No abstract

33 cats, suffering from chronic stomatitis, were treated with orally given paramunity inducer I'IND-ORF (local paramunization). As a control 39 cats in the same practice were treated with other conventional methods.The reconvalescence rate (healing without rezidives) of experimental animals was 42 YO. From control animals only 13 YO reached this status. Oral paramunization with PIND-ORF is recommended as an alternative treatment for hitherto existing therapeutic measures against chronic stomatitis.

International and national laws promote stakeholder collaboration and the inclusion of the community in flood risk management (FRM). Currently, relocation as a mitigation strategy against river floods in Central Europe is rarely applied. FRM needs sufficient preparation and engagement for successful implementation of household relocation. This case study deals with the extreme flood event in June 2016 at the Simbach torrent in Bavaria (Germany). The focus lies on the planning process of structural flood defense measures and the small-scale relocation of 11 households. The adaptive planning process started right after the damaging event and was executed in collaboration with authorities and stakeholders of various levels and disciplines while at the same time including the local citizens. Residents were informed early, and personal communication, as well as trust in actors, enhanced the acceptance of decisions. Although technical knowledge was shared and concerns discussed, resident participation in the planning process was restricted. However, the given pre-conditions were found beneficial. In addition, a compensation payment contributed to a successful process. Thus, the study illustrates a positive image of the implementation of the alleviation scheme. Furthermore, preliminary planning activities and precautionary behavior (e.g., natural hazard insurance) were noted as significant factors to enable effective integrated flood risk management (IFRM).

The aim of this study was to determine the frequencies and specificities of “enzyme-only” detected red blood cell (RBC) alloantibodies in the routine antibody screening and antibody identification in patients hospitalized in Austria. Routine blood samples of 2420 patients were investigated. The antibody screening was performed with a 3-cell panel in the low-ionic strength saline- (LISS-) indirect antiglobulin test (IAT) and with an enzyme-pretreated (papain) 3-cell panel fully automated on the ORTHO AutoVue Innova System. The antibody identification was carried out manually with an 11-cell panel in the LISS-IAT and with an enzyme-pretreated (papain) 11-cell panel. In total 4.05% (n = 98) of all patients (n = 2420) had a positive RBC antibody screening result. Of them 25.51% (25/98) showed “enzyme-only” detected specific or nonspecific RBC alloantibodies. Rhesus and Lewis system antibodies were found the only specificities of “enzyme-only” RBC alloantibodies: all in all 4.8% (4/98) were detected with anti-E, 3.06% (3/98) with anti-Lea, 3.06% (3/98) with anti-D after anti-D prophylaxis and 1.02% (1/98) with anti-e. In total, 14.29% (14/98) showed a nonspecific RBC alloantibody result with the enzyme test. The results of the present study demonstrate that a high number of unwanted positive reactions with the enzyme technique overshadows the detection of “enzyme-only” RBC alloantibodies. (Trial Registration: K-37-13).

Summary Comparative studies on the immunostimulating (paramunizing) effectiveness of BCG, levamisole, Corynebacterium parvum and preparations of pock viruses in various in vitro and in vivo tests There are 3 classical immunostimulants: BCG, levamisole and C. parvum. For some years in veterinary medicine two immunostimulants from pock or parapock viruses have been employed as paramunity inducers with success (PIND‐AVI, PIND‐ORF). In order to explore in detail the functional bases of the above preparations, they were compared by the following tests: 1. In 2 infection models (vesicular stomatitis and Aujesky virus; 2. In a tumour model (radiation induced osteosarcoma in the mouse); 3. The chromium 51 test to demonstrate spontaneous (natural) cytotoxicity; 4. An indirect plaque reduction test to detect stimulation from interferon; and 5. The lymphocyte transformation test. The results showed that the effect of the individual immunostimulants can vary very widely. Both paramunity inducers were effective in all the 5 tests and were harmless. PIND‐AVI, however, activated above all the lymphocyte, whereas PIND‐ORF had NK (natural mouse spleen killer cells) activity and was the only one of the 5 immunostimulants which also stimulated interferon production. C. parvum, BCG and levamisole were significantly less effective and they were also pyrogenic and in some cases also toxic. The main point arising from the study is that when using immunostimulants it is essential to know precisely how they act and also the damaging effects of the individual agents if the desired effects are to be achieved without harm to the patients. The 5 test systems which we used seem to be the ones of choice for the purpose. Special attention is directed to preparations of pock viruses which act as harmless but effective immunostimulants. Zusammenfassung Es gibt drei klassische Immunstimulantien: BCG, Levamisol und C. parvum. In der Tiermedizin werden seit Jahren 2 Immunstimulantien, die aus Pocken‐ bzw. Parapockenviren hergestellt werden, als sog. Paramunitätsinducer mit Erfolg verwendet (PIND‐AVI, PIND‐ORF). Um die funktionellen Grundlagen obiger Präparate detailliert erfassen zu können, sind sie in folgenden Testen vergleichend untersucht worden: 1. in 2 Infektionsmodellen (Stomatitis vesicularis‐, Aujeszky‐Virus), 2. in einem Tumormodell (strahleninduziertes Osteosarkom der Maus), 3. im Chromium 51‐Test zum Nachweis der spontanen, natürlichen Zytotoxizität, 4. im indirekten Plaque‐Reduktions‐Test zum Nachweis der Stimulierung von Interferon und 5. im Lymphozyten‐Transformationstest. Die Untersuchungsergebnisse weisen darauf hin, daß die Wirkung der einzelnen Immunstimulantien sehr unterschiedlich sein kann. Die beiden Paramunitätsinducer waren in allen Testen wirksam und unschädlich. Trotzdem unterschieden sie sich. PIND‐AVI aktivierte vor allem die Lymphozyten, während PIND‐ORF besonders die NK‐Aktivität und, als einziges der 5 Präparate, auch die Interferonbildung stimulierte. C. parvum, BCG und Levamisol schnitten wesentlich schlechter ab, w...