Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Tipo de documento
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
J Biochem Mol Toxicol ; 37(9): e23417, 2023 Sep.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37345721

RESUMO

During the period of COVID-19, the occurrences of mucormycosis in immunocompromised patients have increased significantly. Mucormycosis (black fungus) is a rare and rapidly progressing fungal infection associated with high mortality and morbidity in India as well as globally. The causative agents for this infection are collectively called mucoromycetes which are the members of the order Mucorales. The diagnosis of the infection needs to be performed as soon as the occurrence of clinical symptoms which differs with types of Mucorales infection. Imaging techniques magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan, culture testing, and microscopy are the approaches for the diagnosis. After the diagnosis of the infection is confirmed, rapid action is needed for the treatment in the form of antifungal therapy or surgery depending upon the severity of the infection. Delaying in treatment declines the chances of survival. In antifungal therapy, there are two approaches first-line therapy (monotherapy) and combination therapy. Amphotericin B (1) and isavuconazole (2) are the drugs of choice for first-line therapy in the treatment of mucormycosis. Salvage therapy with posaconazole (3) and deferasirox (4) is another approach for patients who are not responsible for any other therapy. Adjunctive therapy is also used in the treatment of mucormycosis along with first-line therapy, which involves hyperbaric oxygen and cytokine therapy. There are some drugs like VT-1161 (5) and APX001A (6), Colistin, SCH 42427, and PC1244 that are under clinical trials. Despite all these approaches, none can be 100% successful in giving results. Therefore, new medications with favorable or little side effects are required for the treatment of mucormycosis.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Mucorales , Mucormicose , Humanos , Antifúngicos/uso terapêutico , Antifúngicos/farmacologia , Mucormicose/tratamento farmacológico , Mucormicose/diagnóstico , Mucormicose/microbiologia , Anfotericina B/uso terapêutico , Anfotericina B/farmacologia
2.
Gastrointest Endosc ; 89(3): 545-553, 2019 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30273591

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable with routine screening and surveillance colonoscopy; however, interval cancers arising from precancerous lesions missed by standard colonoscopy still occur. An increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been found to be inversely associated with interval cancers. The G-EYE device includes a reusable balloon integrated at the distal tip of a standard colonoscope, which flattens haustral folds, centralizes the colonoscope's optics, and reduces bowel slippage. The insufflated balloon also aims to enhance visualization of the colon during withdrawal, thereby increasing the ADR. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, international, multicenter study (11 centers), patients (aged ≥50 years) referred to colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or changes in bowel habits were randomized to undergo either balloon-assisted colonoscopy by using an insufflated balloon during withdrawal or standard high-definition colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the ADR. RESULTS: One thousand patients were enrolled between May 2014 and September 2016 to undergo colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists; 803 were finally analyzed (standard colonoscopy n = 396; balloon-assisted colonoscopy n = 407). Baseline parameters were similar in both groups. Balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided a 48.0% ADR compared with 37.5% in the standard colonoscopy group (28% increase; P = .0027). Additionally, balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided for a significant increase in detection of advanced (P = .0033) flat adenomas (P < .0001) and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (P = .0026). CONCLUSION: Balloon-assisted colonoscopy yielded a higher ADR and increased the detection of advanced, flat, and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps when compared with standard colonoscopy. Improved detection by the G-EYE device could impact the quality of CRC screening by reducing miss rates and consequently reducing interval cancer incidence. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01917513.).


Assuntos
Adenoma/diagnóstico , Pólipos do Colo/diagnóstico , Colonoscopia/métodos , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Pólipos Adenomatosos/diagnóstico , Assistência ao Convalescente , Idoso , Colonoscópios , Colonoscopia/instrumentação , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Fezes/química , Feminino , Hemoglobinas/análise , Humanos , Imunoquímica , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
3.
BMC Gastroenterol ; 16(1): 133, 2016 Oct 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27737636

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Adequate bowel preparation is an essential prerequisite for complete mucosal visualization during colonoscopy. Polyethylene glycol (PEG) solutions are commonly used. However the large volume of the solution is often poorly tolerated. Addition of Lubiprostone (LB) could improve the adequacy of standard PEG preparation & reduce requirement. The aims to assess adequacy of PEG preparation with addition of single dose LB (24mcg) vs placebo and efficacy of reduced dose PEG + LB compared with full dose PEG + LB. METHODS: Single center prospective double blind randomized controlled trial. Part I: 442 patients for colonoscopy randomized to receive placebo (GrA) or single dose of LB (GrB) prior to PEG preparation. Quality of bowel preparation graded 0-9 according to Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS). BBPS-9: excellent and BBPS 0-4: repeat procedure. Part II: 146 patients randomized to receive LB + 1.5 L PEG (GrC; 75) or LB + 1 L PEG (GrD; 71). BBPS score compared with GrB (2 L PEG). RESULTS: Part I: 442 patients (221 GrA & 221 Gr B). LB resulted in significant improvement in total BBPS (7.44 + 0.14 vs. 6.36 + 0.16, p < 0.0001). 66.5 % Gr B vs 38 % Gr A had excellent prep; 42.5 % GrB vs 24 % GrA had adequate prep. Repeat procedure needed 9.5 % Gr B vs 16.7 % Gr A (P < 0.01). Part II: No difference in BBPS scores with lower doses (Gr C&D) compared to standard (GrB) (Mean BBPS 7.44 + 0.14 GrA,7.30 + 0.25 GrC;7.25 + 0.26 GrD;p >0.05). CONCLUSION: Single dose LB prior to PEG significantly enhanced bowel preparation compared to PEG alone. There was no significant difference in quality of preparation with lower doses of PEG when combined with LB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was approved by institutional review board and the trial was registered on March 22, 2011 with clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01324284 ).


Assuntos
Catárticos/administração & dosagem , Colonoscopia , Lubiprostona/administração & dosagem , Polietilenoglicóis/administração & dosagem , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios/métodos , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Quimioterapia Combinada , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA