Audio feature the never-ending journey

This audio feature explores the concept of lifelong learning. It discusses the stories of two AUC professors. It also gives the listeners insight into what is lifelong learning and how to be a lifelong learner

Evaluation of Biologically Active Compounds from Calendula officinalis Flowers using Spectrophotometry

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>This study aimed to quantify the active biological compounds in <it>C. officinalis </it>flowers. Based on the active principles and biological properties of marigolds flowers reported in the literature, we sought to obtain and characterize the molecular composition of extracts prepared using different solvents. The antioxidant capacities of extracts were assessed by using spectrophotometry to measure both absorbance of the colorimetric free radical scavenger 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) as well as the total antioxidant potential, using the ferric reducing power (FRAP) assay.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Spectrophotometric assays in the ultraviolet-visible (UV-VIS) region enabled identification and characterization of the full range of phenolic and flavonoids acids, and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used to identify and quantify phenolic compounds (depending on the method of extraction). Methanol ensured more efficient extraction of flavonoids than the other solvents tested.</p> <p>Antioxidant activity in methanolic extracts was correlated with the polyphenol content.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The UV-VIS spectra of assimilator pigments (e.g. chlorophylls), polyphenols and flavonoids extracted from the <it>C. officinalis </it>flowers consisted in quantitative evaluation of compounds which absorb to wavelengths broader than 360 nm.</p

Anti-Obesity Medication Use in Children and Adolescents with Prader–Willi Syndrome: Case Review and Literature Search

(1) Background: children with Prader-Willi syndrome (PWS) have high obesity rates due to hyperphagia and decreased metabolic rates. Although anti-obesity medications (AOMs) are prescribed to this population, there are no consensus guidelines on acceptability, safety, and efficacy. We present literature review and case series on AOMs in youth with PWS. (2) Methods: we performed PubMed review from January 2000 to April 2021 utilizing keywords: “Prader-Willi syndrome” or “PWS” and “medication” including: topiramate, metformin, phentermine, liraglutide, orlistat, oxytocin, semaglutide, naltrexone-bupropion. For our case series, patients were identified through retrospective chart reviews from a multi-disciplinary PWS clinic. Eligibility criteria: age ≤ 18 years, genetically confirmed PWS, AOM use for at least 16 weeks, and recent anthropometric data. (3) Results: a literature search yielded 14 articles (3 topiramate, 1 metformin, 4 liraglutide, 5 oxytocin, 1 naltrexone–bupropion). All studies reported improved hyperphagia with variable BMI effects. Ten adolescents met case series eligibility (mean age 13.2 ± 2.6 years, 40% female; AOMs: 6 metformin, 5 topiramate, 2 semaglutide, 3 liraglutide). After AOM course, 60% had decreased or stable BMI z-score. No significant side effects. (4) Conclusions: results suggest AOMs may be useful for weight management in youth with PWS. Additional studies are required to validate findings and support AOM treatment guidelines

Time-Limited Eating and Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Adolescents with Obesity: A Pilot Study

Due to its simplicity, time-limited eating (TLE) may represent a more feasible approach for treating adolescents with obesity compared to other caloric restriction regimens. This pilot study examines the feasibility and safety of TLE combined with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in adolescents. Fifty adolescents with BMI &ge;95th percentile were recruited to complete a 12-week study. All received standard nutritional counseling, wore a CGM daily, and were randomized to: (1) Prolonged eating window: 12 h eating/12 h fasting + blinded CGM; (2) TLE (8 h eating/16 h fasting, 5 days per week) + blinded CGM; (3) TLE + real-time CGM feedback. Recruitment, retention, and adherence were recorded as indicators of feasibility. Weight loss, dietary intake, physical activity, eating behaviors, and quality of life over the course of the intervention were explored as secondary outcomes. Forty-five participants completed the study (16.4 &plusmn; 1.3 years, 64% female, 49% Hispanic, 75% public insurance). There was high adherence to prescribed eating windows (TLE 5.2 d/wk [SD 1.1]; control 6.1 d/wk [SD 1.4]) and daily CGM wear (5.85 d/wk [SD 4.8]). Most of the adolescents (90%) assigned to TLE reported that limiting their eating window and wearing a CGM was feasible without negative impact on daily functioning or adverse events. There were no between-group difference in terms of weight loss, energy intake, quality of life, physical activity, or eating behaviors. TLE combined with CGM appears feasible and safe among adolescents with obesity. Further investigation in larger samples, with a longer intervention duration and follow-up assessments are needed

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health