Biosurfactant matrix for the environmental clean-up of dichlorophenol from aqueous medium and soil.

Chlorophenols are used in many industries for their importance in preservation and herbicide preparation even though they possess high-risk factors. The prolonged usage of these compounds makes it very complicated to remove them from water and soil by conventional treatment methods. Biosurfactant are the promising structures with the ability to remove contaminants effectively. In this work, an attempt has been made to eliminate 2,4-dichlorophenol from soil and water using amino acid-enhanced cationic biosurfactant obtained from Bacillus axarquiensis. The produced BS has the ability to reduce the surface tension to 30.0 mN m-1. From RSM, the optimum conditions for the maximum production of BS were obtained at time 95 h; pH 7; temperature 35 °C, and concentration of substrate 5%. The BS was immobilized using a solid support matrix for the stability. The environmental factors such as temperature and pH have no effect on the matrix used and found to be viable even under extreme conditions. The removal efficiency was achieved in the range of 93-96% from water and 80-85% from soil. Additionally, the recyclability and reusability of the matrix were also analyzed, and it withstands up to 8 cycles. As a result, the significance of biosurfactant by enhancing the amino acid content was explored in remediation technology.

Lacosamide in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Similar responses?

PURPOSE: Epilepsy prevalence is significantly higher in people with Intellectual Disability (ID) compared to people with epilepsy (PWE) from the general population. Increased psychological and behavioural problems, healthcare costs, morbidity, mortality and treatment resistance to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is associated with epilepsy in ID populations. Prescribing AEDs for PWE and ID is challenging and influenced heavily by studies conducted with the general population. Our study compares Lacosamide (LCM) response for the ID population to those from the general population; using data from an UK based epilepsy database register (EP ID/PDD AED Register). METHODS: Pooled retrospective case notes data for PWE prescribed LCM at 11 UK NHS Trusts were analysed. Participants were classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate-profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of 232 consented participants, 156 were from the general population and 76 had ID (24 mild, 52 moderate-profound). Twelve month withdrawal rates and reasons, efficacy, side-effects, start and maximum doses were similar between the groups. Dose titration between baseline and three months was significantly slower in the ID group (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: There were no differences for LCM outcomes between general and ID groups. Slower LCM titration in ID populations in the first 3 months was associated with higher retention and lower behavioural side effects as compared to similar European studies.

Perampanel in the general population and in people with intellectual disability: Differing responses.

PURPOSE: There is a shortfall of suitably powered studies to provide evidence for safe prescribing of AEDs to people with Intellectual Disability (ID). We report clinically useful information on differences in response to Perampanel (PER) adjunctive treatment for refractory epilepsy between ID sub-groups and general population from the UK Ep-ID Research Register. METHOD: Pooled retrospective case notes data of consented people with epilepsy (PWE) prescribed PER from 6 UK centres was classified as per WHO guidance into groups of moderate -profound ID, mild ID and General population. Demographics, concomitant AEDs, starting and maximum dosage, exposure length, adverse effects, dropout rates, seizure type and frequency were collected. Group differences were reported as odds ratios estimated from univariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Of the 144 PWE (General population 71, Mild ID 48, Moderate to profound ID 48) examined the association between withdrawal and ID type was marginally statistically significant (p=0.07). Moderate to profound ID PWE were less likely to come off PER compared to mild ID (OR=0.19, CI=0.04-0.92, p=0.04). Differences in mental health side effects by groups was marginally statistically significant (p=0.06). Over 50% seizure improvement was seen in 11% of General population, 24% mild ID and 26% Moderate to profound ID. CONCLUSIONS: PER seems safe in PWE with ID. It is better tolerated by PWE with Moderate to profound ID than PWE with higher functioning. Caution is advised when history of mental health problems is present. The standardised approach of the Ep-ID register UK used confirms that responses to AEDs by different ID groups vary between themselves and General population.

Donepezil for dementia in people with Down syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is the most common form of dementia in people with Down Syndrome [DS]. Acetylcholine is a chemical found in the brain that has an important role in memory, attention, reason and language. Donepezil a reversible inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase, which is thought to maintain levels of acetylcholine, and is reported to have some benefits for people with AD in the general population. It is important to note that people with DS tend to present with AD at a much younger age than the normal population as well as having subtle differences in physiology (e.g. metabolism and heart rate) and may therefore have different requirements from the general population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of donepezil for people with DS who develop AD. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, SCI, SSCI and the NRR were searched up to October 2008. We contacted the manufacturers of donepezil as well as experts in the field, to ask about reports of unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with DS and AD in which treatment with donepezil was administered compared with a placebo group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted from the published reports of the one relevant study identified. MAIN RESULTS: The one study included in this review is a small (n=30) randomised controlled trial lasting 24 weeks. It was followed-up by an open label study with a crossover design.No significant differences were found on any four validated outcomes including global functioning and three measures of cognitive abilities and behavioural problems. 6 out of 16 carers (37%) of participants on donepezil and 2 out of 15 (13%) on placebo reported improvement. No data were available for day to day skills, institutionalisation, reduction in carers' stress or economic outcomes. Half the intervention group and 20% of the placebo group reported adverse events; two participants left because of adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: To date there is only one small randomised controlled study on the effect of donepezil. This shows, at best, a modest, non statistically significant trend in favour of people with Down syndrome and Alzheimer's dementia who are able to tolerate donepezil (this drug is currently only dispensed in relatively large doses and is contraindicated for those with cardiac and respiratory problems).This study does not provide good evidence on which to base practice. Findings in an open-label follow up to this study suggest possible benefit in some individuals. Further, larger randomised controlled studies with longer-term follow up are required.

Galantamine for dementia in people with Down syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is the most common form of dementia in people with Down Syndrome (DS). Acetylcholine is a chemical found in the brain that has an important role in memory, attention, reason and language. Galantamine both inhibits the activity of acetylcholinesterase and increases the level of acetylcholine. Galantamine can improve cognitive function and slow the decline of AD in the general population over time. It is important to note that people with DS tend to present with AD at a much younger age than the normal population as well as having subtle differences in physiology (e.g. metabolism and heart rate) and may therefore have different requirements from the general population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of galantamine for people with DS who develop AD. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, SCI, SSCI and the NRR were searched up to October 2008. We contacted the manufacturers of galantamine as well as experts in the field, to ask about reports of unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with DS and AD in which treatment with galantamine was administered compared with a placebo group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No study was identified which met inclusion criteria for this review. MAIN RESULTS: No study was identified which met inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As there are no included trials, recommendations cannot be made about galantamine for AD in DS. Well-designed, adequately powered studies are required.

Memantine for dementia in people with Down syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is the most common form of dementia in people with Down Syndrome (DS). There is an understanding that an increase in L-glutamate contributes to the pathogenesis of cerebral ischemias and AD. Memantine acts as an antagonist of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) type receptors, which is thought to reduce abnormal activation of glutamate neurotransmission. It binds with a low affinity to the NMDA receptor and so should not prevent learning and the formation of memory. Memantine can improve cognitive function and slow the decline of AD in the general population over time, and is the subject of this review. It is important to note that people with DS tend to present with AD at a much younger age than the normal population as well as having subtle differences in physiology (e.g. metabolism and heart rate) and may therefore have different requirements from the general population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of memantine for people with DS who develop AD. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, SCI, SSCI and the NRR were searched up to October 2008. We contacted the manufacturers of memantine, as well as experts in the field, to ask about reports of unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with DS and AD in which treatment with memantine was administered compared with a placebo group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No study was identified which met the inclusion criteria for this review. MAIN RESULTS: No study was identified which met inclusion criteria for this review, however there is an on-going randomised controlled study being conducted in the UK and data are expected in 2009. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As there are no included trials, recommendations cannot be made about memantine for AD in DS. Well-designed, adequately powered studies are required.

Rivastigmine for dementia in people with Down syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's dementia (AD) is the most common form of dementia in people with Down Syndrome (DS). Acetylcholine is a chemical found in the brain that has an important role in memory, attention, reason and language. Rivastigmine is a "pseudo-irreversible" inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase, which is thought to maintain levels of acetylcholine. Rivastigmine can improve cognitive function and slow the decline of AD in the general population over time. It is important to note that people with DS tend to present with AD at a much younger age than the normal population as well as having subtle differences in physiology (e.g. metabolism and heart rate) and may therefore have different requirements from the general population. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of rivastigmine for people with DS who develop AD. SEARCH STRATEGY: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, SCI, SSCI and the NRR were searched up to October 2008. We contacted the manufacturers of rivastigmine as well as experts in the field, to ask about reports of unpublished or ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with DS and AD in which treatment with rivastigmine was administered compared with a placebo group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: No study was identified which met inclusion criteria for this review. MAIN RESULTS: No study was identified which met inclusion criteria for this review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As there are no included trials, recommendations cannot be made about rivastigmine for AD in DS. Well-designed, adequately powered studies are required.