Composition for Topical and Infusion Treatment of Wounds and Burns

A composition is provided for the treatment of contagious equine metritis, a contagious venereal disease of horses. The composition appears to function as a biological inhibitor and has antibacterial and antifungal activity when applied to the normal flora and secretions of the epidermis and mucous membranes. Also, the composition has antipruritic and anti-inflammatory activity. The composition is efficacious in the treatment of lesions produced by bacteria, fungi, allergies, viruses, trauma, and burns to the epidermis, dermis, muscles and mucous membranes of the surface or in body cavities of animals and man. The composition preferably comprises an aqueous solution of dextrose, citric acid and a buffering mixture of the salts of citric acid and acetic acid to provide an optional pH between 3.0 to 6.5 for various wound lesions

Treatment for Contagious Equine Metritis

A composition is provided for the treatment of contagious equine metritis, a contagious veneral disease of horses, which composition comprises an aqueous solution of dextrose, a buffering mixture to provide a pH of about 3.0 to 4.5, and a carrier, the composition being applied topically to external genitalia of horses

Experimental Toxocara cati Infection in Gerbils and Rats

Mongolian gerbils and Wistar rats were inoculated orally with 240 and 2,500 Toxocara cati embryonated eggs, respectively, to evaluate the larval recovery in different tissues and organs, such as the liver, lungs, heart, kidney, and skeletal muscles after 5, 30, 49, 70, and 92 days post-infection (PI). Larval recovery rates were 1.7-30.0% in Mongolian gerbils on days 5-92 PI and 0.2-3.8% in rats on the same days. These results indicate that Mongolian gerbils and Wistar rats are suitable experimental paratenic hosts for the study of neurological toxocariasis as well as visceral toxocariasis

Equine Arteritis Virus Has Specific Tropism for Stromal Cells and CD8\u3csup\u3e+\u3c/sup\u3e T and CD21\u3csup\u3e+\u3c/sup\u3e B Lymphocytes but Not for Glandular Epithelium at the Primary Site of Persistent Infection in the Stallion Reproductive Tract

Equine arteritis virus (EAV) has a global impact on the equine industry as the causative agent of equine viral arteritis (EVA), a respiratory, systemic, and reproductive disease of equids. A distinctive feature of EAV infection is that it establishes long-term persistent infection in 10 to 70% of infected stallions (carriers). In these stallions, EAV is detectable only in the reproductive tract, and viral persistence occurs despite the presence of high serum neutralizing antibody titers. Carrier stallions constitute the natural reservoir of the virus as they continuously shed EAV in their semen. Although the accessory sex glands have been implicated as the primary sites of EAV persistence, the viral host cell tropism and whether viral replication in carrier stallions occurs in the presence or absence of host inflammatory responses remain unknown. In this study, dual immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence techniques were employed to unequivocally demonstrate that the ampulla is the main EAV tissue reservoir rather than immunologically privileged tissues (i.e., testes). Furthermore, we demonstrate that EAV has specific tropism for stromal cells (fibrocytes and possibly tissue macrophages) and CD8+ T and CD21+ B lymphocytes but not glandular epithelium. Persistent EAV infection is associated with moderate, multifocal lymphoplasmacytic ampullitis comprising clusters of B (CD21+) lymphocytes and significant infiltration of T (CD3+, CD4+, CD8+, and CD25+) lymphocytes, tissue macrophages, and dendritic cells (Iba-1+ and CD83+), with a small number of tissue macrophages expressing CD163 and CD204 scavenger receptors. This study suggests that EAV employs complex immune evasion mechanisms that warrant further investigation

Abortos em equinos na região sul do Rio Grande do Sul: estudo de 72 casos

Foi realizado um estudo retrospectivo das causas de aborto ocorridas em equinos na área de influência do Laboratório Regional de Diagnóstico (LRD), da Faculdade de Veterinária da Universidade Federal de Pelotas (UFPel), no período entre janeiro de 2000 e junho de 2011. Foram revisados os protocolos de necropsia e de 1.154 equinos ou materiais de equinos recebidos 72 (6,2%) eram casos de abortos. A infecção bacteriana foi a principal causa de aborto neste estudo com 36,1% dos casos. As causas não infecciosas corresponderam a 8,3% dos casos, os abortos virais a 4,2%, os parasitários a 1,4% e os inflamatórios a 2,8%. Em 47,2% dos casos não foi possível determinar a causa/etiologia do aborto. Lesões macroscópicas e histológicas características foram observadas em casos de aborto por Leptospira sp. e por herpesvirus equino-1 sendo que nos demais casos as lesões foram inespecíficas. Ficou demonstrado que o envio do feto inteiro junto com a placenta, sob refrigeração, aumenta consideravelmente a eficiência do diagnóstico e o elevado número de abortos de causa não determinada foi atribuído em parte ao envio de material não adequado

Home telemonitoring and remote feedback between clinic visits for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic disease that causes reversible narrowing of the airways due to bronchoconstriction, inflammation and mucus production. Asthma continues to be associated with significant avoidable morbidity and mortality. Self management facilitated by a healthcare professional is important to keep symptoms controlled and to prevent exacerbations.Telephone and Internet technologies can now be used by patients to measure lung function and asthma symptoms at home. Patients can then share this information electronically with their healthcare provider, who can provide feedback between clinic visits. Technology can be used in this manner to improve health outcomes and prevent the need for emergency treatment for people with asthma and other long-term health conditions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of home telemonitoring with healthcare professional feedback between clinic visits, compared with usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to May 2016. We also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with asthma in which any form of technology was used to measure and share asthma monitoring data with a healthcare provider between clinic visits, compared with other monitoring or usual care. We excluded trials in which technologies were used for monitoring with no input from a doctor or nurse. We included studies reported as full-text articles, those published as abstracts only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the search and independently extracted risk of bias and numerical data, resolving disagreements by consensus.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) while using study participants as the unit of analysis, and continuous data as mean differences (MDs) while using random-effects models. We rated evidence for all outcomes using the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We found 18 studies including 2268 participants: 12 in adults, 5 in children and one in individuals from both age groups. Studies generally recruited people with mild to moderate persistent asthma and followed them for between three and 12 months. People in the intervention group were given one of a variety of technologies to record and share their symptoms (text messaging, Web systems or phone calls), compared with a group of people who received usual care or a control intervention.Evidence from these studies did not show clearly whether asthma telemonitoring with feedback from a healthcare professional increases or decreases the odds of exacerbations that require a course of oral steroids (OR 0.93, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.44; 466 participants; four studies), a visit to the emergency department (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 1018 participants; eight studies) or a stay in hospital (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.49; 1042 participants; 10 studies) compared with usual care. Our confidence was limited by imprecision in all three primary outcomes. Evidence quality ratings ranged from moderate to very low. None of the studies recorded serious or non-serious adverse events separately from asthma exacerbations.Evidence for measures of asthma control was imprecise and inconsistent, revealing possible benefit over usual care for quality of life (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; 796 participants; six studies; I(2) = 54%), but the effect was small and study results varied. Telemonitoring interventions may provide additional benefit for two measures of lung function. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not support the widespread implementation of telemonitoring with healthcare provider feedback between asthma clinic visits. Studies have not yet proven that additional telemonitoring strategies lead to better symptom control or reduced need for oral steroids over usual asthma care, nor have they ruled out unintended harms. Investigators noted small benefits for quality of life, but these are subject to risk of bias, as the studies were unblinded. Similarly, some benefits for lung function are uncertain owing to possible attrition bias.Larger pragmatic studies in children and adults could better determine the real-world benefits of these interventions for preventing exacerbations and avoiding harms; it is difficult to generalise results from this review because benefits may be explained at least in part by the increased attention participants receive by taking part in clinical trials. Qualitative studies could inform future research by focusing on patient and provider preferences, or by identifying subgroups of patients who are more likely to attain benefit from closer monitoring, such as those who have frequent asthma attacks

Management of Animal Botulism Outbreaks: From Clinical Suspicion to Practical Countermeasures to Prevent or Minimize Outbreaks

Botulism is a severe neuroparalytic disease that affects humans, all warm-blooded animals, and some fishes. The disease is caused by exposure to toxins produced by Clostridium botulinum and other botulinum toxin–producing clostridia. Botulism in animals represents a severe environmental and economic concern because of its high mortality rate. Moreover, meat or other products from affected animals entering the food chain may result in a public health problem. To this end, early diagnosis is crucial to define and apply appropriate veterinary public health measures. Clinical diagnosis is based on clinical findings eliminating other causes of neuromuscular disorders and on the absence of internal lesions observed during postmortem examination. Since clinical signs alone are often insufficient to make a definitive diagnosis, laboratory confirmation is required. Botulinum antitoxin administration and supportive therapies are used to treat sick animals. Once the diagnosis has been made, euthanasia is frequently advisable. Vaccine administration is subject to health authorities' permission, and it is restricted to a small number of animal species. Several measures can be adopted to prevent or minimize outbreaks. In this article we outline all phases of management of animal botulism outbreaks occurring in wet wild birds, poultry, cattle, horses, and fur farm animals

Remote versus face-to-face check-ups for asthma.

BACKGROUND: Asthma remains a significant cause of avoidable morbidity and mortality. Regular check-ups with a healthcare professional are essential to monitor symptoms and adjust medication.Health services worldwide are considering telephone and internet technologies as a way to manage the rising number of people with asthma and other long-term health conditions. This may serve to improve health and reduce the burden on emergency and inpatient services. Remote check-ups may represent an unobtrusive and efficient way of maintaining contact with patients, but it is uncertain whether conducting check-ups in this way is effective or whether it may have unexpected negative consequences. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of conducting asthma check-ups remotely versus usual face-to-face consultations. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to 24 November 2015. We also searched www.clinicaltrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, reference lists of other reviews and contacted trial authors for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults or children with asthma that compared remote check-ups conducted using any form of technology versus standard face-to-face consultations. We excluded studies that used automated telehealth interventions that did not include personalised contact with a health professional. We included studies reported as full-text articles, as abstracts only and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the literature search results and independently extracted risk of bias and numerical data. We resolved any disagreements by consensus, and we contacted study authors for missing information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) using study participants as the unit of analysis, and continuous data as mean differences using the random-effects models. We rated all outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies including a total of 2100 participants met the inclusion criteria: we pooled four studies including 792 people in the main efficacy analyses, and presented the results of a cluster implementation study (n = 1213) and an oral steroid tapering study (n = 95) separately. Baseline characteristics relating to asthma severity were variable, but studies generally recruited people with asthma taking regular medications and excluded those with COPD or severe asthma. One study compared the two types of check-up for oral steroid tapering in severe refractory asthma and we assessed it as a separate question. The studies could not be blinded and dropout was high in four of the six studies, which may have biased the results.We could not say whether more people who had a remote check-up needed oral corticosteroids for an asthma exacerbation than those who were seen face-to-face because the confidence intervals (CIs) were very wide (OR 1.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 7.44; 278 participants; one study; low quality evidence). In the face-to-face check-up groups, 21 participants out of 1000 had exacerbations that required oral steroids over three months, compared to 36 (95% CI nine to 139) out of 1000 for the remote check-up group. Exacerbations that needed treatment in the Emergency Department (ED), hospital admission or an unscheduled healthcare visit all happened too infrequently to detect whether remote check-ups are a safe alternative to face-to-face consultations. Serious adverse events were not reported separately from the exacerbation outcomes.There was no difference in asthma control measured by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) or in quality of life measured on the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) between remote and face-to-face check-ups. We could rule out significant harm of remote check-ups for these outcomes but we were less confident because these outcomes are more prone to bias from lack of blinding.The larger implementation study that compared two general practice populations demonstrated that offering telephone check-ups and proactively phoning participants increased the number of people with asthma who received a review. However, we do not know whether the additional participants who had a telephone check-up subsequently benefited in asthma outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Current randomised evidence does not demonstrate any important differences between face-to-face and remote asthma check-ups in terms of exacerbations, asthma control or quality of life. There is insufficient information to rule out differences in efficacy, or to say whether or not remote asthma check-ups are a safe alternative to being seen face-to-face