Red deer (Cervus elaphus) : artificial feeding and early weaning

Con el objetivo principal de lograr ciervos menos susceptibles a estrés de manejo se desarrolló una técnica de crianza artificial, consistente en desmadre a 4 días del nacimiento, alimentación con sustituto lácteo en base a leche de vaca, posterior lactancia directa de cabras nodrizas y destete semiprecoz a los 4 meses de edad. Para realizar la prueba se utilizaron cuatro cervatillos del criadero de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias (UNCuyo). Se consiguieron resultados excelentes en cuanto a mansedumbre y un crecimiento de 177 g/ animal.día promedio del primer año de vida. La experiencia se desarrolló sin mortandad y con los animales en buen estado sanitario. Se puede concluir que la técnica fue exitosa para el logro del objetivo principal: el destete en las condiciones del ensayo siendo factible y recomendable la utilización de cabras nodrizas para facilitar el manejo y disminuir los costos de las instalaciones.An artificial raising technique was created to develop animals to lower stress susceptibility. The technique involves removing the animals from their mothers at the age of 4 days, feeding with a milk substitute based on supplemented cow's milk, and then fed by surrogate mother goats and early weaned at the age of 4 months. To carry out the trial 4 red deer were provided by the farm of Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Excellent results were obtained in terms of the gentleness of the animals and the average growth rate of 177 grams daily gain during the first year of life. This trial was carried out without mortality and with the animals in a good state of health. It can be concluded that the technique was succesfull in reaching its main objective, that of weaning under trial conditions is feasible and that surrogate mother goats are recommended to make handling easier and to lower factory costs.Fil: Tacchini, Fabio Marcos. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Departamento de Producción AgropecuariaFil: Van den Bosch, Silvia Beatriz . Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. Departamento de Producción Agropecuari

La gestión académica en pandemia : adecuaciones, innovaciones y desafíos de la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo

Este libro remite a un contexto especial e inédito que surge a partir de la pandemia de covid-19. Se trata de un contexto de alcance global signado por efectos intensos y perdurables sobre diferentes aspectos de la realidad social, económica y ambiental. En general, estos efectos provocaron, por un lado, situaciones problemáticas nuevas y, por otro lado, agravaron situaciones problemáticas preexistentes que adquirieron mayor visibilidad. En el caso argentino, las restricciones derivadas de la pandemia agudizaron la brecha socioeducativa existente y, al mismo tiempo, exigieron una gestión ágil, dinámica, resolutiva, propositiva y resiliente, especialmente a las instituciones educativas con el objeto de asegurar el derecho a la educación y su calidad. Lógicamente, la provincia de Mendoza y, por tanto, la Universidad Nacional de Cuyo (UNCUYO) no quedaron exentas de los efectos mencionados. Aunque aún no resulta posible identificar con rigor el impacto concreto que ha tenido la pandemia sobre el funcionamiento del sistema educativo provincial, se pueden entrever algunos indicadores que vale la pena atender. Por ejemplo, el egreso en la oferta de educación superior de la uncuyo registró, en 2020, una caída interanual cercana al -18 % 1. Esta oscilación se torna más relevante si se considera que este indicador se mostraba estable a lo largo de los últimos años.Fil: Castañeda, Linda. Universidad de Murcia.Fil: Viñoles Cosentino, Virginia. Universidad de Murcia.Fil: Falcón, Paulo.Fil: Martínez, Ana María.Fil: Meljin Lombard, Mariela Beatriz. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Artes y Diseño.Fil: Van Den Bosch, Silvia. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias.Fil: Castro, María Eugenia. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Aplicadas a la Industria.Fil: Puebla, Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas.Fil: Sánchez, Esther Lucía. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas.Fil: González Gaviola, Miguel. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Económicas.Fil: Tarabelli, María Florencia. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales.Fil: Rüttler, María Elena. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas.Fil: Nalda, Gonzalo. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Médicas.Fil: Castiglia, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Políticas y Sociales.Fil: Mussuto, Matías M.. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Derecho.Fil: Griffouliere, María Gabriela. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Educación.Fil: Verstraete, María Ana. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras.Fil: Echagaray, Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Odontología.Fil: Mirasso, Aníbal. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ingeniería.Fil: Molina, Fabiana. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Tecnológico Universitario.Fil: Corral, Patricia. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Instituto Universitario de Seguridad Pública.Fil: Chrabalowski, Marina. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Fil: Barrozo, María Ana. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Fil: Zabala, Cecilia. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Escuela de Comercio Martín Zapata.Fil: Sauer, Marcelo. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Fil: Romero Day, Marcela. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Liceo Agrícola y Enológico Domingo F. Sarmiento.Fil: Marlia, Nora. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. Departamento de Aplicación Docente.Fil: Zamorano, Cristina. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Colegio Universitario Central.Fil: Yapura, Susana. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Escuela del Magisterio.Fil: Navarro, María Fernanda. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Fil: Bosio, Iris Viviana. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. EDIUNC.Fil: Degiorgi, Horacio. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Sistema Integrado de Documentación.Fil: Bocco, María Susana. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Fil: Guayco, Mariana. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Fil: Pizzi, Daniel. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.Fil: Lettelier, Dolores. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Secretaría Académica

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

© 2023Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020

COS Ambassadors

A collection of materials and resources for COS ambassadors