Dysphagia Days as an Assessment of Clinical Treatment Outcome in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate Dysphagia Days as a measure of symptom improvement in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis from the HEROES study. METHODS: Dysphagia Days, defined as a yes answer to the following question: During any meal today, did food go down slowly or get stuck in your throat or chest? was assessed for cendakimab vs placebo. RESULTS: A statistically significant reduction in the mean number of Dysphagia Days experienced was observed with cendakimab 360 mg vs placebo at week 16 (-4.67 vs -1.83; P = 0.0115); an even greater improvement was observed in steroid-refractory patients vs placebo (-4.48 vs -0.04; P = 0.0079). DISCUSSION: Dysphagia Days represents a relevant clinical end point to capture dysphagia-related symptoms.

Genotoxicity assessment in two Amazonian estuaries using the Plagioscion squamosissimus as a biomonitor.

Genotoxicity studies in coastal ecosystems have been a priority in Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA). This research aimed to study the genotoxicity by the micronucleus test and comet assay in two Brazilian Amazon estuaries (anthropized and control) using Plagioscion squamosissimus as a biomonitor. Blood samples were collected from 54 specimens. No significant genotoxic effects were detected in the cells analyzed, although the highest occurrence (MN and DNA damages) was observed in anthropized site. The percentage of genomic damage differed between the sites studied, being always higher in anthropizes site as well. Of the nucleoids analyzed in this site, on average, 28 ± 14.42% of the cells were classified in the highest damage class. The fish analyzed in the present study are direct influenced of xenobiont agents capable of producing damage to the genetic material of aquatic organisms in both sites and, consequently, may bring consequences still little reported in studies of morphophysiological alterations in humans.

Productivity of CNPq Researchers from Different Fields in Biomedical Sciences: The Need for Objective Bibliometric Parameters-A Report from Brazil.

In Brazil, the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) provides grants, funds and fellowships to productive scientists to support their investigations. They are ranked and categorized into four hierarchical levels ranging from PQ 1A (the highest) to PQ 1D (the lowest). Few studies, however, report and analyse scientific productivity in different sub-fields of Biomedical Sciences (BS), e.g., Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Biophysics and Physiology. In fact, systematic comparisons of productivity among the PQ 1 categories within the above sub-fields are lacking in the literature. Here, the scientific productivity of 323 investigators receiving PQ 1 fellowships (A to D levels) in these sub-fields of BS was investigated. The Scopus database was used to compile the total number of articles, citations, h-index values and authorship positions (first-, co- or last-listed author) in the most cited papers by researchers granted CNPq fellowships. We found that researchers from Pharmacology had the best performance for all of the parameters analysed, followed by those in Biochemistry. There was great variability in scientific productivity within the PQ 1A level in all of the sub-fields of BS, but not within the other levels (1B, 1C and 1D). Analysis of the most cited papers of PQ 1(A-D) researchers in Pharmacology revealed that the citations of researchers in the 1C and 1D levels were associated with publications with their senior supervisors, whereas those in the 1B level were less connected with their supervisors in comparison to those in 1A. Taken together, these findings suggest that the scientific performance of PQ 1A researchers in BS is not homogenous. In our opinion, parameters such as the most cited papers without the involvement of Ph.D. and/or post-doctoral supervisors should be used to make decisions regarding any given researcher's fellowship award level.

Systematic assessment of the impact of oral appliance therapy on the temporomandibular joint during treatment of obstructive sleep apnea: long-term evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the symptoms of temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea treated with long-term use of an oral appliance (OA) using a questionnaire based on the Helkimo Anamnestic Dysfunction Index. A further aim of the study was to evaluate the presence of daytime sleepiness using the Epworth Sleep Scale (ESS) and otologic symptoms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Polysomnograms of 34 patients were performed at baseline and after 6 months of OA use. As follow-up, the patients were contacted by telephone interview to answer the same questionnaires after 36.0 +/- 17.0 months. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The intensity of TMD symptoms decreased significantly throughout treatment (p < 0.01). ESS values improved from 12.2 +/- 5.0 to 6.9 +/- 2.6 (p < or = 0.05). Tinnitus was present in nine patients at baseline and decreased in intensity in seven patients by the final assessment while remaining at the same level in two patients. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that long-term usage of an OA does not cause impairment to the temporomandibular joint. The Helkimo and otologic indexes are simple and useful in long-term patient follow-up. There was a long-term improvement in the ESS values over the years analyzed. A follow-up program could increase compliance by motivating patients to use the device regularly.