5 research outputs found

    Brucella ovis mutant in ABC transporter protects against Brucella canis infection in mice and it is safe for dogs.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES:Vaccination is the most important tool for controlling brucellosis, but currently there is no vaccine available for canine brucellosis, which is a zoonotic disease of worldwide distribution caused by Brucella canis. This study aimed to evaluate protection and immune response induced by Brucella ovis ΔabcBA (BoΔabcBA) encapsulated with alginate against the challenge with Brucella canis in mice and to assess the safety of this strain for dogs. METHODS:Intracellular growth of the vaccine strain BoΔabcBA was assessed in canine and ovine macrophages. Protection induced by BoΔabcBA against virulent Brucella canis was evaluated in the mouse model. Safety of the vaccine strain BoΔabcBA was assessed in experimentally inoculated dogs. RESULTS:Wild type B. ovis and B. canis had similar internalization and intracellular multiplication profiles in both canine and ovine macrophages. The BoΔabcBA strain had an attenuated phenotype in both canine and ovine macrophages. Immunization of BALB/c mice with alginate-encapsulated BoΔabcBA (108 CFU) induced lymphocyte proliferation, production of IL-10 and IFN-γ, and protected against experimental challenge with B. canis. Dogs immunized with alginate-encapsulated BoΔabcBA (109 CFU) seroconverted, and had no hematologic, biochemical or clinical changes. Furthermore, BoΔabcBA was not detected by isolation or PCR performed using blood, semen, urine samples or vaginal swabs at any time point over the course of this study. BoΔabcBA was isolated from lymph nodes near to the site of inoculation in two dogs at 22 weeks post immunization. CONCLUSION:Encapsulated BoΔabcBA protected mice against experimental B. canis infection, and it is safe for dogs. Therefore, B. ovis ΔabcBA has potential as a vaccine candidate for canine brucellosis prevention

    Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2) : a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

    No full text
    Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86-1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable
    corecore