Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
1.
Clin Sci (Lond) ; 135(14): 1649-1668, 2021 07 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34283204

RESUMO

In the past two decades, treatment outcomes for a wide range of malignancies have improved remarkably due to the development of novel anti-cancer therapies, including vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Despite their unprecedented anti-tumour effects, it is becoming increasingly clear that both types of agents are associated with specific cardiovascular toxicity, including hypertension, congestive heart failure, myocarditis and acceleration of atherosclerosis. Currently, VEGFI and ICI combination therapy is recommended for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and has shown promising treatment efficacy in other tumour types as well. Consequently, VEGFI and ICI combination therapy will most likely become an important therapeutic strategy for various malignancies. However, this combinatory approach is expected to be accompanied by a substantial increase in cardiovascular risk, as both types of agents could act synergistically to induce cardiovascular sequelae. Therefore, a comprehensive baseline assessment and adequate monitoring by specialised cardio-oncology teams is essential in case these agents are used in combination, particularly in high-risk patients. This review summarises the mechanisms of action and treatment indications for currently registered VEGFIs and ICIs, and discusses their main vascular and cardiac toxicity. Subsequently, we provide the biological rationales for the observed promising synergistic anti-tumour effects of combined VEGFI/ICI administration. Lastly, we speculate on the increased risk for cardiovascular toxicity in case these agents are used in combination and its implications and future directions for the clinical situation.


Assuntos
Inibidores da Angiogênese/efeitos adversos , Cardiotoxicidade/etiologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Checkpoint Imunológico/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Angiogênese/uso terapêutico , Fatores de Risco de Doenças Cardíacas , Humanos , Hipertensão/etiologia , Hipertensão/fisiopatologia , Inibidores de Checkpoint Imunológico/uso terapêutico
2.
Heart Lung Circ ; 29(11): 1588-1595, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32839116

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Australia. Investment in research solutions has been demonstrated to yield health and a 9.8-fold return economic benefit. The sector, however, is severely challenged with success rates of traditional peer-reviewed funding in decline. Here, we aimed to understand the perceived challenges faced by the cardiovascular workforce in Australia prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used an online survey distributed across Australian cardiovascular societies/councils, universities and research institutes over a period of 6 months during 2019, with 548 completed responses. Inclusion criteria included being an Australian resident or an Australian citizen who lived overseas, and a current or past student or employee in the field of cardiovascular research. RESULTS: The mean age of respondents was 42±13 years, 47% were male, 85% had a full-time position, and 40% were a group leader or laboratory head. Twenty-three per cent (23%) had permanent employment, and 82% of full-time workers regularly worked >40 hours/week. Sixty-eight per cent (68%) said they had previously considered leaving the cardiovascular research sector. If their position could not be funded in the next few years, a staggering 91% of respondents would leave the sector. Compared to PhD- and age-matched men, women were less likely to be a laboratory head and to feel they had a long-term career path as a cardiovascular researcher, while more women were unsure about future employment and had considered leaving the sector (all p<0.05). Greater job security (76%) and government and philanthropic investment in cardiovascular research (72%) were highlighted by responders as the main changes to current practices that would encourage them to stay. CONCLUSION: Strategic solutions, such as diversification of career pathways and funding sources, and moving from a competitive to a collaborative culture, need to be a priority to decrease reliance on government funding and allow cardiovascular researchers to thrive.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Doenças Cardiovasculares , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Administração Financeira , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pesquisadores , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Recursos Humanos , Adulto , Austrália , Betacoronavirus , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , COVID-19 , Emprego/economia , Emprego/psicologia , Feminino , Administração Financeira/métodos , Administração Financeira/organização & administração , Administração Financeira/estatística & dados numéricos , Financiamento Governamental , Humanos , Masculino , Cultura Organizacional , Pandemias , Técnicas de Planejamento , Pesquisadores/economia , Pesquisadores/psicologia , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , SARS-CoV-2 , Inquéritos e Questionários , Recursos Humanos/estatística & dados numéricos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA