Search

Background: the gold-standard diagnostic protocol (GSDP) for COVID-19 consists of a nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) sample processed through traditional RNA extraction (TRE) and amplified with retrotranscription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Multiple alternatives were developed to decrease time/cost of GSDP, including alternative clinical samples, RNA extraction methods and nucleic acid amplification. Thus, we carried out a cross comparison of various alternatives methods against GSDP and each other., Methods: we tested alternative diagnostic methods using saliva, heat-induced RNA release (HIRR) and a colorimetric retrotranscription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) as substitutions to the GSDP., Results: RT-LAMP using NPS processed by TRE showed high sensitivity (96%) and specificity (97%), closely matching GSDP. When saliva was processed by TRE and amplified with both RT-LAMP and RT-qPCR, RT-LAMP yielded high diagnostic parameters (88%-96% sensitivity and 95%-100% specificity) compared to RT-qPCR. Nonetheless, when saliva processed by TRE and detected by RT-LAMP was compared against the GSDP, the resulting diagnostic values for sensitivity (78%) and specificity (87%) were somewhat high but still short of those of the GSDP. Finally, saliva processed with HIRR and detected via RT-LAMP was the simplest and fastest method, but its sensitivity against GSDP was too low (56%) for any clinical application. Also, in this last method, the acidity of a large percentage of saliva samples (9%-22%) affected the pH-sensitive colorimetric indicator used in the test, requiring the exclusion of these acidic samples or an extra step for pH correction., Discussion: our comparison shows that RT-LAMP technology has diagnostic performance on par with RT-qPCR; likewise, saliva offers the same diagnostic functionality as NPS when subjected to a TRE method. Nonetheless, use of direct saliva after a HIRR and detected with RT-LAMP does not produce an acceptable diagnostic performance., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Segura-Ulate, Apú, Cortés, Querol-Audi, Zaldívar, Ortega, Flores-Mora, Gatica-Arias and Madrigal-Redondo.)

During some trail running races, athletes have to carry hydration support, food, and technical and safety equipment, which generates an additional load that must be mobilized during the race. The aim of the present study was to determine the physiological responses to overload running and the effect they may have on metabolic zones. Seventeen well-trained male trail runners (n = 17) completed three maximal treadmill tests with weighted vests at 0%, 5%, and 10% of their body mass (L0, L5, and L10). Their gas exchange was monitored to assess their ventilatory thresholds 1 (VT1) and 2 (VT2), maximal fat oxidation zone (FatMax), and peak oxygen consumption (VO 2peak ). Their heart rate (HR), power, and velocity (V) were tracked to compare their behavior. One-way ANOVA showed significant differences in the V ( p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.4620) as a limitation for reaching the peak velocity (V peak ), with a significant decrease in the V peak with the L10 compared to the L0 ( p = 0.002) and L5 ( p = 0.004). In addition, one-way ANOVA showed significant differences in the peak absolute power ( p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.468) among the groups, detecting higher power production between the L10 and L0 ( p < 0.001) and between the L10 and L5 ( p = 0.015). Loads higher than L5 could generated important physiological and mechanical modifications, while a load of L5 managed to maintain the working conditions without overloading. These insights shed light on nuanced strategies for optimizing performance and endurance, offering valuable considerations for athletes seeking to enhance their training regimens during overload conditions.

Background: Cancer patients often have weakened immune systems, resulting in a lower response to vaccines, especially those receiving immunosuppressive oncological treatment (OT). We aimed to assess the impact of OT on the humoral and T-cell response to the B.1 lineage and Omicron variant following COVID-19 vaccination in patients with solid and hematological neoplasms., Methods: We conducted a prospective study on cancer patients, stratified into OT and non-OT groups, who received a two-dose series of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine and a booster six months later. The outcomes measured were the humoral (anti-SARS-CoV-2 S IgG titers and ACE2-S interaction inhibition capacity) and cellular (SARS-CoV-2 S-specific T-cell spots per million PBMCs) responses against the B.1 lineage and Omicron variant. These responses were evaluated four weeks after the second dose (n = 98) and eight weeks after the booster dose (n = 71)., Results: The humoral response after the second vaccine dose against the B.1 lineage and Omicron variant was significantly weaker in the OT group compared to the non-OT group (q-value<0.05). A booster dose of the mRNA-1273 vaccine significantly improved the humoral response in the OT group, making it comparable to the non-OT group. The mRNA-1273 vaccine, designed for the original Wuhan strain, elicited a weaker humoral response against the Omicron variant compared to the B.1 lineage, regardless of oncological treatment or vaccine dose. In contrast, T-cell responses against SARS-CoV-2, including the Omicron variant, were already present after the second vaccine dose and were not significantly affected by oncological treatments., Conclusions: Cancer patients, particularly those receiving immunosuppressive oncological treatments, should require booster doses and adapted COVID-19 vaccines for new SARS-CoV-2 variants like Omicron. Future studies should evaluate the durability of the immune response and the efficacy of individualized regimens., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Zenker's diverticulum (ZD) is an uncommon disorder that can cause dysphagia with risk of aspiration. While surgical treatment has been the mainstay for many years, endoscopic diverticulotomy has emerged as a first-line option with favorable outcomes. We present the case of a 93-year-old woman with no significant past medical history who was diagnosed with a 6 cm ZD. Due to dysphagia, she experienced significant weight loss and was at risk of malnutrition. She developed aspiration pneumonia and required admission to our center. Given her condition and inability to swallow, a nasogastric tube was placed under radiological guidance for nutritional support pending definitive treatment. On radiographic localization of the ZD, a radiopaque metallic density image was observed that had not been identified in previous imaging. Suspecting a possible retained foreign body in the large diverticulum, a gastroscopy was performed. During the procedure, the ZD was accessed and a 10 mm metallic object was identified. The object was extracted using a Roth net, confirming the suspicion of a foreign body lodged in the ZD. The metallic piece was later identified as a patient's dental prosthesis. After resolution of the aspiration pneumonia, endoscopic-assisted diverticulotomy was performed. The procedure was carried out under deep sedation with cricopharyngeal myotomy without immediate complications. After 48 hours of hospitalization, the patient was discharged without requiring a nasogastric tube for feeding.

Background: Dermatitis is a skin condition caused by multiple causes, including radiotherapy treatment. Pharmacological treatments can become chronic and are not exempt from side effects. The latest recommendations of the American Academy of Dermatology establish the use of natural, nourishing, and moisturizing cosmetic products as prevention and the first therapeutic step for dermatitis. Alantel® is a cream developed to reduce redness and irritation, promote the local immune system, combat immunosenescence, and promote the healing of epidermal lesions. The objective was to evaluate the effect of a cream (Alantel) based on natural products at high concentrations for the preventive and curative treatment (at early stages) of radiation-induced dermatitis in patients with breast cancer., Methods: Our protocol is an experimental, prospective, triple-blind, multicenter, controlled clinical trial with two parallel arms. The experimental group will be treated with Alantel, while the control group will receive another moisturizing cream. Radiotherapy oncology professionals will recruit a total of 88 patients (44 per comparison group) with breast cancer who will receive radiotherapy oncology treatment for 15 days, and they will be randomly allocated to the experimental or control group. Selected patients will be followed up for four visits by primary care physicians for up to 1 week after completion of radiotherapy. The main study variable will be the incidence rate of mild post-radiation dermatitis. An intention-to-treat analysis will be performed, applying a comparison test for independent means and proportions. A bivariate and multivariate analysis will also be developed to check the treatment effect, adjusting for predictive sociodemographic and clinical variables., Discussion: By carrying out this clinical trial, it is expected to verify that Alantel cream, based on natural products at high concentrations, has advantages over a moisturizing cream for the preventive and curative treatment of RD in patients with breast cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic has been influenced by delaying the start of the study. One of the main limitations of this study will be the time required to recruit the patients from the planned sample, given that the selection criteria are restrictive and, although the study is multicenter, recruitment will be coordinated through a single service on radiotherapy oncology., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04116151 . Registered on 4 October 2019., (© 2024. The Author(s).)