4 research outputs found
Diagnostic accuracy study of STANDARD TB-Feron FIA and STANDARD TB-Feron ELISA tests for tuberculosis infection diagnosis in Eastern European setting
No full textIntroduction: Tuberculosis infection (TBI) is diagnosed based on a positive immune response to M. tuberculosis antigens. This study aimed to evaluate both the qualitative and quantitative performance of two novel IGRA-based tests, the STANDARD E TB-Feron ELISA (TB-Feron-ELISA) and the STANDARD F TB-Feron FIA (IFN-γ) (TB-Feron-FIA), and compare their results to those of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QuantiFERON). Methods: At Chiril Draganiuc Phthisiopneumology Institute in the Republic of Moldova, we prospectively enrolled three cohorts of adults: healthy individuals with no known close contact with TB, patients with active tuberculosis (TB), and individuals with a history of TB. The active TB and past TB cohorts were used to assess the tests’ sensitivity, while the healthy group was used to evaluate specificity. Both qualitative and quantitative results from the TB-Feron ELISA and TB-Feron FIA were compared with those of QuantiFERON. Results: The TB-Feron-FIA demonstrated a sensitivity of 80.58 % (95 %CI: 71.90–87.06) in the active TB cohort and 82.93 % (95 %CI: 68.74–91.47) in the past TB cohort, with a specificity of 85.19 % (95 % CI: 73.40–92.30). The TB-Feron-ELISA showed a sensitivity of 80.58 % (95 %CI: 71.90–87.06) in the active TB cohort and 78.57 % (95 %CI: 64.06–88.29) in the past TB cohort, with a specificity of 85.19 % (95 %CI: 73.40–92.30). The agreement coefficient (κ) with QuantiFERON was 0.766 (95 %CI: 0.689–0.843) for TB-Feron-FIA and 0.809 (95 %CI: 0.739–0.880) for TB-Feron-ELISA. Conclusions: Both the TB-Feron-ELISA and TB-Feron-FIA demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy for identifying individuals with TBI, comparable to the performance of QuantiFERON
ICRP workshop on the review and revision of the system of radiological protection: a focus on research priorities—feedback from the international community
No full text\ua9 2023 The Author(s). Published on behalf of the Society for Radiological Protection by IOP Publishing LtdIn September 2022, the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) organised a workshop in Estoril, Portugal, on the ‘Review and Revision of the System of Radiological Protection: A Focus on Research Priorities’. The workshop, which was a side event of the European Radiation Protection Week, offered an opportunity to comment on a recent paper published by ICRP on areas of research to support the System of Radiological Protection. Altogether, about 150 individuals participated in the workshop. After the workshop, 16 of the 30 organisations in formal relations with ICRP provided written feedback. All participants and organisations followed ICRP’s view that further research in various areas will offer additional support in improving the System in the short, medium, and long term. In general, it was emphasised that any research should be outcome-focused in that it should improve protection of people or the environment. Many research topics mentioned by the participants were in line with those already identified by ICRP in the paper noted above. In addition, further ideas were expressed such as, for example, that lessons learned during the COVID-19 pandemic with regards to the non-radiological social, economic and environment impacts, should be analysed for their usefulness to enhance radiological protection, and that current protection strategies and application of current radiological protection principles may need to be adapted to military scenarios like those observed recently during the military conflict in the Ukraine or the detonation of a nuclear weapon. On a broader perspective, it was discussed how radiation research and radiological protection can contribute towards the Sustainable Development Goals announced by the United Nations in 2015. This paper summarises the views expressed during the workshop and the major take home messages identified by ICRP
A global action agenda for turning the tide on fatty liver disease
No full textBackground and Aims: Fatty liver disease is a major public health threat due to its very high prevalence and related morbidity and mortality. Focused and dedicated interventions are urgently needed to target disease prevention, treatment, and care. Approach and Results: We developed an aligned, prioritized action agenda for the global fatty liver disease community of practice. Following a Delphi methodology over 2 rounds, a large panel (R1 n = 344, R2 n = 288) reviewed the action priorities using Qualtrics XM, indicating agreement using a 4-point Likert-scale and providing written feedback. Priorities were revised between rounds, and in R2, panelists also ranked the priorities within 6 domains: epidemiology, treatment and care, models of care, education and awareness, patient and community perspectives, and leadership and public health policy. The consensus fatty liver disease action agenda encompasses 29 priorities. In R2, the mean percentage of "agree"responses was 82.4%, with all individual priorities having at least a super-majority of agreement (> 66.7% "agree"). The highest-ranked action priorities included collaboration between liver specialists and primary care doctors on early diagnosis, action to address the needs of people living with multiple morbidities, and the incorporation of fatty liver disease into relevant non-communicable disease strategies and guidance. Conclusions: This consensus-driven multidisciplinary fatty liver disease action agenda developed by care providers, clinical researchers, and public health and policy experts provides a path to reduce the prevalence of fatty liver disease and improve health outcomes. To implement this agenda, concerted efforts will be needed at the global, regional, and national levels. © 2023 The Author(s)
A systematic review and economic evaluation of subcutaneous and sublingual allergen immunotherapy in adults and children with seasonal allergic rhinitis
No full text© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2013Severe allergic rhinitis uncontrolled by conventional medication can substantially affect quality of life. Immunotherapy involves administering increasing doses of a specific allergen, with the aim of reducing sensitivity and symptomatic reactions. Recent meta-analyses have concluded that both subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) and sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) are more effective than placebo in reducing symptoms. It is uncertain which route of administration is more effective and whether or not treatment is cost-effective.National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programm
