Management of Post-Viral Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome With Craniosacral Therapy.

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS) is a rare disorder of the autonomic nervous system. The number of people afflicted with this dysautonomia has increased dramatically in recent years due to the long-term effects of coronavirus disease (COVID-19); however, it is largely underdiagnosed. This case report is about a patient with post-viral neuropathic POTS. Neuropathic POTS is believed to be due to the damage of small nerve fibers that regulate the constriction of the blood vessels in the limb and abdomen, which leads to interference with vasoconstriction, and therefore causes tachycardia. Current literature emphasizes a treatment that is based on lifestyle modifications, such as increasing water and salt intake, and symptomatic pharmacological treatment. In this case, the 39-year-old male ptient was treated with osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT), specifically the compression of the fourth ventricle (CV4), which has been associated with the production of hyperparasympathetic and anti-inflammatory effects and, hence, helps overcome the small-fiber neuropathy caused by the viral illness. We found that the CV4 technique led to the successful remission of the patient's symptoms. Therefore, we propose craniosacral therapy as a successful single management modality in patients with POTS.

Comparison of the outcomes between sorafenib and lenvatinib as the first-line systemic treatment for HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: In a randomized controlled trial, lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival (OS) of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study aimed to compare the effects of sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line systemic therapy against uHCC with real-world data in chronic hepatitis B patients. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study involved 132 patients with HBV-related uHCC. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, serum alpha-fetoprotein levels, Child-Pugh class, tumor size, and tumor stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and tumor response. RESULTS: After PSM, the final analysis included 44 patients treated with lenvatinib and 88 with sorafenib. The OS (7.0 vs 9.2 months, p = 0.070) and PFS (4.6 vs 2.4 months, p = 0.134) were comparable between the two drugs. Multivariable analysis showed that lenvatinib and sorafenib were not independent prognostic factors of OS (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval = 0.96-2.08, p = 0.077) after adjustment for baseline alpha-fetoprotein levels, total bilirubin levels, alanine aminotransferase level, performance status, tumor stage, and tumor size. However, the lenvatinib group had a significantly prolonged TTP (5.2 vs 2.5 months, p = 0.018) and a higher objective response rate (18.2% vs 4.5%, p = 0.020) and disease control rate (77.3% vs 47.7%, p = 0.001) than the sorafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that lenvatinib had a comparable OS and PFS but longer TTP and better tumor response compared to sorafenib in patients with HBV-related uHCC.