Rapid, on-site quantitative determination of mycotoxins in grains using a multiple time-resolved fluorescent microsphere immunochromatographic test strip.

The label probe plays a crucial role in enhancing the sensitivity of lateral flow immunoassays. However, conventional fluorescent microspheres (FMs) have limitations due to their short fluorescence lifetime, susceptibility to background fluorescence interference, and inability to facilitate multi-component detection. In this study, carboxylate-modified Eu(III)-chelate-doped polystyrene nanobeads were employed as label probes to construct a multiple time-resolved fluorescent microsphere-based immunochromatographic test strip (TRFM-ICTS). This novel TRFM-ICTS facilitated rapid on-site quantitative detection of three mycotoxins in grains: Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), Zearalenone (ZEN), and Deoxynivalenol (DON). The limit of detection (LOD) for AFB1, ZEN, and DON were found to be 0.03 ng/g, 0.11 ng/g, and 0.81 ng/g, respectively. Furthermore, the TRFM-ICTS demonstrated a wide detection range for AFB1 (0.05-8.1 ng/g), ZEN (0.125-25 ng/g), and DON (1.0-234 ng/g), while maintaining excellent selectivity. Notably, the test strip exhibited remarkable stability, retaining its detection capability even after storage at 4 °C for over one year. Importantly, the detection of these mycotoxins relied solely on simple manual operations, and with a portable reader, on-site detection could be accomplished within 20 min. This TRFM-ICTS presents a promising solution for sensitive on-site mycotoxin detection, suitable for practical application in various settings due to its sensitivity, accuracy, simplicity, and portability.

Rational design of peptide-based fluorescent probe for sequential recognitions of Cu(II) ions and glyphosate: Smartphone, test strip, real sample and living cells applications.

A new peptide-based fluorescent probe named DMDH with easy-to-synthesize, excellent stability, good water solubility and large Stokes shift (225 nm) was synthesized for highly selective sequential detections of copper ions (Cu2+) and glyphosate (Glyp). DMDH demonstrated great detection performance towards Cu2+via strong fluorescence quenching, and forming non-fluorescence DMDH-Cu2+ ensemble. As a new promising cascade probe, the fluorescence of DMDH-Cu2+ ensemble was significantly recovered based on displacement approach after glyphosate was added. Interestingly, the limit of detections (LODs) for Cu2+ and glyphosate were 40.6 nM and 10.6 nM, respectively, which were far lower than those recommended by the WHO guidelines for drinking water. More importantly, DMDH was utilized to evaluate Cu2+ and glyphosate content in three real water samples, demonstrating that its effectiveness in water quality monitoring. Additionally, it is worth noting that DMDH was also applied to analyze Cu2+ and glyphosate in living cells in view of significant cells permeability and low cytotoxicity. Moreover, DMDH soaked in filter paper was used to create qualitative test strips and visually identify Cu2+ and glyphosate through significant color changes. Furthermore, smartphone RGB color recognition provided a new method for semi-quantitative testing of Cu2+ and glyphosate in the absence of expensive instruments.

Desempenho de diferentes marcas de tiras reagentes relativo à densidade e à análise química da urina de cães e gatos / Performance of different brands of reagent strips for density and chemical analysis of dog and cat urine

Objetivou-se verificar a compatibilidade entre diferentes marcas de tiras reagentes para urinálise, tanto de uso veterinário, como de uso humano, e confrontar os parâmetros semiquantitativos desse instrumento com métodos quantitativos. Para isso, foram analisadas 77 amostras frescas de urina de cães e gatos e testados 04 modelos de tiras reagentes. Quanto à densidade urinária, houve correlação razoável entre os métodos quantitativo e semiquantitativo naquelas amostras com pH ácido, mas não naquelas com pH neutro ou alcalino. Quanto à concentração proteica, houve similaridade de 53,3% a 83,3% entre as marcas testadas e quando comparadas com a análise fotométrica houve uma correlação razoável (rs = 0,69752 a 0,75074). Em ponto de corte de 15mg/dL de proteína, a sensibilidade da tira reagente foi 82,5% e 100% para urina canina e felina, respectivamente. No tocante à hematúria, houve divergência razoável entre a sedimentoscopia e as diferentes marcas de tiras reativas. Quanto à piúria, há uma baixa sensibilidade das tiras em relação às amostras caninas com muitos resultados falso-negativos (33% a 75%), enquanto em amostras felinas a sensibilidade foi de 100%. Assim, independente da marca, as tiras reagentes devem servir apenas como teste rápido de triagem, sendo mais apropriado o uso de métodos quantitativos na avaliação clínica do paciente a partir da urinálise.

The aim was to verify the compatibility between different brands of urinary dipsticks, for both human and veterinary use, and to compare the semiquantitative parameters of this instrument with quantitative methods. For this, 77 fresh samples of urine from dogs and cats were analyzed e and 04 models of reagent strips were tested. Regarding urinary density, a reasonable correlation was observed between the quantitative and semiquantitative methods in those samples with acidic pH, which did not occur in those with neutral or alkaline pH. Regarding the protein concentration, there was similarity from 53.3% to 83.3% between the brands and in the comparative analysis between the control strip and the photometric analysis, there was a reasonable correlation (rs = 0.69752 to 0.75074). In cut-off point of 15mg/dL protein, the sensitivity of the reagent strip was 82.5% and 100% for canine and feline urine, respectively. Regarding hematuria, there was a reasonable divergence of results between sedimentation and tested dipsticks. As for pyuria, there is a low sensitivity of the strips in relation to canine samples with many false negative results (33% to 75%), while in feline samples the sensitivity was 100%. Thus, regardless of the brands, the reagent strips should serve only as a rapid screening test, while the use of quantitative methods in the clinical evaluation of the patient from urinalysis is more appropriate.

Portrait de l'usage des bandelettes d'autosurveillance de la glycémie chez les assurés du régime public d'assurance médicaments du Québec avant et après la publication du guide d'usage optimal de l'INESSS sur l'autosurveillance glycémique / A portrait of the use of blood glucose monitoring strips among Quebec public drug plan insured before and After the publication of the INESSS optimal use guide on glycemic self-monitoring

INTRODUCTION: En décembre 2013, l'Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux (INESSS) a publié un guide d'usage optimal (GUO) sur l'autosurveillance de la glycémie (ASG). Afin de documenter l'effet de ce GUO, l'INESSS a dressé un portrait de l'usage des bandelettes d'ASG facturées au régime public d'assurance médicaments du Québec (RPAM) avant et après sa publication. L'étude descriptive menée pour évaluer les effets du GUO sur la facturation des bandelettes d'ASG comprenait trois objectifs spécifiques. Le premier objectif spécifique a permis de décrire le nombre d'utilisateurs, le nombre d'ordonnances de bandelettes, le nombre de bandelettes facturées et leur coût en fonction des catégories d'antidiabétiques prescrits pendant une année, soit de 2012 à 2013 et de 2014 à 2015. Le deuxième objectif spécifique a permis de dresser un portrait de l'intensité d'usage des bandelettes avant et après la publication du GUO sur l'ASG. Le troisième objectif spécifique portait sur la descript

Análisis de costes del tratamiento de la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 con insulina glargina o detemir / Costs analysis of type 2 diabetes mellitus treatment with insulin glargine or detemir

Introducción: Diversos estudios publicados han revelado que algunos pacientesque inician el tratamiento con insulina detemir, cuya administraciónrecomendada es de una vez al día, requieren finalmente una administracióndos veces al día para optimizar el control de la glucosa sanguínea. Los resultadosclínicos se han evaluado en esta población seleccionada mediante unensayo clínico aleatorizado. Objetivo: Comparar los costes de dos tratamientoscon insulina (glargina y detemir) en la diabetes mellitus tipo 2 en pacientesno controlados con antidiabéticos orales. Métodos: Análisis de compensaciónde costes sanitarios, modelizado desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional deSalud español (considerando únicamente los costes directos sanitarios). Sesimuló la utilización de los recursos asociados al tratamiento de la diabetestipo 2 con glargina y detemir, respecto a las dosis de insulina administradas, lautilización de tiras reactivas para el autoanálisis de la glucemia y el consumode agujas desechables. Las dosis de glargina y detemir se obtuvieron de unensayo clínico que comparó ambas insulinas durante 24 semanas. La utilizaciónde tiras reactivas y de agujas desechables se estimó de acuerdo con lapráctica clínica en España. Los costes unitarios se tomaron de fuentes y basesde datos españolas. Resultados: En los pacientes tratados con glargina seadministró una menor dosis diaria de insulina que con detemir y, por tanto, seprodujo un menor coste diario del tratamiento insulínico, así como un menorconsumo de tiras reactivas y agujas. En consecuencia, la utilización de glarginaen lugar de detemir se asociaría a un ahorro anual de 765,03 € por pacientecon diabetes tipo 2, lo que supone un ahorro de un 43,3% con glarginafrente a detemir. En el análisis de sensibilidad, el ahorro anual por pacientetratado con glargina osciló entre 646,05 y 810,55 €(AU)

Conclusiones: Deacuerdo con el presente modelo, en la población estudiada la insulina glarginaes un tratamiento de la diabetes tipo 2 más coste-efectiva que la insulina detemiry se asocia a unos menores costes anuales de tratamiento(AU)

Introduction: Large published data suggested that some patients initiatingwith the recommended once daily insulin detemir administration require twicedaily dosing to optimise blood glucose control. Therefore the clinical outcomein this selected population was tested in a randomized controlled trial. Objective:To compare the costs of two treatments of type 2 diabetes mellitus, insulinglargine and insulin detemir, in patients with type 2 diabetes not controlledwith oral antidiabetic agents. Methods: Costs-offset analysis was modelledfrom the Spanish National Health System perspective, taking into account thehealth direct costs. A simulation of resources use related with glargine and detemirin type 2 diabetes treatment was performed, taking into account insulinadministered doses, utilization of test strips for glycemia control and disposableneedles used. The glargine and detemir doses were obtained from one clinicaltrial comparing both insulins for 24 weeks. The test strips and disposableneed les use were estimated from the Spanish clinical practice. Unit costs weretaken from Spanish sources and databases. Results: Lower daily doses were administeredwith glargine than with detemir. Therefore, the use of glargine insteaddetemir would result in a lower daily cost of insulin treatment, and alower use of test strips and disposable needles. As a consequence, the glargineuse would result in an annual saving of 765.03 € for a patient with type 2diabetes, 43.3% savings with glargine versus detemir. According to the sensitivityanalysis, the annual saving for a patient treated with glargine was between646.05 and 810.55 €. Conclusions: According to this model, in the abovementioned population, glargine insulin is a more cost-effective treatment thandetemir insulin, with lower annual treatment costs(AU)