5 resultados para methods: laboratory
Resumo:
Influenza surveillance networks must detect early the viruses that will cause the forthcoming annual epidemics and isolate the strains for further characterization. We obtained the highest sensitivity (95.4%) with a diagnostic tool that combined a shell-vial assay and reverse transcription-PCR on cell culture supernatants at 48 h, and indeed, recovered the strain
Resumo:
In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.
Resumo:
Laboratory cross-contamination by Mycobacterium tuberculosis is known to be responsible for the misdiagnosis of tuberculosis, but its impact on other contexts has not been analyzed. We present the findings of a molecular epidemiology analysis in which the recent transmission events identified by a genotyping reference center were overestimated as a result of unnoticed laboratory cross-contamination in the original diagnostic laboratories.
Resumo:
Advances in clinical virology for detecting respiratory viruses have been focused on nucleic acids amplification techniques, which have converted in the reference method for the diagnosis of acute respiratory infections of viral aetiology. Improvements of current commercial molecular assays to reduce hands-on-time rely on two strategies, a stepwise automation (semi-automation) and the complete automation of the whole procedure. Contributions to the former strategy have been the use of automated nucleic acids extractors, multiplex PCR, real-time PCR and/or DNA arrays for detection of amplicons. Commercial fully-automated molecular systems are now available for the detection of respiratory viruses. Some of them could convert in point-of-care methods substituting antigen tests for detection of respiratory syncytial virus and influenza A and B viruses. This article describes laboratory methods for detection of respiratory viruses. A cost-effective and rational diagnostic algorithm is proposed, considering technical aspects of the available assays, infrastructure possibilities of each laboratory and clinic-epidemiologic factors of the infection.
Resumo:
Nonimmediate drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHRs) are difficult to manage in daily clinical practice, mainly owing to their heterogeneous clinical manifestations and the lack of selective biological markers. In vitro methods are necessaryto establish a diagnosis, especially given the low sensitivity of skin tests and the inherent risks of drug provocation testing. In vitro evaluation of nonimmediate DHRs must include approaches that can be applied during the different phases of the reaction. During the acute phase, monitoring markers in both skin and peripheral blood helps to discriminate between immediate and nonimmediate DHRs with cutaneous responses and to distinguish between reactions that, although they present similar clinical symptoms, are produced by different immunological mechanisms and therefore have a different treatment and prognosis. During the resolution phase, in vitro testing is used to detect the response of T cells to drug stimulation; however, this approach has certain limitations, such as the lack of validated studies assessing sensitivity. Moreover, in vitro tests indicate an immune response that is not always related to a DHR. In this review, members of the Immunology and Drug Allergy Committee of the Spanish Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC) provide an overview of the most widely used in vitro tests for evaluating nonimmediate DHRs.