Assessment of genetic relationship in Persea spp by traditional molecular markers

Currently, the reclassification of the genus Persea is under discussion with molecular techniques for DNA analysis representing an alternative for inter- and intra-specific differentiation. In the present study, the traditional random-amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and the inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers were used to determine the genomic relationship of different species and hybrids representative of the subgenera Eriodaphne and Persea in a population conserved in a germplasm bank. The data were analyzed statistically using multivariate methods. In the RAPD analysis, a total of 190 polymorphic bands were produced, with an average of 23.7 bands per primer, the percentage contribution of each primer was from 7.66 to 19.63; the polymorphic information content (PIC) ranged from 0.23 to 0.45, with an average of 0.35. In the ISSR analysis, a total of 111 polymorphic bands were considered, with an average of 18.5 bands per primer, the percentage contribution of each was from 11.83 to 19.57; the PIC ranged from 0.35 to 0.48, with an average of 0.42. The phenograms obtained in each technique showed the relationship among the accessions through the clusters formed. In general, J.C. Reyes-Alemán et al. 2 Genetics and Molecular Research 15 (2): gmr.15027359 ©FUNPEC-RP www.funpecrp.com.br both the techniques grouped representatives of the Persea americana races (P. americana var. drymifolia, P. americana var. guatemalensis, and P. americana var. americana). However, it was not possible to separate the species of Persea used as reference into independent clades. In addition, they tended to separate the representatives of subgenera Eriodaphne and Persea

La vid silvestre en México. Actualidades y potencial

En ocho capítulos se aborda el estado del arte de la vid silvestre en MéxicoEl estudio de las especies vegetales nativas de México representa un reto que cada día más investigadores mexicanos asumen. Durante muchos años, el apoyo a la investigación pública ha sido mínimo; desde el punto de vista agronómico es insuficiente para avanzar a la velocidad que requiere nuestro país para afrontar problemas de producción y distribución de alimentos. Por esa razón, entre otras, me es grato presentar esta obra que compila parte de los trabajos de la Red de Vid Silvestre patrocinada por el Sistema Nacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos (sinarefi) dependiente de la sagarpa; trabajos apuntalados por investigadores que sin pertenecer a la red han colaborado en el estudio de las plantas del género Vitis. En este libro se muestra el potencial del país para aprovechar el recurso vid, empleado desde antes de la conquista española por nativos mexicanos que conocían sus bondades. Es necesario continuar el avance en el conocimiento de este recurso, por ello el presente libro pretende invitar a toda persona interesada en contribuir con el rescate y conservación de las vides mexicanas. Los autores y editores, así como las instituciones en donde laboramos y aquellas que patrocinan estas investigaciones, esperamos se cumpla este objetivo y que el lector, alumno, profesor, investigador, público en general, disfrute esta lectura y, sobre todo, se interese en el recurso VitisSEP, SINAREFI, UAEME

Durvalumab Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel Followed by Maintenance Durvalumab With or Without Olaparib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: The Phase III DUO-E Trial

PURPOSE Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease. METHODS This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control. RESULTS Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1-positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents. CONCLUSION Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

Knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of Latin American healthcare workers relating to antibiotic stewardship and antibiotic use: a cross-sectional multi-country study

Abstract Background The burden of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in Latin America is high. Little is known about healthcare workers’ (HCWs) knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of antimicrobial stewardship (AS), AMR, and antibiotic use (AU) in the region. Methods HCWs from 42 hospitals from 5 Latin American countries were invited to take an electronic, voluntary, anonymous survey regarding knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions of AS, AMR, and AU between March–April 2023. Findings Overall, 996 HCWs completed the survey (52% physicians, 32% nurses, 11% pharmacists, 3% microbiologists, and 2% “other”). More than 90% of respondents indicated optimizing AU was a priority at their healthcare facility (HCF), 69% stated the importance of AS was communicated at their HCF, and 23% were unfamiliar with the term “antibiotic stewardship”. Most (> 95%) respondents acknowledged that appropriate AU can reduce AMR; however, few thought AU (< 30%) or AMR (< 50%) were a problem in their HCF. Lack of access to antibiogram and to locally endorsed guidelines was reported by 51% and 34% of HCWs, respectively. Among prescribers, 53% did not consider non-physicians’ opinions to make antibiotic-related decisions, 22% reported not receiving education on how to select antibiotics based on culture results and 60% stated patients and families influence their antibiotic decisions. Conclusions Although HCWs perceived improving AU as a priority, they did not perceive AU or AMR as a problem in their HCF. AS opportunities include improved access to guidelines, access to AMR/AU data, teamwork, and education on AS for HCWs and patients and families

Multinational prospective cohort study of incidence and risk factors for central line-associated bloodstream infections in ICUs of 8 Latin American countries

Background: Our objective was to identify central line (CL)-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) rates and risk factors in Latin-America. Methods: From January 1, 2014 to February 10, 2022, we conducted a multinational multicenter prospective cohort study in 58 ICUs of 34 hospitals in 21 cities in 8 Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama). We applied multiple-logistic regression. Outcomes are shown as adjusted-odds ratios (aOR). Results: About 29,385 patients were hospitalized during 92,956 days, acquired 400 CLABSIs, and pooled CLABSI rate was 4.30 CLABSIs per 1,000 CL-days. We analyzed following 10 variables: Gender, age, length of stay (LOS) before CLABSI acquisition, CL-days before CLABSI acquisition, CL-device utilization (DU) ratio, CL-type, tracheostomy use, hospitalization type, intensive care unit (ICU) type, and facility ownership, Following variables were independently associated with CLABSI: LOS before CLABSI acquisition, rising risk 3% daily (aOR=1.03;95%CI=1.02-1.04; P < .0001); number of CL-days before CLABSI acquisition, rising risk 4% per CL-day (aOR=1.04;95%CI=1.03-1.05; P < .0001); publicly-owned facility (aOR=2.33;95%CI=1.79-3.02; P < .0001). ICU with highest risk was medical-surgical (aOR=2.61;95%CI=1.41-4.81; P < .0001). CL with the highest risk were femoral (aOR=2.71;95%CI=1.61-4.55; P < .0001), and internal-jugular (aOR=2.62;95%CI=1.82-3.79; P < .0001). PICC (aOR=1.25;95%CI=0.63-2.51; P = .52) was not associated with CLABSI risk. Conclusions: Based on these findings it is suggested to focus on reducing LOS, CL-days, using PICC instead of femoral or internal-jugular; and implementing evidence-based CLABSI prevention recommendations.Revisión por pare

Association between administration of IL-6 antagonists and mortality among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 : a meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE Clinical trials assessing the efficacy of IL-6 antagonists in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 have variously reported benefit, no effect, and harm. OBJECTIVE To estimate the association between administration of IL-6 antagonists compared with usual care or placebo and 28-day all-cause mortality and other outcomes. DATA SOURCES Trials were identified through systematic searches of electronic databases between October 2020 and January 2021. Searches were not restricted by trial status or language. Additional trials were identified through contact with experts. STUDY SELECTION Eligible trials randomly assigned patients hospitalized for COVID-19 to a group in whom IL-6 antagonists were administered and to a group in whom neither IL-6 antagonists nor any other immunomodulators except corticosteroids were administered. Among 72 potentially eligible trials, 27 (37.5%) met study selection criteria. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS In this prospectivemeta-analysis, risk of biaswas assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Inconsistency among trial results was assessed using the I-2 statistic. The primary analysis was an inverse variance-weighted fixed-effects meta-analysis of odds ratios (ORs) for 28-day all-cause mortality. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome measurewas all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. There were 9 secondary outcomes including progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death and risk of secondary infection by 28 days. RESULTS A total of 10 930 patients (median age, 61 years [range of medians, 52-68 years]; 3560 [33%] were women) participating in 27 trials were included. By 28 days, there were 1407 deaths among 6449 patients randomized to IL-6 antagonists and 1158 deaths among 4481 patients randomized to usual care or placebo (summary OR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.79-0.95]; P =.003 based on a fixed-effects meta-analysis). This corresponds to an absolute mortality risk of 22% for IL-6 antagonists compared with an assumed mortality risk of 25% for usual care or placebo. The corresponding summary ORs were 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92; P <.001) for tocilizumab and 1.08 (95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P =.52) for sarilumab. The summary ORs for the association with mortality compared with usual care or placebo in those receiving corticosteroids were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.68-0.87) for tocilizumab and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.61-1.38) for sarilumab. The ORs for the association with progression to invasive mechanical ventilation or death, compared with usual care or placebo, were 0.77 (95% CI, 0.70-0.85) for all IL-6 antagonists, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for tocilizumab, and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.74-1.34) for sarilumab. Secondary infections by 28 days occurred in 21.9% of patients treated with IL-6 antagonists vs 17.6% of patients treated with usual care or placebo (OR accounting for trial sample sizes, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.16). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this prospectivemeta-analysis of clinical trials of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, administration of IL-6 antagonists, compared with usual care or placebo, was associated with lower 28-day all-cause mortality

Worldwide trends in population-based survival for children, adolescents, and young adults diagnosed with leukaemia, by subtype, during 2000–14 (CONCORD-3): analysis of individual data from 258 cancer registries in 61 countries

Background: Leukaemias comprise a heterogenous group of haematological malignancies. In CONCORD-3, we analysed data for children (aged 0–14 years) and adults (aged 15–99 years) diagnosed with a haematological malignancy during 2000–14 in 61 countries. Here, we aimed to examine worldwide trends in survival from leukaemia, by age and morphology, in young patients (aged 0–24 years). Methods: We analysed data from 258 population-based cancer registries in 61 countries participating in CONCORD-3 that submitted data on patients diagnosed with leukaemia. We grouped patients by age as children (0–14 years), adolescents (15–19 years), and young adults (20–24 years). We categorised leukaemia subtypes according to the International Classification of Childhood Cancer (ICCC-3), updated with International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, third edition (ICD-O-3) codes. We estimated 5-year net survival by age and morphology, with 95% CIs, using the non-parametric Pohar-Perme estimator. To control for background mortality, we used life tables by country or region, single year of age, single calendar year and sex, and, where possible, by race or ethnicity. All-age survival estimates were standardised to the marginal distribution of young people with leukaemia included in the analysis. Findings: 164 563 young people were included in this analysis: 121 328 (73·7%) children, 22 963 (14·0%) adolescents, and 20 272 (12·3%) young adults. In 2010–14, the most common subtypes were lymphoid leukaemia (28 205 [68·2%] patients) and acute myeloid leukaemia (7863 [19·0%] patients). Age-standardised 5-year net survival in children, adolescents, and young adults for all leukaemias combined during 2010–14 varied widely, ranging from 46% in Mexico to more than 85% in Canada, Cyprus, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, and Australia. Individuals with lymphoid leukaemia had better age-standardised survival (from 43% in Ecuador to ≥80% in parts of Europe, North America, Oceania, and Asia) than those with acute myeloid leukaemia (from 32% in Peru to ≥70% in most high-income countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania). Throughout 2000–14, survival from all leukaemias combined remained consistently higher for children than adolescents and young adults, and minimal improvement was seen for adolescents and young adults in most countries. Interpretation: This study offers the first worldwide picture of population-based survival from leukaemia in children, adolescents, and young adults. Adolescents and young adults diagnosed with leukaemia continue to have lower survival than children. Trends in survival from leukaemia for adolescents and young adults are important indicators of the quality of cancer management in this age group

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

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