Dust in the wind: How climate variables and volcanic dust affect rates of tooth wear in Central American howling monkeys.

OBJECTIVES: Two factors have been considered important contributors to tooth wear: dietary abrasives in plant foods themselves and mineral particles adhering to ingested food. Each factor limits the functional life of teeth. Cross-population studies of wear rates in a single species living in different habitats may point to the relative contributions of each factor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examine macroscopic dental wear in populations of Alouatta palliata (Gray, 1849) from Costa Rica (115 specimens), Panama (19), and Nicaragua (56). The sites differ in mean annual precipitation, with the Panamanian sites receiving more than twice the precipitation of those in Costa Rica or Nicaragua (∼3,500 mm vs. ∼1,500 mm). Additionally, many of the Nicaraguan specimens were collected downwind of active plinian volcanoes. Molar wear is expressed as the ratio of exposed dentin area to tooth area; premolar wear was scored using a ranking system. RESULTS: Despite substantial variation in environmental variables and the added presence of ash in some environments, molar wear rates do not differ significantly among the populations. Premolar wear, however, is greater in individuals collected downwind from active volcanoes compared with those living in environments that did not experience ash-fall. DISCUSSION: Volcanic ash seems to be an important contributor to anterior tooth wear but less so in molar wear. That wear is not found uniformly across the tooth row may be related to malformation in the premolars due to fluorosis. A surge of fluoride accompanying the volcanic ash may differentially affect the premolars as the molars fully mineralize early in the life of Alouatta.

Assessment of Two Diabetes Point-of-Care Analyzers Measuring Hemoglobin A1c in the Peruvian Amazon

Aims: Measurement of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) is an important indicator of glucose control over time. Point-of-care (POC) devices allow for rapid and convenient measurement of HbA1c, greatly facilitating diabetes care. We assessed two POC analyzers in the Peruvian Amazon where laboratory-based HbA1c testing is not available.

Methods: Venous blood samples were collected from 203 individuals from six different Amazonian communities with a wide range of HbA1c, 4.4-9.0% (25-75 mmol/mol). The results of the Afinion AS100 and the DCA Vantage POC analyzers were compared to a central laboratory using the Premier Hb9210 high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method. Imprecision was assessed by performing 14 successive tests of a single blood sample.

Results: The correlation coefficient r for POC and HPLC results was 0.92 for the Afinion and 0.93 for the DCA Vantage. The Afinion generated higher HbA1c results than the HPLC (mean difference = +0.56% [+6 mmol/mol]; p < 0.001), as did the DCA Vantage (mean difference = +0.32% [4 mmol/mol]). The bias observed between POC and HPLC did not vary by HbA1c level for the DCA Vantage (p = 0.190), but it did for the Afinion (p < 0.001). Imprecision results were: CV = 1.75% for the Afinion, CV = 4.01% for the DCA Vantage. Sensitivity was 100% for both devices, specificity was 48.3% for the Afinion and 85.1% for the DCA Vantage, positive predictive value (PPV) was 14.4% for the Afinion and 34.9% for the DCA Vantage, and negative predictive value (NPV) for both devices was 100%. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was 0.966 for the Afinion and 0.982 for the DCA Vantage. Agreement between HPLC and POC in classifying diabetes and prediabetes status was slight for the Afinion (Kappa = 0.12) and significantly different (McNemar’s statistic = 89; p < 0.001), and moderate for the DCA Vantage (Kappa = 0.45) and significantly different (McNemar’s statistic = 28; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Despite significant variation of HbA1c results between the Afinion and DCA Vantage analyzers compared to HPLC, we conclude that both analyzers should be considered in health clinics in the Peruvian Amazon for therapeutic adjustments if healthcare workers are aware of the differences relative to testing in a clinical laboratory. However, imprecision and bias were not low enough to recommend either device for screening purposes, and the local prevalence of anemia and malaria may interfere with diagnostic determinations for a substantial portion of the population.