Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Country/Region as subject
Language
Affiliation country
Publication year range
1.
Front Public Health ; 12: 1321046, 2024.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38299071

ABSTRACT

Objective: To investigate the relationship between maternal folic acid (FA) supplementation during the pre-conceptional and prenatal periods and the subsequent risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in offspring. Methods: A total of 6,049 toddlers aged 16-30 months were recruited from August 2016 to March 2017 for this cross-sectional study conducted in China. The parents of the enrolled toddlers provided information on maternal supplemental FA, socio-demographic information, and related covariates. Standard diagnostic procedures were implemented to identify toddlers with ASD. Results: Among the 6,049 children included in the study, consisting of 3,364 boys with an average age of 22.7 ± 4.1 months, a total of 71 children (1.2%) were diagnosed with ASD. Mothers who did not consume FA supplements during the prenatal period were found to have a significantly increased risk of having offspring with ASD, in comparison to those who were exposed to FA supplements (odds ratio [OR] = 2.47). However, we did not find a similar association during the pre-conceptional period. Compared to mothers who consistently used FA supplements from pre-conception to the prenatal period, those who never used FA supplements were statistically significantly associated with a higher risk of ASD in their offspring (OR = 2.88). Conclusion: This study indicated that providing continuous maternal FA supplementation during the pre-conceptional and prenatal periods may decrease the risk of ASD in offspring. The prenatal period is considered to be the most crucial time for intervention.


Subject(s)
Autism Spectrum Disorder , Folic Acid , Male , Pregnancy , Female , Humans , Infant , Child, Preschool , Folic Acid/adverse effects , Autism Spectrum Disorder/epidemiology , Autism Spectrum Disorder/etiology , Cross-Sectional Studies , Dietary Supplements/adverse effects , Vitamins , China/epidemiology
2.
PLoS One ; 11(3): e0149247, 2016.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26954503

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine and pemetrexed have been used as maintenance therapy. However, few systematic reviews and meta-analyses have assessed their effects in the newest studies. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to assess the role of gemcitabine and pemetrexed in the maintenance treatment of non-small-cell lung carcinoma (NSCLC). METHODS: We performed a literature search using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases from their inceptions to September 16, 2015. We also searched the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) databases from 2008 to 2015. Two authors independently extracted the data. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias graph was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE system was used to assess the grading of evidence, and a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 11.0 software. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies were collected. Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis and divided into the following 4 groups: gemcitabine vs. best supportive care (BSC)/observation, pemetrexed vs. BSC/placebo, pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab and pemetrexed vs. bevacizumab. Gemcitabine exhibited significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with BSC (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.62, p = 0.000). Pemetrexed exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.54, p = 0.000) and OS (HR = 0.75, p = 0.000) compared with BSC. Pemetrexed + bevacizumab almost exhibited significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.71, p = 0.051) compared with bevacizumab. Pemetrexed exhibited no improvement in PFS or overall survival (OS) compared with bevacizumab. Regarding the grade, the GRADE system indicated that the gemcitabine group was "MODERATE", the pemetrexed group was "HIGH", and both the pemetrexed + bevacizumab vs. bevacizumab groups and pemetrexed vs. B groups were "LOW". CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine or pemetrexed compared with BSC/observation/placebo significantly improved PFS or OS. Whether pemetrexed + bevacizumab compared with bevacizumab alone significantly improves PFS requires further investigation.


Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/drug therapy , Deoxycytidine/analogs & derivatives , Lung Neoplasms/drug therapy , Pemetrexed/therapeutic use , Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung/mortality , Deoxycytidine/therapeutic use , Disease-Free Survival , Female , Humans , Lung Neoplasms/mortality , Male , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Survival Rate , Gemcitabine
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL