Outcome of Selective Root Canal Retreatment ‐ a retrospective study

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader Outcome of Selective Root Canal Retreatment ‐ a retrospective study via International Endodontic Journal Abstract Aim Selective root canal retreatment is when the treatment is limited to root(s) with radiographic evidence of periapical pathosis. The goals of this retrospective study were as follows: i) evaluate the clinical and radiographic (periapical radiographs (PR) or cone beam computerised tomographs (CBCT)) outcome of selective root canal retreatment after ≥ 12 months follow-up; ii) evaluate the periapical status of the unretreated roots; iii) assess tooth survival. Methods A retrospective study (January 2018 to April 2021) was conducted to identify permanent multirooted teeth that underwent selective root canal retreatment. Clinical records, PR and CBCT were examined to ascertain variables of interest. Outcomes (per root and per tooth) were classified into "favourable" or "unfavourable" using well-established clinical and radiographic healing criteria. Treatment outcomes for the whole tooth and per root were compared as well as bivariate associations between the treatment outcome of the retreated roots and the treatment-related parameters (quality of root filling, sealer extrusion, iatrogenic mishaps, type of restoration) were analysed using Fisher's exact test (α = 0.05). Survival was recorded in months. Results A total of 75 teeth (195 roots) in 75 subjects were available for outcome analysis. The favourable outcome per tooth was 86.7%. At follow-up, 92.6% of the retreated roots had a favourable outcome. From the unretreated roots, 3.5% showed radiographic signs of an emerging periapical lesion. No statistical difference was shown between the outcomes per root and per tooth between both groups. None of the treatment-related parameters had a direct influence on the outcome of the retreated roots. The survival rate at 12–48 months after retreatment was 91.5%. Conclusions Selective root canal retreatment is associated with a favourable outcome in a majority of cases. Untreated roots rarely developed radiographic signs of a new periapical lesion at follow-up. Future high-quality clinical trials with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are required to confirm these findings. View on Web

Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Apatinib plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel monotherapy for platinum‐resistant recurrent ovarian cancer treatment: A retrospective cohort study

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader Apatinib plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel monotherapy for platinum‐resistant recurrent ovarian cancer treatment: A retrospective cohort study via Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics This retrospective cohort study reviewed 70 platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC) patients who received apatinib plus paclitaxel (apatinib plus paclitaxel group) (N = 32) or paclitaxel monotherapy (paclitaxel monotherapy group) (N = 38). The recommended regimens were as follows: paclitaxel (60 mg/m2) administrated once a week with a maximum of 18 weeks; apatinib (250–375 mg/day) administrated until disease progression or patient intolerance. Interestingly, disease control rate was elevated (84.4% vs. 60.5%, P = 0.028), whereas objective response rate only disclosed an increasing trend (lacked statistical significance) (37.5% vs. 18.4%, P = 0.074) in apatinib plus paclitaxel group compared with paclitaxel monotherapy group. Progression-free survival (median [95% CI]: 5.0 [2.5–7.5] months vs. 3.8 [2.4–5.2] months, P = 0.033) and overall survival (median [95% CI]: 21.1 [13.2–29.0] months vs. 14.8 [11.4–18.2] months, P = 0.032) were both prolonged in apatinib plus paclitaxel group compared to paclitaxel monotherapy group, which were further verified in the multivariate Cox's proportional hazard regression analyses (both P < 0.050). Additionally, the incidence of each adverse event was not different between the two groups (all P > 0.050). Collectively, apatinib plus paclitaxel exhibits better efficacy and acceptable toxicity compared with paclitaxel monotherapy in PROC patients. Abstract What Is Known and Objective Apatinib, an oral antiangiogenic drug, exerts potential anti-tumour effects on platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PROC). This study intended to evaluate the efficacy and safety of apatinib plus paclitaxel compared to paclitaxel monotherapy in PROC patients. Methods This retrospective cohort study reviewed 70 PROC patients who received apatinib plus paclitaxel (apatinib plus paclitaxel group) (N = 32) or paclitaxel monotherapy (paclitaxel monotherapy group) (N = 38). The recommended regimens were as follows: paclitaxel (60 mg/m2) administrated once a week with a maximum of 18 weeks; apatinib (250–375 mg/day) administrated until disease progression or patient intolerance. Results and Discussion Disease control rate was elevated (84.4% vs. 60.5%, P = 0.028), whereas objective response rate only disclosed an increasing trend (lacked statistical significance) (37.5% vs. 18.4%, P = 0.074) in apatinib plus paclitaxel group compared with paclitaxel monotherapy group. Progression-free survival (median [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 5.0 [2.5–7.5] months vs. 3.8 [2.4–5.2] months, P = 0.033) and overall survival (median [95% CI]: 21.1 [13.2–29.0] months vs. 14.8 [11.4–18.2] months, P = 0.032) were both prolonged in apatinib plus paclitaxel group compared to paclitaxel monotherapy group, which were further verified in the multivariate Cox's proportional hazard regression analyses (both P < 0.050). Additionally, the incidence of each adverse event was not different between the two groups (all P > 0.050). What is New and Conclusion Apatinib plus paclitaxel exhibits better efficacy and acceptable toxicity compared with paclitaxel monotherapy in PROC patients. View on Web

Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

A Dual‐targeting Near‐infrared Biomimetic Drug Delivery System for HBV Treatment

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader A Dual‐targeting Near‐infrared Biomimetic Drug Delivery System for HBV Treatment via Journal of Medical Virology Abstract Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is a serious global public health threat. It remains elusive to achieve a functional HBV cure with currently available antivirals. Herein, a photo-responsive delivery vehicle composed of Nd3+-sensitized core-shell upconversion nanoparticle (UCNP), mesoporous silica nanoparticle (MSN), antisense oligonucleotides (ASO), and capsid-binding inhibitor C39 was established, which was named UMAC according to the initials of its components. Subsequently, the as-synthesized delivery vehicle was encapsulated by β-D-galactopyranoside (Gal) modified red blood cell (RBC) membrane vesicles, which enabled precise targeting of the liver cells (UMAC-M-Gal). Both in vitro and in vivo experiments demonstrated that this biomimetic system could successfully achieve controlled drug release under light conditions at 808 nm, leading to effective suppression of HBV replication in this dual-targeted therapeutic approach. Together, these results sub stantiate the system has huge prospects for application to achieve functional HBV cure, and provides a promising novel strategy for drug delivery. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. View on Web

Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) for Post-exposure Prophylaxis of Symptomatic COVID-19

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader AZD7442 (Tixagevimab/Cilgavimab) for Post-exposure Prophylaxis of Symptomatic COVID-19 via Clinical Infectious Diseases Advance Access Abstract Background We report primary results of a phase 3 trial of AZD7442 (tixagevimab/cilgavimab) for post-exposure prophylaxis to prevent symptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) Methods Adults without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination were enrolled within 8 days of exposure to a SARS-CoV-2–infected individual and randomized 2:1 to a single 300-mg AZD7442 dose (one 1.5-mL intramuscular injection each of tixagevimab and cilgavimab consecutively) or placebo. Primary endpoints were safety and first post-dose SARS-CoV-2 reverse-transcription–polymerase-chain-reaction (RT-PCR)–positive symptomatic COVID-19 event before day 183. Results 1121 participants were randomized and dosed (mean age 46 years; 49% females; AZD7442, n=749; placebo, n=372). Median (range) follow-up was 49 (5–115) and 48 (20–113) days for AZD7442 and placebo, respectively. Adverse events occurred in 162/749 (21.6%) and 111/372 (29.8%) participants with AZD7442 and placebo, respectively, mostly mild/moderate. RT-PCR–positive symptomatic COVID-19 occurred in 23/749 (3.1%) and 17/372 (4.6%) AZD7442- and placebo-treated participants, respectively (relative risk reduction 33.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] –25.9 to 64.7; P=.21). In predefined subgroup analyses of 1073 (96%) participants who were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR–negative (n=974 [87%]) or missing an RT-PCR result (n=99 [9%]) at baseline, AZD7442 reduced RT-PCR–positive symptomatic COVID-19 by 73.2% (95% CI 27.1 to 90.1) versus placebo. Conclusions This study did not meet the primary efficacy endpoint of post-exposure prevention of symptomatic COVID-19 with AZD7442 versus placebo. However, predefined analysis of participants who were SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR–negative or missing an RT-PCR result at baseline support a role for AZD7442 in preventing symptomatic COVID-19. View on Web

Inoreader. Take back control of your news feed. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.