Risk of Infection with Leishmania spp. in the Canine Population in the Netherlands

<p/> <p>The dog is the main reservoir of <it>Leishmania infantum</it>, the causative agent of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in humans in Southern Europe. In order to identify the risk of dogs from a <it>Leishmania </it>non-endemic area traveling to a <it>Leishmania</it>-endemic area becoming infected and the risk of transmitting infection to humans in non-endemic areas an investigation was performed, in which the results of a questionnaire were combined with the results of a serologic survey.</p> <p>The questionnaire was sent to 1478 at random chosen families in the Netherlands. Of the 59.0% responders 28.0% had one or more dogs and 4.8% of these dogs had visited Southern Europe during the summer period of that year. On a total population of 1,200,000 dogs in the Netherlands, this means that each year some 58,000 dogs are at risk of being exposed to a <it>Leishmania </it>infection in Southern Europe.</p> <p>During the period 1990–1992 blood was collected for serology in 1911 dogs presented to the Utrecht University Clinic because of clinical problems not related to leishmaniasis, of which 434 had been in Southern Europe in the foregoing years. None was serologically positive. From these data it can be deduced that the highest chance to obtain leishmaniasis during a vacation in Southern Europe is mathematically less than 1/434 or less than 0.23%. Serology was also performed during the period 1989–1993 in 597 dogs that had been in Southern Europe and were suspected of leishmaniasis. Titers were positive in 145 of these samples. Sixty-four of these dogs were born in the Mediterranean and had been imported into the Netherlands. Excluding these imported dogs, it was calculated that at least 0.027% of the 58,000 dogs yearly taken to Southern Europe during holidays become infected with Leishmania. In order to establish the risk of disease transmission for people in close contact with an infected dog, serum samples of owners and house mates of 37 dogs with leishmaniasis were tested. All 112 sera tested negative. It was concluded that the risk to get leishmaniasis was between 0.027% and 0.23% for the dog when taken to Southern Europe during vacation, and that the risk for owners in non-endemic areas to get leishmaniasis from an infected dog is minimal.</p

Detection, evaluation, and management of preoperative anaemia in the elective orthopaedic surgical patient: NATA guidelines

Previously undiagnosed anaemia is common in elective orthopaedic surgical patients and is associated with increased likelihood of blood transfusion and increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. A standardized approach for the detection, evaluation, and management of anaemia in this setting has been identified as an unmet medical need. A multidisciplinary panel of physicians was convened by the Network for Advancement of Transfusion Alternatives (NATA) with the aim of developing practice guidelines for the detection, evaluation, and management of preoperative anaemia in elective orthopaedic surgery. A systematic literature review and critical evaluation of the evidence was performed, and recommendations were formulated according to the method proposed by the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. We recommend that elective orthopaedic surgical patients have a haemoglobin (Hb) level determination 28 days before the scheduled surgical procedure if possible (Grade 1C). We suggest that the patient's target Hb before elective surgery be within the normal range, according to the World Health Organization criteria (Grade 2C). We recommend further laboratory testing to evaluate anaemia for nutritional deficiencies, chronic renal insufficiency, and/or chronic inflammatory disease (Grade 1C). We recommend that nutritional deficiencies be treated (Grade 1C). We suggest that erythropoiesis-stimulating agents be used for anaemic patients in whom nutritional deficiencies have been ruled out, corrected, or both (Grade 2A). Anaemia should be viewed as a serious and treatable medical condition, rather than simply an abnormal laboratory value. Implementation of anaemia management in the elective orthopaedic surgery setting will improve patient outcome

The initial characterization of the iron environment in lipoxygenase by MÖssbauer spectroscopy

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65879/1/j.1432-1033.1990.tb15616.x.pd

Effect of parental and ART treatment characteristics on perinatal outcomes

Funding This study was funded by Foreest Medical School, Alkmaar, the Netherlands (grants: FIO 1307 and FIO 1505). Acknowledgements We thank the Foundation of the Netherlands Perinatal Registry for permission to use their registry data (approval number 12.43). We thank G.P. Kroon and H.W.W. van Leeuwen for their assistance in collecting the necessary IVF data. Furthermore, we thank the medical informatics students A. Wong for the first deterministic data linkage and S. Wortel for assisting in the database validation process. In addition, we thank all care providers for the registration of the perinatal data as well as the IVF laboratory data.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Конференции

STUDY QUESTION: What is the cost-effectiveness of in vitro fertilization(IVF) with conventional ovarian stimulation, single embryotransfer (SET) and subsequent cryocycles or IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC) compared with intrauterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-COH) as a first-line treatment in couples with unexplained subfertility and an unfavourable prognosis on natural conception?. SUMMARY ANSWER: Both IVF strategies are significantly more expensive when compared with IUI-COH, without being significantly more effective. In the comparison between IVF-MNC and IUI-COH, the latter is the dominant strategy. Whether IVF-SET is cost-effective depends on society's willingness to pay for an additional healthy child. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-COH and IVF, either after conventional ovarian stimulation or in a MNC, are used as first-line treatments for couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility. As IUI-COH is less invasive, this treatment is usually offered before proceeding to IVF. Yet, as conventional IVF with SET may lead to higher pregnancy rates in fewer cycles for a lower multiple pregnancy rate, some have argued to start with IVF instead of IUI-COH. In addition, IVF in the MNC is considered to be a more patient friendly and less costly form of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized noninferiority trial. Between January 2009 and February 2012, 602 couples with unexplained infertility and a poor prognosis on natural conception were allocated to three cycles of IVF-SET including frozen embryo transfers, six cycles of IVF-MNC or six cycles of IUI-COH. These couples were followed until 12 months after randomization. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We collected data on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. We calculated unit costs from various sources. For each of the three strategies, we calculated the mean costs and effectiveness. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH and for IVF-MNC compared with IUI-COH. Nonparametric bootstrap resampling was used to investigate the effect of uncertainty in our estimates. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were 104 healthy children (52%) born in the IVF-SET group, 83 (43%) the IVF-MNC group and 97 (47%) in the IUI-COH group. The mean costs per couple were (sic)7187 for IVF-SET, (sic)8206 for IVF-MNC and (sic)5070 for IUI-COH. Compared with IUI-COH, the costs for IVF-SET and IVF-MNC were significantly higher (mean differences (sic)2117; 95% CI: (sic)1544-(sic)2657 and (sic)3136, 95% CI: (sic)2519-(sic)3754, respectively). The ICER for IVF-SET compared with IUI-COH was (sic)43 375 for the birth of an additional healthy child. In the comparison of IVF-MNC to IUI-COH, the latter was the dominant strategy, i.e. more effective at lower costs. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only report on direct health care costs. The present analysis is limited to 12 months. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since we found no evidence in support of offering IVF as a first-line strategy in couples with unexplained and mild subfertility, IUI-COH should remain the treatment of first choice

Efficacy and Safety of Prucalopride in Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain Suffering from Opioid-Induced Constipation

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) has negative effects on quality of life (QOL). Prucalopride is a new, selective 5-HT4 agonist and enterokinetic with strong clinical data in chronic constipation. This study investigated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of prucalopride in patients with noncancer pain and OIC. A phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 196 patients randomized to placebo (n = 66), prucalopride 2 mg (n = 66) or 4 mg (n = 64), for 4 weeks, was carried out. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with increase from baseline of a parts per thousand yen1 spontaneous complete bowel movement (SCBM)/week. Secondary endpoints [proportion of patients with a parts per thousand yen3 SCBM/week, weekly frequency of (SC)BM, severity of constipation, and efficacy of treatment], adverse events (AEs), and safety parameters were also monitored. More patients had an increase from baseline of a parts per thousand yen1 SCBM per week (weeks 1-4) in the prucalopride groups [35.9% (2 mg) and 40.3% (4 mg)] versus placebo (23.4%), reaching statistical significance in week 1. Over weeks 1-4, more patients in the prucalopride groups achieved an average of a parts per thousand yen3 SBM per week versus placebo (60.7% and 69.0% versus 43.3%), reaching significance at week 1. Prucalopride 4 mg significantly improved patient-rated severity of constipation and effectiveness of treatment versus placebo. Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptom (PAC-SYM) total scores and Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QOL) total and satisfaction subscale scores were improved. The most common AEs were abdominal pain and nausea. There were no clinically relevant differences between groups in vital signs, laboratory measures or electrocardiogram parameters. In this population with OIC, prucalopride improved bowel function and was safe and well tolerated