Anti-LEP polyclonal antibody

Purpose: The aim was to develop a method to assess the electrostatic properties of human tear samples, and to evaluate their modifications induced by the wear of contact lenses (CLs). Method: The barrier method was developed for the measurement of the isoelectric point (IEP) on relatively small quantities. The method was applied to compare three groups: tears (T-NW) of non-wearers, tears (T-w_omaf) of regular wearers of etafilcon A CLs, and tears (T-w_etaf) of regular wearers of omafilcon A CLs. Zeta potential (zeta) as a function of pH was measured by a Zetasizer Nano ZS90 (Malvern Instruments) on 40%-diluted samples, obtained by mixing 57 mu L of tears of different subjects of the same group with 85 mu L of HCl aqueous solution. LEP was deduced as the pH at which zeta is zero, i.e. the net electric charge on tear constituents being neutralized. Results: Within an error of about 0.05, IEPs were found to be 2.90 (T-NW), 2.80 (T-w_omaf), and 3.16 (T-w_etaf). On average, a lower H+ concentration is needed to neutralize the surface charge of the tear components of etafilcon A wearers, compared to both T-NW and T-w_omaf. Conclusion: LEP measurements on tear samples of wearers of different types of CLs are proposed in order to enhance the knowledge on the modifications of the profile of charged species in tears. The T-w_etaf results, compared to those of the other groups, are compatible with an increase, due to the wear of etafilcon A CLs, of the relative concentration of high-LEP proteins. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Contact Lens Association.

Objective. This study assessed safety culture and staff communication with patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) to identify system-level approaches to increasing interpreter use and reducing health care disparities. Methods. An electronic survey and 7 focus groups were conducted with health care professionals in pediatrics and obstetrics/gynecology. Survey data were examined with univariate descriptive analysis. Focus group transcripts were coded through an iterative consensus process. Results. Survey participants (n = 68) reported less confidence in their ability to communicate effectively (74%) and form therapeutic relationships (56%) with LEP patients versus English-proficient patients. Focus groups identified knowledge as a facilitator of interpreter use. Workflow constraints, supply-demand mismatch, variable interpretation quality, and gaps in communication with interpretation services management were barriers. Conclusion. Knowledge gaps may not be a primary cause of interpreter underuse. Strategies to address workflow barriers and engage with interpretation services are critical to move from knowledge to action to improve LEP patient care.