Rationalizing prescription via deprescribing in oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an integrated approach for deprescribing practice in oncology setting. DATA SOURCES: The data on deprescribing in oncology settings has been retrieved from the PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar. We used "deprescribing," "potentially inappropriate medication" and "cancer" as a keyword for the conducting general search. The articles relevant to guidelines or tools used to deprescribe in cancer care were included. DATA SUMMARY: The nature of cancer, its treatment strategies, adverse effects of therapy and multimorbidity impact negatively on quality of life (QoL). Further, they invite polypharmacy which puts the patient at higher risk of drug-related problems like drug interactions, adverse drug reactions and addition of potentially improper medications, etc. In older adults with cancer, the incidence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) was between 41% and 52%. Over the decades, multiple strategies have been developed to assess the appropriateness of therapy. One such approach is deprescribing. OncPal and oncoSTRIP (Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing) are the cancer specific guidelines whereas BEERs criteria, Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment/Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions criteria (START/STOPP criteria), medication appropriateness index (MAI) are the cancer nonspecific tools to identify PIM among cancer patients. Here, we provided an integrative approach and algorithm for deprescribing in oncology setting which includes patient and caregiver goals, life expectancy (LE), review of medications, determining medication appropriateness, assessment of time to benefit (TTB), symptomatic and asymptomatic care, identifying medications to cease, implementation of the plan, monitoring and reviewing. CONCLUSION: Deprescribing in oncology setting is a novel and effective patient-centric approach to counteract the use of PIM, which helps to mitigate polypharmacy, drug-drug interactions, and adverse effects.

System Biology Approach to Identify the Hub Genes and Pathways Associated with Human H5N1 Infection.

INTRODUCTION: H5N1 is a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus that can infect humans and has an estimated fatality rate of 53%. As shown by the current situation of the COVID-19 pandemic, emerging and re-emerging viruses such as H5N1 have the potential to cause another pandemic. Thus, this study outlined the hub genes and pathways associated with H5N1 infection in humans. METHODS: The genes associated with H5N1 infection in humans were retrieved from the NCBI Gene database using "H5N1 virus infection" as the keyword. The genes obtained were investigated for protein-protein interaction (PPI) using STRING version 11.5 and studied for functional enrichment analysis using DAVID 2021. Further, the PPI network was visualised and analysed using Cytoscape 3.7.2, and the hub genes were obtained using the local topological analysis method of the cytoHubba plugin. RESULTS: A total of 39 genes associated with H5N1 infection in humans significantly interacted with each other, forming a PPI network with 38 nodes and 149 edges modulating 74 KEGG pathways, 76 biological processes, 13 cellular components, and 22 molecular functions. Further, the PPI network analysis revealed that 33 nodes interacted, forming 1056 shortest paths at 0.282 network density, along with a 1.947 characteristic path length. The local topological analysis predicted IFNA1, IRF3, CXCL8, CXCL10, IFNB1, and CHUK as the critical hub genes in human H5N1 infection. CONCLUSION: The hub genes associated with the H5N1 infection and their pathways could serve as diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic targets for H5N1 infection among humans.

Perception of Availability, Accessibility, and Affordability of COVID-19 Vaccines and Hesitancy: A Cross-Sectional Study in India.

Background: The current study aimed to identify the perceptions and issues regarding the affordability, availability, and accessibility of COVID-19 vaccination and determine the extent of vaccine hesitancy among non-vaccinated individuals. Methods: A Prospective cross-sectional study was conducted among 575 individuals for a period of six months. All the relevant information was collected using the peer-validated survey questionnaire. An independent t-test was applied to check the association between variables. Results: Among 575 participants, 80.8% were vaccinated, and 19.2% were non-vaccinated. Among the vaccinated, 35.1% were vaccinated in private centres and 64.9% in public health centres (PHC). In total, 32% had accessibility issues and 24.5% had availability issues. However, responders vaccinated at PHC were having more issues in comparison to other groups which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Among the 163 privately vaccinated participants, 69.9% found it completely affordable. Another 26.9% and 3.1% found vaccines partly affordable and a little unaffordable. Among the 110 non-vaccinated, 38.1% were found to be vaccine-hesitant. Conclusions: Individuals vaccinated at PHC experienced issues such as long waiting times, unavailability of doses, and registration. Further, a significant level of hesitancy towards COVID-19 vaccines was observed. The safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines contributed to negative attitudes.