KEY FINDINGS: Among ARVs, the most common drugs employed from the class of entry inhibitors are maraviroc (MVC), which is a CCR5 receptor antagonist. Other entry inhibitors like emtricitabine (FTC) and tenofovir (TFV) are also used. Rilpivirine (RPV) and dapivirine (DPV) are the most common drugs employed from the Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTIs) class, whereas, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is primarily used in the Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NRTIs) class. Cabotegravir (CAB) is an analog of dolutegravir, and it is an integrase inhibitor. Some of these drugs are also used in combination with other drugs from the same class.
SUMMARY: Some of the most common pre-exposure prophylactic strategies employed currently are the use of inhibitors, namely entry inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, integrase and protease inhibitors. In addition, we have also discussed on the adverse effects caused by ART in PrEP, pharmacoeconomics factors and the use of antiretroviral prophylaxis in serodiscordant couples.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the cancer spectrum and frequencies between male BRCA1 and BRCA2 PV carriers.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 6902 men, including 3651 BRCA1 and 3251 BRCA2 PV carriers, older than 18 years recruited from cancer genetics clinics from 1966 to 2017 by 53 study groups in 33 countries worldwide collaborating through the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Clinical data and pathologic characteristics were collected.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: BRCA1/2 status was the outcome in a logistic regression, and cancer diagnoses were the independent predictors. All odds ratios (ORs) were adjusted for age, country of origin, and calendar year of the first interview.
RESULTS: Among the 6902 men in the study (median [range] age, 51.6 [18-100] years), 1634 cancers were diagnosed in 1376 men (19.9%), the majority (922 of 1,376 [67%]) being BRCA2 PV carriers. Being affected by any cancer was associated with a higher probability of being a BRCA2, rather than a BRCA1, PV carrier (OR, 3.23; 95% CI, 2.81-3.70; P
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Ninety-six haemophilia patients were identified - 79(82.3%) haemophilia A(HA) and 17(17.7%) haemophilia B(HB). Severe haemophilia patients were noted in 45.6% (36/79) of HA and 64.7% (11/17) of HB. In all 44.3% of the HA and 52.9% of the HB population had no identifiable family history of haemophilia. Two-thirds of the patients with severe HA were on prophylaxis [24/36 (66.7%)] and only onethird [4/11 (36.4%)] in severe HB. Inhibitors developed in 9/79 (11.4%) of the HA population [3/79 (3.8%) high responders]. The median inhibitor titre was not significantly different between the different treatment groups - on demand versus prophylaxis (1.0BU versus 2.0BU; z statistic -1.043, p-value 0.297, Mann-Whitney test). None of the patients developed inhibitory alloantibodies to factor IX. Four HA patients (5.1%) underwent immune tolerance induction where one case had a successful outcome. Three severe HA patients received emicizumab prophylaxis and showed remarkable reduction in bleeding events with no thromboembolic events being reported. One female moderate HA patient received PEGylated recombinant anti-haemophilic factor. Eleven patients underwent radiosynovectomy. One mild HB patient succumbed to traumatic intracranial bleeding. Our data reported a prevalence (per 100,000 males) of 5.40 cases for all severities of HA, 2.46 cases for severe HA; 1.16 cases for all severities of HB, and 0.75 cases for severe HB. The overall incidence of HA and HB was 1 in 11,500 and 1 in 46,000, respectively.
CONCLUSION: This study outlines the Sarawakian haemophilia landscape and offers objective standards for forward planning. Shared responsibilities among all parties are of utmost importance to improve the care of our haemophilia population.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 30 undergraduate dental students were shown a CEREC demonstration video. Each operator then captured a digital impression using the intra-oral scanner, and a crown was subsequently milled. All participants underwent a training course before repeating the process. Marginal discrepancy for each crown on its abutment tooth was measured before and after training using a stereomicroscope and was evaluated using Wilcoxon signed rank test. The duration taken for the process was recorded before and after training and evaluated using paired t-test.
RESULTS: The overall mean ±standard deviation marginal adaptation for the CEREC crowns was 78.15 ± 42.83 μm before training and 52.41 ± 17.12 μm after training. The Wilcoxon signed rank test found significant difference (p
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective descriptive study of all children aged