AIM: Evaluate the differences in the degree of AEFI on each type of COVID-19 vaccine platform.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The research used a quantitative analytical observational design with a cross sectional approach. Data collection from participants was carried out by filling out questionnaires. The collected data was tabulated and statistical analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: A total of 217 respondents who received three doses of vaccine participated in the study. Of the 651 vaccine doses studied, the results showed that there were significant differences in the degree of AEFI between the three types of vaccine platforms. The degree of AEFI was significantly different (p < 0.05) between each type of vaccine platform, with the degree of AEFI starting from the lowest, namely inactivated vaccine, then viral vector vaccine and the highest was nucleic acid vaccine.
CONCLUSION: The degree of AEFI differs significantly between each COVID-19 vaccine platform. The degree of AEFI, from the mildest to the most severe, was inactivated vaccine, viral vector vaccine and nucleic acid vaccine. No serious AEFI was reported.
CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 56-year-old male patient with chronic kidney disease 5 on dialysis(CKD 5D). The patient presented with a history of fever, chills and rigours during a session of haemodialysis (HD). He was diagnosed with Enterobacter cloacae catheter-related blood stream infection and was started on ertapenem. After 13 days of ertapenem, he experienced an acute confusional state and progressed to having auditory and visual hallucinations. His blood investigations and imaging results revealed no other alternative diagnosis. Hence a diagnosis of ertapenem-induced neurotoxicity was made. He had complete resolution of symptoms after 10 days' discontinuation of ertapenem.
CONCLUSION: Our case draws attention to the risk of potentially serious toxicity of the central nervous system in HD patients who receive the current recommended dose of ertapenem. It also highlights that renal dosing in CKD 5D patients' needs to be clinically studied to ensure antibiotic safety.
METHODS: A review of clinical cases reporting NaOCl accidents was conducted in June 2016 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist; it combined an electronic search of the PubMed database and an extensive manual search.
RESULTS: Forty full-text articles corresponding to 52 case reports published between 1974 and 2015 were selected. Four main categories of data were highlighted: general and clinical information, clinical signs and symptoms of NaOCl extrusions, management of NaOCl extrusions, and healing and prognosis. Overall, up to now, clinical cases were reported in a very unsystematic manner, and some relevant information was missing.
CONCLUSIONS: A better understanding of the potential causes, management, and prognosis of NaOCl accidents requires a standardization of reported data; this study proposes a template that can fulfill this objective.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of withdrawal or continuation of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, in people with dementia on: cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional outcomes, rates of institutionalisation, adverse events, dropout from trials, mortality, quality of life and carer-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialised Register up to 17 October 2020 using terms appropriate for the retrieval of studies of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine. The Specialised Register contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases, numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) which compared withdrawal of cholinesterase inhibitors or memantine, or both, with continuation of the same drug or drugs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed citations and full-text articles for inclusion, extracted data from included trials and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Where trials were sufficiently similar, we pooled data for outcomes in the short term (up to 2 months after randomisation), medium term (3-11 months) and long term (12 months or more). We assessed the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials investigating cholinesterase inhibitor withdrawal, and one trial investigating withdrawal of either donepezil or memantine. No trials assessed withdrawal of memantine only. Drugs were withdrawn abruptly in five trials and stepwise in two trials. All participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, with severities ranging from mild to very severe, and were taking cholinesterase inhibitors without known adverse effects at baseline. The included trials randomised 759 participants to treatment groups relevant to this review. Study duration ranged from 6 weeks to 12 months. There were too few included studies to allow planned subgroup analyses. We considered some studies to be at unclear or high risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition or reporting bias. Compared to continuing cholinesterase inhibitors, discontinuing treatment may be associated with worse cognitive function in the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.64 to -0.21; 4 studies; low certainty), but the effect in the medium term is very uncertain (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.07; 3 studies; very low certainty). In a sensitivity analysis omitting data from a study which only included participants who had shown a relatively poor prior response to donepezil, inconsistency was reduced and we found that cognitive function may be worse in the discontinuation group in the medium term (SMD -0.62; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.31). Data from one longer-term study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor is probably associated with worse cognitive function at 12 months (mean difference (MD) -2.09 Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) points, 95% CI -3.43 to -0.75; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may make little or no difference to functional status in the short term (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.04; 2 studies; low certainty), and its effect in the medium term is uncertain (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.74 to -0.01; 2 studies; very low certainty). After 12 months, discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor probably results in greater functional impairment than continuing treatment (MD -3.38 Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale (BADLS) points, 95% CI -6.67 to -0.10; one study; moderate certainty). Discontinuation may be associated with a worsening of neuropsychiatric symptoms over the short term and medium term, although we cannot exclude a minimal effect (SMD - 0.48, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.13; 2 studies; low certainty; and SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.08; 3 studies; low certainty, respectively). Data from one study suggest that discontinuing a cholinesterase inhibitor may result in little to no change in neuropsychiatric status at 12 months (MD -0.87 Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) points; 95% CI -8.42 to 6.68; moderate certainty). We found no clear evidence of an effect of discontinuation on dropout due to lack of medication efficacy or deterioration in overall medical condition (odds ratio (OR) 1.53, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.76; 4 studies; low certainty), on number of adverse events (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.27; 4 studies; low certainty) or serious adverse events (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.39; 4 studies; low certainty), and on mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.55; 5 studies; low certainty). Institutionalisation was reported in one trial, but it was not possible to extract data for the groups relevant to this review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors may result in worse cognitive, neuropsychiatric and functional status than continuing treatment, although this is supported by limited evidence, almost all of low or very low certainty. As all participants had dementia due to Alzheimer's disease, our findings are not transferable to other dementia types. We were unable to determine whether the effects of discontinuing cholinesterase inhibitors differed with baseline dementia severity. There is currently no evidence to guide decisions about discontinuing memantine. There is a need for further well-designed RCTs, across a range of dementia severities and settings. We are aware of two ongoing registered trials. In making decisions about discontinuing these drugs, clinicians should exercise caution, considering the evidence from existing trials along with other factors important to patients and their carers.
METHODS: The objective of this study is to determine the safety and efficacy of a novel crystalline sirolimus-coated balloon (cSCB) technology in an unselective, international, large-scale patient population. Percutaneous coronary interventions of native stenosis, in-stent stenosis, and chronic total occlusions with the SCB in patients with stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome were included. The primary outcome variable is the target lesion failure (TLF) rate at 12 months, defined as the composite rate of target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), cardiac death or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary outcome variables include TLF at 24 months, ischemia driven TLR at 12 and 24 months and all-cause death, cardiac death at 12 and 24 months.
DISCUSSION: Since there is a wealth of patient-based all-comers data for iPCB available for this study, a propensity-score matched analysis is planned to compare cSCB and iPCB for the treatment of de novo and different types of ISR. In addition, pre-specified analyses in challenging lesion subsets such as chronic total occlusions will provide evidence whether the two balloon coating technologies differ in their clinical benefit for the patient.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04470934.
Objective: We aimed to study the prevalence of visual memory dysfunction among epilepsy patients and identify the predictors that could contribute to the impairment.
Materials and Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. We analyzed 250 patients with epilepsy from neurology clinic at our tertiary center. Assessment of visual memory was done using Wechsler Memory Scale-IV (WMS-IV) with scores from subsets of visual reproduction I, II and designs I, II contributing to visual memory index (VMI) score. The correlation between continuous variables was analyzed using Pearson correlation; whereas the VMI scores of different factors were analyzed via a 1-way ANOVA test. The statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.
Results: The prevalence of visual memory dysfunction in our epilepsy population was 37.2%. Analysis of individual predictors showed that older patients, lower educational level, combined generalized and focal types of epilepsy, longer duration of epilepsy, greater number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) used, and abnormal neuroimaging contributed to poor visual memory. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that educational level, types of epilepsy, and the number of AEDs used were significant predictors for visual memory impairment.
Conclusion: Visual memory dysfunction in patients with epilepsy was due to manifold confounding factors. Our findings enabled us to identify patients with visual memory dysfunction and modifiable factors that contribute to it. WMS-IV is a suitable assessment tool to determine visual memory function, which can help clinicians to optimize the patients' treatment.
Patients and Methods: MS and NMOSD patients older than 40 were identified from neurology records from hospitals in Malaysia. The diagnoses were based on the Revised McDonald (2010) and Wingerchuk (2015) criteria. Controls were sampled from Malaysia's normal population. Individuals were interviewed telephonically or face-to-face. The age inclusion criterion (over 40) differentiated high or low lifetime risk of appendicitis, as appendicitis incidence is rare after 40.
Results: 49 MS, 71 NMOSD, and 880 controls met the inclusion criteria. Seventy-two individuals (9 MS, 4 NMOSD, 59 control) had undergone appendectomy. Appendectomy rates were 18.37% in the MS group (95% CI 7.5-29.2%), 5.6% in the NMOSD group (0.3%, 11%), and 6.7% among controls (5.1%, 8.4%), (MS vs NMOSD P = 0.036, MS vs controls P = 0.007). Binary regression analysis showed that MS was an independent risk factor for appendectomy (OR 2.938, 95% CI 1.302, 6.633, P = 0.009). NMOSD showed no association with appendectomy.
Conclusion: MS is positively associated with appendectomy, unlike ulcerative colitis, which is negatively associated. We hypothesize that there is a commonality in the microflora in persons who have had these two illnesses.