Enhanced antitumour activity of doxorubicin and simvastatin combination loaded nanoemulsion treatment against a Swiss albino mouse model of Ehrlich ascites carcinoma

Doxorubicin (DOX) is the most commonly used anticancer drug; however, it has limited use because prolonged administration may result in severe cardiotoxicity. Simvastatin (SIM), generally prescribed for hypercholesterolaemia, has also shown salubrious results in the monotherapy or combinational drug therapy of different cancers in various models. Nanoparticle drug delivery systems are a novel way of improving therapeutics and also improving the absorption and specificity of drugs towards tumour cells. In this study, we exploited this technology to increase drug specificity and minimize imminent adverse effects. In this study, the antitumour activity of the combination formulas of DOX and SIM, either loaded in water (DOX‐SIM‐Solution) or nanoemulsions (NEs) (DOX‐SIM‐NE), was evaluated in a Swiss albino mouse model of Ehrlich ascites carcinoma. The anticancer effect was assessed by quantifying the change in body weight, mean survival time, and percent increase in lifespan (%ILS), determining haematological and serum biochemical parameters (liver function test, kidney function test and lipid profile parameters) as well as studying the histopathological alterations in liver tissues. We observed a clear increase in %ILS of the DOX‐SIM‐Solution group (265.30) that was double the %ILS of the DOX‐SIM‐NE group (134.70). However, DOX‐SIM‐NE had a non‐toxic effect on the haematological parameters, whereas DOX‐SIM‐Solution increased the levels of haemoglobin and lymphocytes. Furthermore, the encapsulation of SIM and DOX into NEs improved the levels of all serum biochemical parameters compared to the DOX‐SIM‐Solution. A reduction in the side effects of DOX‐SIM‐NE on the liver was also established using light microscopy, which revealed that the morphologies of the hepatocytes of the mice were less affected by administration of the DOX‐SIM‐NE treatment than with the DOX‐SIM‐Solution treatment. The study showed that incorporating SIM into the DOX‐loaded‐NE formulation remarkably improved its efficiency and simultaneously reduced its adverse effects.     

Supraclavicular lymphadenopathy following COVID-19 vaccination: an increasing presentation to the two-week wait neck lump clinic?

The first COVID-19 vaccination was given in December 2020 and there is an effort to vaccinate the international population on a massive scale. Common side effects from the vaccine include headache and tiredness. Regional lymphadenopathy has been described in relation to other vaccines. We describe two cases of supraclavicular reactive lymphadenopathy presenting in patients who had the COVID vaccination in the ipsilateral arm. Awareness of this diagnosis is important for patients presenting to the neck lump clinic.     

WNT10A variants: following the pattern of inheritance in tooth agenesis and self-reported family history of cancer

Clinical Oral Investigations - The aim of this study was the analysis of WNT10A variants in seven families of probands with various forms of tooth agenesis and self-reported family history of...     

Are hand biomechanics affected following radial forearm flap harvest? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Donor site morbidity following radial forearm flap (RFF) harvest remains a controversial issue. The aim of this meta-analysis was to answer the question “Are the range of wrist movements (range of motion, ROM) and hand strength affected after RFF harvesting?” The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched (to December 2019). Self-controlled studies evaluating hand biomechanics after RFF harvest were included. Weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random-effects model. The outcome variables were ROM, forearm movements, grip, and pinch strengths. Thirteen studies involving a total of 335 patients were included. With the exception of grip strength and supination, which showed statistically significant reductions of about 2.40 kg and 2.86° (P < 0.05), all other ROM, forearm movements, and pinch strengths showed an insignificant difference when the operated hand was compared to the non-operated hand (P > 0.05). Regression analysis showed that the method of donor site closure and size of the donor site defect had an insignificant impact on hand biomechanics. This study confirms the lack of discernible biomechanical morbidity after RFF transfer. The minimal reduction in hand biomechanics after RFF is considered to be clinically negligible.     

Three-dimensional measurement of radiographic bone–implant contact lengths of zygomatic implants in zygomatic bone: a retrospective study of 66 implants in 28 patients

Zygomatic implant treatment is widely applied for severe maxillary atrophy to help rehabilitate the maxillary dentition. This retrospective study was performed to evaluate the actual radiographic bone–implant contact (rBIC) lengths of zygomatic implants. The records of 28 patients who underwent zygomatic implant surgery and subsequent follow-up examinations between August 2013 and September 2018 in the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Taipei Tzu Chi Hospital were reviewed. The surgeries were performed by a single surgeon using the same treatment protocol. All patients had a computed tomography scan at 1 year after the surgery. Using three-dimensional imaging software, an investigator measured the rBIC lengths of 66 implants and documented their clinical status. The implant survival rate was 100%. The mean rBIC length was significantly longer in male patients than in female patients (20.80 ± 5.88 mm versus 17.79 ± 6.34 mm; P = 0.028). The mean rBIC length of double zygomatic implants was significantly longer when compared to that of single implants (21.11 ± 6.23 mm versus 17.75 ± 5.85 mm; P = 0.027). This article is novel in reporting the exact rBIC lengths of zygomatic implants in a clinical setting. The results showed that zygomatic implants are a viable treatment modality for full-mouth rehabilitation.     

Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.