OBJECTIVE: In this study, we have studied the potential of histone deacetylase inhibitors in colorectal cancer.
RESULTS: Histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACIs) are an emerging class of therapeutic agents having potential anticancer activity with minimal toxicity for different types of malignancies in preclinical studies. HDACIs have proven less effective in monotherapy thus the combination of HDACIs with other anticancer agents are being assessed for the treatment of colorectal cancer.
CONCLUSION: The molecular mechanism emphasizing the anticancer effect of HDACIs in colorectal cancer was illustrated and a recapitulation was carried out on the recent advances in the rationale behind combination therapies currently underway in clinical evaluations.
Main body: Corticosteroids, i.e., dexamethasone, methylprednisolone, hydrocortisone and prednisone are used alone or in combination for the treatment of moderate, severe and critically infected COVID-19 patients who are hospitalized and require supplemental oxygen as per current management strategies and guidelines for COVID-19 published by the National Institutes of Health. Corticosteroids are recorded in the WHO model list of essential medicines and are easily accessible worldwide at a cheaper cost in multiple formulations and various dosage forms. Corticosteroid can be used in all age group of patients, i.e., children, adult, elderly and during pregnancy or breastfeeding women. Corticosteroids have potent anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects in both primary and secondary immune cells, thereby reducing the generation of proinflammatory cytokines and chemokines and lowering the activation of T cells, monocytes and macrophages. The corticosteroids should not be used in the treatment of non-severe COVID-19 patients because corticosteroids suppress the immune response and reduce the symptoms and associated side effects such as slow recovery, bacterial infections, hypokalemia, mucormycosis and finally increase the chances of death.
Conclusion: Intensive research on corticosteroid therapy in COVID-19 treatment is urgently needed to elucidate their mechanisms and importance in contributing toward successful prevention and treatment approaches. Hence, this review emphasizes on recent advancement on corticosteroid therapy for defining their importance in overcoming SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, their mechanism, efficacy and extent of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 patients.
AIM: This study aimed to understand the experiences of service providers in relation to how drug and alcohol (D&A) services were affected during COVID-19 pandemic, including the adaptations made and lessons learnt for the future.
METHOD: Focus groups and semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants from various D&A service organisations across the UK. Data were audio recorded, followed by transcription and thematic analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 46 participants representing various service providers were recruited between October and January 2022. The thematic analysis identified ten themes. COVID-19 required significant changes to how the treatment was provided and prioritised. Expansion of telehealth and digital services were described, which reduced service wait times and increased opportunities for peer network. However, they described missed opportunities for disease screening, and some users risked facing digital exclusion. Participants who provided opiate substitution therapy service spoke of improving service provider/user trust following the shift from daily supervised treatment consumption to weekly dispensing. At the same time, they feared fatal overdoses and non-adherence to treatment.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the multifaceted impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK-based D&A service provisions. The long-term impact of reduced supervision on Substance Use Disorder treatment and outcomes and any effect of virtual communications on service efficiency, patient-provider relationships and treatment retention and successes are unknown, suggesting the need for further study to assess their utility.
METHODS: The OpERA tool was used to collect specific milestone data that identify time periods, review stages, and data points for new active substances and biosimilars approved by NPRA in 2017.
RESULTS: In 2017, 25 new active substances and 1 biosimilar were approved by NPRA in a median of 515 days, representing both agency and applicant time. The median time between dossier receipt and the initiation of NPRA scientific assessment was 135 days, but there was a wide variation in queuing time. The median total assessment time was 279 days (agency and applicant timing). NPRA took a median of 166 days; applicants took a median of 131 days to respond to deficiency questions, with up to 6 cycles of review required for approval and 65% of applications requiring 4-5 cycles to provide satisfactory responses.
CONCLUSIONS: As a result of these data, NPRA proposes three improvements: target start for scientific assessment 100 days after file acceptance, a maximum of 5 review cycles, and applicant response time limited to 6 months. These results will serve as a baseline for further assessment.
Objective: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics.
Methods: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions.
Results: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions.
Conclusions: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for performing and interpretating PVSA testing, along with recommendations for proficiency testing, competency assessment for performing PVSA, and clinical and laboratory scenarios. Moreover, we conducted an analysis of 1,114 PVSA performed at the Cleveland Clinic's Andrology Laboratory and an online survey to understand clinician responses to the PVSA results in various countries.
RESULTS: Results from our clinical experience showed that 92.1% of patients passed PVSA, with 7.9% being further tested. A total of 78 experts from 19 countries participated in the survey, and the majority reported to use time from vasectomy rather than the number of ejaculations as criterion to request PVSA. A high percentage of responders reported permitting unprotected intercourse only if PVSA samples show azoospermia while, in the presence of few non-motile sperm, the majority of responders suggested using alternative contraception, followed by another PVSA. In the presence of motile sperm, the majority of participants asked for further PVSA testing. Repeat vasectomy was mainly recommended if motile sperm were observed after multiple PVSA's. A large percentage reported to recommend a second PVSA due to the possibility of legal actions.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlighted varying clinical practices around the globe, with controversy over the significance of non-motile sperm in the PVSA sample. Our data suggest that less stringent AUA guidelines would help improve test compliance. A large longitudinal multi-center study would clarify various doubts related to timing and interpretation of PVSA and would also help us to understand, and perhaps predict, recanalization and the potential for future failure of a vasectomy.