Predictive modelling of a novel anti-adhesion therapy to combat bacterial colonisation of burn wounds

As the development of new classes of antibiotics slows, bacterial resistance to existing antibiotics is becoming an increasing problem. A potential solution is to develop treatment strategies with an alternative mode of action. We consider one such strategy: anti-adhesion therapy. Whereas antibiotics act directly upon bacteria, either killing them or inhibiting their growth, anti-adhesion therapy impedes the binding of bacteria to host cells. This prevents bacteria from deploying their arsenal of virulence mechanisms, while simultaneously rendering them more susceptible to natural and artificial clearance. In this paper, we consider a particular form of anti-adhesion therapy, involving biomimetic multivalent adhesion molecule 7 coupled polystyrene microbeads, which competitively inhibit the binding of bacteria to host cells. We develop a mathematical model, formulated as a system of ordinary differential equations, to describe inhibitor treatment of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa burn wound infection in the rat. Benchmarking our model against in vivo data from an ongoing experimental programme, we use the model to explain bacteria population dynamics and to predict the efficacy of a range of treatment strategies, with the aim of improving treatment outcome. The model consists of two physical compartments: the host cells and the exudate. It is found that, when effective in reducing the bacterial burden, inhibitor treatment operates both by preventing bacteria from binding to the host cells and by reducing the flux of daughter cells from the host cells into the exudate. Our model predicts that inhibitor treatment cannot eliminate the bacterial burden when used in isolation; however, when combined with regular or continuous debridement of the exudate, elimination is theoretically possible. Lastly, we present ways to improve therapeutic efficacy, as predicted by our mathematical model

Early Social Cognition: Alternatives to Implicit Mindreading

According to the BD-model of mindreading, we primarily understand others in terms of beliefs and desires. In this article we review a number of objections against explicit versions of the BD-model, and discuss the prospects of using its implicit counterpart as an explanatory model of early emerging socio-cognitive abilities. Focusing on recent findings on so-called ‘implicit’ false belief understanding, we put forward a number of considerations against the adoption of an implicit BD-model. Finally, we explore a different way to make sense of implicit false belief understanding in terms of keeping track of affordances

Valid and reliable instruments for arm-hand assessment at ICF activity level in persons with hemiplegia: a systematic review

Contains fulltext : 110141.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Loss of arm-hand performance due to a hemiparesis as a result of stroke or cerebral palsy (CP), leads to large problems in daily life of these patients. Assessment of arm-hand performance is important in both clinical practice and research. To gain more insight in e.g. effectiveness of common therapies for different patient populations with similar clinical characteristics, consensus regarding the choice and use of outcome measures is paramount. To guide this choice, an overview of available instruments is necessary. The aim of this systematic review is to identify, evaluate and categorize instruments, reported to be valid and reliable, assessing arm-hand performance at the ICF activity level in patients with stroke or cerebral palsy. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify articles containing instruments assessing arm-hand skilled performance in patients with stroke or cerebral palsy. Instruments were identified and divided into the categories capacity, perceived performance and actual performance. A second search was performed to obtain information on their content and psychometrics. RESULTS: Regarding capacity, perceived performance and actual performance, 18, 9 and 3 instruments were included respectively. Only 3 of all included instruments were used and tested in both patient populations. The content of the instruments differed widely regarding the ICF levels measured, assessment of the amount of use versus the quality of use, the inclusion of unimanual and/or bimanual tasks and the inclusion of basic and/or extended tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Although many instruments assess capacity and perceived performance, a dearth exists of instruments assessing actual performance. In addition, instruments appropriate for more than one patient population are sparse. For actual performance, new instruments have to be developed, with specific focus on the usability in different patient populations and the assessment of quality of use as well as amount of use. Also, consensus about the choice and use of instruments within and across populations is needed