The three main monotheistic religions and gm food technology: an overview of perspectives

Abstract Background Public acceptance of genetically modified crops is partly rooted in religious views. However, the views of different religions and their potential influence on consumers' decisions have not been systematically examined and summarized in a brief overview. We review the positions of the Judaism, Islam and Christianity – the three major monotheistic religions to which more than 55% of humanity adheres to – on the controversies aroused by GM technology. Discussion The article establishes that there is no overarching consensus within the three religions. Overall, however, it appears that mainstream theology in all three religions increasingly tends towards acceptance of GM technology per se, on performing GM research, and on consumption of GM foods. These more liberal approaches, however, are predicated on there being rigorous scientific, ethical and regulatory scrutiny of research and development of such products, and that these products are properly labeled. Summary We conclude that there are several other interests competing with the influence exerted on consumers by religion. These include the media, environmental activists, scientists and the food industry, all of which function as sources of information and shapers of perception for consumers

Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P = 0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P = 0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events

Efficacy and safety of once‐monthly efpeglenatide in patients with type 2 diabetes: Results of a phase 2 placebo‐controlled, 16‐week randomized dose‐finding study

AIMS: To determine the optimal dose(s) of once-monthly administration of efpeglenatide, a long-acting glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA), in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) inadequately controlled on metformin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial (NCT02081118), patients were randomized 1:1:1:1 to subcutaneous efpeglenatide (8, 12 or 16 mg once monthly; n = 158) or placebo (n = 51). The 16-week treatment period included a 4-week titration phase with once-weekly efpeglenatide 4 mg, followed by one dose of efpeglenatide 8 mg once monthly and two doses of the assigned once-monthly dose. The primary endpoint was change in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to week 17. RESULTS: All efpeglenatide doses significantly reduced HbA1c versus placebo (P < 0.0001 for all). Overall, the least squares mean difference in HbA1c reductions between efpeglenatide and placebo was -7.7 mmol/mol (-0.71%; baseline to week 17). At week 17, a significantly greater proportion of efpeglenatide patients had an HbA1c level <53 mmol/mol (<7%) versus placebo (48.7% vs. 30.6%; P = 0.0320). Significant body weight loss occurred across all efpeglenatide doses (placebo-corrected reduction -2.0 kg [efpeglenatide overall]; P = 0.0003). The safety profile was consistent with GLP-1RAs, with gastrointestinal (GI) disorders being the most common treatment-emergent adverse events. Fluctuations in effects on glucose levels and rates of GI events occurred between peak and trough efpeglenatide concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Efpeglenatide once monthly (following once-weekly titration) has significant benefits with regard to HbA1c and weight reduction versus placebo in patients with T2D. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of efpeglenatide once monthly

Results of cement spacer sonication in the second stage of two-stage treatment of shoulder arthroplasty infection

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to present the results of cement spacer sonication in the second stage of two-stage treatment of shoulder arthroplasty infection and to determine the rate of positive cultures in the second-stage surgery in shoulder arthroplasty and its meaning. METHODS: Twenty-one patients (22 cement spacers) treated with two-stage surgery because of a shoulder arthroplasty infection were included. In the second stage, the cement spacer was sent for sonication and at least four tissue cultures were obtained. Epidemiological data, comorbidities, sensitivity of the microorganisms to the antibiotic loaded in the cement spacer in the first revision surgery, time elapsed since an antibiotic was last administered until second revision procedure, functional shoulder status at last follow-up, and any complication were recorded. RESULTS: Three out of the 22 cases (13.6%) presented positive cultures at the second-stage surgery. Periprosthetic tissue culturing detected the three positive culture cases in the second stage while the cement spacer sonication detected two and missed one. Considering periprosthetic tissue culturing as the standard procedure, the cement spacer sonication showed sensitivity at 66.6%. Recurrent infection over time was considered present in 3 patients; two of them had been previously diagnosed with a positive culture at the second stage (66.6%). CONCLUSIONS: A good number of patients (13.6%) present a positive culture at the second stage of the two-stage surgical procedure for infected shoulder arthroplasty, and those patients seem to be at high risk for recurrent infection. Periprosthetic tissue cultures have a higher sensitivity to detecting a positive culture at the second stage than cement spacer sonicatio