Methods: The NanoLuc™ Luciferase reporter protein was engineered to be expressed as a fusion protein for MNV-1 minor capsid protein, VP2. The foot-and-mouth disease virus 2A (FMDV2A) sequence was inserted between the 3'end of the reporter gene and the VP2 start sequence to allow co-translational 'cleavage' of fusion proteins during intracellular transcript expression. Amplification of the fusion gene was performed using a series of standard and overlapping polymerase chain reactions. The resulting amplicon was then cloned into three readily available backbones of MNV-1 cDNA clones.
Results: Restriction enzyme analysis indicated that the NanoLucTM Luciferase gene was successfully inserted into the parental MNV-1 cDNA clone. The insertion was further confirmed by using DNA sequencing.
Conclusion: NanoLuc™ Luciferase-tagged MNV-1 cDNA clones were successfully engineered. Such clones can be exploited to develop robust experimental assays for in vitro assessments of viral RNA replication.
Objective: To examine the effects of a quality improvement intervention comprising information and communications technology and contact with nonphysician personnel on the care and cardiometabolic risk factors of patients with type 2 diabetes in 8 Asia-Pacific countries.
Design, Setting, and Participants: This 12-month multinational open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 28, 2012, to April 28, 2016, at 50 primary care or hospital-based diabetes centers in 8 Asia-Pacific countries (India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam). Six countries were low and middle income, and 2 countries were high income. The study was conducted in 2 phases; phase 1 enrolled 7537 participants, and phase 2 enrolled 13 297 participants. Participants in both phases were randomized on a 1:1 ratio to intervention or control groups. Data were analyzed by intention to treat and per protocol from July 3, 2019, to July 21, 2020.
Interventions: In both phases, the intervention group received 3 care components: a nurse-led Joint Asia Diabetes Evaluation (JADE) technology-guided structured evaluation, automated personalized reports to encourage patient empowerment, and 2 or more telephone or face-to-face contacts by nurses to increase patient engagement. In phase 1, the control group received the JADE technology-guided structured evaluation and automated personalized reports. In phase 2, the control group received the JADE technology-guided structured evaluation only.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the incidence of a composite of diabetes-associated end points, including cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, visual impairment or eye surgery, lower extremity amputation or foot ulcers requiring hospitalization, all-site cancers, and death. The secondary outcomes were the attainment of 2 or more primary diabetes-associated targets (glycated hemoglobin A1c <7.0%, blood pressure <130/80 mm Hg, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL) and/or 2 or more key performance indices (reduction in glycated hemoglobin A1c≥0.5%, reduction in systolic blood pressure ≥5 mm Hg, reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥19 mg/dL, and reduction in body weight ≥3.0%).
Results: A total of 20 834 patients with type 2 diabetes were randomized in phases 1 and 2. In phase 1, 7537 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.0 [11.3] years; 3914 men [51.9%]; 4855 patients [64.4%] from low- and middle-income countries) were randomized, with 3732 patients allocated to the intervention group and 3805 patients allocated to the control group. In phase 2, 13 297 participants (mean [SD] age, 54.0 [11.1] years; 7754 men [58.3%]; 13 297 patients [100%] from low- and middle-income countries) were randomized, with 6645 patients allocated to the intervention group and 6652 patients allocated to the control group. In phase 1, compared with the control group, the intervention group had a similar risk of experiencing any of the primary outcomes (odds ratio [OR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.74-1.21) but had an increased likelihood of attaining 2 or more primary targets (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.21-1.49) and 2 or more key performance indices (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04-1.34). In phase 2, the intervention group also had a similar risk of experiencing any of the primary outcomes (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.83-1.25) and had a greater likelihood of attaining 2 or more primary targets (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.14-1.37) and 2 or more key performance indices (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.33-1.68) compared with the control group. For attainment of 2 or more primary targets, larger effects were observed among patients in low- and middle-income countries (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.29-1.74) compared with high-income countries (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.03-1.39) (P = .04).
Conclusions and Relevance: In this 12-month clinical trial, the use of information and communications technology and nurses to empower and engage patients did not change the number of clinical events but did reduce cardiometabolic risk factors among patients with type 2 diabetes, especially those in low- and middle-income countries in the Asia-Pacific region.
Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01631084.
METHOD: A multicenter, prospective, randomized, parallel-design, open label interventional study to estimate the effectiveness of zolpidem (10 mg) oral tablets versus acupressure on sleep quality and quality of life in patients with CKD-aP on hemodialysis. A total of 58 hemodialysis patients having sleep disturbance due to CKD-aP completed the entire 8-week follow-up. The patients were divided into a control (acupressure) group of 28 patients and an intervention (zolpidem) group of 30 patients.
RESULTS: A total of 58 patients having CKD-aP and sleep disturbance were recruited. In the control group there was a reduction in the PSQI score with a mean ± SD from 12.28 ± 3.59 to 9.25 ± 3.99, while in the intervention group the reduction in PSQI score with a mean ± SD was from 14.73 ± 4.14 to 10.03 ± 4.04 from baseline to endpoint. However, the EQ5D index score and EQ-visual analogue scale (VAS) at baseline for the control group with a mean ± SD was 0.49 ± 0.30 and 50.17 ± 8.65, respectively, while for the intervention group the values were 0.62 ± 0.26 and 47.17 ± 5.82, respectively. The mean EQ5D index score in the control group improved from 0.49 ± 0.30 to 0.53 ± 0.30, but in the intervention group there was no statistical improvement in mean EQ5D index score from 0.62 ± 0.26 to 0.62 ± 0.27 from baseline to week 8. The EQ 5D improved in both groups and the EQ-VAS score was 2.67 points higher at week 8 as compared to baseline in the control group, while in the intervention group the score was 3.33 points higher at week 8 as compared to baseline. Comparing with baseline, the PSQI scores were significantly reduced after week 4 and week 8 (P =