Notes

FGF18 modulates CTGF mRNA expression in cumulus-oocyte buildings and early bovine embryos: initial information.
Our objective was to define, describe and organize (on the basis of consensus) the patient's preferences in the management of ulcerative colitis (UC), in order to further incorporate them in daily practice and improve patients satisfaction, adherence to the treatment and quality of care.

Qualitative study. A narrative literature review in Medline using Mesh and free-text terms was conducted to identify articles on UC patient preferences as well as clinical scenarios that may influence the preferences. The results were presented and discussed in a multidisciplinary nominal group meeting composed of six gastroenterologists, one primary care physician, one nurse practitioner and one expert patient. Key clinical scenarios and patient preferences were then defined, generating a series of points to consider and recommendations. The level of agreement with the final selection of preferences was established following a Delphi process.

The narrative review retrieved 69 articles of qualitative design and moderate quality. The following key clinical scenarios were identified diagnosis, follow-up, surgery, and special situations/patients profiles such as adolescents or women. Patient preferences were classified into information, treatment (pharmacological and non-pharmacological), follow-up, relations with health professionals, relations with the health system and administration. Finally, 11 recommendations on patient preferences for UC in relation to its management reached the level of agreement established.

The consensual description of patient's preferences contribute to identify different areas for improvement in healthcare practice.
The consensual description of patient's preferences contribute to identify different areas for improvement in healthcare practice.
Bismuth has antimicrobial activity and can improve the efficacy of triple Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) therapy. Allicin added to conventional therapy for H. RG2833 clinical trial pylori infection also improves H. pylori eradication rates. Thus, this study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy, safety and tolerability of allicin-containing quadruple therapy and bismuth-containing quadruple therapy and to investigate the factors that affect the eradication rates.

Two hundred twenty H. pylori-infected patients were included and randomly (11) assigned to 14-day quadruple therapy ilaprazole (5 mg bid), doxycycline (100 mg bid), and furazolidone (100 mg bid) with an allicin soft capsule (40 mg of DATS tid) (IDFA) or colloidal bismuth tartrate (220 mg of elemental bismuth bid) (IDFB). Eradication was confirmed by urea breath tests. Symptom improvement, adverse events, and adherence were assessed by a questionnaire.

In the intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis, the eradication rates for IDFA and IDFB groups were 87.5% (70/80) vs. 86.3% (69/80, P = 0.815) and 91.9% (68/74) vs. 91.8% (67/73, P = 0.980) as first-line therapies; 83.3% (25/30) vs. 83.3% (25/30, P = 1) and 89.3% (25/28) vs. 88.9% (24/27, P = 1) as second-line therapies. Symptom improvement rates were 96.1% and 97.0% for IDFA and IDFB (P = 1). The adverse event rates were 10.9% in IDFA and 14.5% in IDFB groups (P = 0.418). Nausea occurred frequently in IDFB than IDFA (1.8% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.030). Smoking and sharing utensils significantly affected the efficacy.

Allicin-containing quadruple therapy might be regarded as a promising alternative to bismuth-containing quadruple therapy in H. pylori eradication.
Allicin-containing quadruple therapy might be regarded as a promising alternative to bismuth-containing quadruple therapy in H. pylori eradication.Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBMs) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We summarised efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of these types of drugs for treating pain using randomised controlled trials in people of any age, with any type of pain, and for any treatment duration. Primary outcomes were 30% and 50% reduction in pain intensity, and AEs. We assessed risk of bias of included studies, and the overall quality of evidence using GRADE. Studies of 7 days (risk difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.12; 6 trials, 1484 patients, very low-quality evidence). No other beneficial effects were found for other types of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in our primary analyses; 81% of subgroup analyses were negative. Cannabis, nabiximols, and delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol had more AEs than control. Studies in this field have unclear or high risk of bias, and outcomes had GRADE rating of low- or very low-quality evidence. We have little confidence in the estimates of effect. The evidence neither supports nor refutes claims of efficacy and safety for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in the management of pain.Cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines (CBM) are increasingly used to manage pain, with limited understanding of their efficacy and safety. We assessed methodological quality, scope, and results of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of these treatments. Several search strategies sought self-declared systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed using both AMSTAR-2 and techniques important for bias reduction in pain studies. Of the 106 articles read, 57 were self-declared systematic reviews, most published since 2010. They included any type of cannabinoid, cannabis, or CBM, at any dose, however administered, in a broad range of pain conditions. No review examined the effects of a particular cannabinoid, at a particular dose, using a particular route of administration, for a particular pain condition, reporting a particular analgesic outcome. Confidence in the results in the systematic reviews using AMSTAR-2 definitions was critically low (41), low (8), moderate (6), or high (2). Few used criteria important for bias reduction in pain. Cochrane reviews typically provided higher confidence; all industry-conflicted reviews provided critically low confidence. Meta-analyses typically pooled widely disparate studies, and, where assessable, were subject to potential publication bias. Systematic reviews with positive or negative recommendation for use of cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain typically rated critically low or low (24/25 [96%] positive; 10/12 [83%] negative). Current reviews are mostly lacking in quality and cannot provide a basis for decision-making. A new high-quality systematic review of randomised controlled trials is needed to critically assess the clinical evidence for cannabinoids, cannabis, or CBM in pain.
Read More: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/rg2833-rgfp109.html