Manipulating vector transmission reveals local processes in bacterial communities of batss

Infectious diseases result from multiple interactions among microbes and hosts, but community ecology approaches are rarely applied. Manipulation of vector populations provides a unique opportunity to test the importance of vectors in infection cycles while also observing changes in pathogen community diversity and species interactions. Yet for many vector-borne infections in wildlife, a biological vector has not been experimentally verified and few manipulative studies have been performed. Using a captive colony of fruit bats in Ghana, we observed changes in the community of Bartonella bacteria over time after the decline and subsequent reintroduction of bat flies. With reduced transmission, community changes were attributed to ecological drift and potential selection through interspecies competition mediated by host immunity. This work demonstrated that forces maintaining diversity in communities of free-living macroorganisms act in similar ways in communities of symbiotic microorganisms, both within and among hosts. Additionally, this study is the first to experimentally test the role of bat flies as vectors of Bartonella species

Multiple sclerosis-induced neuropathic pain: pharmacological management and pathophysiological insights from rodent EAE models

In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), pain is a frequent and disabling symptom. The prevalence is in the range 29–86 % depending upon the assessment protocols utilised and the definition of pain applied. Neuropathic pain that develops secondary to demyelination, neuroinflammation and axonal damage in the central nervous system is the most distressing and difficult type of pain to treat. Although dysaesthetic extremity pain, L’hermitte’s sign and trigeminal neuralgia are the most common neuropathic pain conditions reported by patients with MS, research directed at gaining insight into the complex mechanisms underpinning the pathobiology of MS-associated neuropathic pain is in its relative infancy. By contrast, there is a wealth of knowledge on the neurobiology of neuropathic pain induced by peripheral nerve injury. To date, the majority of research in the MS field has used rodent models of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) as these models have many clinical and neuropathological features in common with those observed in patients with MS. However, it is only relatively recently that EAE-rodents have been utilised to investigate the mechanisms contributing to the development and maintenance of MS-associated central neuropathic pain. Importantly, EAE-rodent models exhibit pro-nociceptive behaviours predominantly in the lower extremities (tail and hindlimbs) as seen clinically in patients with MS-neuropathic pain. Herein, we review research to date on the pathophysiological mechanisms underpinning MS-associated neuropathic pain as well as the pharmacological management of this condition. We also identify knowledge gaps to guide future research in this important field

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)