Volatile molecules for COVID-19: A possible pharmacological strategy?

COVID-19 is a novel coronavirus disease with a higher incidence of bilateral pneumonia and pleural effusion. The high pulmonary tropism and contagiousness of the virus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), have stimulated new approaches to combat its widespread diffusion. In developing new pharmacological strategies, the chemical characteristic of volatility can add therapeutic value to the hypothetical drug candidate. Volatile molecules are characterized by a high vapor pressure and are consequently easily exhaled by the lungs after ingestion. This feature could be exploited from a pharmacological point of view, reaching the site of action in an uncommon way but allowing for drug delivery. In this way, a hypothetical molecule for COVID-19 should have a balance between its lung exhalation characteristics and both antiviral and anti-inflammatory pharmacological action. Here, the feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of a therapy based on oral administration of possible volatile drugs for COVID-19 will be discussed. Both aerosolized antiviral therapy and oral intake of volatile molecules are briefly reviewed, and an evaluation of 1,8-cineole is provided in view of a possible clinical use and also for asymptomatic COVID-19.     

Use of a dual lumen port for automated red cell exchange in adults with sickle cell disease

Red cell exchange (RCE) is a common procedure in adults with sickle cell disease (SCD). Implantable dual lumen Vortex (DLV) ports can be used for RCE in patients with poor peripheral venous access. We performed a retrospective cohort study of RCE procedures performed in adults with SCD. The main objective of the study was to compare the inlet speed, duration of procedures and rate of complications performed through DLV ports to those performed through temporary central venous and peripheral catheters. Twenty‐nine adults with SCD underwent a total of 318 RCE procedures. Twenty adults had DLV ports placed and 218 procedures were performed using DLV ports. Mean length of follow‐up after DLV port placement was 397 ± 263 days. Six DLV ports were removed due to infection and 1 for malfunction after a mean of 171 ± 120 days. Compared to temporary central venous and peripheral catheters, DLV port procedures had a greater rate of procedural complications, a longer duration, and a lower inlet speed (all P < 0.01). When accounting for the maximum allowable inlet speed to avoid citrate toxicity, 40% of DLV port procedures were greater than 10% below maximum speed, compared to 7 and 14% of procedures performed through temporary central venous and peripheral catheters (P < 0.0001). In conclusion, DLV ports can be used for RCE in adults with SCD, albeit with more procedural complications and longer duration. The smaller internal diameter and longer catheter of DLV ports compared to temporary central venous catheters likely accounts for the differences noted. J. Clin. Apheresis 30:353–358, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.     

Accuracy of MRI-guided Versus Systematic Prostate Biopsy in Patients Under Active Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

This meta-analysis focuses on the accuracy of upgrading to clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) by multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging-targeted biopsy (MRI-TB) versus systematic biopsy (SB). We searched the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Scopus, and Literatura Latino Americana em Ciências da Saúde databases through January 2020 for comparative, retrospective/prospective, paired-cohort, and randomized clinical trials with paired comparisons. The population consisted of patients with low-risk PCa in active surveillance with at least 1 index lesion on imaging. We evaluated the quality of evidence by using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 score. Group comparisons considered the differences between the area under the curve summary receiver operating characteristic curve in a 2-tailed method. We also compared the positive predictive value of the best single method (MRI-TB or SB) and the referral study test (combined biopsy, a combination of MRI-TB and SB). The meta-analysis included 6 studies enrolling 741 patients. The pooled sensitivity for the 2 groups was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.83; I² = 75%) and 0.67 (95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74; I² = 55.4%), respectively. The area under the curve for the MRI-TB and SB groups were 0.99 and 0.92 (P < .001), respectively. The positive predictive value for the MRI-TB and combined biopsy groups were similar. The accumulated evidence suggests better results for MRI-TB compared with SB. Therefore, use of MRI-TB alone may be preferable in patients in active surveillance harboring low-risk PCa.     

Gibt es Unterschiede bei natürlichen Zähnen und Implantaten?

Der Freie Zahnarzt -