RESULTS: Based on Y-DNA, we confirm the presence of two lineages of M. fascicularis: the Indochinese and Sundaic lineages. The Indochinese lineage is represented by M. fascicularis located northwards of the Surat Thani-Krabi depression region and is introgressed by the Macaca mulatta Y-DNA. The Sundaic lineage is free from such hybridization event, thus defined as the original carrier of the M. fascicularis Y-DNA. We further revealed that the Sundaic lineage differentiated into two forms: the insular and the continental forms. The insular form, which represents the ancestral form of M. fascicularis, consists of two haplotypes: a single homogenous haplotype occupying the island of Borneo, Philippines, and southern Sumatra; and the Javan haplotype. The more diverse continental form consists of 17 haplotypes in which a dominant haplotype was shared by individuals from southern Thai Peninsular (south of Surat Thani-Krabi depression), Peninsular Malaysia, and Sumatra. Uniquely, Sumatra contains both the continental and insular Y-DNA which can be explained by a secondary contact hypothesis.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the findings in this study are important: (1) to help authority particularly in Malaysia on the population management activities including translocation and culling of conflict M. fascicularis, (2) to identify the unknown origin of captive M. fascicularis used in biomedical research, and; (3) the separation between the continental and insular forms warrants for the treatment as separate management units.
METHODOLOGY: Using the newly developed PID Life Index software, the index of implementation of principles of care in the management of PIDs patients involving the six participating SEA countries (Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, and Philippines) were extracted. For each of the six separate principles, the index from the six countries will be compared and presented based on the calculated index.
RESULTS: Comparative analysis of the six principles of care of PID in the SEA countries showed low diagnostic rate with minimal availability of diagnostic tests options. Generally, almost all SEA countries provide curative treatments, vaccines, and anti-infectious therapies although the reimbursement scheme varied in relieving patients' financial burden. We also highlighted the active involvement of patient organizations in SEA, with main areas of work focused on advocacy and increasing awareness among public and healthcare professionals.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: It is applaudable that the SEA continent is gradually strengthening its work in management of PID, especially in Thailand and Vietnam. However, more emphasis must be placed among stakeholders in SEA countries towards successful implementation of the PoC for a holistic management of PID patients.
Methods: The drug classification systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Canada were selected to study alongside Thailand's system. The regulatory review was conducted through each country's drug regulatory agency website and available published research. Complementary interviews with drug regulatory authorities were conducted when written documentation was unclear and had limited access. Fifty-two common drugs were selected to compare their actual classifications across the different countries.
Results: All selected countries classified drugs into two major groups: prescription drugs and non-prescription drugs. The studied countries further sub-classified non-prescription drugs into 1-4 categories. Principles of drug classification criteria among countries are similar; they comprised of three themes: disease characteristics, drug safety profile, and other drug characteristics. Actual drug classification of antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and hypertension treatments in Thailand are notedly different from other countries. Furthermore, 77.4% of drugs studied in Thailand fall into the behind-the-counter (dangerous) drug category, which varied from antihistamines to antibiotics, dyslipidemia treatments, and vaccines.
Conclusion: Thailand's drug classification criteria are comparable with other nations; however, there is a need to review drug classification statuses as many drugs have been classified into improper drug categories.