RESUMEN
18ß-Glycyrrhetinic acid (GA) is an oleane-type pentacyclic triterpene saponin obtained from glycyrrhizic acid by removing 2 glucuronic acid groups. GA and its analogues are active substances of glycyrrhiza aicd, with similar structure and important pharmacological effects such as anti-inflammatory, anti-diabetes, anti-tumor and anti-fibrosis. Although GA combined compounds are in the clinical trial stages, its application potential is severely restricted by its low bioavailability, water solubility and membrane permeability. In this article, synthetic methods and structure-activity relationships (SARs) of GA derivatives from 2018 to present are reviewed based on pharmacological activity. It is hoped that this review can provide reference for the future development of potential GA preclinical candidate compounds, and furnish ideas for the development of pentacyclic triterpenoid lead compounds.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is a poor prognostic factor in patients with esophageal cancer (EC). It can be aggravated by neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) that improves the prognosis of patients with EC. Until now, the impact of preoperative sarcopenia on survival prognosis in patients receiving NAT for EC remains unclear. METHODS: We systematically researched relevant studies in the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library databases up to March 8, 2020. Prevalence of sarcopenia before and after NAT, overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were collected for analysis. Finally, eleven cohort studies were included. RESULTS: Pooled analysis indicated that preoperative sarcopenia was negatively associated with OS. (HR = 1.290; 95% CI [1.078-1.543]; P = 0.005; I 2 = 0.0%) and DFS (HR = 1.554; 95% CI [1.177-2.052]; P = 0.002; I 2 = 0.0%) in the patients with EC receiving NAT. The prevalence of sarcopenia increased by 15.4% following NAT (95%CI [12.9%-17.9%]). Further subgroup analysis indicated that sarcopenia diagnosed following NAT (HR = 1.359; 95% CI [1.036-1.739]; P = 0.015; I 2 = 6.9%) and age >65 years (HR = 1.381; 95% CI [1.090- 1.749]; P = 0.007; I 2 = 0.0%) were the independent risk factors for decreased OS. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should strengthen the screening of preoperative sarcopenia in patients of EC both receiving NAT and older than 65 years and give active nutritional support to improve the prognosis of patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (INPLASY), identifier INPLASY202050057.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The significance of endoscopic evaluation in the diagnosis and management of ulcerative colitis (UC) has been widely recognized. Over the years, scholars have established several endoscopic scores. Herein, we assessed the clinical application value of the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (Mayo ES), the Degree of Ulcerative Colitis Burden of Luminal Inflammation (DUBLIN) score, and the Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity (UCEIS) score in UC patients, by comparing their correlation with disease activity and their predictive potential for treatment response and clinical outcomes. METHODS: UC patients hospitalized from September 2015 to September 2019 were retrospectively analysed. We employed Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to assess the linear association of the assessed endoscopic scores with the clinical parameters. The receiver-operating characteristic curve was applied to evaluate the predictive capabilities of the endoscopic scores for treatment escalation and 1-year readmission. RESULTS: A total of 178 patients were enrolled; most of them (82%) suffered moderate or severe colitis. Among them, 48 (27%) patients received treatment escalation and 59 (33%) were readmitted within 1 year. The DUBLIN and UCEIS scores demonstrated higher correlations with clinical parameters than the Mayo ES. The DUBLIN scores significantly differed between patients with mild, moderate, and severe colitis (all P < 0.001). The UCEIS scores demonstrated the best predictabilities for treatment escalation and 1-year readmission with an area under the curve of 0.88 and 0.75, respectively. Compared to the UCEIS and DUBLIN scores, the predictive capabilities of the Mayo ES for treatment escalation (both P < 0.001) and 1-year readmission (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively) were lower. The UCEIS scores exhibited a significant difference between the steroid-responsive group and the steroid-dependent or steroid-refractory group (both P < 0.001), while no significant differences in the Mayo ES and DUBLIN scores were found among the three groups (both P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that both the DUBLIN and UCEIS scores outperform the Mayo ES in assessing disease severity and predicting treatment response and clinical outcomes in UC patients.