Search

With the recent clinical success of anti-amyloid-β (Aβ) monoclonal antibodies, there is a renewed interest in agents which target the Aβ peptide of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Metal complexes are particularly well-suited for this development, given their structural versatility and ability to form stabile interactions with soluble Aβ. In this report, a small series of ruthenium–arene complexes were evaluated for their respective ability to modulate both the aggregation and cytotoxicity of Aβ. First, the stability of the complexes was evaluated in a variety of aqueous media where the complexes demonstrated exceptional stability. Next, the ability to coordinate and modulate the Aβ peptide was evaluated using several spectroscopic methods, including thioflavin T (ThT) fluorescence, dynamic light scattering (DLS), and transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Overall, the complex RuBO consistently gave the greatest inhibitory action towards Aβ aggregation, which correlated with its ability to coordinate to Aβ in solution. Furthermore, RuBO also had the lowest affinity for serum albumin, which is a key consideration for a neurotherapeutic, as this protein does not cross the blood brain barrier. Lastly, RuBO also displayed promising neuroprotective properties, as it had the greatest inhibition of Aβ-inducted cytotoxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnant women have a higher risk of severe illness and adverse pregnancy outcomes due to a SARS-CoV-2 infection. COVID-19 vaccination can prevent (severe) infection. Observational studies are needed to ascertain safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Aim: Estimate whether COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is associated with the risk of preterm labor (PL). Methods: In this prospective cohort study, we included 5,910 pregnant women (mean age: 33.0 ± 3.7 years) who entered the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register between February 2021 and August 2022. Information on COVID-19 vaccinations, PL, and confounders were self-reported using web-based questionnaires. The hazard ratio (HR) on PL, comparing those who received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine during any moment of pregnancy to those who did not, was estimated using survival analyses with vaccination as time-varying exposure. Additionally, we estimated the risk of PL after COVID-19 vaccination prior to pregnancy, and after COVID-19 vaccination during trimester 1, 2, or 3 of pregnancy. Findings: A total of 5,227 (88%) participants received ≥1 COVID-19 vaccine between gestational week 2 and 37. We observed no statistically significant association of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy (adjusted HR = 0.93, 95%CI = 0.59; 1.45) nor of COVID-19 vaccination prior to pregnancy (adjusted HR = 1.09, 95%CI = 0.70; 1.71) with the risk of PL. Moreover, we observed no association between the risk of PL and COVID-19 vaccination in any trimester of pregnancy. Discussion: We demonstrated that COVID-19 vaccination prior to or during pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk of PL. Conclusion: These results add to the growing evidence supporting safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Pregnant women are at higher risk of severe illness and adverse pregnancy outcomes due to a SARS‐CoV‐2 infection, which can be prevented by vaccination. Observational studies are needed to ascertain the safety of COVID‐19 vaccination during pregnancy. We aimed to determine whether COVID‐19 vaccination before and during pregnancy is associated with the risk of miscarriage. Methods: In this cohort study, we included 4640 pregnant women (mean age: 32.8 ± 3.7 years) from the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register between February 2021 and August 2022. Information on COVID‐19 vaccinations, miscarriage, and confounders was self‐reported, using web‐based questionnaires. The hazard ratio (HR) of miscarriage (in gestational weeks 6–20) after a COVID‐19 vaccination, was estimated using the survival analyses. A COVID‐19 vaccination during pregnancy (≥1 COVID‐19 vaccination between week 2 and 20 of pregnancy) was included as a time‐dependent exposure and vaccination prior to pregnancy was included as a binary exposure. Results: A total of 3202 pregnant women (69%) received ≥1 COVID‐19 vaccine in gestational week 2–20. We observed no association of vaccination during pregnancy with the risk of miscarriage (adjusted HR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.93–1.74). Vaccination prior to pregnancy, however, was associated with a decreased risk of miscarriage (adjusted HR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.48–0.99). Conclusions: We demonstrated that COVID‐19 vaccination during pregnancy is not associated with an increased risk of miscarriage in gestational weeks 6–20. This study adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the safety of COVID‐19 vaccination during pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Information regarding the risk of early pregnancy COVID‐19 vaccination on the development of major congenital anomalies in the offspring is still limited. Here, we study the association between any COVID‐19 vaccination during the 1st trimester and at least one major non‐genetic congenital anomaly in the offspring. Methods: We used data from the Dutch Pregnancy Drug Register, an ongoing cohort study. We selected participants with a pregnancy that ended after at least 20 weeks gestation. Pregnant participants self‐reported their COVID‐19 vaccination status and the presence of congenital anomalies in the offspring. We used logistic regression analyses to study the association between 1st trimester COVID‐19 vaccination (gestational week 2 + 0 to 12 + 6) and the risk of at least one major non‐genetic congenital anomaly in the offspring. Clustering of anomalies on the ICD10 level by 1st trimester COVID‐19 vaccination status was explored using Fisher exact tests. Results: We included 3721 participants of whom 795 (21.4%) were COVID‐19 vaccinated during the 1st trimester. The percentage of participants who gave birth to a child with at least one major non‐genetic congenital anomaly was comparable between participants who were 1st trimester vaccinated (1.1%) and participants who were not (1.2%) (adjusted odd ratio 0.78 [95% confidence interval 0.35–1.71]). We found no clustering of major non‐genetic congenital anomalies by 1st trimester COVID‐19 vaccination status (p >.05). Conclusions: There were no indications of an increased risk of major non‐genetic congenital anomalies in the offspring after maternal 1st trimester COVID‐19 vaccination. Our findings suggest COVID‐19 vaccines are safe during early pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Briefly describes and compares 15 historical novels about the American West suggested as teaching aids to promote student interest and understanding of units on mountain men, emmigrants and settlers, cowboys and ranchers, Indian-White relations, gunfighters, the demise of the frontier, and the image of the West. (WL)

Despite an increase in life science technology commercialisation and venture creation, graduate schools have largely failed to provide ample opportunities for students to acquire knowledge and experience in bioentrepreneurship. Postdoctoral trainees and graduate students have recognised this educational gap, as well as a role in complementing university-run bioentrepreneurship programmes, and formed student organisations that foster bioentrepreneurship education. These groups are uniquely positioned to facilitate campus bioentrepreneurship. This paper identifies life science graduate student organisations and examines how these groups promote bioentrepreneurship in their respective communities. This report also discusses the challenges and advantages of student groups, and identifies best practices for development of bioentrepreneurship programmes. Furthermore, the authors propose a framework for identifying gaps in bioentrepreneurship education.Journal of Commercial Biotechnology (2009) 15, 125–135; doi:10.1057/jcb.2008.41; published online 11 November 2008 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study was undertaken in Nijmegen, in the Netherlands, to compare the attendance rate following a call system for cervical cancer screening organized by general practitioners, with the attendance rate resulting from the Dutch national call system. Women are invited for screening on a three yearly basis and in 1990 1616 women were identified by nine practices as being in the appropriate age group (35 to 54 years) to attend for cervical cancer screening while 10,387 women were identified by the national call system. The attendance rate among the 1101 women in the rural general practices was 58%, compared with 49% of 4154 women in the matched group receiving an invitation from the national call system. The attendance rate among the 515 women in the urban general practices was 55%, compared with 41% of 6233 women in the matched group receiving an invitation from the national call system. Invitations from general practitioners resulted in similar percentages of women in all age groups attending for screening. Four general practices sent a reminder letter or made a telephone call to non-attenders. A reminder increased the attendance rate from 58% to 70%. It is concluded that a general practice based call system for cervical screening produces a higher attendance rate than the national call system.

Thus far, the response to the nationwide screening programme for cervical cancer in The Netherlands, which was started in 1989, has been disappointing. One way to improve response is to involve general practitioners in the call system. A postal survey was conducted to review the implementation of the current screening programme in general practice and to examine the willingness of general practitioners to participate in a general practice-based call system. The response rate to the survey was 90%. The general practitioners were dissatisfied with follow-up, cost and time spent and compliance of women. Of all respondents 60% had already set up a call system within the practice or were willing to do so; another 31% were willing to participate in a regionally organized practice-based call system. On the basis of the results of this study a centralized general practice-based call system is recommended. The next step is to study the applicability of this system in a pilot programme.

Since 1975 the general practitioners of 'Ons Medies Centrum' in Oss have been inviting women systematically for cervical screening and cervical smears. The attendance and protection rate were evaluated for the period 1975-1989. 85% of the women 35-54 years of age had had a cervical smear within 5 years after they entered the general practice or had not been invited because of a total hysterectomy. After a starting period of a few years the protection rate stabilised at 75%. There was no relation between residential quarter, health insurance, ethnic origin and attendance for the screening. Age was the only factor related to attendance: the attendance rate among older women was lower.