Prevalence of dog erythrocyte antigen (DEA) 1 amongst the dog blood donors at Tamil Nadu veterinary and animal sciences university animal blood bank (TABB), India

The study of dog blood groups has increased in the last years. Inherited antigens on the RBC surface define blood groups. There are 7 blood groups in the canine DEA system. Amongst these blood groups, DEA 1 blood group is highly immunogenic and consequently has greater clinical importance. A retrospective study was conducted in 125 purebred and mongrel dog blood donors at the TANUVAS Animal Blood Bank, Madras Veterinary College, Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai, India during the period from January 2010 to January 2011. Donor dogs were screened and typed for the presence of DEA 1 using the monoclonal antibody kit. The prevalence of DEA 1 was 61.6%. The prevalence of DEA 1 dogs in India agrees with most of the data reported in the literature

Kinesio taping: application and results on pain: systematic review

Kinesio taping is being increasingly used under several conditions; however, its hypoalgesic effect and mechanism of action do not show scientific results. Therefore, the aims of this study were to describe the principles of the method and mainly to analyze the results of clinical trials with control groups, related to pain with Kinesio taping. The PubMed, SciELO, Lilacs, Scirus and Academic Google databases were consulted, using the keywords: Kinesio Taping and Kinesio Tape, either associated or not to pain. Ten clinical trials related to pain and Kinesio taping were selected, assessed by using the PEDro scale, and its results were analyzed. Kinesio taping provided higher, similar or lower pain reduction than in other groups (control, placebo or technique). The application continues to use the principles of Kenzo Kase, the gate control theory being the most described so far to justify the hypoalgesic effect; and the effects were only found in short-term (24 hours to 1 week). Pain relief provided by Kinesio taping was similar or slightly superior to other interventions, not representing a reason for it to be the main treatment of choice. However, it can be considered an adjunct or complementary technique

The High-Risk Plaque Initiative: Primary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Events in the Asymptomatic Population

The High-Risk Plaque (HRP) Initiative is a research and development effort to advance the understanding, recognition, and management of asymptomatic individuals at risk for a near-term atherothrombotic event such as myocardial infarction or stroke. Clinical studies using the newest technologies have been initiated, including the BioImage Study in which novel approaches are tested in a typical health plan population. Asymptomatic at-risk individuals were enrolled, including a survey-only group (n = 865), a group undergoing traditional risk factor scoring (n = 718), and a group in which all were assessed for both risk factors and subclinical atherosclerosis (n = 6104). The latter two groups underwent baseline examination in a dedicated mobile facility equipped with advanced imaging tools suitable for noninvasive screening for subclinical atherosclerosis (coronary artery calcium by computed tomography [CT], carotid and aortic disease by ultrasound, and ankle-brachial index). Selected participants were offered advanced imaging (contrast-enhanced CT, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography/CT). Plasma, PAXgene RNA, and DNA samples were obtained for biomarker discovery studies. All individuals will be followed until 600 major atherothrombotic events have occurred in those undergoing imaging

Mining the human phenome using allelic scores that index biological intermediates

J. Kaprio ja M-L. Lokki työryhmien jäseniä.It is common practice in genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to focus on the relationship between disease risk and genetic variants one marker at a time. When relevant genes are identified it is often possible to implicate biological intermediates and pathways likely to be involved in disease aetiology. However, single genetic variants typically explain small amounts of disease risk. Our idea is to construct allelic scores that explain greater proportions of the variance in biological intermediates, and subsequently use these scores to data mine GWAS. To investigate the approach's properties, we indexed three biological intermediates where the results of large GWAS meta-analyses were available: body mass index, C-reactive protein and low density lipoprotein levels. We generated allelic scores in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, and in publicly available data from the first Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium. We compared the explanatory ability of allelic scores in terms of their capacity to proxy for the intermediate of interest, and the extent to which they associated with disease. We found that allelic scores derived from known variants and allelic scores derived from hundreds of thousands of genetic markers explained significant portions of the variance in biological intermediates of interest, and many of these scores showed expected correlations with disease. Genome-wide allelic scores however tended to lack specificity suggesting that they should be used with caution and perhaps only to proxy biological intermediates for which there are no known individual variants. Power calculations confirm the feasibility of extending our strategy to the analysis of tens of thousands of molecular phenotypes in large genome-wide meta-analyses. We conclude that our method represents a simple way in which potentially tens of thousands of molecular phenotypes could be screened for causal relationships with disease without having to expensively measure these variables in individual disease collections.Peer reviewe

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)