METHODS: Stigmasterol (1) and β-caryophyllene oxide (2) were isolated from the n-hexane fraction of the leaves of M. ferrae using a bioassay-guided fractionation approach.
RESULTS: The isolated compounds displayed anti-Staphylococcus and anti-MRSA activities. It is worth to note that both compounds demonstrated synergism with β-lactam antibiotics against S. aureus and MRSA. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis indicated the n-hexane fraction was dominated by triterpenes and sesquiterpenes, suggesting the total antibacterial activity exhibited by the fraction.
CONCLUSION: Based on the findings, it could conclude that M. ferrae is a promising natural source for the discovery of new anti-MRSA lead compounds.
METHODS: A literature search of studies related to the use of precision medicine in diabetes care was conducted in various databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus).
RESULTS: Precision medicine encompasses the integration of a wide array of personal data, including clinical, lifestyle, genetic, and various biomarker information. Its goal is to facilitate tailored treatment approaches using contemporary diagnostic and therapeutic techniques that specifically target patients based on their genetic makeup, molecular markers, phenotypic traits, or psychosocial characteristics. This article not only highlights significant advancements but also addresses key challenges, particularly focusing on the technologies that contribute to the realization of personalized and precise diabetes care.
CONCLUSION: For the successful implementation of precision diabetes medicine, collaboration and coordination among multiple stakeholders are crucial.
METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical outcomes between intermediate/ therapeutic anticoagulation and prophylactic anticoagulation. Meta-analyses with random-effects models were used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest at a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: Eight randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 5405 hospitalized patients with COVID-19. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.71-1.19) but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of development of thrombotic events (pooled OR = 0.55; 95% CI 0.42-0.72), and significantly increased odds of development of major bleeding (pooled OR = 1.81; 95% CI 1.20-2.72) with the use of intermediate/therapeutic anticoagulation, relative to prophylactic anticoagulation. Subgroup analysis in patients with a severe course of COVID-19 observed a statistically significant reduction in the odds of development of thrombotic events (pooled OR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.45-0.98) but no significant difference in the odds of development of major bleeding events (pooled OR = 1.37; 95% CI 0.74-2.56), with the use of intermediate/therapeutic anticoagulation, relative to prophylactic anticoagulation.
CONCLUSION: There could be net clinical benefits with higher-intensity dosing of anticoagulation relative to prophylactic-dosing of anticoagulation among hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.
METHODS: A systematic literature search with no language restriction was performed in electronic databases and preprint repositories to identify eligible studies published up to 29 June 2021. The outcomes of interest were hospital admission and all-cause mortality. A random-effects model was used to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) for outcomes of interest with the use of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies relative to nonuse of neutralizing monoclonal antibodies, at 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS: Our systematic literature search identified nine randomized controlled trials. Three trials had an overall low risk of bias, while four trials had some concerns in the overall risk of bias. The meta-analysis revealed no statistically significant difference in the odds of mortality (pooled OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.33-1.47), but a statistically significant reduction in the odds of hospital admission (pooled OR = 0.29; 95% CI 0.21-0.42), with the administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody among patients with COVID-19, relative to non-administration of a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, at the current sample size.
CONCLUSION: The reduced risk of hospital admission with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies use suggests that the timing of neutralizing antibodies administration is key in preventing hospital admission and, ultimately, death. Future randomized trials should aim to determine if the clinical outcomes with neutralizing monoclonal antibodies differ based on serostatus.