Standardisierte Kontrastmittelsonographie (CEUS) in der klinischen Akut- und Notfallmedizin sowie Intensivmedizin (CEUS-Akut)

Die Anaesthesiologie -     

The clinical dilemma of JAK inhibitor failure in myelofibrosis: Predictive characteristics and outcomes

Two Janus-associated kinase inhibitors (JAKi) (initially ruxolitinib and, more recently, fedratinib) have been approved as treatment options for patients who have intermediate-risk and high-risk myelofibrosis (MF), with pivotal trials demonstrating improvements in spleen volume, disease symptoms, and quality of life. At the same time, however, clinical trial experiences with JAKi agents in MF have demonstrated a high frequency of discontinuations because of adverse events or progressive disease. In addition, overall survival benefits and clinical and molecular predictors of response have not been established in this population, for which the disease burden is high and treatment options are limited. Consistently poor outcomes have been documented after JAKi discontinuation, with survival durations after ruxolitinib ranging from 11 to 16 months across several studies. To address such a high unmet therapeutic need, various non-JAKi agents are being actively explored (in combination with ruxolitinib in first-line or salvage settings and/or as monotherapy in JAKi-pretreated patients) in phase 3 clinical trials, including pelabresib (a bromodomain and extraterminal domain inhibitor), navitoclax (a B-cell lymphoma 2/B-cell lymphoma 2-xL inhibitor), parsaclisib (a phosphoinositide 3-kinase inhibitor), navtemadlin (formerly KRT-232; a murine double-minute chromosome 2 inhibitor), and imetelstat (a telomerase inhibitor). The breadth of data expected from these trials will provide insight into the ability of non-JAKi treatments to modify the natural history of MF.     

The behaviour change techniques used by Australian physiotherapists to promote non-treatment physical activity to patients with musculoskeletal conditions

Objectives

To determine: (i) the behaviour change techniques used by a sample of Australian physiotherapists to promote non-treatment physical activity; and (ii) whether those behaviour change techniques are different to the techniques used to encourage adherence to rehabilitation exercises.

The case for allele‐specific recognition by the TCR

There is a sharp difference in how one views TCR structure–function–behaviour dependent on whether its recognition of major histocompatibility complex‐encoded restriction elements (R) is germline selected or somatically generated. The generally accepted or Standard model is built on the assumption that recognition of R is by the V regions of the αβ TCR, which is not driven by allele specificity, whereas the competing model posits that recognition of R is allele‐specific. The establishing of allele‐specific recognition of R by the TCR would rule out the Standard model and clear the road to a consideration of a competing construct, the Tritope model. Here, the case for allele‐specific recognition (germline selected) is detailed making it obvious that the Standard model is untenable.