News Article | May 19, 2017
Fifty years ago, physicists in the US established a new laboratory and with it a new approach to carrying out frontier research in high-energy physics. Il y a cinquante ans, des physiciens ont créé aux États-Unis un nouveau laboratoire, et dans la foulée une nouvelle manière de mener des recherches de pointe en physique des hautes énergies. Appelé initialement National Accelerator Laboratory et rebaptisé Fermilab quelques années plus tard, le laboratoire a eu comme première grande installation un accélérateur de 200 GeV, lequel a ouvert la voie au collisionneur Tevatron et aux grandes découvertes telles que celle du quark t. Aujourd’hui, le Fermilab se consacre principalement aux études à la frontière des hautes intensités et à la compréhension des propriétés des neutrinos, perpétuant ainsi les rêves d’exploration et de découverte de son premier directeur, Robert Wilson. In 1960, two high-energy physics laboratories were competing for scientific discoveries. The first was Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island in New York, US, with its 33 GeV Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS). The second was CERN in Switzerland, with its 28 GeV Proton Synchrotron (PS). That year, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) received several proposals to boost the country’s research programme focusing on the construction of new accelerators with energies between 100–1000 GeV. A joint panel of president Kennedy’s Presidential Science Advisory Committee and the AEC’s General Advisory Committee was formed to consider the submissions, chaired by Harvard physicist and Manhattan Project veteran Norman Ramsey. By May 1963, the panel had decided to have Ernest Lawrence’s Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California, design a several-hundred GeV accelerator. The result was a 200 GeV synchrotron costing approximately $340 million. When Cornell physicist Robert Rathbun Wilson, a student of Lawrence’s who also worked on the Manhattan Project, saw Berkeley’s plans he considered them too conservative, unimaginative and too expensive. Wilson, being a modest yet proud man, thought he could design a better accelerator for less money and let his thoughts be known. By September 1965, Wilson had proposed an alternative, innovative, less costly (approximately $250 million) design for the 200 GeV accelerator to the AEC. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the congressional body responsible for AEC projects and budgets, approved of his plan. During this period, coinciding with the Vietnam war, the US Congress hoped to contain costs. Yet physicists hoped to make breakthrough discoveries, and thought it important to appeal to national interests. The discovery of the Ω– particle at Brookhaven in 1964 led high-energy physicists to conclude that “an accelerator ‘in the range of 200–1000 BeV’ would ‘certainly be crucial’ in exploring the ‘detailed dynamics of this strong SU(3) symmetrical interaction’.” Simultaneously, physicists were expressing frustration with the geographic situation of US high-energy physics facilities. East and West Coast laboratories like Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and Brookhaven did not offer sufficient opportunity for the nation’s experimental physicists to pursue their research. Managed by regional boards, the programmes at these two labs were directed by and accessible to physicists from nearby universities. Without substantial federal support, other major research universities struggled to compete with these regional laboratories. Against this backdrop arose a major movement to accommodate physicists in the centre of the country and offer more equal access. Columbia University experimental physicist Leon Lederman championed “the truly national laboratory” that would allow any qualifying proposal to be conducted at a national, rather than a regional, facility. In 1965, a consortium of major US research universities, Universities Research Association (URA), Inc., was established to manage and operate the 200 GeV accelerator laboratory for the AEC (and its successor agencies the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Department of Energy (DOE)) and address the need for a more national laboratory. Ramsey was president of URA for most of the period 1966 to 1981. Following a nationwide competition organised by the National Academy of Sciences, in December 1966 a 6800 acre site in Weston, Illinois, around 50 km west of Chicago, was selected. Another suburban Chicago site, north of Weston in affluent South Barrington, had withdrawn when local residents “feared that the influx of physicists would ‘disturb the moral fibre of their community’”. Robert Wilson was selected to direct the new 200 GeV accelerator, named the National Accelerator Laboratory (NAL). Wilson asked Edwin Goldwasser, an experimental physicist from the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and member of Ramsey’s panel, to be his deputy director and the pair set up temporary offices in Oak Brook, Illinois, on 15 June 1967. They began to recruit physicists from around the country to staff the new facility and design the 200 GeV accelerator, also attracting personnel from Chicago and its suburbs. President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill authorising funding for the National Accelerator Laboratory on 21 November 1967. It wasn’t easy to recruit scientific staff to the new laboratory in open cornfields and farmland with few cultural amenities. That picture lies in stark contrast to today, with the lab encircled by suburban sprawl encouraged by highway construction and development of a high-tech corridor with neighbours including Bell Labs/AT&T and Amoco. Wilson encouraged people to join him in his challenge, promising higher energy and more experimental capability than originally planned. He and his wife, Jane, imbued the new laboratory with enthusiasm and hospitality, just as they had experienced in the isolated setting of wartime-era Los Alamos while Wilson carried out his work on the Manhattan Project. Wilson and Goldwasser worked on the social conscience of the laboratory and in March 1968, a time of racial unrest in the US, they released a policy statement on human rights. They intended to: “seek the achievement of its scientific goals within a framework of equal employment opportunity and of a deep dedication to the fundamental tenets of human rights and dignity…The formation of the Laboratory shall be a positive force…toward open housing…[and] make a real contribution toward providing employment opportunities for minority groups…Special opportunity must be provided to the educationally deprived…to exploit their inherent potential to contribute to and to benefit from the development of our Laboratory. Prejudice has no place in the pursuit of knowledge…It is essential that the Laboratory provide an environment in which both its staff and its visitors can live and work with pride and dignity. In any conflict between technical expediency and human rights we shall stand firmly on the side of human rights. This stand is taken because of, rather than in spite of, a dedication to science.” Wilson and Goldwasser brought inner-city youth out to the suburbs for employment, training them for many technical jobs. Congress supported this effort and was pleased to recognise it during the civil-rights movement of the late 1960s. Its affirmative spirit endures today. When asked by a congressional committee authorising funding for NAL in April 1969 about the value of the research to be conducted at NAL, and if it would contribute to national defence, Wilson famously answered: “It has only to do with the respect with which we regard one another, the dignity of men, our love of culture…It has to do with, are we good painters, good sculptors, great poets? I mean all the things we really venerate and honour in our country and are patriotic about. It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending.” Wilson, who had promised to complete his project on time and under budget, perceived of the new laboratory as a beautiful, harmonious whole. He felt that science, technology, and art are importantly connected, and brought a graphic artist, Angela Gonzales, with him from Cornell to give the laboratory site and its publications a distinctive aesthetic. He had his engineers work with a Berkeley colleague, William Brobeck, and an architectural-engineering group, DUSAF, to make designs and cost estimates for early submissions to the AEC, in time for their submissions to the congressional committees that controlled NAL’s budget. Wilson appreciated frugality and minimal design, but also tried to leave room for improvements and innovation. He thought design should be ongoing, with changes implemented as they are demonstrated, before they became conservative. There were many decisions to be made in creating the laboratory Wilson envisioned. Many had to be modified, but this was part of his approach: “I came to understand that a poor decision was usually better than no decision at all, for if a necessary decision was not made, then the whole effort would just wallow – and, after all, a bad decision could be corrected later on,” he wrote in 1987. An example was the magnets in the Main Ring, the first name of the 200 GeV synchrotron accelerator, which had to be redesigned as did the plans for the layout of the experimental areas. Even the design of the distinctive Central Laboratory building, constructed after the accelerator achieved its design energy and renamed Robert Rathbun Wilson Hall in 1980, had to have certain adjustments from its initial concepts. Wilson said that “a building does not have to be ugly to be inexpensive” and he orchestrated a competition among his selected architects to create the final design of this visually striking structure. To save money he set up competitions between contractors so that the fastest to finish a satisfactory project were rewarded with more jobs. Consequently, the Main Ring was completed on time by 30 March 1972 and under the $250 million budget. NAL was dedicated and renamed Fermilab on 11 May 1974. Experimentalists from Europe and Asia flocked to propose research at the new frontier facility in the US, forging larger collaborations with American colleagues. Its forefront position and philosophy attracted the top physicists of the world, with Russian physicists making news working on the first approved experiment at Fermilab in the height of the Cold War. Congress was pleased and the scientists were overjoyed with more experimental areas than originally planned and with higher energy, as the magnets were improved to attain 400 GeV and 500 GeV within two years. The higher energy in a fixed-target accelerator complex allowed more innovative experiments, in particular enabling the discovery of the bottom quark in 1977 (see "Revisiting the b revolution"). Fermilab’s early intellectual environment was influenced by theoretical physicists Robert Serber, Sam Trieman, J D Jackson and Ben Lee, who later brought Chris Quigg and Bill Bardeen, who in turn invited many distinguished visitors to add to the creative milieu of the laboratory. Already on Wilson’s mind was a colliding-beams accelerator he called an “energy doubler”, which would employ superconductivity, and he had established working groups to study the idea. But Wilson encountered budget conflicts with the AEC’s successor, the new Department of Energy, which led to his resignation in 1978. He joined the faculties of the University of Chicago and Columbia University briefly before returning to Cornell in 1982. Fermilab’s future was destined to move forward with Wilson’s ideas of superconducting-magnet technology, and a new director was sought. Lederman, who was spokesperson of the Fermilab study that discovered the bottom quark, accepted the position in late 1978 and immediately set out to win support for Wilson’s energy doubler. An accomplished scientific spokesman, Lederman achieved the necessary funding by 1979 and promoted the energy-enhancing idea of introducing an antiproton source to the accelerator complex to enable proton–antiproton collisions. Experts from Brookhaven and CERN, as well as the former USSR, shared ideas with Fermilab physicists to bring superconducting-magnet technology to fruition at Fermilab. Under the leadership of Helen Edwards, Richard Lundy, Rich Orr and Alvin Tollestrup, the Main Ring evolved into the energy doubler/saver in 1983 with a new ring of superconducting magnets installed below the early Main Ring magnets. This led to a trailblazing era during which Fermilab’s accelerator complex, now called the Tevatron, would lead the world in high-energy physics experiments. By 1985 the Tevatron had achieved 800 GeV in fixed-target experiments and 1.6 TeV in colliding-beam experiments, and by the time of its closure in 2011 it had reached 1.96 TeV in the centre of mass – just shy of its original goal of 2 TeV. Theory also thrived at Fermilab in this period. Lederman had brought James Bjorken to Fermilab’s theoretical physics group in 1980 and a theoretical astrophysics group founded by Rocky Kolb and Michael Turner was added to Fermilab’s research division in 1983 to address research at the intersection of particle physics and cosmology. Lederman also expanded the laboratory’s mission to include science education, offering programmes to local high-school students and teachers, and in 1980 opened the first children’s centre for employees of any DOE facility. He founded the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy in 1985 and the Chicago Teachers Academy for Mathematics and Science in 1990, and the Lederman Science Education Center on the Fermilab site is named after him. Lederman also reached out to many regions including Latin America and partnered with businesses to support the lab’s research and encourage technology transfer. The latter included Wilson’s early Fermilab initiative of neutron therapy for certain cancers, which later would see Fermilab build the 70–250 MeV proton synchrotron for the Loma Linda Medical Center in California. Scientifically, the target in this period was the top quark. Fermilab and CERN had planned for a decade to detect the elusive top, with Fermilab deploying two large international experimental teams at the Tevatron – CDF (founded by Tollestrup) and DZero (founded by Paul Grannis) – from 1976 to 1995. In 1988 Lederman shared the Nobel prize for the discovery of the muon neutrino at Brookhaven 25 years previously, and in 1989 he stepped down as Fermilab director and joined the faculty of the University of Chicago and later the Illinois Institute of Technology. Lederman was succeeded by John Peoples, a machine builder and Fermilab experimentalist since 1970, and leader of the Fermilab antiproton source from 1981 to 1985. Peoples had his hands full not only with Fermilab and its research programme but also with the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) laboratory in Texas. In 1993 the SSC was cancelled and Peoples was asked by the DOE to close down the project and its many contracts. The only person to direct two national laboratories at the same time, Peoples successfully managed both tasks and returned to Fermilab to see the discovery of the top quark in 1995. He had also launched the luminosity-enhancing upgrade to the Tevatron, the Main Injector, in 1999. Peoples stepped down as laboratory director that summer and became director of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) – Fermilab’s first astrophysics experiment. He later directed the Dark Energy Survey and in 2010 he retired, continuing to serve as director emeritus of the laboratory. In 1999, experimentalist and former Fermilab user Michael Witherell of the University of California at Santa Barbara became Fermilab’s fourth director. Ongoing fixed-target and colliding-beam experiments continued under Witherell, as did the SDSS and the Pierre Auger cosmic ray experiments, and the neutrino programme with the Main Injector. Mirroring the spirt of US–European competition of the 1960s, this period saw CERN begin construction of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) to search for the Higgs boson at a lower energy than the cancelled SSC. Accordingly, the luminosity of the Tevatron became a priority, as did discussions about a possible future international linear collider. After launching the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) research programme, including sending the underground particle beam off-site to the MINOS detector in Minnesota, Witherell returned to Santa Barbara in 2005 and in 2016 he became director of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Physicist Piermaria Oddone from Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory became Fermilab’s fifth director in 2005. He pursued the renewal of the Tevatron in order to exploit the intensity frontier and explore new physics with a plan called “Project X”, part of the “Proton Improvement Plan”. Yet the last decade has been a challenging time for Fermilab, with budget cuts, reductions in staff and a redefinition of its mission. The CDF and DZero collaborations continued their search for the Higgs boson, narrowing the region where it could exist, but the more energetic LHC always had the upper hand. In the aftermath of the global economic crisis of 2008, as the LHC approached switch-on, Oddone oversaw the shutdown of the Tevatron in 2011. A Remote Operations Center in Wilson Hall and a special US Observer agreement allowed Fermilab physicists to co-operate with CERN on LHC research and participate in the CMS experiment. The Higgs boson was duly discovered at CERN in 2012 and Oddone retired the following year. Under its sixth director, former Fermilab user and director of TRIUMF laboratory in Vancouver, Nigel Lockyer, Fermilab now looks ahead to shine once more through continued exploration of the intensity frontier and understanding the properties of neutrinos. In the next few years, Fermilab’s Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) will send neutrinos to the underground DUNE experiment 1300 km away in South Dakota, prototype detectors for which are currently being built at CERN. Meanwhile, Fermilab’s Short-Baseline Neutrino programme has just taken delivery of the 760 tonne cryostat for its ICARUS experiment after its recent refurbishment at CERN (see "Search for sterile neutrinos triples up"), while a major experiment called Muon g-2 is about to take its first results. This suite of experiments, with co-operation with CERN and other international labs, puts Fermilab at the leading edge of the intensity frontier and continues Wilson’s dreams of exploration and discovery.
Azouaou N.,University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene |
Sadaoui Z.,University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene |
Djaafri A.,Central laboratory |
Mokaddem H.,University of Science and Technology Houari Boumediene
Journal of Hazardous Materials | Year: 2010
Adsorption can be used as a cost effective and efficient technique for the removal of toxic heavy metals from wastewater. Waste materials with no further treatment such as coffee grounds from cafeterias may act as adsorbents for the removal of cadmium. Batch kinetic and equilibrium experiments were conducted to study the effects of contact time, adsorbent dose, initial pH, particle size, initial concentration of cadmium and temperature. Three adsorption isotherm models namely, Langmuir, Freundlich and Dubinin-Radushkevich were used to analyse the equilibrium data. The Langmuir isotherm which provided the best correlation for Cd2+ adsorption onto coffee grounds, shows that the adsorption was favourable and the adsorption capacity found was equal to 15.65mgg-1. Thermodynamic parameters were evaluated and the adsorption was exothermic. The equilibrium was achieved less than 120min. The adsorption kinetic data was fitted with first and second order kinetic models. Finally it was concluded that the cadmium adsorption kinetic onto coffee grounds was well fitted by second order kinetic model rather than first order model. The results suggest that coffee grounds have high possibility to be used as effective and economical adsorbent for Cd2+ removal. © 2010 Elsevier B.V.
News Article | February 23, 2017
PALO ALTO, Calif. and LANCASTER, Pa., Feb. 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Science Exchange and Eurofins are excited to announce that Eurofins Central Laboratory is now a service provider listed on the Science Exchange marketplace for outsourced research services. This means that pharmaceutical a...
News Article | December 13, 2016
Wiseguyreports.Com Adds “Medical Automation -Market Demand, Growth, Opportunities and analysis of Top Key Player Forecast to 2021” To Its Research Database According to Stratistics MRC, the Global Medical Automation Technologies Market is estimated to be $52.67 billion in 2015 and is expected to reach $95.2 billion growing at a CAGR of 8.8%. The factors that are influencing the market growth include rising healthcare costs, investment by venture capitalists and the increase in use of point of care testing devices (glucose meters, digital blood pressure monitors, pregnancy test kits and HIV test kits). However the tax imposed by the U.S government on medical devices manufacturers and rigorous approval procedures to launch a product or services by companies is likely to hinder the market growth. North America is anticipated to hold the largest market share, followed by Europe. However, Asia-Pacific is expected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. Increasing aged population, growing occurrence of CVDs, diabetes, and cancer, increased funding on healthcare and life sciences research are propelling the growth of the Asia-Pacific market. Furthermore, the rising need of automation in various other medical fields represents the growth opportunities for this market. Some of the major players in the Global Medical Automation Technologies Market include GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare, Tecan Group Ltd., Stanley Black and Decker, Inc., Intuitive Surgical, Inc., CAE Ltd., Brainlab AG, Given Imaging Ltd. and Medtronic, Inc. Applications Covered: • Therapeutic Automation • Lab and Pharmacy Automation • Logistics and Training Automation • Diagnostics and Monitoring Automation End Users Covered: • Research Labs and Institutes • Hospitals and Diagnostic Centers • Pharmacies • Home/Ambulatory and Others Type of Technologies Covered: • Robotic and computer-assisted surgical equipment o Surgical robots o Surgical planners and simulators o Intelligent operating rooms and related equipment o Surgical navigation systems • Automated therapeutic (non-surgical) devices o Automated medication delivery systems o Automated defibrillators • Automated prescription fulfillment devices o Dispensing machines o Intravenous compounders o Packaging machines • Automated medical imaging and image analysis o Automated microscopy o Automated radiography and fluoroscopy o Automated skin cancer detection o Automated whole-breast ultrasound o Computer-aided detection o Endoscopic capsules • Automated laboratory testing and analysis o Point-of-care Testing Systems o Central Laboratory Systems • Automated healthcare logistics, resource and patient tracking o Hospital asset/patient/staff tracking systems o Automated hospital pickup and delivery • Automated health assessment and monitoring technologies o Wearable monitors o Telehealth kiosks o Automated home monitoring and telemetry o Automated eye examination devices o Automated drug testing Regions Covered: • North America o US o Canada o Mexico • Europe o Germany o France o Italy o UK o Spain o Rest of Europe • Asia Pacific o Japan o China o India o Australia o New Zealand o Rest of Asia Pacific • Rest of the World o Middle East o Brazil o Argentina o South Africa o Egypt What our report offers: - Market share assessments for the regional and country level segments - Market share analysis of the top industry players - Strategic recommendations for the new entrants - Market forecasts for a minimum of 7 years of all the mentioned segments, sub segments and the regional markets - Market Trends (Drivers, Constraints, Opportunities, Threats, Challenges, Investment Opportunities, and recommendations) - Strategic recommendations in key business segments based on the market estimations - Competitive landscaping mapping the key common trends - Company profiling with detailed strategies, financials, and recent developments - Supply chain trends mapping the latest technological advancements For more information, please visit https://www.wiseguyreports.com/sample-request/649650-medical-automation-global-market-outlook-2016-2022
News Article | December 5, 2016
According to Stratistics MRC, the Global Medical Automation Technologies Market is estimated to be $52.67 billion in 2015 and is expected to reach $95.2 billion growing at a CAGR of 8.8%. The factors that are influencing the market growth include rising healthcare costs, investment by venture capitalists and the increase in use of point of care testing devices (glucose meters, digital blood pressure monitors, pregnancy test kits and HIV test kits). However the tax imposed by the U.S government on medical devices manufacturers and rigorous approval procedures to launch a product or services by companies is likely to hinder the market growth. North America is anticipated to hold the largest market share, followed by Europe. However, Asia-Pacific is expected to grow at the highest CAGR during the forecast period. Increasing aged population, growing occurrence of CVDs, diabetes, and cancer, increased funding on healthcare and life sciences research are propelling the growth of the Asia-Pacific market. Furthermore, the rising need of automation in various other medical fields represents the growth opportunities for this market. Some of the major players in the Global Medical Automation Technologies Market include GE Healthcare, Philips Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare, Tecan Group Ltd., Stanley Black and Decker, Inc., Intuitive Surgical, Inc., CAE Ltd., Brainlab AG, Given Imaging Ltd. and Medtronic, Inc. Applications Covered: • Therapeutic Automation • Lab and Pharmacy Automation • Logistics and Training Automation • Diagnostics and Monitoring Automation End Users Covered: • Research Labs and Institutes • Hospitals and Diagnostic Centers • Pharmacies • Home/Ambulatory and Others Type of Technologies Covered: • Robotic and computer-assisted surgical equipment o Surgical robots o Surgical planners and simulators o Intelligent operating rooms and related equipment o Surgical navigation systems • Automated therapeutic (non-surgical) devices o Automated medication delivery systems o Automated defibrillators • Automated prescription fulfillment devices o Dispensing machines o Intravenous compounders o Packaging machines • Automated medical imaging and image analysis o Automated microscopy o Automated radiography and fluoroscopy o Automated skin cancer detection o Automated whole-breast ultrasound o Computer-aided detection o Endoscopic capsules • Automated laboratory testing and analysis o Point-of-care Testing Systems o Central Laboratory Systems • Automated healthcare logistics, resource and patient tracking o Hospital asset/patient/staff tracking systems o Automated hospital pickup and delivery • Automated health assessment and monitoring technologies o Wearable monitors o Telehealth kiosks o Automated home monitoring and telemetry o Automated eye examination devices o Automated drug testing Regions Covered: • North America o US o Canada o Mexico • Europe o Germany o France o Italy o UK o Spain o Rest of Europe • Asia Pacific o Japan o China o India o Australia o New Zealand o Rest of Asia Pacific • Rest of the World o Middle East o Brazil o Argentina o South Africa o Egypt What our report offers: - Market share assessments for the regional and country level segments - Market share analysis of the top industry players - Strategic recommendations for the new entrants - Market forecasts for a minimum of 7 years of all the mentioned segments, sub segments and the regional markets - Market Trends (Drivers, Constraints, Opportunities, Threats, Challenges, Investment Opportunities, and recommendations) - Strategic recommendations in key business segments based on the market estimations - Competitive landscaping mapping the key common trends - Company profiling with detailed strategies, financials, and recent developments - Supply chain trends mapping the latest technological advancements
Ludwig Prof. H.,Center for Oncology |
Muldur E.,Center for Oncology |
Endler G.,Central Laboratory |
Hubl W.,Central Laboratory
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2013
Background: Only limited data on the prevalence of iron deficiency (ID) and its correlation with clinical parameters are available in cancer. ID frequently contributes to the pathogenesis of anemia in patients with cancer and may lead to several symptoms such as impaired physical function, weakness and fatigue. Patients and methods: Parameters of iron status and clinical parameters were evaluated in 1528 patients with cancer who presented consecutively within a four-month period at our center. One thousand fifty-three patients had solid tumors and 475 hematological malignancies. Results: ID [transferrin saturation (TSAT) < 20%] was noted in 645 (42.6%) of the 1513 patients with TSAT tests available and 500 (33.0%) were anemic. ID rates were highest in pancreatic (63.2%), colorectal (51.9%) and lung cancers (50.7%). Of the 409 iron-deficient patients in whom serum ferritin levels were available additionally to TSAT, 335 (81.9%) presented with functional ID (FID) (TSAT < 20%, serum ferritin >30 ng/ml) and 74 (18.1%) with absolute ID. In patients with solid tumors, prevalence of ID correlated with cancer stage at diagnosis (P=0.001), disease status (P = 0.001) and ECOG performance status (P = 0.005). Conclusions: ID was frequently noted in cancer and was associated with advanced disease, close proximity to cancer therapy, and poor performance status in patients with solid tumors. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.
Al-Anazi K.A.,King Khalid University |
Al-Jasser A.M.,Central Laboratory
Frontiers in Oncology | Year: 2014
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia (S. maltophilia) is a globally emerging Gram-negative bacillus that is widely spread in environment and hospital equipment. Recently, the incidence of infections caused by this organism has increased, particularly in patients with hematological malignancy and in recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation having neutropenia, mucositis, diarrhea, central venous catheters or graft versus host disease and receiving intensive cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunosuppressive therapy or broad-spectrum antibiotics. The spectrum of infections in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients includes: pneumonia, urinary tract and surgical site infection, peritonitis, bacteremia, septic shock and infection of indwelling medical devices. The organism exhibits intrinsic resistance to many classes of antibiotics including carbapenems, aminoglycosides, most of the third generation cephalosporins and other ß-lactams. Despite the increasingly reported drug resistance, trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole is still the drug of choice However, the organism is still susceptible to: ticarcillin-clavulanic acid, tigecycline, fluoroquinolones, polymyxin-B and rifampicin. Genetic factors play a significant role not only in evolution of drug resistance but also in virulence of the organism. The outcome of patients having S. maltophilia infections can be improved by: using various combinations of novel therapeutic agents and aerosolized aminoglycosides or colistin, prompt administration of in-vitro active antibiotics, removal of possible sources of infection such as infected indwelling intravacular catheters and application of strict infection control measures. © 2014 Al-anazi and Al-jasser.
Minder E.I.,Central Laboratory
Drugs of the Future | Year: 2010
Artificial tanning or induction of skin pigmentation may protect individuals with light-induced skin diseases. The paracrine skin hormone α-melanocyte-stimulating hormone (MSH), acting locally at epidermal melanocytes, is a key player in the tanning response after light-induced stress. The first-in-class synthetic analogue of MSH studied in humans is afamelanotide, which has been shown to activate skin pigmentation or tanning after systemic application. Initially, afamelanotide was administered as a saline solution. Later, a slow-release formulation was used that enabled a marked reduction of the dose and side effects. It has been reported that afamelanotide reduced symptoms in different photodermatoses, including polymorphic light eruption (phase II and III), erythropoietic protoporphyria (phase II and III), phototoxicity of the skin during photodynamic therapy (phase II) and solar urticaria (phase II). However, only a few of these reports have been published. A study aimed at testing the efficacy of afamelanotide in the prevention of actinic keratosis in renal transplant patients is in progress. Reported side effects are minor, including mainly nausea and headache, and notably, no melanoma has been reported. Safety tests showed no toxic effects in mice, rats and minipigs. Copyright © 2010 Prous Science, S.A.U. or its licensors All rights reserved.
Minder E.I.,Central Laboratory
Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs | Year: 2010
Importance of the field: Afamelanotide, an α-melanocyte stimulating hormone (MSH) agonistic analog is a first-in-class therapeutic. Its application to protoporphyria (PP), a disease associated with absolute sunlight-intolerance is discussed. Areas covered in this review: The genetics and existing therapy of the inherited disease PP comprising both erythropoietic protoporphyria and X-linked dominant protoporphyria. The physiological and pharmacological actions of α-MSH and afamelanotide including receptor-mediated intracellular signaling and effects of receptor polymorphisms. Adverse effects and safety issues. What the reader will gain: The clinical severity and the necessity for an effective therapy for the rare disease PP are illustrated by a short, up-to-date portrait. A condensed description of clinically important aspects of α-MSH signaling, physiological, pharmacological and safety issues of afamelanotide applied to humans and the rational for its potential efficacy in PP are given. The different trials of afamelanotide in PP and their most recent results are discussed. Take home message: Although early, results of the first trials of afamelanotide for PP are promising and the risksafety profile appears favorable today. We expect afamelanotide and analogs thereof to be a prospective therapeutic tool in light-related skin diseases, and in future this drug class might prove effectiveness in other medical conditions. © 2010 Informa UK, Ltd.
Froom P.,Central Laboratory |
Barak M.,Central Laboratory
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine | Year: 2012
Background: There are no previous studies reporting the effect of using frozen-thawed plasma on lupus anticoagulant ratios in kits with the combined screen and confirm assay. Methods: In the following study we chose patients with elevated dilute Russel's viper venom test (dRVVT) normalized ratios and compared the test results of fresh to frozen-thawed plasma. Platelet counts ranged from 2 to 7 × 10 3/μ L (10 9/L) after a second centrifugation before freezing. Results: There were 13 out of 14 dRVVT test normalized ratios that decreased after freezing (p < 0.001), leading to the misclassification of six of 14 patients with high values that decreased into the reference interval. Conclusion: The major finding of this study is that testing frozen-thawed plasma with platelet counts < 10,000/μ L (10 9/L) results in a significant decrease in dRVVT ratios. Although there was a consistent decrease in SCT normalized ratios as well, it did not lead to misclassifications. © 2012 by Walter de Gruyter.