Biological phosphorus removal from dairy wastewater by alternating anaerobic and aerobic conditions

In this study, the possibility of applying the enhanced biological phosphorus removal (EBPR) process for Algiers dairy wastewater which can have phosphorus contents up to 130 mg/L was examined. EBPR is conventionally performed by an anaerobic-aerobic process. The objectives of this work were to determine an optimal hydraulic retention time (HRT) in aerobic conditions and to study the effect of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) (acetic and propionic acids) addition on the phosphorus release in anaerobic conditions. The tests were performed in a batch reactor operating with an aerobic/anaerobic sequence of phases. Batch tests have been carried out at 3 HRTs in aerobic conditions (1, 2 and 3 h) while the anaerobic retention time was fixed at 4 h, to examine the effect of stress related to changes of aerobic HRT. Main results show that the most favorable aerobic retention time was found to be 2 h. The amount of P released in anaerobic phase increases from 2.25 to 2.48 mgP/gVSS with increasing aerobic HRT from 1 to 2 h and decreases to 1.28 mgP/g VSS for a time of 3 h using acetic acid. Similarly, this amount increases from 1.62 to 4.38 mgP/gVSS for 1 to 2 h and decreases to 1.41 mgP/gVSS for a time of 3 h using propionic acid. The initial release rate was directly proportional to the amount of added substrate. Propionate may be a more effective carbon source for biological phosphorus removal than acetate. Based on the results presented herein, we can confirm the possibility of phosphorus removal from dairy wastewater in the aerobic-anaerobic biological process.Keywords: Dairy wastewater, biological phosphorus removal, aerobic, anaerobic, release, acetic acid, propionic aci

Prise en charge des complications des fistules artério-veineuses pour hémodialyse chronique

La fistule artério-veineuse native est l'accès vasculaire de choix pour  l'hémodialyse chronique en raison de sa longévité, son taux faible de complication et de mortalité par rapport aux pontages artério-veineux et aux cathéters. Cependant, il arrive assez souvent que l'on assiste à des complications qui sont dominées par la sténose et la thrombose. C'est une étude rétrospective des complications ayants survenues pour 31 fistules artério-veineuses pour hémodialyse chronique des 200 fistules réalisées chez 200 patients au sein du service de chirurgie vasculaire du CHU Hassan II de Fès sur une période de trois ans, étendue de Janvier 2007 à  Décembre 2009. Ces complications ont été présentés par les thrombosesdans 14 cas soit 45,15% de l'ensemble des complications, les sténoses dans 4 cas (12,90%,) les anévrismes dans 4 cas (12,90%), les  complications ischémiques dans 3 cas (9,67%), l'infection dans 3 cas (9,67%), l'hémorragie dans 2 cas (6,45%) et l' hyperdébit dans un seul cas soit 3,22%. On a pu conserver 22 fistules soit 70,96% par traitement chirurgical ou endovasculaire, on a confectionné une nouvelle fistule dans 8cas soit 25,80%, et on a adressé une patiente (3,22%) pour pose d'un cathéter veineux tunnelisé permanent. Les complications des fistules artério-veineuses pour l'hémodialyse chronique sont la principale cause de morbidité chez les patients hémodialysés, il est donc important de s'impliquer lors de leur création, et de donner un maximum d'attention quand ils sont manipulés. Ceci suggère la mise en place d'un programme de surveillance de ces fistules en raison de l'impact des complications sur la morbi-mortalité du patient hémodialysé et sur le plan financier

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Anxiety and Cardiovascular Symptoms: The Modulating Role of Insomnia

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and insomnia are associated with cardiovascular (CV) symptoms. We assessed whether the relation between anxiety and CV symptoms is modulated by insomnia. METHODS: Independently living women (n = 1,440; mean age = 59.36 ± 6.53 years) were recruited by cluster sampling technique. We obtained data on demographic characteristics, health beliefs, access to health care, CV symptoms, sleep, stress and anxiety levels. RESULTS: Overall, 56% of the sample reported insomnia; 46% reported CV symptoms, and 54% were highly anxious. There was a greater likelihood for highly anxious women and those experiencing insomnia to report CV symptoms (r(s) = 0.31∗ and r(s) = 0.32∗, respectively). In logistic regression analysis, the adjusted odds ratios for reporting CV symptoms were 1.39 for patients with insomnia and 2.79 for those with anxiety. With control for insomnia, we observed a 3-fold reduction in the magnitude of the association between anxiety and CV symptoms (r(p) = 0.09∗). Stepwise adjustments for sociodemographic factors, CV risk markers, and factors anchoring health beliefs and access to health care showed lesser impact on the relationships. With simultaneous control for those covariates, the correlation was r(p) = 0.13∗; ∗ p < 0.01. CONCLUSION: The association of CV symptoms with anxiety is partly accounted for by insomnia

Clinical significance of tumor-associated antigen RCAS1 expression in human pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Receptor-binding cancer antigen expressed on SiSo cells (RCAS1) is a human tumor-associated antigen that induces cell cycle arrest and/or apoptosis in RCAS1 receptor-expressing immune cells. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical significance of RCAS1 expression in human pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Immunohistochemical analysis of RCAS1 expression was performed on paraffin-embedded tissue sections obtained from 76 pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients. RCAS1 positivity and overexpression and intensity of the staining were correlated with clinicopathological parameters, proliferative capacity and patient survival. Of the 76 adenocarcinoma patients, 65 (86%) tested positive for RCAS1; of these 65 RCAS1-positive cases, 36 (55%) showed RCAS1 overexpression. RCAS1 positivity was statistically significantly correlated with the histopathological grade of the tumor (P = 0.026), and it showed a trend to be correlated with tumor size (P = 0.071). RCAS1 intensity and overexpression of staining showed a trend to be correlated with the histopathological grade of the tumor (P = 0.061 and P = 0.089, respectively), whereas RCAS1 positivity and the overexpression and intensity of staining were not statistically significantly correlated with the proliferative capacity of the tumor or any other clinicopathological parameter examined nor with patients&apos; survival. Our data provide evidence for the implication of RCAS1 in pancreatic neoplasia. However, the prediction of survival using RCAS1 expression as a marker seems uncertain for this type of cancer. © 2007 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Claim Your Space

As the burden of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) rises in settings with an equally high burden of infectious diseases in the Global South, a new sense of urgency has developed around research capacity building to promote more effective and sustainable public health and health care systems. In 2010, NCDs accounted for more than 2.06 million deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. Available evidence suggests that the number of people in sub-Saharan Africa with hypertension, a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, will increase by 68% from 75 million in 2008 to 126 million in 2025. Furthermore, about 27.5 million people currently live with diabetes in Africa, and it is estimated that 49.7 million people living with diabetes will reside in Africa by 2030. It is therefore necessary to centralize leadership as a key aspect of research capacity building and strengthening in the Global South in ways that enables researchers to claim their spaces in their own locations. We believe that building capacity for transformative leadership in research will lead to the development of effective and appropriate responses to the multiple burdens of NCDs that coexist with infectious diseases in Africa and the rest of the Global South