantly from that of experiment 1 in which iron was used alone. At the dose of 1800 &amp;micro;g, vitamin A had a negative effect on iron absorption.Conclusion: High doses of vitamin A may cause lower serum iron levels, whereas a low dose favors iron absorption.Keywords: iron absorption, serum iron, vitamin A, oral iron, oral supplemen