METHODS: We systematically searched five electronic databases (PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Global Health, and PsycINFO) from date of inception to September 30, 2022, for studies reporting on the effect of bebtelovimab in SARS-CoV-2 infection, using a combination of search terms around -bebtelovimab‖, -LY-CoV1404‖, -LY3853113‖, and -coronavirus infection‖. All citations were screened independently by two researchers. Data were extracted and thematically analyzed based on study design by adhering to the stipulated scoping review approaches.
RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included, thirty-four non-clinical studies were narratively synthesized, and five clinical studies were meta-analyzed. The non-clinical studies revealed bebtelovimab not only potently neutralized wide-type SARS-CoV-2 and existing variants of concern such as B.1.1.7 (Alpha), B.1.351 (Beta), P.1 (Gamma), and B.1.617.2 (Delta), but also retained appreciable activity against Omicron lineages, including BA.2.75, BA.4, BA.4.6, and BA.5. Unlike other monoclonal antibodies, bebtelovimab was able to bind to epitope of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein by exploiting loop mobility or by minimizing side-chain interactions. Pooled analysis from clinical studies depicted that the rates of hospitalization, ICU admission, and death were similar between bebtelovimab and other COVID-19 therapies. Bebtelovimab was associated with a low incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events.
CONCLUSION: Preclinical evidence suggests bebtelovimab be a potential treatment for COVID-19 amidst viral evolution. Bebtelovimab has comparable efficacy to other COVID-19 therapies without evident safety concerns.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13205-023-03725-6.
AIM: To investigate the beneficial effects of fish oil consumption on the progression of insulin resistance and pancreatic islet dysfunction in a rat model of diabetes.
METHODS: Diabetic rats model (n = 30) were divided into five groups and received; 1) NS injection + NS oral (normal control); 2) NS injection + 3 g/kg fish oil (fish oil control); 3) streptozotocin (STZ) injection + NS oral [diabetes control (DC)]; 4) STZ injection + 1 g/kg fish oil (DFO1); and 5) STZ injection + 3 g/kg fish oil (DFO3). Fasting blood insulin was analyzed by commercial rat insulin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay; meanwhile, the determination of insulin sensitivity was calculated by homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and homeostatic model assessment of beta-cell function. A histological study was conducted on pancreas tissue using H and E staining.
RESULTS: Fish oil supplementation reduced hyperglycemia and ameliorated HOMA-IR in STZ-induced animal models indicating that fish oil supplementation improved insulin sensitivity. Furthermore, animals treated with fish oil at a dose of 3 g/kg (DFO3) showed an enhancement in pancreatic islets, which was displayed by less abnormal structures than DC animals. This could imply that the administration of fish oil, especially rich in bioactive omega-3 fatty acids effectively inhibits insulin resistance and restore islet of Langerhans alteration in rats injected with STZ.
CONCLUSION: Thus, the current study suggested that fish oil supplementation could support the treatment of diabetes but should not be considered as an alternative therapy.
METHODS: The Association of VA and intervenTionAl Renal physicians (AVATAR) Foundation from India conducted a multinational online survey amongst nephrologists from the Asia-Pacific to determine the practice of IN in the planning, creation, and management of dialysis access. The treatment modalities, manpower and equipment availability, monthly cost of treatment, specifics of dialysis access interventions, and challenges in the training and practice of IN by nephrologists were included in the survey.
RESULTS: Twenty-one countries from the APR participated in the survey. Nephrologists from 18 (85.7%) countries reported performing at least one of the basic dialysis access-related IN procedures, primarily the placement of non-tunnelled central catheters (n-TCC; 71.5%). Only 10 countries (47.6%) reported having an average of <4% of nephrologists performing any of the advanced IN access procedures, the most common being the placement of a peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter (20%). Lack of formal training (57.14%), time (42.8%), incentive (38%), institutional support (38%), medico-legal protection (28.6%), and prohibitive cost (23.8%) were the main challenges to practice IN. The primary obstacles to implementing the IN training were a lack of funding and skilled personnel.
CONCLUSION: The practice of dialysis access-related IN in APR is inadequate, mostly due to a lack of training, backup support, and economic constraints, whereas training in access-related IN is constrained by a lack of a skilled workforce and finances.