Prevalence of myopia and its socio-demographic distribution amongst secondary school going adolescents in Lurambi Sub-County, Kakamega, Kenya

Background: Globally the prevalence of myopia has increased alarmingly and is expected to affect an estimated 2.56 billion people in the world by the end of 2020. It is believed to be the leading cause of visual impairment in Kenya, contributing 59.5% of all causes of visual impairment. Still, agreement on the exact prevalence in Kenya and whether socio-demographic factors have an influence on myopia is unknown. This study was aimed at evaluating the prevalence of myopia and its socio-demographic distribution amongst randomly selected school-going adolescent. This study was conducted in Lurambi Sub-County in Kakamega, Kenya. Material and methods: The study adopted a school-based cross-sectional descriptive study design. Using a multi-stage sampling technique, 733 participants from a population of 7,400 secondary school students within Lurambi Sub-County were randomly selected. A standard optometric vision-assessment protocol was applied to those who met the inclusion criteria and cycloplegic refraction was conducted to elicit those who had myopia. Results: The prevalence of myopia was found to be 7.5% of which 29 (52.7%) were male while 26 (47.3%) were female and there was no association between gender and myopia (p = 0.572). Myopia was found to be more prevalent in urban 49 (87.3%) as compared to rural 7 (12.7%) areas and there was no association between place of residences and myopia (p = 0.381). Similarly, 15–18 years was the dominant age group 39 (70.9%) and there was no association between age and having myopia (p = 0.926). The study also found that there was no association (p = 0.207) between school class of the participants and having myopia, although most myopic cases were in the form four class 15 (27.3%). Conclusion: Myopia was found to be mostly prevalent in the urban setting and upper classes as compared to rural and lower classes. This may link myopia to other risk factors such as near work and outdoor activities, but more research needs to be done in these areas.

Disease Rescue and Increased Lifespan in a Model of Cardiomyopathy and Muscular Dystrophy by Combined AAV Treatments

The BIO14.6 hamster is an excellent animal model for inherited cardiomyopathy, because of its lethal and well-documented course, due to a spontaneous deletion of delta-sarcoglycan gene promoter and first exon. The muscle disease is progressive and average lifespan is 11 months, because heart slowly dilates towards heart failure.Based on the ability of adeno-associated viral (AAV) vectors to transduce heart together with skeletal muscle following systemic administration, we delivered human delta-sarcoglycan cDNA into male BIO14.6 hamsters by testing different ages of injection, routes of administration and AAV serotypes. Body-wide restoration of delta-SG expression was associated with functional reconstitution of the sarcoglycan complex and with significant lowering of centralized nuclei and fibrosis in skeletal muscle. Motor ability and cardiac functions were completely rescued. However, BIO14.6 hamsters having less than 70% of fibers recovering sarcoglycan developed cardiomyopathy, even if the total rescued protein was normal. When we used serotype 2/8 in combination with serotype 2/1, lifespan was extended up to 22 months with sustained heart function improvement.Our data support multiple systemic administrations of AAV as a general therapeutic strategy for clinical trials in cardiomyopathies and muscle disorders

How and why capitalisms differ

International audienceThe variety of capitalism school (VOC) and regulation theory (TR) are both analyses of the diversity of contemporary national economies. If VOC challenges the primacy of liberal market economies (LME) and stresses the existence of an alternative form, i.e. coordinated market economies (CME), TR starts from a long-term analysis of the transformation of capitalism in order to search for alternatives to the Fordist regime that emerged after the post-Second World War era. Both approaches make intensive use of international comparisons, challenge the role of market as the exclusive coordinating mechanism, and raise doubts about the existence of a 'one best way' for capitalism. Finally, they stress that globalization does deepen the competitive advantage associated with each institutional architecture. Nevertheless, their methodology differs: VOC stresses private firm governance, whereas TR considers the primacy of systemic and macroeconomic coherence. Whereas for VOC there exist only LME and CME, TR recurrently finds at least four brands of capitalism: market-led, meso-corporatist, social democrat and State-led. VOC seems to consider that the long-term stability of each capitalism can be challenged only by external shocks, but TR stresses the fact that the very success of a regulation mode ends up in a structural crisis, largely endogenous