BACKGROUND/PURPOSE Appropriate storage of fecal samples is a critical step for the unbiased analysis of microbial communities in metagenomic studies.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/idf-11774.html  Rapid freezing at -80 °C is usually considered to be best practice, but this approach is challenging. DNA stabilizing kits may provide a more convenient method to preserve and store clinical samples. We evaluated the reliability of two collection kits (Stratec stool collection tube with stabilizer, #1038111200 and OMNIgene.GUT OMR-200) on preserving fecal microbiota. METHODS Samples were collected from two locations of the fecal specimen, in four healthy volunteers. The samples were sub-aliquoted and stored in a -80 °C freezer, in Stratec and OMNIgene.GUT (incubation at ambient temperature for 0, 3, or 7 days). The fecal microbial composition was assessed by 16S rRNA sequencing. RESULTS We found that alpha diversity was not significantly affected by storage conditions. Samples stored in DNA stabilizers were still representative of the original microbial community after 7 days at ambient temperature. Individual differences were found to have a greater contribution to the differences in microbial community composition than storage conditions or sampling location. Samples subjected to stabilizers displayed microbial community shifts compared with immediately frozen samples. A linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) analysis showed that the relative abundances of Faecalibacterium were significantly higher in samples stored in Stratec kits. CONCLUSION Our study reveals that both Stratec and OMNIgene.GUT kits provide good microbiome preservation for up to 7 days in ambient temperature and would represent good options for fecal sample collection in large scale, population-based studies. BACKGROUND Carboplatin plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PTX) is one of the available first-line treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. However, the efficacy of carboplatin plus nab-PTX as second-line, remains unknown. We examined the efficacy of carboplatin plus nab-PTX after cisplatin plus pemetrexed in non-squamous NSCLC patients. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed advanced non-squamous NSCLC patients who received carboplatin plus nab-PTX as a second-line chemotherapy regimen after cisplatin plus pemetrexed in our hospital between March 2013 and December 2017. We assessed clinical characteristics, efficacy, and toxicities. RESULTS Forty-four patients were recruited. The overall response rate (ORR) was 29% and the disease control rate (DCR), 69%. The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.4-5.5 months) and the median overall survival, 16.6 months (95% CI8.8-19.5 months). We assessed the ORR and mPFS using the best overall response in the prior regimen. The ORR and mPFS were better in the PD group (ORR; 44% and mPFS 5.6 months). CONCLUSIONS Carboplatin plus nab-PTX after cisplatin plus pemetrexed in non-squamous NSCLC patients is a treatment option. There were several cases where cisplatin plus pemetrexed was not effective, but Carboplatin plus nab-PTX was. BACKGROUND The main limitation of the six-minute walk test (6-MWT) is that not all pulmonary function testing facilities have an indoor flat, 30-m-long corridor. Therefore, this study aimed 1) to evaluate the correlation and agreement of the distances walked in 30-m- vs. 15-m-long corridors by subjects with chronic lung diseases (CLD group) and 2) to compare the levels of oxygen saturation (nSpO2), blood pressure (BP), heart rate recovery at minute one post-exercise (HRR1), and Borg scale scores for dyspnea and fatigue between the two distances walked. METHODS A prospective, cross-sectional study was conducted at the National Institute of Respiratory Diseases in Mexico City. Subjects with chronic lung diseases and healthy adults were invited to participate. The distance of the 6-MWT was randomly assigned based on whether the first test was in the 15-m or 30-m corridor. RESULTS Ninety individuals were included; the correlation in meters walked between the two corridors was r = 0.96 in CLD; the 95% limits of agreement for the 6-MWT ranged from -73 to +37 m. Most subjects walked further in the 30-m corridor (82%); however, the percent predicted values for the CLD group were 3.5% lower for the 15-m corridor than the 30-m corridor. Only 10.5% of the subjects with CLD would have been falsely classified as having a normal 6-MWT (false negative). No significant differences in the nSpO2, Borg scale, BP or HRR1 were found between the two 6-MWT corridor lengths. CONCLUSION The 6-MWT can be performed using a 15-m corridor in subjects with CLD, and the results for the distance walked, HRR1, nSpO2, and Borg scale scores are similar to between the 15-m and 30-m corridors. BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are widely accepted measures for evaluating outcomes of surgical interventions. As patient-reported information is stored in electronic health records, it is essential that there are valid electronic PRO (ePRO) instruments available for clinicians and researchers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of electronic versions of five widely used foot and ankle specific PRO instruments. METHODS Altogether 111 consecutive elective foot/ankle surgery patients were invited face-to-face to participate in this study. Patients completed electronic versions of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS), the modified Lower Extremity Function Scale (LEFS), the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ), and the Visual Analogue Scale Foot and Ankle (VAS-FA) on the day of elective foot and/or ankle surgery. Construct validity, coverage, and targeting of the scales were assessed. RESULTS Based on general and predefined thresholds, construct validity, coverage, and targeting of the ePRO versions of the FAAM, the FAOS, the MOXFQ, and the VAS-FA were acceptable. Major issues arose with score distribution and convergent validity of the modified LEFS instrument. CONCLUSIONS The ePRO versions of the FAAM, the FAOS, the MOXFQ, and the VAS-FA provide valid scores for foot and ankle patients. However, our findings do not support the use of the modified LEFS as an electronic outcome measure for patients with orthopedic foot and/or ankle pathologies.