RESULTS: Our findings revealed that uncoated alginate microcapsules ruptured upon drying and exhibited low encapsulation efficiency (13.81 ± 2.76%). However, the addition of chitosan successfully provided a more complex and rigid external wall structure to enhance the stability of the microcapsules. By prolonging the crosslinking time from 5 to 30 min and increasing the chitosan concentration from 0.1% to 0.5%, the oil encapsulation efficiency was increased by 28%. Under the right gelation pH (pH 4), the extension of gelation time from 1 to 12 h resulted in an increase in alginate-Ca2+ crosslinkings, thus strengthening the microcapsules.
CONCLUSION: With the optimum formulation and process parameters, a high encapsulation efficiency (81.49 ± 1.75%) with an elevated oil loading efficiency (63.58 ± 2.96%) were achieved. The final product is biocompatible and can potentially be used for the delivery of palm tocotrienols. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.
METHOD: RCTs investigating falls prevention interventions conducted in Asian countries from (i) the most recent (2012) Cochrane community setting falls prevention review, and (ii) subsequent published RCTs meeting the same criteria were identified, classified and grouped according to the ProFANE intervention classification. Characteristics of included trials were extracted from both the Cochrane review and original publications. Where ≥2 studies investigated an intervention type in the Asian region, a meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS: Fifteen of 159 RCTs in the Cochrane review were conducted in the Asian region (9%), and a further 11 recent RCTs conducted in Asia were identified (total 26 Asian studies: median 160 participants, mean age:75.1, female:71.9%). Exercise (15 RCTs) and home assessment/modification (n = 2) were the only single interventions with ≥2 RCTs. Intervention types with ≥1 effective RCT in reducing fall outcomes were exercise (6 effective), home modification (1 effective), and medication (vitamin D) (1 effective). One multiple and one multifactorial intervention also had positive falls outcomes. Meta-analysis of exercise interventions identified significant benefit (number of fallers: Odds Ratio 0.43 [0.34,0.53]; number of falls: 0.35 [0.21,0.57]; and number of fallers injured: 0.50 [0.35,0.71]); but multifactorial interventions did not reach significance (number of fallers OR = 0.57 [0.23,1.44]).
CONCLUSION: There is a small but growing research base of falls prevention RCTs from Asian countries, with exercise approaches being most researched and effective. For other interventions shown to be effective elsewhere, consideration of local issues is required to ensure that research and programs implemented in these countries are effective, and relevant to the local context, people, and health system. There is also a need for further high quality, appropriately powered falls prevention trials in Asian countries.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 657 patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletions or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC after disease progression on osimertinib were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to receive amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, chemotherapy, or amivantamab-chemotherapy. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) of amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy. During the study, hematologic toxicities observed in the amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy arm necessitated a regimen change to start lazertinib after carboplatin completion.
RESULTS: All baseline characteristics were well balanced across the three arms, including by history of brain metastases and prior brain radiation. PFS was significantly longer for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) for disease progression or death 0.48 and 0.44, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 6.3 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively]. Consistent PFS results were seen by investigator assessment (HR for disease progression or death 0.41 and 0.38 for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy, respectively; P < 0.001 for both; median of 8.2 and 8.3 versus 4.2 months, respectively). Objective response rate was significantly higher for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (64% and 63% versus 36%, respectively; P < 0.001 for both). Median intracranial PFS was 12.5 and 12.8 versus 8.3 months for amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy versus chemotherapy (HR for intracranial disease progression or death 0.55 and 0.58, respectively). Predominant adverse events (AEs) in the amivantamab-containing regimens were hematologic, EGFR-, and MET-related toxicities. Amivantamab-chemotherapy had lower rates of hematologic AEs than amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Amivantamab-chemotherapy and amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy improved PFS and intracranial PFS versus chemotherapy in a population with limited options after disease progression on osimertinib. Longer follow-up is needed for the modified amivantamab-lazertinib-chemotherapy regimen.