Functional and psychosocial impact of COVID-19 pandemic on rheumatic patients’ quality of life in Saudi Arabia

Quality of Life Research - The COVID-19 pandemic might add to the stressors experienced by people living with rheumatic diseases. This study aimed to examine rheumatic patients’ functional...     

Pharmacokinetic study of the oral fluorouracil antitumor agent S‐1 in patients with impaired renal function

Although dose reduction of S‐1 is recommended for patients with impaired renal function, dose modification for such patients has not been prospectively evaluated. The aim of the present study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic parameters of 5‐fluorouracil, 5‐chloro‐2,4 dihydroxypyridine and oteracil potassium, and to review the recommended dose modification of S‐1 in patients with renal impairment. We classified patients receiving S‐1 into 4 groups according to their renal function, as measured using the Japanese estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) equation. The daily S‐1 dose was adjusted based on the patient's eGFR and body surface area. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. A total of 33 patients were enrolled and classified into 4 groups as follows: 10 patients in cohort 1 (eGFR ≥ 80 mL/min/1.73 m²), 10 patients in cohort 2 (eGFR = 50‐79 mL/min/1.73 m²), 10 patients in cohort 3 (eGFR = 30‐49 mL/min/1.73 m²), and 3 patients in cohort 4 (eGFR < 30 mL/min/1.73 m²). Those in cohorts 3 and 4 treated with an adjusted dose of S‐1 showed a similar area under the curve for 5‐fluorouracil (941.9 ± 275.6 and 1043.5 ± 224.8 ng/mL, respectively) compared with cohort 2 (1034.9 ± 414.3 ng/mL). Notably, while there was a statistically significant difference between cohort 1 (689.6 ± 208.8 ng/mL) and 2 (P = 0.0474) treated with an equal dose of S‐1, there was no significant difference observed in the toxicity profiles of the cohorts. In conclusion, dose adjustment of S‐1 in patients with impaired renal function using eGFR is appropriate and safe.     

Percutaneous renal mass biopsy: historical perspective,current status,and future considerations

Introduction: Percutaneous renal mass biopsy has evolved over the last decade with improvements on previous pitfalls including low tissue yield, high non-diagnostic rates, and complications. As understanding of tumor biology and natural history of renal cortical neoplasms has improved, percutaneous renal mass biopsy is poised to have an expanding role in an area characterized by individualized management and refined risk stratification.

Areas covered: This review summarizes the evolution of renal mass biopsy to its current state with respect to outcomes, indications, and clinical guidelines.

Expert opinion: With improved understanding of differential biological potential of renal cortical neoplasms combined with technical improvements in diagnostic yield and accuracy, utilization of renal mass biopsy is becoming an important adjunct to patient care in a broad range of clinical scenarios, including active surveillance, thermal ablation, and use of primary systemic therapy in localized and advanced settings.     

Solid‐type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of the stomach: Deficiency of mismatch repair and SWI/SNF complex

ARID1A, one of the subunits in SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, is frequently mutated in gastric cancers with microsatellite instability (MSI). The most frequent MSI in solid‐type poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma (PDA) has been reported, but the SWI/SNF complex status in solid‐type PDA is still largely unknown. We retrospectively analyzed 54 cases of solid‐type PDA for the expressions of mismatch repair (MMR) proteins (MLH1, PMS2, MSH2, and MSH6), SWI/SNF complex subunits (ARID1A, INI1, BRG1, BRM, BAF155, and BAF170) and EBER, and mutations in KRAS and BRAF. We analyzed 40 cases of another histological type of gastric cancer as a control group. The solid‐type PDAs showed coexisting glandular components (76%), MMR deficiency (39%), and complete/partial loss of ARID1A (31%/7%), INI1 (4%/4%), BRG1 (48%/30%), BRM (33%/33%), BAF155 (13%/41%), and BAF170 (6%/2%), EBER positivity (4%), KRAS mutation (2%), and BRAF mutation (2%). Compared to the control group, MMR deficiency and losses of ARID1A, BRG1, BRM, and BAF155 were significantly frequent in solid‐type PDAs. Mismatch repair deficiency was associated with the losses of ARID1A, BRG1, and BAF155 in solid‐type PDAs. In the MMR‐deficient group, solid components showed significantly more frequent losses of ARID1A, BRG1, BRM, and BAF155 compared to glandular components (P = .0268, P = .0181, P = .0224, and P = .0071, respectively). In the MMR‐proficient group, solid components showed significantly more frequent loss of BRG1 compared to glandular components (P = .012). In conclusion, solid‐type PDAs showed frequent losses of MMR proteins and the SWI/SNF complex. We suggest that loss of the SWI/SNF complex could induce a morphological shift from differentiated‐type adenocarcinoma to solid‐type PDA.     

HPLC-MS Method for Simultaneous Quantitative Determination of an Innovative Russian Gestagen and its Metabolites in Rat and Rabbit Blood Sera

Pharmaceutical Chemistry Journal - An HPLC-MS method for simultaneous quantitative determination of a novel gestagenic pharmaceutical and two of its metabolites in rat and rabbit blood sera was...     

Differentiating poor validity from probable impairment on the medical symptom validity test: a cross-validation study

Aims: In neuropsychological evaluations, it is often difficult to ascertain whether poor performance on measures of validity is due to poor effort or malingering, or whether there is genuine cognitive impairment. Dunham and Denney created an algorithm to assess this question using the Medical Symptom Validity Test (MSVT). We assessed the ability of their algorithm to detect poor validity versus probable impairment, and concordance of failure on the MSVT with other freestanding tests of performance validity.

Methods: Two previously published datasets (n?=?153 and n?=?641, respectively) from outpatient neuropsychological evaluations were used to test Dunham and Denney’s algorithm, and to assess concordance of failure rates with the Test of Memory Malingering and the forced choice measure of the California Verbal Learning Test, two commonly used performance validity tests.

Results: In both datasets, none of the four cutoff scores for failure on the MSVT (70%, 75%, 80%, or 85%) identified a poor validity group with proportionally aligned failure rates on other freestanding measures of performance validity. Additionally, the protocols with probable impairment did not differ from those with poor validity on cognitive measures.

Conclusions: Despite what appeared to be a promising approach to evaluating failure on the easy MSVT subtests when clinical data are unavailable (as recommended in the advanced interpretation program, or advanced interpretation [AI], of the MSVT), the current findings indicate the AI remains the gold standard for doing so. Future research should build on this effort to address shortcomings in measures of effort in neuropsychological evaluations.