RESUMO
Background: The clinical characteristics and risk factors of infusion reactions (IRs) are inadequately described in clinical practice due to underreported cases. In the present study, we reported the current status of IRs based on an in-hospital pharmacovigilance database of a tertiary care hospital. Methods: Our study conducted a retrospective analysis of drug-induced IRs recorded at an in-hospital pharmacovigilance center between January 2015 to December 2019. The descriptive statistical analysis encompassed main causative agents, clinical manifestations, organ/system involvement and outcome. The severity of IRs was assessed with reference to the CTCAE version 5.0 criteria and we investigated risk factors associated with severe IRs. Results: During the study period, a total of 505 cases of inpatient drug-induced IRs were detected, of which 79.2% (400 cases) were classified as general IRs and 20.8% (105 cases) were categorized as severe IRs. The primary drugs responsible for these reactions were antibiotics (23%, 116 cases), with piperacillin sodium-sulbactam sodium being the most prevalent, followed by antineoplastic agents (18.4%, 93 cases) and traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) (12.9%, 65 cases). The administration of cefoperazone - sulbactam, mannatide, Shenqi Fuzheng, elemene, and diterpene ginkgolides meglumine resulted in a higher incidence of critical IRs. Among all cases of IRs, 43.2%, 41.2%, and 23.4% showed signs and symptoms of circulation, skin mucosa, and respiratory organs/systems, respectively. 9.1% of cases experienced systemic damage, while 7.1% and 5.9% of cases reported neurological and gastrointestinal related adverse reactions, respectively. The multivariate analysis revealed that alcohol consumption (OR = 2.389%, 95% CI 1.141-5.002, p = 0.021), age over 65 (OR = 1.814%, 95% CI 1.052-3.127, p = 0.032) and the utilization of contrast media (OR = 4.072%, 95% CI 1.903-8.713, p < 0.001) were identified as risk factors for the development of severe IRs. Conclusion: Understanding the clinical characteristics of IRs helps to implement effective pharmaceutical monitoring and appropriate preventive measures for susceptible populations with risk factors.
RESUMO
Background: The use of MV can easily lead to VAP especially in ICU patients. SUP, sedatives, statin and insulin have been proved to prevent VAP and improve the prognosis of patients. Our aim was to analyze the effects of SUP, sedative, statin, and insulin on patients with MV. Methods: The occurrence of VAP and death in MV patients and VAP patients were explored by multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression to analyze analyses. Results: Totally, 5277 cases who received MV in ICU from MIMIC IV database were included. There were 826 (15.7%) cases in VAP-group and 4451 (84.3%) cases in non-VAP group and there were 1914 (36.3%) cases in hospital mortalities altogether. No protective effect of drugs on VAP was found in MV patients. The risk of death was 1.43 times higher in MV patients taking midazolam than in propofol (aHR = 1.43 95% CI: 1.04,1.97). No protective effect of drugs on death was found in VAP patients. Conclusion: Compared with midazolam, propofol is more recommended as sedation regimen in ICU patients with MV. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm this finding.
RESUMO
Ergosterol peroxide (EP) in Anoectochilus elwesii possesses antioxidant and anticancer properties, yet few studies have been focused on its mechanisms and directed detecting. By practicing HPTLC-DPPH coupled with UHPLC-ESI-TOF MS, EP was located and the cytotoxic activity of EP was performed by MTT method. The apoptosis studies were conducted on SGC-7901cells by AO/EB and Annex V/PI staining method, PI flow cytometric assay, reactive oxygen species detection and mitochondrial membrane potential assay. An effect-directed detecting method of HPTLC-DPPH/UHPLC/ESI-TOF-MS was developed for EP rapidly and precisely, providing an option for identifying oxidative compounds. EP exhibits high cytotoxic activity against SGC-7901 gastric cancer cells and the morphological apoptosis suggested that EP induced apoptosis and cell cycle arrest in G0/G1 phase. It could enhance the ROS level and cause a decrease in the mitochondrial membrane potential. Its antiproliferative mechanism is G0/G1 phase arrest and might be traced through ROS-mediated mitochondrial dysfunction pathways.
