AIM OF THE STUDY: The molecular mechanisms of the anti-inflammatory properties of M. accedens are not yet understood. Therefore, we examined those mechanisms using a methanol extract of M. accedens (Ma-ME) and determined the target molecule in macrophages.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the anti-inflammatory effects of Ma-ME in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-stimulated RAW264.7 cells and in an HCl/EtOH-triggered gastritis model in mice. To investigate the anti-inflammatory activity, we performed a nitric oxide (NO) production assay and ELISA assay for prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). RT-PCR, luciferase gene reporter assays, western blotting analyses, and a cellular thermal shift assay (CETSA) were conducted to identify the mechanism and target molecule of Ma-ME. The phytochemical composition of Ma-ME was analyzed by HPLC and LC-MS/MS.
RESULTS: Ma-ME suppressed the production of NO and PGE2 and the mRNA expression of proinflammatory genes (iNOS, IL-1β, and COX-2) in LPS-stimulated RAW264.7 cells without cytotoxicity. Ma-ME inhibited NF-κB activation by suppressing signaling molecules such as IκBα, Akt, Src, and Syk. Moreover, the CETSA assay revealed that Ma-ME binds to Syk, the most upstream molecule in the NF-κB signal pathway. Oral administration of Ma-ME not only alleviated inflammatory lesions, but also reduced the gene expression of IL-1β and p-Syk in mice with HCl/EtOH-induced gastritis. HPLC and LC-MS/MS analyses confirmed that Ma-ME contains various anti-inflammatory flavonoids, including quercetin, daidzein, and nevadensin.
CONCLUSIONS: Ma-ME exhibited anti-inflammatory activities in vitro and in vivo by targeting Syk in the NF-κB signaling pathway. Therefore, we propose that Ma-ME could be used to treat inflammatory diseases such as gastritis.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study recruited adult PWH during routine follow-up at five HIV clinical sites in the Asia-Pacific region. Participants were screened for depression using Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and SU using Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). Quality of life (QoL) was assessed with WHOQOL-HIV BREF and functional ability with World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). Factors associated with mean QoL and disability scores were analysed using linear regression.
RESULTS: Of 864 PWH enrolled, 753 screened positive for depression or SU. The median (interquartile range, IQR) age was 38 (31-47) years and 97% were on ART. Overall mean WHOQOL-HIV BREF and WHODAS scores indicated greater impairment with increasing depressive symptom severity and SU risk. In multivariate analysis, PWH reporting previous trauma/stress (difference = 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5-3.9, P
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to provide a personalized surgical recommendation that enables more confidence in advising patients to pursue surgical treatment.
METHODS: We enrolled 328 patients with uPA harboring KCNJ5 mutations (n = 158) or not (n = 170) who had undergone adrenalectomy. Eighty-seven features were collected, including demographics, various blood and urine test results, and clinical comorbidities. We designed 2 versions of the prediction model: one for institutes with complete blood tests (full version), and the other for institutes that may not be equipped with comprehensive testing facilities (condensed version).
RESULTS: The results show that in the full version, the Light Gradient Boosting Machine outperformed other classifiers, achieving area under the curve and accuracy values of 0.905 and 0.864, respectively. The Light Gradient Boosting Machine also showed excellent performance in the condensed version, achieving area under the curve and accuracy values of 0.867 and 0.803, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: We simplified the preoperative diagnosis of KCNJ5 mutations successfully using machine learning. The proposed lightweight tool that requires only baseline characteristics and blood/urine test results can be widely applied and can aid personalized prediction during preoperative counseling for patients with uPA.
METHODS: Adult PLHIV in care at five Asia-Pacific HIV clinics were enrolled at routine clinic visits between July 2019 and June 2020. Depression, substance use, sexual practice and socio-demographic data were collected using PHQ-9, ASSIST, and a study-specific questionnaire. Clinical data were accessed from medical records. Risk factors for medium- to high-risk sexual practices, defined based on total scores from the sexual practice questionnaire assessing number of sexual partners and condom use, were analyzed using logistic regression. Moderate to severe depression was defined as a PHQ-9 score >9, and moderate- to high-risk substance use as an ASSIST score ≥11 for alcohol or ≥4 for other substances.
RESULTS: Among 723 participants, median age was 38 years, 89% were male, 99% were on ART and 37% had medium- to high-risk sexual practices. Medium- to high-risk sexual practices were more common among those ≤30 years old, unemployed, and HIV status disclosed, and were more likely in participants with moderate to severe depression (aOR 2.09, 95%CI 1.17-3.74) compared to none to minimal depression, and moderate- to high-risk substance use (aOR 1.73, 95%CI 1.23-2.44) compared to those without.
CONCLUSIONS: Further integration of comprehensive sexual risk reduction strategies, mental health services and substance use harm reduction within HIV clinical settings in the region is needed.
METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety.
RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In LASER301, efficacy and safety results in Asian patients were consistent with the overall population. Lazertinib exhibited better efficacy than gefitinib in Asian patients with a tolerable safety profile.
METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response.
RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CNS metastases, lazertinib significantly improved intracranial progression-free survival compared with gefitinib, with more durable responses.
METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of the MOSAICS II study, an international prospective observational study on sepsis epidemiology in Asian ICUs. Associations between qSOFA at ICU admission and mortality were separately assessed in LLMIC, UMIC and HIC countries/regions. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted relative risk (RR) of qSOFA score on mortality at 28 days with adjustments for confounders identified in the MOSAICS II study.
RESULTS: Among the MOSAICS II study cohort of 4980 patients, 4826 patients from 343 ICUs and 22 countries were included in this secondary analysis. Higher qSOFA was associated with increasing 28-day mortality, but this was only observed in LLMIC (p
METHODS: The KGOG 1047/DEBULK trial is a phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving patients with bulky or multiple LN metastases in cervical cancer IIICr. This study will include patients with a short-axis diameter of a pelvic or para-aortic LN ≥2 cm or ≥3 LNs with a short-axis diameter ≥1 cm and for whom CCRT is planned. The treatment arms will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either receive CCRT (control arm) or undergo surgical debulking of bulky or multiple LNs before CCRT (experimental arm). CCRT consists of extended-field external beam radiotherapy/pelvic radiotherapy, brachytherapy and LN boost, and weekly chemotherapy with cisplatin (40 mg/m²), 4-6 times administered intravenously. The primary endpoint will be 3-year progression-free survival rate. The secondary endpoints will be 3-year overall survival rate, treatment-related complications, and accuracy of radiological diagnosis of bulky or multiple LNs.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05421650; Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0007137.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation.
RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).
CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.
METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.
RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.
METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months.
RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group.
CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).
METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo.
RESULTS: Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD.
CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS will provide information on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin, in the long-term management of patients with stable CAD or PAD, and on the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole in preventing upper GI complications in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.