TY  - JOUR
A1  - Kann, Simone
A1  - Bruennert, Daniela
A1  - Hansen, Jessica
A1  - Concha Mendoza, Gustavo Andrés
A1  - Crespo Gonzalez, José José
A1  - Armenta Quintero, Cielo Leonor
A1  - Hanke, Miriam
A1  - Hagen, Ralf Matthias
A1  - Backhaus, Joy
A1  - Frickmann, Hagen
T1  - High prevalence of intestinal pathogens in Indigenous in Colombia
JF  - Journal of Clinical Medicine
N2  - Background: Intestinal infections remain a major public health burden in developing countries. Due to social, ecological, environmental, and cultural conditions, Indigenous peoples in Colombia are at particularly high risk. Materials: 137 stool samples were analyzed by microscopy and real-time-Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR), targeting protozoan parasites (Giardia intestinalis, Entamoeba histolytica, Cryptosporidium spp., and Cyclospora cayetanensis), bacteria (Campylobacter jejuni, Salmonella spp., Shigella ssp./enteroinvasive E. coli (EIEC), Yersinia spp., enterohemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC), enterotoxin-producing E. coli (ETEC), enteroaggregative E. coli (EAEC), and Tropheryma whipplei), and helminths (Necator americanus, Strongyloides stercoralis, Ascaris lumbricoides, Ancylostoma spp., Trichuris. trichiura, Taenia spp., Hymenolepis nana, Enterobius vermicularis, and Schistosoma spp.). Microscopy found additional cases of helminth infections. Results: At least one pathogen was detected in 93% of the samples. The overall results revealed protozoa in 79%, helminths in 69%, and bacteria in 41%. G. intestinalis (48%), Necator/hookworm (27%), and EAEC (68%) were the most common in each group. Noteworthy, T. whipplei was positive in 7% and T. trichirua in 23% of the samples. A significant association of one infection promoting the other was determined for G. intestinalis and C. jejuni, helminth infections, and EIEC. Conclusions: The results illustrate the high burden of gastrointestinal pathogens among Indigenous peoples compared to other developing countries. Countermeasures are urgently required.
KW  - protozoa infections
KW  - helminthes
KW  - bacterial infections
KW  - gastrointestinal infection
Y1  - 2020
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-211289
SN  - 2077-0383
VL  - 9
IS  - 9
ER  - 
TY  - JOUR
A1  - Edelmann, Frank
A1  - Musial-Bright, Lindy
A1  - Gelbrich, Goetz
A1  - Trippel, Tobias
A1  - Radenovic, Sara
A1  - Wachter, Rolf
A1  - Inkrot, Simone
A1  - Loncar, Goran
A1  - Tahirovic, Elvis
A1  - Celic, Vera
A1  - Veskovic, Jovan
A1  - Zdravkovic, Marija
A1  - Lainscak, Mitja
A1  - Apostolović, Svetlana
A1  - Neskovic, Aleksandar N.
A1  - Pieske, Burkert
A1  - Düngen, Hans-Dirk
T1  - Tolerability and feasibility of beta-blocker titration in HFpEF versus HFrEF: Insights from the CIBIS-ELD trial
JF  - JACC: Heart Failure
N2  - OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the tolerability and feasibility of titration of 2 distinctly acting beta-blockers (BB) in elderly heart failure patients with preserved (HFpEF) and reduced (HFrEF) left ventricular ejection fraction. 
BACKGROUND: Broad evidence supports the use of BB in HFrEF, whereas the evidence for beta blockade in HFpEF is uncertain. 
METHODS: In the CIBIS-ELD (Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study in Elderly) trial, patients >65 years of age with HFrEF (n = 626) or HFpEF (n = 250) were randomized to bisoprolol or carvedilol. Both BB were up-titrated to the target or maximum tolerated dose. Follow-up was performed after 12 weeks. HFrEF and HFpEF patients were compared regarding tolerability and clinical effects (heart rate, blood pressure, systolic and diastolic functions, New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute-walk distance, quality of life, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). 
RESULTS: For both of the BBs, tolerability and daily dose at 12 weeks were similar. HFpEF patients demonstrated higher rates of dose escalation delays and treatment-related side effects. Similar HR reductions were observed in both groups (HFpEF: 6.6 beats/min; HFrEF: 6.9 beats/min, p = NS), whereas greater improvement in NYHA functional class was observed in HFrEF (HFpEF: 23% vs. HFrEF: 34%, p < 0.001). Mean E/e' and left atrial volume index did not change in either group, although E/A increased in HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: BB tolerability was comparable between HFrEF and HFpEF. Relevant reductions of HR and blood pressure occurred in both groups. However, only HFrEF patients experienced considerable improvements in clinical parameters and Left ventricular function. Interestingly, beta-blockade had no effect on established and prognostic markers of diastolic function in either group. Long-term studies using modern diagnostic criteria for HFpEF are urgently needed to establish whether BB therapy exerts significant clinical benefit in HFpEF. (Comparison of Bisoprolol and Carvedilol in Elderly Heart Failure HF] Patients: A Randomised, Double-Blind Multicentre Study CIBIS-ELD]; ISRCTN34827306).
KW  - beta-blockers
KW  - heart failure
KW  - HFpEF
KW  - HFrEF
KW  - tolerability
Y1  - 2016
U6  - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-191022
VL  - 4
IS  - 2
ER  -