OBJECTIVE: In this study, we endeavored to develop a rapid method for multiresidue analysis of glyphosate (+aminomethylphosphonic acid) and glufosinate (+3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid and N-acetyl-glufosinate) in refined and crude palm oil matrices using liquid chromatography (LC) tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS).
METHOD: The optimized sample preparation workflow included extraction of refined or crude palm oil (10 g) with acidified water (0.1 M HCl), cleanup by phase separation with dichloromethane, and analysis by LC-MS/MS with multiple reaction monitoring.
RESULTS: The use of a Torus-DEA LC column ensured simultaneous analysis of these compounds within a runtime of 10 min. The LOQ of these analytes was 0.01 mg/kg, except that of aminomethylphosphonic acid which was 0.02 mg/kg. The method sensitivity complied with the national maximum residue limits of Malaysia and the European Union. Also, the method selectivity, sensitivity, accuracy, and precision were aligned with the SANTE/12682/2019 guidelines of analytical quality control.
CONCLUSIONS: The potentiality of the optimized method lies in a high throughput direct analysis of glyphosate and glufosinate with their metabolites in a single chromatographic run. The method is fit for purpose for regulatory testing of these residues in a broad range of palm oil matrices.
HIGHLIGHTS: The study reports for the first time a validated method for simultaneous analysis of glyphosate, glufosinate, and their metabolites in a range of palm oil products. The method did not require a derivatization step and provided a high throughput analysis of these compounds with satisfactory selectivity, sensitivity, accuracy, and precision.
METHODS: In-silico based drug designing approach was implemented for evaluating potential inhibitors against alpha-enolase based on their binding affinities, energy score and pharmacokinetics. Lipinski's rule of five (LRo5) and Egan's (Brain Or IntestinaL EstimateD) BOILED-Egg methods were executed to predict the best ligand for biological systems.
RESULTS: Molecular docking analysis revealed, Sodium (1,5-dihydroxy-2-oxopyrrolidin-3-yl)-hydroxy-dioxidophosphanium (SF-2312) as a promising inhibitor that fabricates finest attractive charges and conventional hydrogen bonds with S. pneumoniae alpha-enolase. Moreover, the pharmacokinetics of SF-2312 predict it as a therapeutic inhibitor for clinical trials. Like SF-2312, phosphono-acetohydroxamate (PhAH) also constructed adequate interactions at the active site of alpha-enolase, but it predicted less favourable than SF-2312 based on binding affinity.
CONCLUSION: Briefly, SF-2312 and PhAH ligands could inhibit the role of alpha-enolase to restrain plasminogen binding, invasion and progression of S. pneumoniae. As per our investigation and analysis, SF-2312 is the most potent naturally existing inhibitor of S. pneumoniae alpha-enolase in current time.
Objective: To provide an update on the current understanding, evaluation, and management of penile warts.
Methods: A PubMed search was completed in Clinical Queries using the key terms 'penile warts' and 'genital warts'. The search strategy included meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews.
Results: Penile warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), notably HPV-6 and HPV-11. Penile warts typically present as asymptomatic papules or plaques. Lesions may be filiform, exophytic, papillomatous, verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cerebriform, fungating, or cauliflower-like. Approximately one-third of penile warts regress without treatment and the average duration prior to resolution is approximately 9 months. Active treatment is preferable to watchful observation to speed up clearance of the lesions and to assuage fears of transmission and autoinoculation. Patient-administered therapies include podofilox (0.5%) solution or gel, imiquimod 3.75 or 5% cream, and sinecatechins (polypheron E) 15% ointment. Clinician-administered therapies include podophyllin, cryotherapy, bichloroacetic or trichloroacetic acid, oral cimetidine, surgical excision, electrocautery, and carbon dioxide laser therapy. Patients who do not respond to first-line treatments may respond to other therapies or a combination of treatment modalities. Second-line therapies include topical/intralesional/intravenous cidofovir, topical 5-fluorouracil, and topical ingenol mebutate.
Conclusion: No single treatment has been shown to be consistently superior to other treatment modalities. The choice of the treatment method should depend on the physician's comfort level with the various treatment options, the patient's preference and tolerability of treatment, and the number and severity of lesions. The comparative efficacy, ease of administration, adverse effects, cost, and availability of the treatment modality should also be taken into consideration.
METHODS: Randomized trials, assessing the efficacy of antiviral drugs for HBV and HIV co-infected patients were searched in health-related databases. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Main outcome in this meta-analysis study was the success of treatment by antivirals as determined by virologic response. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis of these trials and assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Seven randomized trials (329 participants) were included in this network meta-analysis study. A network geometry was formed with six treatment options including four antiviral drugs, adefovir (ADV), emtricitabine (FTC), lamivudine (LMV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), combination treatment of TDF plus LMV, and placebo. The weighted percentage contributions of each comparison distributed fairly equally in the entire network of evidence. An assumption of consistency required for network meta-analysis was not violated (the global Wald test for inconsistency: Chi2(4) = 3.63, p = 0.46). The results of estimates showed no differences between the treatment regimens in terms of viral response for treating HBV and HIV co-infected patients, which spanned both benefit and harm (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: OR: 0.37, 95%CI: 0.06-2.41). Overall, the certainty of evidence was very low in all comparisons (e.g. LMV vs TDF plus LMV: 218 fewer per 1000,121 more to 602 fewer, very low certainty). Therefore, we remained uncertain to the true ranking of the antiviral treatments in HBV/ HIV co-infected patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the evidence is insufficient to provide guidance to the relative effectiveness of currently available antiviral drugs with dual activity in treating co-infection of HBV/HIV. Well-designed, large clinical trials in this field to address other important outcomes from different epidemiological settings are recommended.