Evaluation of the supply of Duddingtonia flagrans for the control of gastrointestinal parasites in sheep.

Parasitic resistance imposes alternative control methods, like nematophagous fungi. In this study, two experiments were conducted supplying Duddingtonia flagrans aiming to evaluate the biological control of parasites in sheep. In the first, 24 sheep naturally infected by gastrointestinal nematodes were allocated, in randomized blocks, following the treatments: control or treated group, 0.5g/animal product containing D. flagrans, chlamydospores. Weight, body score, Famacha©, egg count per gram of feces (EPG), and larval percentage were evaluated. In the second experiment, D. flagrans (0.25 and 0.5g product) was infested with manure, plus or not protein concentrate, in a completely randomized design. In both experiments the dose was intentionally lower than recommended. Recovery and larval identification were performed. The SAS analyzed the variables by the MIXED procedure, repeated measures in time. Weight, body score, hematocrit, and Famacha© did not show differences between treatments (p>0.05); however, EPG (p<0.001) and the percentage of larvae identified in coproculture were different. In the second experiment, the inclusion of the fungus did not influence the recovery of larvae (p>0.05). In both experiments, colonization and advancement of the fungus were visualized. Under the experimental conditions, the fungus D. flagrans was not effective in the biological control of parasitic infection in sheep.

Portuguese recommendations for the use of biological therapies in patients with axial spondyloarthritis - 2016 update.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations for the treatment of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with biological therapies, endorsed by the Portuguese Society of Rheumatology. METHODS: These treatment recommendations were formulated by Portuguese rheumatologists based on literature evidence and consensus opinion. At a national meeting, the 7 recommendations included in this document were discussed and updated. A draft of the full text of the recommendations was then circulated and suggestions were incorporated. A final version was again circulated before publication and the level of agreement among Portuguese Rheumatologists was anonymously assessed using an online survey. RESULTS: A consensus was achieved regarding the initiation, assessment of response and switching of biological therapies in patients with axSpA. In total, seven recommendations were produced. The first recommendation is a general statement indicating that biological therapy is not a first-line drug treatment option and should only be used after conventional treatment has failed. The second recommendation is also a general statement about the broad concept of axSpA adopted by these recommendations that includes both non-radiographic and radiographic axSpA. Recommendations 3 to 7 deal with the definition of active disease (including the recommended threshold of 2.1 for the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score [ASDAS] or the threshold of 4 [0-10 scale] for the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI]), conventional treatment failure (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs being the first-line drug treatment), assessment of response to treatment (based on an ASDAS improvement  of at least 1.1 units or a BASDAI improvement of at least 2 units [0-10 scale] or at least 50%), and strategy in the presence of an inadequate response (where switching is recommended) or in the presence of long-term remission (where a process of biological therapy optimization can be considered, either a gradual increase in the interval between doses or a decrease of each dose of the biological therapy). CONCLUSION: These recommendations may be used for guidance in deciding which patients with axSpA should be treated with biological therapies. They cover a rapidly evolving area of therapeutic intervention. As more evidence becomes available and more biological therapies are licensed, these recommendations will have to be updated.