METHODS: A 'meta-model' with 4894 concentrations from 1631 neonates was built using NONMEM, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to design an optimal intermittent infusion, aiming to reach a target AUC0-24 of 400 mg·h/L at steady-state in at least 80% of neonates.
RESULTS: A two-compartment model best fitted the data. Current weight, postmenstrual age (PMA) and serum creatinine were the significant covariates for CL. After model validation, simulations showed that a loading dose (25 mg/kg) and a maintenance dose (15 mg/kg q12h if <35 weeks PMA and 15 mg/kg q8h if ≥35 weeks PMA) achieved the AUC0-24 target earlier than a standard 'Blue Book' dosage regimen in >89% of the treated patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of a population meta-analysis of vancomycin data have been used to develop a new dosing regimen for neonatal use and to assist in the design of the model-based, multinational European trial, NeoVanc.
PURPOSE: (1) To present the evidence of platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of hamstring injuries, (2) evaluate the "best-case scenario" in dichotomous outcomes, and (3) evaluate the "worst-case scenario" in dichotomous outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: Two authors systematically reviewed the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with any discrepancies resolved by mutual consensus. The level of evidence was assessed per the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and the quality of evidence by the Coleman Methodology Score. Meta-analysis by fixed effects models was used if heterogeneity was low (I2 < 25%) and random effects models if heterogeneity was moderate to high (I2≥ 25%). P values
OBJECTIVE: To determine a standardised algorithm to reassess and personalise the treatment COPD patients based on the available evidence.
METHODS: A consensus statement was agreed upon by a panel of pulmonologists in from 11 institutes in Malaysia whose members formed this consensus group.
RESULTS: According to the consensus, which was unanimously adopted, all COPD patients who are currently receiving an ICS-based treatment should be reassessed based on the presence of co-existence of asthma or high eosinophil counts and frequency of moderate or severe exacerbations in the previous 12 months. When that the patients meet any of the aforementioned criteria, then the patient can continue taking ICS-based therapy. However, if the patients do not meet the criteria, then the treatment of patients need to be personalised based on whether the patient is currently receiving long-acting beta-agonists (LABA)/ICS or triple therapy.
CONCLUSION: A flowchart of the consensus providing a guidance to Malaysian clinicians was elucidated based on evidences and international guidelines that identifies the right patients who should receive inhaled corticosteroids and enable to switch non ICS based therapies in patients less likely to benefit from such treatments.
METHODS: A systematic review and Delphi consensus panel (consisting of eight8 international pediatric allergists and gastroenterologists) was conducted to evaluate evidence supporting growth, tolerability, and effectiveness of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants.
RESULTS: None of the studies reviewed identified potential harm of pHF use compared with CMP in non-exclusively breastfed infants. There was an expert consensus that pHF use is likely as safe as intact CMP formula, given studies suggesting these have comparable nutritional parameters. No high-quality studies were identified evaluating the use of pHF to prevent allergic disease in non-exclusively breastfed infants who are not at risk for allergic disease (e.g., lacking a parental history of allergy). Limited data suggest that pHF use in non-exclusively breastfed infants may be associated with improved gastric emptying, decreased colic incidence, and other common functional gastrointestinal symptoms compared with CMP. However, because the data are of insufficient quality, the findings from these studies have to be taken with caution. No studies were identified that directly compared the different types of pHF, but there was an expert consensus that growth, allergenicity, tolerability, effectiveness, and clinical role among such pHF products may differ.
CONCLUSIONS: Limited data exist evaluating routine use of pHFs in non-exclusively breastfed infants, with no contraindications identified in the systematic review. An expert consensus considers pHFs for which data were available to be as safe as CMP formula as growth is normal. The preventive effect on allergy of pHF in infants who are not at risk for allergic disease has been poorly studied. Cost of pHF versus starter formula with intact protein differs from country to country. However, further studies in larger populations are needed to clinically confirm the benefits of routine use of pHF in non-exclusively breastfed infants. These studies should also address potential consumer preference bias.