Objectives To assess whether the cutaneous features in patients with dengue fever are associated with abnormal blood biochemistry, complications, and poor disease outcome. Methods Forty five patients with dengue fever were identified at a medical center in Kaohsiung, Taiwan, from September to November 2014. All cases were exclusively caused by type 1 dengue virus. Patients were classified into two groups, based on the presence or absence of skin rash, and their rash was subclassified into maculopapular, morbilliform, and petechial types. Clinical symptoms, laboratory data, disease outcome, and complications were compared between the two groups. Results Thirty two patients with dengue fever developed skin rash (SP group, n = 32) while the rest of 13 did not (SN group, n = 13). The patient numbers in the maculopapular, morbilliform, and petechial group were 4, 21, and 7, respectively. The SP group was younger (P = 0.001), experienced more pruritus (P = 0.008) and more swollen palms/soles (P = 0.015) than the SN group. However, the SN group had greater genital mucosa involvement (P = 0.008), higher platelet transfusion rate (P = 0.003), and lower hemoglobin and hematocrit levels (P = 0.030) than the SP group. Patients with morbilliform lesions had a higher incidence of palm/sole swelling, less genital mucosal involvement, and a lower platelet transfusion rate than did patients with maculopapular or petechial lesions. Conclusions Cutaneous manifestations provide an important clue to dengue fever. In patients with dengue fever, those with skin rash tend to have itching and swelling of the palms/soles, however, those without skin rash tend to have more complications and poor disease outcomes.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the efficacy of a medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diet on patients with drug-resistant epilepsy over a period of 1 year and 8 months. Methods: Patients with refractory epilepsy on a medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diet were prospectively enrolled. Their clinical condition and the effectiveness of the ketogenic diet were followed-up every month for 1 year. Adverse events and the reasons for discontinuing the diet were recorded. Results: Fifty-three patients (27 males and 26 females) were enrolled. At the end of the study, 21 patients remained on the diet, 14 of whom were followed-up for 1 year. Among the 53 patients, 22.6% had a more than 50% reduction in seizure frequency, and 16.9% became seizure-free. Conclusions: After a 1-year follow-up, the use of a medium-chain triglyceride ketogenic diet for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy was found to be a safe and effective therapy, and may be considered to bean alternative for patients with difficult-to-control seizures in children as well as young adults.
Epilepsy

Background: Goslings in several Taiwanese farms experienced gosling feather loss disease (GFL) at 21–35 days and goose broke feather disease (GBF) at 42–60 days. The prevalence ranges from a few birds to 500 cases per field. It is estimated that about 12,000 geese have been infected, the morbidity is 70–80% and the mortality is 20–30%. Objectives: This study aims to investigate the pathogens that cause GFL and GBF. Focus on the study of the correlation between goose circovirus (GoCV) and goose parvovirus (GPV) with the goose feather loss in southern Taiwan. Furthermore, a phylogenetic tree was established to align the differences between southern and northern Taiwan and compare with virus strains from China and Europe. Methods: Samples were collected from animal hospitals. Molecular and microscopy diagnostics were used to examine 92 geese. Specific quantitative polymerase chain reaction (Q-PCR) assays are performed to evaluate GPV and GoCV viral loads and simultaneously evaluated the feather loss conditions in geese with the scoring method. Results: High prevalence of GoCV and GPV infection in geese showing signs of GFL and GBF. Inclusion body was detected in the feather follicles and Lieberkühn crypt epithelial cells. The Q-PCR showed the high correlation between feather loss and viruses during 3rd– 5th week. However, the infection was not detected using the same test in 60 healthy geese. Conclusions Thus, GFL and GBF appear to be significantly closely related to GoCV and GPV. The geese feathers showed increasing recovery after being quarantined and disinfected.

Chicken anemia virus (CAV) is an important viral pathogen that causes anemia and severe immunodeficiency syndrome in chickens worldwide. In this study, a potential diagnostic monoclonal antibody against the CAV VP1 protein was developed which can precisely recognize the CAV antigen for diagnostic and virus recovery purposes. The VP1 gene of CAV encoding the N-terminus-deleted VP1 protein, VP1Nd129, was cloned into an Escherichia (E.) coli expression vector. After isopropyl-beta-D-thiogalactopyronoside induction, VP1Nd129 protein was shown to be successfully expressed in the E. coli. By performing an enzyme-linked immunoabsorbent assay using two coating antigens, purified VP1Nd129 and CAV-infected liver tissue lysate, E3 monoclonal antibody (mAb) was found to have higher reactivity against VP1 protein than the other positive clones according to the result of limiting dilution method from 64 clones. Using immunohistochemistry, the presence of the VP1-specific mAb, E3, was confirmed using CAV-infected liver and thymus tissues as positive-infected samples. Additionally, CAV particle purification was also performed using an immunoaffinity column containing E3 mAb. The monoclonal E3 mAb developed in this study will not only be very useful for detecting CAV infection and performing histopathology studies of infected chickens, but may also be used to purify CAV particles in the future.
Animals ; Antibodies, Monoclonal/biosynthesis/genetics/*immunology ; Antigens, Viral/analysis ; Capsid Proteins/genetics/*immunology ; Chicken anemia virus/genetics/*immunology ; *Chickens ; Circoviridae Infections/blood/immunology/*veterinary/virology ; Escherichia coli/genetics ; Immunohistochemistry/veterinary ; Liver/virology ; Mice ; Mice, Inbred BALB C ; Microscopy, Fluorescence/veterinary ; Poultry Diseases/blood/immunology/*virology ; Specific Pathogen-Free Organisms ; Thymus Gland/virology

BACKGROUNDEarly detection with screening mammography can potentially reduce breast cancer mortality rates. To achieve an efficient screening, a peer review system provides a compensatory double-check reviewing, will hopefully to prevent the omission of detectable lesions and reduce unnecessary recall.

METHODSIn 2009, 4643 initial mammographic screenings reported by 74 screening radiologists had negative results with a recall rate of less than 5%. In the same year, 2538 initial positives screened by 18 screening radiologists had a recall rate higher than 15%. Those 7181 randomized screenings were evenly distributed for reassessment by 39 reviewing radiologists. The disagreement of assessments between the reviewers and screening radiologists was recorded. The differential rate was defined as the number of the disagreements divided by the number of audited films reviewed by a screening radiologist. The equality of the differential rates for each screening radiologists with negative and positive assessments was compared by a Chi-square test. The performance of the 39 auditors was measured by the Kendall's tau statistic. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTSThe mean differential rate for screening radiologists of negative assessments was 6.7% (P = 0.588), while 35.0% for positive assessments were significant (P < 0.001). The result indicated that most of the initial negative assessments reported by the screening radiologists were generally accepted by the reviewers but not the positive assessments. With respect to the 39 reviewers, there was no significant evidence for the association of the difference rates between negative and positive assessments. Nine reviewers were found to have their differential rate for negative and positive assessments larger than the average of the population. Eleven reviewers were found to have their differential rates smaller than the average for both. Thirteen reviewers had their differential rates smaller than the average for negative assessments but larger than the average for positive assessments. The opposite condition was found for six reviewers. The Kendall's tau statistic was 0.038 (P = 0.735).

CONCLUSIONSReviewers usually agreed with the opinion of the initial screening doctors who reported negative findings. Therefore, a 5% recall rate as the lower range of reviewing negatives may be still too high. The recall rate of more than 15% was significantly related to improper interpretation, especially when the differential rate is 25% or higher, a warning to the underperforming screening radiologist is recommended. An ideal reviewer should interpret films independently. Reviewers with tendencies to be followers or contrarians should not be enrolled in the reviewing system.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.