METHODS: A total of 71 malaria microscopy positive blood samples collected in blood spots were obtained from the Sarawak State Health Department. Using 18s rRNA as the target gene, nested PCR and SYBR green I LAMP assay were performed following the DNA extraction. The colour changes of LAMP end products were observed by naked eyes.
RESULTS: LAMP assay demonstrated a detection limit of 10 copies/µL in comparison with 100 copies/µL nested PCR. Of 71 P. knowlesi blood samples collected, LAMP detected 69 microscopy-positive samples. LAMP exhibited higher sensitivity than nested PCR assay. The SYBR green I LAMP assay was 97.1% sensitive (95% CI 90.2-99.7%) and 100% specific (95% CI 83.2-100%). Without opening the cap, incorporation of SYBR green I into the inner cap of the tube enabled the direct visualization of results upon completion of amplification. The positives instantaneously turned green while the negatives remained orange.
CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that SYBR green I LAMP assay is a convenient diagnosis tool for the detection of P. knowlesi in remote settings.
METHOD: The effects of organic modifiers in mobile phase, protein precipitation agent to plasma sample ratio, and light on montelukast stability in unprocessed and processed human plasma, were evaluated. Validation was conducted in accordance with European Medicines Agency Guideline on bioanalytical method validation.
RESULTS: No interference peak was observed when acetonitrile was used as an organic modifier. Acetonitrile to plasma ratio of 4:1 produced clean plasma sample. Approximately 3 % of cis isomer was detected in unprocessed plasma samples while 21 % of cis isomer was detected in processed plasma samples after exposing to fluorescent light for 24h. The standard calibration curve was linear over 3.00-1200.00 ng/mL. All method validation parameters were within the acceptance criteria.
CONCLUSION: The validated method was successfully applied to a bioequivalence study of two montelukast formulations involving 24 healthy Malaysian volunteers. The light stability of a light sensitive drug in unprocessed and processed human plasma samples should be studied prior to pharmacokinetic/bioequivalence studies. Measures could then be taken to protect the analyte in human plasma from light degradation.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: Clinical efficacy studies of uncomplicated P. vivax treated with DP or AL and published between January 1, 2000, and January 31, 2018, were identified by conducting a systematic review registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42016053310. Investigators of eligible studies were invited to contribute individual patient data that were pooled using standardised methodology. The effect of mg/kg dose of piperaquine/lumefantrine, ACT administered, and PQ on the rate of P. vivax recurrence between days 7 and 42 after starting treatment were investigated by Cox regression analyses according to an a priori analysis plan. Secondary outcomes were the risk of recurrence assessed on days 28 and 63. Nineteen studies enrolling 2,017 patients were included in the analysis. The risk of recurrent P. vivax at day 42 was significantly higher in the 384 patients treated with AL alone (44.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 38.7-49.8) compared with the 812 patients treated with DP alone (9.3%, 95% CI 7.1-12.2): adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) 12.63 (95% CI 6.40-24.92), p < 0.001. The rates of recurrence assessed at days 42 and 63 were associated inversely with the dose of piperaquine: AHRs (95% CI) for every 5-mg/kg increase 0.63 (0.48-0.84), p = 0.0013 and 0.83 (0.73-0.94), p = 0.0033, respectively. The dose of lumefantrine was not significantly associated with the rate of recurrence (1.07 for every 5-mg/kg increase, 95% CI 0.99-1.16, p = 0.0869). In a post hoc analysis, in patients with symptomatic recurrence after AL, the mean haemoglobin increased 0.13 g/dL (95% CI 0.01-0.26) for every 5 days that recurrence was delayed, p = 0.0407. Coadministration of PQ reduced substantially the rate of recurrence assessed at day 42 after AL (AHR = 0.20, 95% CI 0.10-0.41, p < 0.001) and at day 63 after DP (AHR = 0.08, 95% CI 0.01-0.70, p = 0.0233). Results were limited by follow-up of patients to 63 days or less and nonrandomised treatment groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed the risk of P. vivax recurrence at day 42 to be significantly lower following treatment with DP compared with AL, reflecting the longer period of post-treatment prophylaxis; this risk was reduced substantially by coadministration with PQ. We found that delaying P. vivax recurrence was associated with a small but significant improvement in haemoglobin. These results highlight the benefits of PQ radical cure and also the provision of blood-stage antimalarial agents with prolonged post-treatment prophylaxis.
Methods: In a prospective study, colonoscopy was performed on 2,469 consecutive patients. Biopsies were taken from the terminal ileum and ascending, transverse, descending and sigmoid colon in all patients.
Results: Sixty-four of the 2,469 patients (2.6%) had eosinophilic gastroenteritis. Only five of the 64 patients (7.8%) with eosinophilic gastroenteritis had endoscopic mucosal abnormalities during colonoscopy. Six of these 64 patients (9.4%) had severe disease at presentation, and seven of these 64 patients (10.9%) required systemic steroid treatment. An elevated absolute peripheral eosinophil count was independently associated with severe disease at presentation (4/6 [66.7%] vs 3/58 [5.2%], p=0.005; odds ratio [OR], 25.320; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.628 to 243.910), and severe disease at the time of presentation was independently associated with the use of systemic steroid treatment (6/7 [85.7%] vs 0/57 [0%], p=0.008; OR, 18.021; 95% CI, 2.163 to 150.152).
Conclusions: The prevalence of eosinophilic gastroenteritis is common, and patients usually present normal-appearing mucosa on colonoscopy. Those with severe disease at presentation usually have a raised absolute peripheral eosinophil count and should be commenced on systemic steroids as an initial therapy.
COMMENT: Most non-randomized studies supported the use of montelukast for atopic dermatitis treatment. However, evidence from these studies should be interpreted with caution as it is relatively weak due to the absence of randomization, control groups and blinding processes, subjecting the results to high risk of selection and reporting biases. The inconsistent findings across RCTs may be related to the limited number of patients, nuances in study designs, varying severity of disease and the concomitant use of steroids in some of the studies.
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Current literature evidence is limited to rationally support the use of montelukast in atopic dermatitis treatment. For now, the conventional treatments should be preferred in the clinical setting.