viernes, 16 de agosto de 2024

Oropouche virus

 Abstract

The Oropouche virus is an important arthropod-borne virus in the Peribunyaviridae family that can cause febrile illnesses, and it is widely distributed in tropical regions such as Central and South America. Since the virus was first identified, a large number of related cases are reported every year. No deaths have been reported to date, however, the virus can cause systemic infections, including the nervous and blood systems, leading to serious complications. The transmission of Oropouche virus occurs through both urban and sylvatic cycles, with the anthropophilic biting midge Culicoides paraensis serving as the primary vector in urban areas. Direct human-to-human transmission of Oropouche virus has not been observed. Oropouche virus consists of three segments, and the proteins encoded by the different segments enables the virus to replicate efficiently in the host and to resist the host's immune response. Phylogenetic analyses showed that Oropouche virus sequences are geographically distinct and have closer homologies with Iquitos virus and Perdoes virus, which belong to the family Peribunyaviridae. Despite the enormous threat it poses to public health, there are currently no licensed vaccines or specific antiviral treatments for the disease it causes. Recent studies have utilised imJatobal virusmunoinformatics approaches to develop epitope-based peptide vaccines, which have laid the groundwork for the clinical use of vaccines. The present review focuses on the structure, epidemiology, immunity and phylogeny of Oropouche virus, as well as the progress of vaccine development, thereby attracting wider attention and research, particularly with regard to potential vaccine programs.


Keywords: Epidemiology; Evolutionary; Immunity; Oropouche virus; Structure; Vaccine development.


Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.


PubMed Disclaimer


Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.*1

Abstract

AbstractOropouche virus (OROV) is an important cause of arboviral illness in Latin American countries, more specifically in the Amazon region of Brazil, Venezuela and Peru, as well as in other countries such as Panama. In the past decades, the clinical, epidemiological, pathological, and molecular aspects of OROV have been published and provide the basis for a better understanding of this important human pathogen. Here, we describe the milestones in a comprehensive review of OROV epidemiology, pathogenesis, and molecular biology, including a description of the first isolation of the virus, the outbreaks during the past six decades, clinical aspects of OROV infection, diagnostic methods, genome and genetic traits, evolution, and viral dispersal.


PubMed Disclaimer


Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure: Jorge Fernando Travassos da Rosa is a Senior Researcher of the Department of Arboviruses and was the Director of the institution between 1988 and 2002. *2

Abstract

This perspective underscores the rising challenge posed by emerging diseases against the backdrop of modern advancements in global public health understanding. It particularly highlights the emergence of the Oropouche virus (OROV) as a significant global threat, detailing its transmission dynamics, symptoms, and epidemiological impact, with a focus on its historical and current manifestations. It further delves into the molecular aspects of OROV, elucidating its unique characteristics, lack of structural similarity with other arboviruses, and the limited progress in medicinal chemistry research. Still, it highlights notable studies on potential antiviral agents and the challenges in drug development, emphasizing the need for innovative approaches such as structure-based drug design (SBDD) and drug repurposing. Finally, it concludes with a call to action, urging increased attention and research focus on OROV to prevent potential future pandemics fueled by viral mutations.


Keywords: Drug design; Drug repurposing; Endonuclease; Medicinal chemistry; Oropouche.


Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


PubMed Disclaimer


Conflict of interest statement

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.*3


Figures



*1Oropouche virus: A neglected global arboviral threat

Yuli Zhang et al. Virus Res. 2024 Mar.

*2Oropouche Virus: Clinical, Epidemiological, and Molecular Aspects of a Neglected Orthobunyavirus

Jorge Fernando Travassos da Rosa et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2017 May.

*3Oropouche virus - The "Newest" invisible public enemy?

Edeildo Ferreira da Silva-Júnior. Bioorg Med Chem. 2024.


Viruela del Mono

 Viruela del Mono

Published online: July 2022.


Esta hoja trata de la exposición a la viruela del mono en el embarazo y durante la lactancia. Esta información no debe usarse como un sustituto de la atención médica o los consejos de su proveedor de atención de salud.


¿Qué es la viruela del mono (o viruela del simio o viruela símica)?


La viruela del mono es una enfermedad causada por un virus. El virus pertenece a un grupo de virus llamados orthopoxvirus.


Los síntomas de la viruela del mono pueden comenzar de 5 a 21 días después de haber estado expuesto al virus, pero la mayoría de las personas comienzan a tener síntomas en 7 a 14 días. Los primeros síntomas que aparecen pueden ser: fiebre, dolor de cabeza, dolores musculares, dolor de espalda, ganglios linfáticos ("glándulas") inflamados, escalofríos y agotamiento (estar muy cansado). En unos pocos días, aparece un sarpullido en el cuerpo, que a menudo comienza cerca de los genitales o en la cara. El sarpullido causa bultos y llagas que pueden causar picazón y dolor y que gradualmente se convierten en costras que se caen. En la mayoría de las personas, la enfermedad dura de 2 a 4 semanas antes de desaparecer por sí sola. En algunas personas, la viruela del mono puede causar enfermedad más grave e incluso la muerte. No hay cura para la viruela del mono, pero ciertos medicamentos (llamados antivirales) pueden ayudar a controlar los síntomas.


Hay dos tipos de vacunas disponibles contra la viruela del mono / viruela para las personas que han estado expuestas a un orthopoxvirus o para ciertas personas con mayor riesgo de exposición. Puede leer más sobre estas vacunas en las hojas informativas de MotherToBaby en https://mothertobaby.org/es/hojas-informativas/vacuna-contra-viruela-del-mono-viruela-jynneos/pdf/ y https://mothertobaby.org/es/hojas-informativas/vacuna-contra-viruela-del-mono-viruela-acam2000/pdf/.


¿Cómo se propaga la viruela del mono?


La viruela del mono se propaga de persona a persona a través de líquidos del cuerpo, incluido el contacto directo con las llagas o costras de la piel de una persona infectada, de los líquidos que salen de estas llagas (como en la ropa o la ropa de cama), o a través de la saliva y las gotitas respiratorias (como besarse o estar en contacto cercano con alguien con viruela del mono cuando respiran, hablan, tosen, o estornudan). El virus también puede pasar de una persona que está embarazada a su bebé en desarrollo. No se sabe en este momento si la viruela del mono puede propagarse a través del semen o los líquidos vaginales, pero el contacto cercano durante las relaciones sexuales puede propagar el virus..*1

Esta hoja trata de la exposición a la vacuna contra viruela de mono / viruela JYNNEOS™ en el embarazo y durante la lactancia. Esta información no debe usarse como un sustituto de la atención médica o los consejos de su proveedor de atención de salud.


¿Qué es mpox (viruela del mono)?


Mpox es una enfermedad causada por un virus. El virus pertenece a un grupo de virus llamados orthopoxvirus. El virus se propaga de persona a persona a través de los fluidos corporales. El virus también puede pasar de una persona que está embarazada a su bebé en desarrollo. Para obtener más información sobre mpox, consulte la hoja informativa de MotherToBaby en https://mothertobaby.org/es/hojas-informativas/viruela-del-mono/.


¿Qué es la vacuna contra viruela de mono / viruela JYNNEOS™?


La vacuna JYNNEOS™ (también conocida como Imvamune® o Imvanex®) ayuda a proteger contra mpox, la viruela, y otras enfermedades causadas por los ortopoxvirus. JYNNEOS™ no contiene virus vivo que pueda causar mpox o viruela. En cambio, contiene una forma debilitada de un virus relacionado, que no puede hacer copias de sí mismo (replicarse) en el cuerpo para causar enfermedades. Recibir JYNNEOS™ ayuda al sistema inmunológico del cuerpo a aprender cómo protegerse (producir anticuerpos) contra los ortorpoxvirus en general.


JYNNEOS™ se puede administrar antes o después de la exposición a un orthopoxvirus para ayudar a prevenir la enfermedad o reducir los síntomas. La mayoría de las personas requieren 2 dosis (inyecciones) administradas con 4 semanas de diferencia. Según los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC), JYNNEOS™ se puede administrar al mismo tiempo que otras vacunas. Cuando existe la posibilidad de estar expuesto al virus que causa mpox u otro orthopoxvirus, es importante continuar tomando otros pasos para evitar la exposición incluso después de ser vacunado. CDC tiene información de prevención aquí (en inglés): https://www.cdc.gov/poxvirus/monkeypox/prevention.html.


ACAM2000® es otro tipo de vacuna contra la viruela del mono/viruela disponible en los Estados Unidos. Puede leer más sobre ACAM2000® en la hoja informativa de MotherToBaby https://mothertobaby.org/es/hojas-informativas/vacuna-contra-viruela-del-mono-viruela-acam2000/.*2


*1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. Clinical considerations for monkeypox in people who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Available at URL: https://www​.cdc.gov/poxvirus​/monkeypox/clinicians/pregnancy​.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. Monkeypox. Available at URL: https://www​.cdc.gov/poxvirus​/monkeypox/index.html

Jamieson DJ, et al. 2004. The role of the obstetrician–gynecologist in emerging infectious diseases: monkeypox and pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 103(4):754-756. [PubMed]

Khalil A, et al. 2022. Monkeypox and pregnancy: what do obstetricians need to know? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. Published online June 2, 2022. DOI: https://doi​.org/10.1002/uog.24968. [PubMed]

Kisalu NK and Mokili JL. 2017. Toward understanding the outcomes of monkeypox infection in human pregnancy. J Infectious Diseases 216(7):795–797. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Mbala PK, et al. 2017. Maternal and fetal outcomes among pregnant women with human monkeypox infection in the Democratic Republic of Congo. J Infectious Diseases 216(7):824-828. [PubMed]

Nishiura H. 2009. Maternal outcomes in pregnancy with smallpox: epidemiologic investigations of case fatality, miscarriage and premature birth based on previous outbreaks. In: Canfield RN, ed. Infectious Pregnancy Complications. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.; 2009:407-420.

*2Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. Clinical considerations for monkeypox in people who are pregnant or breastfeeding. Available at URL: https://www​.cdc.gov/poxvirus​/monkeypox/clinicians/pregnancy​.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2022. Considerations for monkeypox vaccination. Available at URL: https://www​.cdc.gov/poxvirus​/monkeypox/considerations-for-monkeypox-vaccination​.html.

Vaccine Information Statement: Smallpox/monkeypox vaccine (JYNNEOS™): what you need to know. Revised 06/2022. Available at URL: https://www​.cdc.gov/vaccines​/hcp/vis/vis-statements​/smallpox-monkeypox.pdf.

JYNNEOS Package Insert. Revised 06/2021. Available at URL: https://www​.fda.gov/media​/131078/download.

Meaney-Delman, DM, et al. 2022. A primer on monkeypox virus for obstetrician–gynecologists, Obstetrics & Gynecology. Published online July 11, 2022. DOI: https://doi​.org/10.1097/AOG​.0000000000004909. [PMC free article] [PubMed]

Rao AK, et al. 2022. Use of JYNNEOS (smallpox and monkeypox vaccine, live, nonreplicating) for preexposure vaccination of persons at risk for occupational exposure to orthopoxviruses: recommendations of the advisory committee on immunization practices — United States, 2022. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2022;71:734–742. [PMC free article] [PubMed]





martes, 6 de agosto de 2024

Enfermedad de Fabry

 Abstract

Fabry disease is an X-linked lysosomal storage disorder caused by mutations in the GLA gene leading to deficient α-galactosidase A activity, glycosphingolipid accumulation, and life-threatening complications. Phenotypes vary from the "classic" phenotype, with pediatric onset and multi-organ involvement, to later-onset, a predominantly cardiac phenotype. Manifestations are diverse in female patients in part due to variations in residual enzyme activity and X chromosome inactivation patterns. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) and adjunctive treatments can provide significant clinical benefit. However, much of the current literature reports outcomes after late initiation of ERT, once substantial organ damage has already occurred. Updated monitoring and treatment guidelines for pediatric patients with Fabry disease have recently been published. Expert physician panels were convened to develop updated, specific guidelines for adult patients. Management of adult patients depends on 1) a personalized approach to care, reflecting the natural history of the specific disease phenotype; 2) comprehensive evaluation of disease involvement prior to ERT initiation; 3) early ERT initiation; 4) thorough routine monitoring for evidence of organ involvement in non-classic asymptomatic patients and response to therapy in treated patients; 5) use of adjuvant treatments for specific disease manifestations; and 6) management by an experienced multidisciplinary team.


Keywords: Diagnosis; Fabry disease; Management; Mutation; Treatment.


Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.*1

Abstract

Background: Fabry disease, an X-linked lysosomal storage disorder, causes intracellular accumulation of glycosphingolipids leading to progressive renal, cardiovascular, and cerebrovascular disease, and premature death.


Methods: This longitudinal Fabry Registry study analyzed data from patients with Fabry disease to determine the incidence and type of severe clinical events following initiation of enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with agalsidase beta, as well as risk factors associated with occurrence of these events. Severe events assessed included chronic dialysis, renal transplantation, cardiac events, stroke, and death.


Results: The analyses included 969 male and 442 female Fabry patients. The mean age at first agalsidase beta infusion was 35 and 44, and median treatment follow-up 4.3years and 3.2years, respectively. Among males, cardiac events were the most common on-ERT events, followed by renal, stroke, and non-cardiac death. Among females, cardiac events were also most common followed by stroke and renal events. Patients with on-ERT events had significantly more advanced cardiac and renal disease at baseline as compared with patients without on-ERT events. Severe events were also associated with older age at ERT initiation (males and females), a history of pre-ERT events (females; approaching statistical significance in males), and a higher urinary protein/creatinine ratio (females). Approximately 65% of patients with pre-ERT events did not experience subsequent on-ERT events. Of patients without pre-ERT events, most (84% of males, 92% of females) remained event-free.


Conclusions: Patients with on-ERT severe events had more advanced Fabry organ involvement at baseline than those without such events and patients who initiated ERT at a younger age had less residual risk of on-ERT events. The observed patterns of residual risk may aid clinicians in multidisciplinary monitoring of male and female patients with Fabry disease receiving ERT, and in determining the need for administration of adjunctive therapies.


Keywords: Agalsidase beta; Fabry disease; Risk factors; Severe clinical events.


Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.*2


Abstract

Because of the shortage of agalsidase-β supply between 2009 and 2012, patients with Fabry disease either were treated with reduced doses or were switched to agalsidase-α. In this observational study, we assessed end organ damage and clinical symptoms with special focus on renal outcome after 2 years of dose-reduction and/or switch to agalsidase-α. A total of 89 adult patients with Fabry disease who had received agalsidase-β (1.0 mg/kg body wt) for >1 year were nonrandomly assigned to continue this treatment regimen (regular-dose group, n=24), to receive a reduced dose of 0.3-0.5 mg/kg and a subsequent switch to 0.2 mg/kg agalsidase-α (dose-reduction-switch group, n=28), or to directly switch to 0.2 mg/kg agalsidase-α (switch group, n=37) and were followed-up for 2 years. We assessed clinical events (death, myocardial infarction, severe arrhythmia, stroke, progression to ESRD), changes in cardiac and renal function, Fabry-related symptoms (pain, hypohidrosis, diarrhea), and disease severity scores. Determination of renal function by creatinine and cystatin C-based eGFR revealed decreasing eGFRs in the dose-reduction-switch group and the switch group. The Mainz Severity Score Index increased significantly in these two groups (P=0.02 and P<0.001, respectively), and higher frequencies of gastrointestinal pain occurred during follow-up. In conclusion, after 2 years of observation, all groups showed a stable clinical disease course with respect to serious clinical events. However, patients under agalsidase-β dose-reduction and switch or a direct switch to agalsidase-α showed a decline of renal function independent of the eGFR formula used.


Keywords: Fabry’s disease; chronic kidney disease; creatinine clearance; cystatin C clearance; enzyme; outcomes; replacement therapy.


Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Nephrology. *3


Abstract

Because of the shortage of agalsidase-beta in 2009, many patients with Fabry disease were treated with lower doses or were switched to agalsidase-alfa. This observational study assessed end-organ damage and clinical symptoms during dose reduction or switch to agalsidase-alfa. A total of 105 adult patients with Fabry disease who had received agalsidase-beta (1.0 mg/kg body weight) for ≥1 year were nonrandomly assigned to continue this treatment regimen (regular-dose group, n=38), receive a reduced dose of 0.3-0.5 mg/kg (dose-reduction group, n=29), or switch to 0.2 mg/kg agalsidase-alfa (switch group) and were followed prospectively for 1 year. We assessed clinical events (death, myocardial infarction, severe arrhythmia, stroke, progression to ESRD); changes in cardiac, renal, and neurologic function; and Fabry-related symptoms (neuropathic pain, hypohidrosis, diarrhea, and disease severity scores). Organ function and Fabry-related symptoms remained stable in the regular-dose group. In contrast, estimated GFR decreased by about 3 ml/min per 1.73 m(2) (P=0.01) in the dose-reduction group, and the median albumin-to-creatinine ratio increased from 114 (0-606) mg/g to 216 (0-2062) mg/g (P=0.03) in the switch group. Furthermore, mean Mainz Severity Score Index scores and frequencies of pain attacks, chronic pain, gastrointestinal pain, and diarrhea increased significantly in the dose-reduction and switch groups. In conclusion, patients receiving regular agalsidase-beta dose had a stable disease course, but dose reduction led to worsening of renal function and symptoms. Switching to agalsidase-alfa is safe, but microalbuminuria may progress and Fabry-related symptoms may deteriorate.*4

Abstract

Background: Fabry patients on reduced dose of agalsidase-beta or after switch to agalsidase-alfa show a decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and an increase of the Mainz Severity Score Index.


Methods: In this prospective observational study, we assessed end-organ damage and clinical symptoms in 112 patients who had received agalsidase-beta (1.0 mg/kg) for >1 year, who were (i) non-randomly assigned to continue this treatment regime (regular-dose group, n = 37); (ii) received a reduced dose of agalsidase-beta and subsequent switch to agalsidase-alfa (0.2 mg/kg) or a direct switch to 0.2 mg/kg agalsidase-alfa (switch group, n = 38); or (iii) were re-switched to agalsidase-beta after receiving agalsidase-alfa for at least 12 months (re-switch group, n = 37) with a median follow-up of 53 (38-57) months.


Results: eGFR of patients in the regular-dose group remained stable. Patients in the switch group showed an annual eGFR loss of - 4.6 ± 9.1 mL/min/1.73 m2 (P < 0.05). Patients in the re-switch group also had an eGFR loss of - 2.2 ± 4.4 mL/min/1.73 m2 after re-switch to agalsidase-beta, but to a lower degree compared with the switch group (P < 0.05). Patients in the re-switch group suffered less frequently from diarrhoea (relative risk 0.42; 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.93; P = 0.02). Lyso-Gb3 remained stable in the switch (P = 0.97) and the regular-dose (P = 0.48) groups, but decreased in the re-switch group after change of the therapy regimen (P < 0.05).


Conclusions: After switch to agalsidase-alfa, Fabry patients experienced a continuous decline in eGFR, while this decline was attenuated in patients who were re-switched to agalsidase-beta. Decreasing lyso-Gb3 levels may indicate a better treatment response in the latter group.*5


Abstract

Background: Patients with Fabry disease (FD) on reduced dose of agalsidase-beta or after switch to agalsidase-alfa show a decline in chronic kidney disease epidemiology collaboration-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and a worsened plasma lyso-Gb3 decrease. Hence, the most effective dose is still a matter of debate.


Methods: In this prospective observational study, we assessed end-organ damage and clinical symptoms in 78 patients who had received agalsidase-beta (1.0 mg/kg) for >1 year, which were assigned to continue this treatment (agalsidase-beta, regular-dose group, n=17); received a reduced dose of agalsidase-beta and subsequent switch to agalsidase-alfa (0.2 mg/kg) or a direct switch to 0.2 mg/kg agalsidase-alfa (switch group, n=22); or were re-switched to agalsidase-beta after receiving agalsidase-alfa for 12 months (re-switch group, n=39) with a follow-up of 88±25 months.


Results: No differences for clinical events were observed for all groups. Patients within the re-switch group started with the worst eGFR values at baseline (p=0.0217). Overall, eGFR values remained stable in the regular-dose group (p=0.1052) and decreased significantly in the re-switch and switch groups (p<0.0001 and p=0.0052, respectively). However, in all groups males presented with an annual loss of eGFR by -2.9, -2.5 and -3.9 mL/min/1.73 m² (regular-dose, re-switch, switch groups, all p<0.05). In females, eGFR decreased significantly only in the re-switch group by -2.9 mL/min/1.73 m² per year (p<0.01). Lyso-Gb3 decreased in the re-switch group after a change back to agalsidase-beta (p<0.05).


Conclusions: Our data suggest that a re-switch to high dosage of agalsidase results in a better biochemical response, but not in a significant renal amelioration especially in classical males.


Keywords: genetics; renal medicine.


© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: ML and TD received speaker honoraria from Amicus Theraputics, Sanofi Genzyme and Shire/Takeda. S-MB has received speaker honoraria from Shire/Takeda. CW, SC-K and EB received speaker and advisory board honoraria from Amicus Therapeutics, Greenovation, Sanofi Genzyme and Shire/Takeda. PN received speaker and advisory board honoraria from Amicus Therapeutics, Greenovation, Idorsia, Sanofi Genzyme and Shire/Takeda. CW is a member of the Fabry Registry European Board of Advisors and received travel assistance and speaker honoraria. Research grants were given to the institutions (Würzburg and Münster) by Amicus Therapeutics, Sanofi Genzyme and Shire/Takeda. *6


*1Fabry disease revisited: Management and treatment recommendations for adult patients

Alberto Ortiz et al. Mol Genet Metab. 2018 Apr.

Free article

*2Risk factors for severe clinical events in male and female patients with Fabry disease treated with agalsidase beta enzyme replacement therapy: Data from the Fabry Registry

Robert J Hopkin et al. Mol Genet Metab. 2016 Sep.

Free article

*3Patients with Fabry Disease after Enzyme Replacement Therapy Dose Reduction and Switch-2-Year Follow-Up

Malte Lenders et al. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 Mar.

*4Patients with Fabry disease after enzyme replacement therapy dose reduction versus treatment switch

Frank Weidemann et al. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Apr.

*5Fabry disease under enzyme replacement therapy-new insights in efficacy of different dosages

Johannes Krämer et al. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2018.

*6Treatment switch in Fabry disease- a matter of dose?

Malte Lenders et al. J Med Genet. 2021 May.