Etiologies of Acute Undifferentiated Fever and Clinical Prediction of Scrub Typhus in a Non-Tropical Endemic Area

Scrub typhus usually presents as acute undifferentiated fever. This cross-sectional study included adult patients presenting with acute undifferentiated fever defined as any febrile illness for ≤ 14 days without evidence of localized infection. Scrub typhus cases were defined by an antibody titer of a ≥ fourfold increase in paired sera, a ≥ 1:160 in a single serum using indirect immunofluorescence assay, or a positive result of the immunochromatographic test. Multiple regression analysis identified predictors associated with scrub typhus to develop a prediction rule. Of 250 cases with known etiology of acute undifferentiated fever, influenza (28.0%), hepatitis A (25.2%), and scrub typhus (16.4%) were major causes. A prediction rule for identifying suspected cases of scrub typhus consisted of age ≥ 65 years (two points), recent fieldwork/outdoor activities (one point), onset of illness during an outbreak period (two points), myalgia (one point), and eschar (two points). The c statistic was 0.977 (95% confidence interval = 0.960–0.994). At a cutoff value ≥ 4, the sensitivity and specificity were 92.7% (79.0–98.1%) and 90.9% (86.0–94.3%), respectively. Scrub typhus, the third leading cause of acute undifferentiated fever in our region, can be identified early using the prediction rule.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

阿戈美拉汀联合乙哌立松治疗青年慢性紧张性头痛的疗效分析

目的 探讨阿戈美拉汀联合乙哌立松治疗青年慢性紧张性头痛(Chronictention-typeheadache,CTTH)的疗效及安全性.方法 80例青年慢性紧张性头痛患者依据是否倒班随机分为对照组和治疗组,对照组口服乙哌立松治疗,治疗组在对照组基础上联合阿戈美拉汀治疗,评估2组患者治疗前匹兹堡睡眠量表评分(PSQI)评估治疗6周后两组的头痛疗效以及不良反应.结果 倒班人员的入组前PSQI的总评分、睡眠质量、入睡时间、催眠药物及睡眠障碍因子分高于非倒班人员;治疗组的疗效优于对照组,有统计学意义(P＜0.05);治疗组内,倒班患者疗效优于非倒班患者(P＜0.05).两组不良反应无明显差异.结论 阿戈美拉汀联合乙哌立松治疗慢性紧张性头痛的的疗效确切,安全性高.     

Comparative outcomes of vascular access in patients older than 70 years with end-stage renal disease

Objective

The advantage of arteriovenous fistulas (AVFs) in older patients requiring dialysis is controversial. We reviewed our vascular access experience in patients ≥70 years of age (older group) compared with younger patients.