Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Leuk Res ; 104: 106536, 2021 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33676165

RESUMO

We report the data on 15 women who presented with Ph-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) between Jan 2009 until Dec 2016 and who were treated on the prospective multicenter RALL-2009 clinical trial. A comparison of their outcome was made with 129 non-pregnant females who entered the study and were treated by the same schedule. 10-years OS for pregnant and non-pregnant women was 58.6 % (29.6 %-85.0 %) and 43.3 % (32.1 %-58.8 %), DFS was 46 % (15.2 %-78.8 %) and 51 % (39.7 %-64.6 %); probability of relapse was 49 % (16.6 %-83.3 %) and 40.3 % (27.3 %-53.4 %), respectively. Twelve born during the study children are well and alive with a median age 5 years 2 months (2 years - 9 years). Though small, our study has shown some specific features of ALL diagnosed during pregnancy (more T-cell ALL, higher initial WBC, later responses) and has shown that the long-term outcome of women with ALL treated while pregnant is equivalent to female control patients treated on the same protocol.


Assuntos
Protocolos de Quimioterapia Combinada Antineoplásica/administração & dosagem , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras/tratamento farmacológico , Complicações Neoplásicas na Gravidez/tratamento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Intervalo Livre de Doença , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras/diagnóstico , Leucemia-Linfoma Linfoblástico de Células Precursoras/mortalidade , Gravidez , Complicações Neoplásicas na Gravidez/diagnóstico , Complicações Neoplásicas na Gravidez/mortalidade , Estudos Prospectivos , Federação Russa/epidemiologia
2.
Infect Dis Ther ; 7(4): 523-534, 2018 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30203332

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The objective of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhoea (CDAD) among hospitalised patients with antibiotic-associated diarrhoea (AAD) in general and by specific types of medical care and hospital units. METHODS: A prospective, cross-sectional, non-interventional, multicentre study. The main inclusion criteria were: patient age ≥ 18 years, hospital stay of at least 48 h, current antibiotic therapy or antibiotic therapy within the previous 30 days, loose stools (Bristol stool types 5-7 and stool frequency ≥ 3 within ≤ 24 consecutive hours or exceeding normal for the patient) and signed informed consent form. The stool sample was taken to the local (study site) microbiology laboratory for detection of glutamate dehydrogenase (GDH) and toxins A/B using enzyme immunoassay (EIA) stool test. RESULTS: From April 2016 to April 2017, a total of 1245 patients from 12 large hospitals were enrolled in the study. Data on 81 patients were excluded from the analysis for different reasons. Data on 1164 patients (45.2% males and 54.8% females) with a mean age of 54.9 years (range 18-95 years) were analysed. Length of hospitalisation was 2-188 days (median, 8 days). The EIA stool test showed CDAD-positive results in 21.7% (253/1164) patients. The patients were from surgery units (546/1164), internal medicine units (510/1164) and intensive care units (108/1164). The prevalence of CDAD among patients from surgery, internal medicine and intensive care units was 26.2, 17.8 and 17.6%, respectively. Oncology, gastroenterology, septic surgery, oncohaematology and general medical hospital units accounted for more than 75% of all patients included; the prevalence of CDAD by those hospital units was 11.3, 15.0, 39.2, 17.6, and 27.2%, respectively. The proportion of GDH-positive and toxin A/B-negative patients by the rapid stool test result was 16.8% (196/1164). The prevalence of CDAD varied widely between the hospitals (from 0 to 44.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CDAD among hospitalised patients with AAD in this study was 21.7% (95% confidence interval: 14.8 and 28.7%). The percentage of CDAD varied widely between hospitals and by specific types of medical care and hospital units.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...