Subtractive phage display selection from canine visceral leishmaniasis identifies novel epitopes that mimic leishmania infantum antigens with potential serodiagnosis applications

Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a zoonotic disease that is endemic to Brazil, where dogs are the main domestic parasite reservoirs, and the percentages of infected dogs living in regions where canine VL (CVL) is endemic have ranged from 10% to 62%. Despite technological advances, some problems have been reported with CVL serodiagnosis. The present study describes a sequential subtractive selection through phage display technology from polyclonal antibodies of negative and positive sera that resulted in the identification of potential bacteriophage-fused peptides that were highly sensitive and specific to antibodies of CVL. A negative selection was performed in which phage clones were adhered to purified IgGs from healthy and Trypanosoma cruzi-infected dogs to eliminate cross-reactive phages. The remaining supernatant nonadhered phages were submitted to positive selection against IgG from the blood serum of dogs that were infected with Leishmania infantum. Phage clones that adhered to purified IgGs from the CVL-infected serum samples were selected. Eighteen clones were identified and their reactivities tested by a phage enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (phage-ELISA) against the serum samples from infected dogs (n 31) compared to those from vaccinated dogs (n 21), experimentally infected dogs with cross-reactive parasites (n 23), and healthy controls (n 17). Eight clones presented sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 100%, and they showed no crossreactivity with T. cruzi- or Ehrlichia canis-infected dogs or with dogs vaccinated with two different commercial CVL vaccines in Brazil. Our study identified eight mimotopes of L. infantum antigens with 100% accuracy for CVL serodiagnosis. The use of these mimotopes by phage-ELISA proved to be an excellent assay that was reproducible, simple, fast, and inexpensive, and it can be applied in CVL-monitoring programsThis work was supported by grants from the Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa of UFMG (supported 03/2013), the Instituto Nacional de Ciência e Tecnologia em Nano-Biofarmacêutica (INCT Nano-Biofar), Rede Nanobiotec/Brasil-UFU (CAPES), PRONEX-FAPEMIG (APQ-01019- 09), FAPEMIG (APQ-00496-11 and APQ-00819-12), and CNPq (APQ- 472090/2011-9 and APQ-482976/2012-8). E.A.F.C. and L.R.G. are recipients of grants from CNPq. M.A.C.-F. is the recipient of a grant from FAPEMIG/CAPE

Global variation in diabetes diagnosis and prevalence based on fasting glucose and hemoglobin A1c

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are both used to diagnose diabetes, but these measurements can identify different people as having diabetes. We used data from 117 population-based studies and quantified, in different world regions, the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, and whether those who were previously undiagnosed and detected as having diabetes in survey screening, had elevated FPG, HbA1c or both. We developed prediction equations for estimating the probability that a person without previously diagnosed diabetes, and at a specific level of FPG, had elevated HbA1c, and vice versa. The age-standardized proportion of diabetes that was previously undiagnosed and detected in survey screening ranged from 30% in the high-income western region to 66% in south Asia. Among those with screen-detected diabetes with either test, the age-standardized proportion who had elevated levels of both FPG and HbA1c was 29-39% across regions; the remainder had discordant elevation of FPG or HbA1c. In most low- and middle-income regions, isolated elevated HbA1c was more common than isolated elevated FPG. In these regions, the use of FPG alone may delay diabetes diagnosis and underestimate diabetes prevalence. Our prediction equations help allocate finite resources for measuring HbA1c to reduce the global shortfall in diabetes diagnosis and surveillance

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Global variations in diabetes mellitus based on fasting glucose and haemogloblin A1c

Fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) are both used to diagnose diabetes, but may identify different people as having diabetes. We used data from 117 population-based studies and quantified, in different world regions, the prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, and whether those who were previously undiagnosed and detected as having diabetes in survey screening had elevated FPG, HbA1c, or both. We developed prediction equations for estimating the probability that a person without previously diagnosed diabetes, and at a specific level of FPG, had elevated HbA1c, and vice versa. The age-standardised proportion of diabetes that was previously undiagnosed, and detected in survey screening, ranged from 30% in the high-income western region to 66% in south Asia. Among those with screen-detected diabetes with either test, the agestandardised proportion who had elevated levels of both FPG and HbA1c was 29-39% across regions; the remainder had discordant elevation of FPG or HbA1c. In most low- and middle-income regions, isolated elevated HbA1c more common than isolated elevated FPG. In these regions, the use of FPG alone may delay diabetes diagnosis and underestimate diabetes prevalence. Our prediction equations help allocate finite resources for measuring HbA1c to reduce the global gap in diabetes diagnosis and surveillance.peer-reviewe

Urinalysis: Comparison between microscopic analysis and a new automated microscopy image-based urine sediment instrument

Urinalysis is a high demand procedure, with a large amount of manual labor and poorly standardized. Recently a new walk-away automated urine analyzer has been introduced. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of UriSed as an alternative to the microscopic analysis of urine samples. Methods: Four hundred mid-stream urine samples from patients with several clinical conditions were analyzed by bright field microscopy and by UriSed. The validation protocol included studies of precision, carryover, and comparison with the gold standard microscopy. Results: Our data showed that UriSed is a precise method. Repeatability and reproducibility ranged from 8 to 15%. Carryover was negligible. All the elements showed good agreement between both methods, with an extremely high correlation between the erythrocyte and leukocyte counts (r > 0.95) Conclusions: UriSed is a precise and accurate alternative to microscopy that allows a better workflow and may significantly improve turnaround time604693697sem informaçã

Early sensory re-education of the hand after peripheral nerve repair based on mirror therapy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Mirror therapy has been used as an alternative stimulus to feed the somatosensory cortex in an attempt to preserve hand cortical representation with better functional results. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the short-term functional outcome of an early re-education program using mirror therapy compared to a late classic sensory program for hand nerve repair. METHOD: This is a randomized controlled trial. We assessed 20 patients with median and ulnar nerve and flexor tendon repair using the Rosen Score combined with the DASH questionnaire. The early phase group using mirror therapy began on the first postoperative week and lasted 5 months. The control group received classic sensory re-education when the protective sensation threshold was restored. All participants received a patient education booklet and were submitted to the modified Duran protocol for flexor tendon repair. The assessments were performed by the same investigator blinded to the allocated treatment. Mann-Whitney Test and Effect Size using Cohen's d score were used for inter-group comparisons at 3 and 6 months after intervention. RESULTS: The primary outcome (Rosen score) values for the Mirror Therapy group and classic therapy control group after 3 and 6 months were 1.68 (SD=0.5); 1.96 (SD=0.56) and 1.65 (SD=0.52); 1.51 (SD=0.62), respectively. No between-group differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Although some clinical improvement was observed, mirror therapy was not shown to be more effective than late sensory re-education in an intermediate phase of nerve repair in the hand. Replication is needed to confirm these findings