AREAS COVERED: This review covers issues pertinent to infection in the HSCT patient, including bacterial and viral infection; strategies to reduce GVHD; infection patterns; resistance and treatment options; adverse drug reactions to antimicrobials, problems of antimicrobial resistance; perturbation of the microbiome; the role of prebiotics, probiotics, and antimicrobial peptides. We highlight potential strategies to minimize the use of antimicrobials.
EXPERT OPINION: Measures to control infection and its transmission remain significant HSCT management policy and planning issues. Transplant centers need to consider carefully prophylactic use of antimicrobials for neutropenic patients. The judicious use of appropriate antimicrobials remains a crucial part of the treatment protocol. However, antimicrobials' adverse effects cause microbiome diversity and dysbiosis and have been shown to increase morbidity and mortality.
METHODS: PARACHUTE is a phase IV, prospective, non-interventional, observational study. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients remaining progression free at 12 months. Secondary endpoints were ORR, PFS, safety and tolerability, and relative dose intensity (RDI).
RESULTS: Overall, 190 patients with a median age of 61 years (range: 22.0-96.0) were included. Most patients were Asian (70%), clear-cell type RCC was the most common (81%), with a favourable (9%), intermediate (47%), poor (10%), and unknown (34%) MSKCC risk score. At the end of the observational period, 78 patients completed the observational period and 112 discontinued the study; 60% of patients had the starting dose at 800 mg. Median RDI was 82%, with 52% of patients receiving 10%) TEAEs related to pazopanib included diarrhoea (30%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (15%), and hypertension (14%).
CONCLUSIONS: Results of the PARACHUTE study support the use of pazopanib in patients with advanced or mRCC who are naive to VEGF-TKI therapy. The safety profile is consistent with that previously reported by pivotal and real-world evidence studies.
PURPOSE: This scoping review aims to describe the effect of lipid-based formulations on the oral bioavailability of herbal compounds.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across three electronic databases (Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library) between January 2010 and January 2021 to identify relevant studies. The articles were rigorously screened for eligibility. Data from eligible studies were then extracted and collated for synthesis and descriptive analysis using Covidence.
RESULTS: A total of 109 studies were included in the present review: 105 animal studies and four clinical trials. Among the formulations investigated, 50% were emulsions, 34% lipid particulate systems, 12% vesicular systems, and 4% were other types of lipid-based formulations. Within the emulsion system classification, self-emulsifying drug delivery systems were observed to produce the best improvements in oral bioavailability, followed by mixed micellar formulations. The introduction of composite lipid-based formulations and the use of uncommon surfactants such as sodium oleate in emulsion preparation was shown to consistently enhance the bioavailability of herbal compounds with poor oral absorption. Interestingly, the lipid-based formulations of magnesium lithospermate B and Pulsatilla chinensis produced an absolute bioavailability greater than 100% indicating the possibility of prolonged systemic circulation. With respect to chemical conjugation, D-α-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS) was the most frequently used and significantly improved the bioavailability of its phytoconstituents.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there is no distinct lipid-based formulation superior to the other. Bioavailability improvements were largely dependent on the nature of the phytoconstituents. This scoping review, however, provided a detailed summary of the most up-to-date evidence on phytoconstituents formulated into lipid preparations and their oral bioavailability. We conclude that a systematic review and meta-analysis between bioavailability improvements of individual phytoconstituents (such as kaempferol, morin and myricetin) in various lipid-based formulations will provide a more detailed association. Such a review will be highly beneficial for both researchers and herbal manufacturers.
METHODS: After baseline PET, patients were randomly assigned to an induction chemotherapy regimen: modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or carboplatin-paclitaxel (CP). Repeat PET was performed after induction; change in maximum standardized uptake value (SUV) from baseline was assessed. PET nonresponders (< 35% decrease in SUV) crossed over to the alternative chemotherapy during chemoradiation (50.4 Gy/28 fractions). PET responders (≥ 35% decrease in SUV) continued on the same chemotherapy during chemoradiation. Patients underwent surgery at 6 weeks postchemoradiation. Primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in nonresponders after switching chemotherapy.
RESULTS: Two hundred forty-one eligible patients received Protocol treatment, of whom 225 had an evaluable repeat PET. The pCR rates for PET nonresponders after induction FOLFOX who crossed over to CP (n = 39) or after induction CP who changed to FOLFOX (n = 50) was 18.0% (95% CI, 7.5 to 33.5) and 20% (95% CI, 10 to 33.7), respectively. The pCR rate in responders who received induction FOLFOX was 40.3% (95% CI, 28.9 to 52.5) and 14.1% (95% CI, 6.6 to 25.0) in responders to CP. With a median follow-up of 5.2 years, median overall survival was 48.8 months (95% CI, 33.2 months to not estimable) for PET responders and 27.4 months (95% CI, 19.4 months to not estimable) for nonresponders. For induction FOLFOX patients who were PET responders, median survival was not reached.
CONCLUSION: Early response assessment using PET imaging as a biomarker to individualize therapy for patients with esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma was effective, improving pCR rates in PET nonresponders. PET responders to induction FOLFOX who continued on FOLFOX during chemoradiation achieved a promising 5-year overall survival of 53%.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: All suspected ADEs associated with tocilizumab between April to August 2020 were analyzed based on COVID-19 patients' demographic and clinical variables, and severity of involvement of organ system.
RESULTS: A total of 1005 ADEs were reported among 513 recipients. The majority of the ADEs (46.26%) were reported from 18-64 years, were males and reported spontaneously. Around 80%, 20%, and 64% were serious, fatal, and administered intravenously, respectively. 'Injury, Poisoning, and Procedural Complications' remain as highest (35%) among categorized ADEs. Neutropenia, hypofibrinogenemia were common hematological ADEs. The above 64 years was found to have significantly lower odds than of below 45 years. In comparison, those in the European Region have substantially higher odds compared to the Region of Americas.
CONCLUSION: Neutropenia, superinfections, reactivation of latent infections, hepatitis, and cardiac abnormalities were common ADEs observed that necessitate proper monitoring and reporting.
RESULTS: Shell gland (Uterus) and liver tissue samples were collected from hens during the active growth phase of calcification (15-20 h post-ovulation) for RT-PCR analysis. In the oviduct (shell gland and magnum) and liver of laying hens, the relative expression of functional eggshell and hepatic selenoproteins genes was investigated. Results of qPCR confirmed the higher (p
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and adverse effects of chloral hydrate as a sedative agent for non-invasive neurodiagnostic procedures in children.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases on 14 May 2020, with no language restrictions: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 12 May 2020). CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the specialised registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Cochrane Epilepsy.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed chloral hydrate agent against other sedative agent(s), non-drug agent(s), or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated studies identified by the search for their eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Results were expressed in terms of risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies with a total of 2922 children. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed. Blinding of the participants and personnel was not achieved in most of the included studies, and three of the 16 studies were at high risk of bias for selective reporting. Evaluation of the efficacy of the sedative agents was also underpowered, with all the comparisons performed in small studies. Fewer children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure compared with oral promethazine (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.82; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). More children who received oral chloral hydrate had sedation failure after one dose compared to intravenous pentobarbital (RR 4.33, 95% CI 1.35 to 13.89; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), but there was no clear difference after two doses (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.46; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Children with oral chloral hydrate had more sedation failure compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.96; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and music therapy (RR 17.00, 95% CI 2.37 to 122.14; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Sedation failure rates were similar between groups for comparisons with oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, oral midazolam and oral clonidine. Children who received oral chloral hydrate had a shorter time to adequate sedation compared with those who received oral dexmedetomidine (MD -3.86, 95% CI -5.12 to -2.6; 1 study), oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride (MD -7.5, 95% CI -7.85 to -7.15; 1 study), oral promethazine (MD -12.11, 95% CI -18.48 to -5.74; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for three aforementioned outcomes), rectal midazolam (MD -95.70, 95% CI -114.51 to -76.89; 1 study), and oral clonidine (MD -37.48, 95% CI -55.97 to -18.99; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for two aforementioned outcomes). However, children with oral chloral hydrate took longer to achieve adequate sedation when compared with intravenous pentobarbital (MD 19, 95% CI 16.61 to 21.39; 1 study; low-certainty evidence), intranasal midazolam (MD 12.83, 95% CI 7.22 to 18.44; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence), and intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 2.80, 95% CI 0.77 to 4.83; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Children who received oral chloral hydrate appeared significantly less likely to complete neurodiagnostic procedure with child awakening when compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.09; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a higher risk of the following adverse events: desaturation versus rectal sodium thiopental (RR 5.00, 95% 0.24 to 102.30; 1 study), unsteadiness versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.21, 95% CI 0.58 to 178.52; 1 study), vomiting versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 10.59, 95% CI 0.61 to 185.45; 1 study) (low-certainty evidence for aforementioned three outcomes), and crying during administration of sedation versus intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.80; 1 study, moderate-certainty evidence). Chloral hydrate was associated with a lower risk of the following: diarrhoea compared with rectal sodium thiopental (RR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.72; 1 study), lower mean diastolic blood pressure compared with sodium thiopental (MD 7.40, 95% CI 5.11 to 9.69; 1 study), drowsiness compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.64; 1 study), vertigo compared with oral clonidine (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.79; 1 study) (moderate-certainty evidence for aforementioned four outcomes), and bradycardia compared with intranasal dexmedetomidine (MD 0.17, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59; 1 study; high-certainty evidence). No other adverse events were significantly associated with chloral hydrate, although there was an increased risk of combined adverse events overall (RR 7.66, 95% CI 1.78 to 32.91; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The certainty of evidence for the comparisons of oral chloral hydrate against several other methods of sedation was variable. Oral chloral hydrate appears to have a lower sedation failure rate when compared with oral promethazine. Sedation failure was similar between groups for other comparisons such as oral dexmedetomidine, oral hydroxyzine hydrochloride, and oral midazolam. Oral chloral hydrate had a higher sedation failure rate when compared with intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, and music therapy. Chloral hydrate appeared to be associated with higher rates of adverse events than intranasal dexmedetomidine. However, the evidence for the outcomes for oral chloral hydrate versus intravenous pentobarbital, rectal sodium thiopental, intranasal dexmedetomidine, and music therapy was mostly of low certainty, therefore the findings should be interpreted with caution. Further research should determine the effects of oral chloral hydrate on major clinical outcomes such as successful completion of procedures, requirements for an additional sedative agent, and degree of sedation measured using validated scales, which were rarely assessed in the studies included in this review. The safety profile of chloral hydrate should be studied further, especially for major adverse effects such as oxygen desaturation.