Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Treatment Dose (treatment + dose)
Selected AbstractsOptimization of storage conditions for diluted working solutions of porcine factor VIII and performance of the Bethesda assay for the determination of antiporcine FVIII inhibitor titresHAEMOPHILIA, Issue 1 2003R. Winikoff Summary. The use of porcine factor VIII (FVIII) (Hyate:C, Ipsen) has proven to be very successful in treating patients with FVIII inhibitors. The best way to predict the usefulness of porcine FVIII therapy, and/or to estimate the appropriate treatment dose in a given patient, is to measure the patient inhibitor titre against porcine FVIII with the Bethesda assay, using porcine FVIII as the source of FVIII in the assay. The goals of the present study were to (1) find the optimal storage temperature, diluent and concentration for a working solution of porcine FVIII to be used as the source of FVIII for the porcine Bethesda assay, (2) assess the reliability of the labelled FVIII units in the preparation of such working solutions of porcine FVIII and (3) compare the inhibitor titres determined by the Bethesda assay using both porcine and human standard reference curves for measuring residual FVIII. The results of the present study demonstrate that a ready-to-use working solution of 1 U mL,1 of Hyate:C diluted in human FVIII deficient plasma, either containing or deficient in von Willebrand factor antigen, is stable for up to 12 months, at ,20 °C. The preparation of the 1 U mL,1 working solution could be reliably calculated based on the units indicated on the vial label. Finally, using the human standard curve yields similar results to using the porcine standard curve for measuring any titre of allo- or auto-antibody against FVIII in the Bethesda assay, using Hyate:C as the source of FVIII. These findings are of practical value when performing a porcine FVIII-based Bethesda assay. [source] Understanding cisplatin resistance using cellular modelsIUBMB LIFE, Issue 11 2007Britta Stordal Abstract Many mechanisms of cisplatin resistance have been proposed from studies of cellular models of resistance including changes in cellular drug accumulation, detoxification of the drug, inhibition of apoptosis and repair of the DNA adducts. A series of resistant models were developed from CCRF-CEM leukaemia cells with increasing doses of cisplatin from 100 ng/ml. This produced increasing resistance up to 7-fold with a treatment dose of 1.6 ,g/ml. Cisplatin resistance in these cells correlated with increases in the antioxidant glutathione, yet treatment with buthionine sulphoximine, an inhibitor of glutathione synthesis, had no effect on resistance, suggesting that the increase in glutathione was not directly involved in cisplatin resistance. Two models were developed from H69 SCLC cells, H69-CP and H69CIS200 using 100 ng/ml or 200 ng/ml cisplatin respectively. Both cell models were 2-4 fold resistant to cisplatin, and have decreased expression of p21 which may increase the cell's ability to progress through the cell cycle in the presence of DNA damage. Both the H69-CP and H69CIS200 cells showed no decrease in cellular cisplatin accumulation. However, the H69-CP cells have increased levels of cellular glutathione and are cross resistant to radiation whereas the H69CIS200 cells have neither of these changes. This suggests that increases in glutathione may contribute to cross-resistance to other drugs and radiation, but not directly to cisplatin resistance. There are multiple resistance mechanisms induced by cisplatin treatment, even in the same cell type. How then should cisplatin-resistant cancers be treated? Cisplatin-resistant cell lines are often more sensitive to another chemotherapeutic drug paclitaxel (H69CIS200), or are able to be sensitized to cisplatin with paclitaxel pre-treatment (H69-CP). The understanding of this sensitization by paclitaxel using cell models of cisplatin resistance will lead to improvements in the clinical treatment of cisplatin resistant tumours. IUBMB Life, 59: 696-699, 2007 [source] Paired comparison of bathwater versus oral delivery of 8-methoxypsoralen in psoralen plus ultraviolet A therapy for chronic palmoplantar psoriasisPHOTODERMATOLOGY, PHOTOIMMUNOLOGY & PHOTOMEDICINE, Issue 1 2006A. Hofer Background: Both bath psoralen plus ultraviolet A (PUVA) and oral PUVA with 8-methoxypsoralen (8-MOP) have been successfully used for the treatment of recalcitrant palmoplantar psoriasis. This trial was designed to assess the efficacy and side effects of the different treatment modalities in a randomized half-side comparison. Methods: Eight patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis on soles (n=6) and/or palms (n=8) were randomly assigned to receive bath PUVA treatment on one side and oral PUVA on the other. Initial treatment dose was 50% of the minimal phototoxic dose evaluated for bath PUVA and oral PUVA. Treatment was given three times a week for 4 weeks. Before treatment and every week a severity index (SI) was assessed by summing the scores of erythema, infiltration, scaling and vesicles evaluated on a scale from 0 to 4. After 4 weeks of treatment the half-side trial was finished and the treatment was continued on both sides with the more effective treatment regimen. Results: Both bath PUVA and oral PUVA achieved a reduction of the mean initial SI from 5.9 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 4.5,8.0) to 3.3 (1.8,6.0) (44% SI reduction, P<0.005, Student's paired t -test) and 6.0 (5.0,7.8) to 2.9 (1.8,4.0) (52% SI reduction; P<0.005), respectively. The statistical comparison of the entire 4-week study period revealed a significant better effect in lesions treated with oral PUVA compared with bath PUVA (P=0.033). However, at 4 weeks, there was no significant difference between the achieved SI reduction of oral PUVA and bath PUVA. Systemic side effects (nausea and/or dizziness) were only observed after oral PUVA. Conclusion: This study gives evidence that in the first 4 treatment weeks oral PUVA is slightly more effective than bath PUVA but the former has more systemic side effects. [source] Time and Dose Effects of Mitomycin C on Extracellular Matrix Fibroblasts and Proteins,THE LARYNGOSCOPE, Issue 1 2005Bryce Ferguson Abstract Objectives/Hypothesis: The objective was to determine treatment dose and time-dependent effects of injected mitomycin C on extracellular matrix fibroblasts, collagen, and fibronectin, important mediators in the wound healing response, in a rat cutaneous wound model. Study Design: A prospective, controlled animal study. Methods: Forty rats were injected with three different doses (0.4, 2.3, and 5.0 mg/mL) of mitomycin C at three different wound sites with a fourth wound site receiving saline as a control. The rats were grouped to have their tissue harvested at five different dates ranging from 1 week to 8 weeks. After death, samples from the wound site underwent Western blot analysis for collagen and fibronectin and histological analysis measuring fibroblast apoptosis. Results: Over an 8-week period, collagen and fibronectin significantly decreased and fibroblast apoptosis significantly increased. No correlation was found between the injected dose of mitomycin C and either the extracellular matrix protein concentration or the rate of fibroblast apoptosis. Conclusion: Mitomycin C demonstrated a long-term effect in a wound, inhibiting collagen and fibronectin production and inducing apoptosis. Use of mitomycin C in excess of 0.4 mg/mL did not alter protein concentrations or rate of apoptosis. [source] Treatment of Thyrotoxic Crisis With Plasmapheresis and Single Pass Albumin Dialysis: A Case ReportARTIFICIAL ORGANS, Issue 2 2010Sebastian Koball Abstract Thyrotoxic crisis (thyroid storm) is a life-threatening condition. Standard therapy is based on thiamazole, prednisolone, and nonselective beta-blockers. Extracorporeal plasmapheresis is an additional tool for removing circulating thyroxine in patients who do not respond quickly to conventional standard therapy. As thyroxine can be bound by albumin, the aims of the present therapy report were to investigate the potential of extracorporeal single-pass albumin dialysis (SPAD) to remove thyroid hormones and to compare it with plasmapheresis. A 68-year-old female with thyrotoxic crisis refractory to conventional therapy underwent two sessions of plasmapheresis without clinical response. For the treatment dose to be increased, the patient was then treated with a modified continuous veno-venous hemodialysis with a dialysate containing 4% of human serum albumin (SPAD) intended to bind and remove thyroxines continuously. In total, the patient received three sessions of plasmapheresis and four SPAD treatments. Thyroxine levels were detected in the patient and in exchanged plasma or albumin dialysate, respectively, to calculate the amount removed. The main finding was that SPAD treatments were tolerated well by the patient. Due to continuous approach, SPAD sessions removed more thyroid hormone than plasmapheresis did, resulting in the improvement of the clinical status of the patient (reduction of heart rate and catecholamine dosage), which enabled bridging the patient to thyroidectomy as the ultimate surgical treatment. This is the first clinical report of the use of albumin dialysis in thyroid storm. SPAD represents a safe and efficient alternative to plasmapheresis as it can be performed continuously in this critical condition. [source] Using translational medicine to understand clinical differences between botulinum toxin formulationsEUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY, Issue 2006K. R. Aoki When using botulinum toxin-based products, the physician must decide the optimal location and dose required to alleviate symptoms and improve the patient's quality of life. To deliver effective treatment, the physician needs to understand the importance of accurate target muscle selection and localization and the implications of each product's migration properties when diluted in different volumes. Pre-clinical mouse models of efficacy and safety have been utilized to compare local and distal muscle relaxation effects following defined intramuscular administration. Data from the model allow the products to be ranked based on their propensity for local efficacy versus their distal migration properties. Using standardized dilutions, the non-parallel dose,response curves for the various formulations demonstrate that they have different efficacy profiles. Distal effects were also noted at different treatment doses, which are reflected in the different safety and/or therapeutic margins. Based on these pre-clinical data, the safety and therapeutic margin rankings are ordered, largest to smallest, as BOTOX®, Dysport® and Myobloc®. The results of subsequent clinical trials are variable and dose comparisons are inconclusive, thus supporting the regulatory position that the dose units of the individual preparations are unique and cannot be simply converted between products. [source] Clinical outcomes with unfractionated heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin as bridging therapy in patients on long-term oral anticoagulants: the REGIMEN registry,JOURNAL OF THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS, Issue 6 2006A. C. SPYROPOULOS Summary.,Background: Patients who receive long-term oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy often require interruption of OAC for an elective surgical or an invasive procedure. Heparin bridging therapy has been used in these situations, although the optimal method has not been established. No large prospective studies have compared unfractionated heparin (UFH) with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for the perioperative management of patients at risk of thromboembolism requiring temporary interruption of long-term OAC therapy. Patients/methods: This multicenter, observational, prospective registry conducted in North America enrolled 901 eligible patients on long-term OAC who required heparin bridging therapy for an elective surgical or invasive procedure. Practice patterns and clinical outcomes were compared between patients who received either UFH alone (n = 180) or LMWH alone (n = 721). Results: Overall, the majority of patients (74.5%) requiring heparin bridging therapy had arterial indications for OAC. LMWH, in mostly twice-daily treatment doses, represented approximately 80% of the study population. LMWH-bridged patients had significantly fewer arterial indications for OAC, a lower mean Charlson comorbidity score, and were less likely to undergo major or cardiothoracic surgery, receive intraprocedural anticoagulants or thrombolytics, or receive general anesthesia than UFH-bridged patients (all P < 0.05). The LMWH group had significantly more bridging therapy completed in an outpatient setting or with a < 24-h hospital stay vs. the UFH group (63.6% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.001). In the LMWH and UFH groups, similar rates of overall adverse events (16.2% vs. 17.1%, respectively, P = 0.81), major composite adverse events (arterial/venous thromboembolism, major bleed, and death; 4.2% vs. 7.9%, respectively, P = 0.07) and major bleeds (3.3% vs. 5.5%, respectively, P = 0.25) were observed. The thromboembolic event rates were 2.4% for UFH and 0.9% for LMWH. Logistic regression analysis revealed that for postoperative heparin use a Charlson comorbidity score > 1 was an independent predictor of a major bleed and that vascular, general, and major surgery were associated with non-significant trends towards an increased risk of major bleed. Conclusions: Treatment-dose LMWH, mostly in the outpatient setting, is used substantially more often than UFH as bridging therapy in patients with predominately arterial indications for OAC. Overall adverse events, including thromboembolism and bleeding, are similar for patients treated with LMWH or UFH. Postoperative heparin bridging should be used with caution in patients with multiple comorbidities and those undergoing vascular, general, and major surgery. These findings need to be confirmed using large randomized trials for specific patient groups undergoing specific procedures. [source] The management of heparin-induced thrombocytopeniaBRITISH JOURNAL OF HAEMATOLOGY, Issue 3 2006David Keeling Abstract The Haemostasis and Thrombosis Task Force of the British Committee for Standards in Haematology has produced a concise practical guideline to highlight the key issues in the management of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) for the practicing physician in the UK. The guideline is evidence-based and levels of evidence are included in the body of the article. All patients who are to receive heparin of any sort should have a platelet count on the day of starting treatment. For patients who have been exposed to heparin in the last 100 d, a baseline platelet count and a platelet count 24 h after starting heparin should be obtained. For all patients receiving unfractionated heparin (UFH), alternate day platelet counts should be performed from days 4 to 14. For surgical and medical patients receiving low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) platelet counts should be performed every 2,4 d from days 4 to 14. Obstetric patients receiving treatment doses of LMWH should have platelet counts performed every 2,4 d from days 4 to 14. Obstetric patients receiving prophylactic LMWH are at low risk and do not need routine platelet monitoring. If the platelet count falls by 50% or more, or falls below the laboratory normal range and/or the patient develops new thrombosis or skin allergy between days 4 and 14 of heparin administration HIT should be considered and a clinical assessment made. If the pretest probability of HIT is high, heparin should be stopped and an alternative anticoagulant started at full dosage unless there are significant contraindications while laboratory tests are performed. Platelet activation assays using washed platelets have a higher sensitivity than platelet aggregation assays but are technically demanding and their use should be restricted to laboratories experienced in the technique. Non-expert laboratories should use an antigen-based assay of high sensitivity. Only IgG class antibodies need to be measured. Useful information is gained by reporting the actual optical density, inhibition by high concentrations of heparin, and the cut-off value for a positive test rather than simply reporting the test as positive or negative. In making a diagnosis of HIT the clinician's estimate of the pretest probability of HIT together with the type of assay used and its quantitative result (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, ELISA, only) should be used to determine the overall probability of HIT. Clinical decisions should be made following consideration of the risks and benefits of treatment with an alternative anticoagulant. For patients with strongly suspected or confirmed HIT, heparin should be stopped and full-dose anticoagulation with an alternative, such as lepirudin or danaparoid, commenced (in the absence of a significant contraindication). Warfarin should not be used until the platelet count has recovered. When introduced in combination with warfarin, an alternative anticoagulant must be continued until the International Normalised Ratio (INR) is therapeutic for two consecutive days. Platelets should not be given for prophylaxis. Lepirudin, at doses adjusted to achieve an activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) ratio of 1·5,2·5, reduces the risk of reaching the composite endpoint of limb amputation, death or new thrombosis in patients with HIT and HIT with thrombosis (HITT). The risk of major haemorrhage is directly related to the APTT ratio, lepirudin levels and serum creatinine levels. The patient's renal function needs to be taken into careful consideration before treatment with lepirudin is commenced. Severe anaphylaxis occurs rarely in recipients of lepirudin and is more common in previously exposed patients. Danaparoid in a high-dose regimen is equivalent to lepirudin in the treatment of HIT and HITT. Danaparoid at prophylactic doses is not recommended for the treatment of HIT or HITT. Patients with previous HIT who are antibody negative (usually so after >100 d) who require cardiac surgery should receive intraoperative UFH in preference to other anticoagulants that are less validated for this purpose. Pre- and postoperative anticoagulation should be with an anticoagulant other than UFH or LMWH. Patients with recent or active HIT should have the need for surgery reviewed and delayed until the patient is antibody negative if possible. They should then proceed as above. If deemed appropriate early surgery should be carried out with an alternative anticoagulant. We recommend discussion of these complex cases requiring surgery with an experienced centre. The diagnosis must be clearly recorded in the patient's medical record. [source] | ||||||||||