Search results

Cassava plays a major role in the food security of a large but weaker sector of the population, operating under complex, diverse and risk-prone farming systems. As the crop generally received low priority in the extension agenda of Government policies, direct intervention in the technology assessment and transfer by CTCRI in India was considered necessary. Over the past three decades the transfer of technology (TOT) program has undergone changes in concept and methodology according to changing farmers' needs and socio-economic conditions, presently culminating in the concern for the users rather than the crop. CTCRI has implemented a series of "Users Participatory Programmes" in assessing and transferring the cassava technology. The assessment of cassava technology was done in various production systems, including hill agriculture, as well as users' categories, including hill tribes. Agro-ecosystem analyses were conducted prior to the assessment of the cassava technologies; these were carried out in stages involving different categories of users. There were differential preferences observed in the various production systems as well as in the users' categories. Trials conducted in the lowland production system indicated that the cassava varieties CI-649 and CI-731 were preferred, while farmers of upland production systems rated CI-732 and CI-649 as the best ones. Differences were also observed in the varietal preferences by various tribal people. The trials clearly indicate that there is a need to develop location-specific as well as user-specific technologies. The TOT programs excuted by CTCRI during the past three decades, namely the National Demonstrations, the Operational Research Project, and the Lab-to-Land Programme, and the impact of these programs are briefly described in the paper. The technology assessment and refinement through the Institution-Village-Linkage Programme (IVLP), a novel concept using a holistic approach, and the current testing and popularizing of cassava varieties in Tamil Nadu are detailed in the paper. The technology transfer is also enhanced through human resources development in participatory training courses and seminars. The issue of concern is who makes the choices of technology. Normally those least affected by the choice are the ones responsible for determining that choice, while those who are forced to live with the technology have least say in the matter. - Hoyzer, N.

Lanthanum strontium manganite La0·84Sr0·16MnO3 (LSM)powder was prepared by combustion synthesis, using a concentrated solution of nitrates of lanthanum, strontium, and manganese as oxidiser, and citric acid as fuel. The as formed powder was found to be crystalline LSM consisting of porous agglomerates of fine particles, and exhibited about 7% total weight loss on heating up to 1100 °C. Dispersion conditions for wet grinding of the powder agglomerates calcined at 1100 °C were evaluated from zeta potential and viscositystudies. A maximum zeta potential of - 35 mV was noted at a pH of 11, while pseudoplasticity of the slurry decreased with decreasing solid concentration. Powder with d50 of around 3 μm and free of agglomerates of size greater than 10 μm was formed by wet grinding. Further calci nation of this powder at 1350 °C improved the solids loading in the slurry. The tape cast slurry composition was optimised for minimum content of binder, plasticiser, and water with acceptable pseudoplasticity to form flexible and flat tapes. The dried tapes cut to required sizes were subjected to controlled binder burnout followed by sintering in the range 1350-1450 °C. The sintered flat specimens exhibited densities in the range 65-80% of theoretical, and open porosities in the range 35-20%, with a homogeneous distribution of pore phase in the matrix.

PurposeEmtricitabine/rilpivirine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/RPV/TDF; Complera®/Eviplera®) is a recently approved complete single tablet regimen (STR) for treatment‐naïve HIV‐1‐infected patients. Exposures of rilpivirine single agent Edurant®) are 40% lower when administered under fasted conditions versus standard meal (533 kcal) or high‐fat/high caloric meal (928 kcal). The present study evaluated the effect of standard and light meal on FTC/RPV/TDF pharmacokinetics (PK).MethodsThis was a three‐period, six‐sequence, crossover single‐dose study (N = 24) in healthy subjects that received FTC/RPV/TDF with a standard meal (540 kcal, 21 g fat), light meal (390 kcal, 12 g fat) or under fasted conditions (each treatment 18 days apart). Blood sampling was done for 192 hrs and PK of RPV, FTC, and tenofovir (TFV) were evaluated. Safety was monitored throughout the study and at 14‐day follow‐up. Exposures of study drugs from the various treatments were compared to fasted or standard meal as reference using 90% confidence interval (CI) bounds of 80 to 125% about the geometric mean ratio (GMR).ResultsOf the 24 enrolled subjects, 23 completed. There were no Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, or AEs leading to discontinuation. Compared to fasting conditions, RPV AUCinf was 9% and 16% higher with a light meal or standard meal, respectively. Compared to standard meal, RPV AUCinf was 14% and 6% lower with fasted or light meal administration, respectively. TFV and FTC exposures were consistent with their established PK/food effect (Table 1).









Exposure versus standard meal



GMR (%) 90% CI fasted/standard
GMR (%) 90% CI light meal/standard




Rilpivirine


AUCinf (ng*h/mL)
85.9 (72.7, 101)
93.8 (79.2, 111)


AUClast (ng*h/mL)
83.7 (70.6, 99.3)
94.9 (79.9, 113)


Cmax (ng/mL)
79.1 (65.5, 95.5)
106 (87.6, 129)


Emtricitabine


AUCinf (ng*h/mL)
105 (102, 108)
101 (98.2, 104)


AUClast (ng*h/mL)
105 (102, 108)
101 (98.2, 104)


Cmax (ng/mL)
107 (101, 114)
103 (96.2, 109)


Tenofovir


AUCinf (ng*h/mL)
72.5 (68.1, 77.2)
93.0 (87.2, 99.2)


AUClast (ng*h/mL)
70.9 (66.3, 75.8)
92.8 (86.7, 99.4)


Cmax (ng/mL)
75.8 (67.8, 84.6)
84.8 (75.8, 94.9)




ConclusionAdministration with food has a modest effect on RPV PK as FTC/RPV/TDF STR versus fasted dosing, with no relevant differences between a light meal versus standard meal. FTC/RPV/TDF STR can be administered with a light or standard meal.