Lectins are proteins with specificity of binding to certain monosaccharides or oligosaccharides. They can detect abnormal glycosylation patterns on immunoglobulins in patients with various chronic inflammatory diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and IgA nephropathy (IgAN). However, lectins exhibit binding heterogeneity, depending on their source and methods of isolation. To characterize potential differences in recognition of terminal N-acetylgalactosamine (GalNAc) on IgA1, we evaluated the binding characteristics of several commercial preparations of GalNAc-specific lectins using a panel of IgA1 and, as controls, IgA2 and IgG myeloma proteins. These lectins originated from snails Helix aspersa (HAA) and Helix pomatia (HPA), and the plant Vicia villosa (VV). Only HAA and HPA bound exclusively to IgA1, with its O-linked glycans composed of GalNAc, galactose, and sialic acid. In contrast, VV reacted with sugars of both IgA subclasses and IgG, indicating that it also recognized N-linked glycans without GalNAc. Furthermore, HAA and HPA from several manufacturers differed in their ability to bind various IgA1 myeloma proteins and other GalNAc-containing glycoproteins in ELISA and Western blot. For serum samples from IgAN patients, HAA was the optimal lectin to study IgA1 glycosylation in ELISA and Western blot assays, including identification of the sites of attachment of the aberrant glycans. The galactose-deficient glycans were site-specific, localized mostly at Thr228 and/or Ser230. Because of the heterogeneity of GalNAc-specific lectins, they should be carefully characterized with appropriate substrates before undertaking any study.
IMPORTANCE Dissatisfaction with medical malpractice litigation has stimulated interest by health care organizations in developing alternatives to meet patients' needs after medical injury. In communication-and-resolution programs (CRPs), hospitals and liability insurers communicate with patients about adverse events, use investigation findings to improve patient safety, and offer compensation when substandard care caused harm. Despite increasing interest in this approach, little is known about patients' and family members' experiences with CRPs.OBJECTIVE To explore the experiences of patients and family members with medical injuries and CRPs to understand different aspects of institutional responses to injury that promoted and impeded reconciliation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSFrom January 6 through June 30, 2016, semistructured interviews were conducted with patients (n = 27), family members (n = 3), and staff (n = 10) at 3 US hospitals that operate CRPs. Patients and families were eligible for participation if they experienced a CRP, spoke English, and could no longer file a malpractice claim because they had accepted a settlement or the statute of limitations had expired. The CRP administrators identified hospital and insurer staff who had been involved in a CRP event and had a close relationship with the injured patient and/or family. They identified patients and families by applying the inclusion criteria to their CRP databases. Of 66 possible participants, 40 interviews (61%) were completed, including 30 of 50 invited patients and families (60%) and 10 of 16 invited staff (63%). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESPatients' reported satisfaction with disclosure and reconciliation efforts made by hospitals.RESULTS A total of 40 participants completed interviews (15 men and 25 women; mean [range] age, 46 [18-67] years). Among the 30 patients and family members interviewed, 27 patients experienced injuries attributed to error and received compensation. The CRP experience was positive overall for 18 of the 30 patients and family members, and 18 patients continued to receive care at the hospital. Satisfaction was highest when communications were empathetic and nonadversarial, including compensation negotiations. Patients and families expressed a strong need to be heard and expected the attending physician to listen without interrupting during conversations about the event. Thirty-five of the 40 respondents believed that including plaintiffs' attorneys in these discussions was helpful. Sixteen of the 30 patients and family members deemed their compensation to be adequate but 17 reported that the offer was not sufficiently proactive. Patients and families strongly desired to know what the hospital did to prevent recurrences of the event, but 24 of 30 reported receiving no information about safety improvement efforts. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEAs hospitals strive to provide more patient-centered care, opportunities exist to improve institutional responses to injuries and promote reconciliation.
BackgroundDespite the investment in exploring patient-centred alternatives to medical malpractice in New Zealand (NZ), the UK and the USA, patients' experiences with these processes are not well understood. We sought to explore factors that facilitate and impede reconciliation following patient safety incidents and identify recommendations for strengthening institution-led alternatives to malpractice litigation.MethodsWe conducted semistructured interviews with 62 patients injured by healthcare in NZ, administrators of 12 public hospitals, 5 lawyers specialising in Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) claims and 3 ACC staff. NZ was chosen as the research site because it has replaced medical malpractice litigation with a no-fault scheme. Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes from interview transcripts.ResultsInterview responses converged on five elements of the reconciliation process that were important: (1) ask, rather than assume, what patients and families need from the process and recognise that, for many patients, being heard is important and should occur early in the reconciliation process; (2) support timely, sincere, culturally appropriate and meaningful apologies, avoiding forced or tokenistic quasi-apologies; (3) choose words that promote reconciliation; (4) include the people who patients want involved in the reconciliation discussion, including practitioners involved in the harm event; and (5) engage the support of lawyers and patient relations staff as appropriate.DiscussionPolicymakers and healthcare institutions are keenly interested in non-litigation approaches to resolving malpractice incidents. Interviewing participants involved in patient safety incident reconciliation processes suggests that healthcare institutions should not view apology as a substitute for other remedial actions; use flexible guidelines that distil best-practice principles, ensuring that steps are not missed, while not prescribing a ‘one size fits all’ communication approach.
Identification of deficient galactosylation of serum IgG from HIV-1-infected patients extended the spectrum of diseases in which this phenomenon has been observed. In addition, the results suggest yet another aspect of immune dysfunction as a result of HIV-1 infection.
Epithelial cells lining the oral cavity are exposed to HIV-1 through breast-feeding and oral-genital contact. Genital secretions and breast milk of HIV-1-infected subjects contain both cell-free and cell-associated virus. To determine if oral epithelial cells can be infected with HIV-1 we exposed gingival keratinocytes and adenoid epithelial cells to cell-free virus and HIV-1-infected peripheral blood mononuclear cells and monocytes. Using primary isolates we determined that gingival keratinocytes are susceptible to HIV-1 infection via cell-free CD4-independent infection only. R5 but not X4 viral strains were capable of infecting the keratinocytes. Further, infected cells were able to release infectious virus. In addition, primary epithelial cells isolated from adenoids were also susceptible to infection; both cell-free and cell-associated virus infected these cells. These data have potential implications in the transmission of HIV-1 in the oral cavity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.