Management of acromegaly in Latin America: expert panel recommendations

Although there are international guidelines orienting physicians on how to manage patients with acromegaly, such guidelines should be adapted for use in distinct regions of the world. A panel of neuroendocrinologists convened in Mexico City in August of 2007 to discuss specific considerations in Latin America. Of major discussion was the laboratory evaluation of acromegaly, which requires the use of appropriate tests and the adoption of local institutional standards. As a general rule to ensure diagnosis, the patient`s GH level during an oral glucose tolerance test and IGF-1 level should be evaluated. Furthermore, to guide treatment decisions, both GH and IGF-1 assessments are required. The treatment of patients with acromegaly in Latin America is influenced by local issues of cost, availability and expertise of pituitary neurosurgeons, which should dictate therapeutic choices. Such treatment has undergone profound changes because of the introduction of effective medical interventions that may be used after surgical debulking or as first-line medical therapy in selected cases. Surgical resection remains the mainstay of therapy for small pituitary adenomas (microadenomas), potentially resectable macroadenomas and invasive adenomas causing visual defects. Radiotherapy may be indicated in selected cases when no disease control is achieved despite optimal surgical debulking and medical therapy, when there is no access to somatostatin analogues, or when local issues of cost preclude other therapies. Since not all the diagnostic tools and treatment options are available in all Latin American countries, physicians need to adapt their clinical management decisions to the available local resources and therapeutic options.

Laboratory evaluation of two native fishes from tropical North Queensland as biological control agents of subterranean Aedes aegypti

The ability of 2 freshwater fishes, eastern rainbow fish Melanotaenia splendida splendida and fly-specked hardyhead Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum stercusmuscarum. native to North Queensland to prey on immature Aedes aegypti was evaluated under laboratory conditions. The predation efficiency of the 2 species was compared to the exotic guppy, Poecilia reticulata, which is commonly used as a biological control agent of mosquito larvae. Of the 3 fish species tested, M. s. splendida was shown to be the most promising agent for the biological control of Ae. aegypti that breed in wells. Melanotaenia s. splendida consumed significantly greater numbers of immature Ae. aegypti than P. reticulata, irrespective of developmental stage or light conditions. Unlike C. s. stercusmuscarum, M, s. splendida could be handled, transported, and kept in captivity for extended periods with negligible mortality. However, M. s. splendida was also an efficient predator of Litoria caerulea tadpoles, a species of native frog found in wells during the dry season. This result may limit the usefulness of M. s. splendida as a biological control agent of well-breeding Ae. aegypti and suggests that predacious copepods, Mesocyclops spp., are more suitable. However, the use of M. s. splendida as a mosquito control agent in containers that are unlikely to support frog populations (e.g., aquaculture tanks and drinking troughs) should be given serious consideration.

Evaluation of liquid Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis products for control of Australian Aedes arbovirus vectors

Laboratory bioassay studies were conducted in southeast Queensland, Australia,: on the efficacy of Teknar (R), VectoBac (R) 12AS, and Cybate (R) (active ingredient: 1,200 international toxic units Bacillus thuringiensis var, israelensis [Bti]) against 3rd instars of the arbovirus vectors Aedes aegypti. Ae. notoscriptus, Ae. vigilax, and Ae. camptorhynchus. Probit analyses were then used to determine LD,, (median lethal dose), LD95, and lethal dose ratios (LDR). Aedes aegypti and Ae. notoscriptus, both container-habitat species, tolerated the highest Bti concentrations compared with saltmarsh Ae. vigilax and Ae. camptorhynchus. For example, the LDR for Ae. vigilax versus Ae. notoscriptus exposed to Cybate was 0.14 (95% confidence limit [CL] 0.03-0.61). Similarly, the Cybate LDR for Ae. camptorhynchus versus Ae. notoscriptus was 0.22 (95% CL 0.07-0.70). Teknar produced similar results with an LDR of 0.21 (95% CL 0.04-1.10) for Aedes vigilax versus Aedes notoscriptus. Differences in product efficacy were found when tested against the 2 container-breeding species. Cybate was less effective than Teknar with LDRs of 1.55 (95% CL 0.65-3.67) and 1.87 (95% CL 0.68-5.15) for Aedes aegypti and Ae. notoscriptus, respectively. The significant differences in susceptibility between mosquito species and varying efficacy between products highlight the importance of evaluating concentration-response data prior to contracting with distributors of mosquito control products. This information is crucial to resistance management strategies.