In 1998 Howard Parker, Judith Aldridge & Fiona Measham published Illegal Leisure, a ground‐breaking study of profound changes in British youth cultures in the 1990s, and the place of drugs and drug use in these upheavals. This work introduced the ‘normalization thesis’ to the social sciences, offering a novel vocabulary for re‐imagining the normative character of young people's attitudes towards and experiences of illicit drug use. Arriving at the dawn of the new century, the book offered a thoroughgoing re‐thinking of the character of youth cultures at a time of great social, cultural, economic and technological disruption. In so doing, the book deftly anticipated many of the most interesting currents of critical drug studies that followed. 相似文献
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. 相似文献
Introduction: Ocular dysfunctions and toxicities induced by antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are rarely reviewed and not frequently received attention by treating physicians compared to other adverse effects (e.g. endocrinologic, cognitive and metabolic). However, some are frequent and progressive even in therapeutic concentrations or result in permanent blindness. Although some adverse effects are non-specific, others are related to the specific pharmacodynamics of the drug.
Areas covered: This review was written after detailed search in PubMed, EMBASE, ISI web, SciELO, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register databases (from 1970 to 2019). It summarized the reported ophthalmologic adverse effects of the currently available AEDs; their risks and possible pathogenic mechanisms. They include ocular motility dysfunctions, retinopathy, maculopathy, glaucoma, myopia, optic neuropathy, and impaired retinal vascular autoregulation. In general, ophthalmo-neuro- or retino-toxic adverse effects of AEDs are classified as type A (dose-dependent), type B (host-dependent or idiosyncratic) or type C which is due to the cumulative effect from long-term use.
Expert opinion: Ocular adverse effects of AEDs are rarely reviewed although some are frequent or may result in permanent blindness. Increasing knowledge of their incidence and improving understanding of their risks and pathogenic mechanisms are crucial for monitoring, prevention, and management of patients’ at risk. 相似文献
ObjectivesNational health technology assessments (HTAs) across Europe show differences in evidentiary requirements from assessments by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), affecting time to patient access for drugs after marketing authorization. This article analyzes the differences between EMA and HTA bodies’ evidentiary requirements for oncology drugs and provides recommendations on potential further alignment to minimize and optimally manage the remaining differences.MethodsInterviews were performed with representatives and drug assessment experts from EMA and HTA bodies to identify evidentiary requirements for several subdomains and collect recommendations for potentially more efficiently addressing differences. A comparative analysis of acceptability of the evidence by EMA and the HTA bodies and for potential further alignment between both authorities was conducted.ResultsAcceptability of available evidence was higher for EMA than HTA bodies. HTA bodies and EMA were aligned on evidentiary requirements in most cases. The subdomains showing notable differences concerned the acceptance of limitation of the target population and extrapolation of target populations, progression-free survival and (other) surrogate endpoints as outcomes, cross-over designs, short trial duration, and clinical relevance of the effect size. Recommendations for reducing or optimally managing differences included joint early dialogues, joint relative effectiveness assessments, and the use of managed entry agreements.ConclusionsDifferences between assessments of EMA and HTA bodies were identified in important areas of evidentiary requirements. Increased alignment between EMA and HTA bodies is suggested and recommendations for realization are discussed. 相似文献