Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
4 result(s) for "DINOLFO Melissa"
Sort by:
Comparison of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of S-1 between Caucasian and East Asian patients
S‐1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine anti‐neoplastic agent that is converted by CYP2A6 to 5‐fluorouracil (5FU). We prospectively studied the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of S‐1 in two groups of East Asian and Caucasian patients with solid malignancy refractory to standard chemotherapy, or for which 5FU was indicated, to elucidate differences in relation to CYP2A6 genotype and phenotype. S‐1 was given orally at 30 mg/m2 b.i.d. for 14 days every 21 days. Dose normalized AUC0–48 h for tegafur (P = 0.05) and gimeracil (P = 0.036) were higher in East Asians; conversely, AUC0–48 h of fluoro‐β‐alanine was higher in Caucasians (P = 0.044). Exposure to 5FU was similar in both groups (P = 0.967). Mean cotinine:nicotine ratio was 54% higher in the Caucasian group (P = 0.03), and correlated with oral clearance of tegafur (r = 0.59; P = 0.002). Grade 3/4 gastrointestinal toxicities were more common in Caucasians than Asians (21%vs 0%). Treatment with S‐1 yields no significant difference in 5FU exposure between Caucasians and East Asians. (Cancer Sci 2011; 102: 478–483)
On variants and vaccines: The effectiveness of Covid-19 monoclonal antibody therapy during two distinct periods in the pandemic
While Covid-19 monoclonal antibody therapies (Mab) have been available in the outpatient setting for over a year and a half, little is known about the impact of emerging variants and vaccinations on the effectiveness of Mab therapies. We sought to determine the effectiveness of Covid-19 Mab therapies during the first two waves of the pandemic in Los Angeles County and assess the impact of vaccines, variants, and other confounding factors. We retrospectively examined records for 2209 patients of with confirmed positive molecular SARS-CoV2 test either referred for outpatient Mab therapy or receiving Mab treatment in the emergency department (ED) between December 2020 and 2021. Our primary outcome was the combined 30-day incidence of ED visit, hospitalization, or death following the date of referral. Additionally, SARS-CoV2 isolates of hospitalized patients receiving Mabs were sequenced. The primary outcome was significantly reduced with combination therapy compared to bamlanivimab or no treatment (aHR 0·60; 95% CI ·37, ·99), with greater benefit in unvaccinated, moderate-to-high-risk patients (aHR ·39; 95% CI ·20, ·77). Significant associations with the primary outcome included history of lung disease (HR 7·13; 95% CI 5·12, 9·95), immunocompromised state (HR 6·59; 95% CI 2·91-14·94), and high social vulnerability (HR 2·29, 95% CI 1·56-3·36). Two predominant variants were noted during the period of observation: the Epsilon variant and the Delta variant. Only select monoclonal antibody therapies significantly reduced ED visits, hospitalizations, and death due to COVID-19 during. Vaccination diminished effectiveness of Mabs. Variant data and vaccination status should be considered when assessing the benefit of novel COVID-19 treatments.
On variants and vaccines: The effectiveness of Covid-19 monoclonal antibody therapy during two distinct periods in the pandemic
While Covid-19 monoclonal antibody therapies (Mab) have been available in the outpatient setting for over a year and a half, little is known about the impact of emerging variants and vaccinations on the effectiveness of Mab therapies. We sought to determine the effectiveness of Covid-19 Mab therapies during the first two waves of the pandemic in Los Angeles County and assess the impact of vaccines, variants, and other confounding factors. We retrospectively examined records for 2209 patients of with confirmed positive molecular SARS-CoV2 test either referred for outpatient Mab therapy or receiving Mab treatment in the emergency department (ED) between December 2020 and 2021. Our primary outcome was the combined 30-day incidence of ED visit, hospitalization, or death following the date of referral. Additionally, SARS-CoV2 isolates of hospitalized patients receiving Mabs were sequenced. The primary outcome was significantly reduced with combination therapy compared to bamlanivimab or no treatment (aHR 0·60; 95% CI ·37, ·99), with greater benefit in unvaccinated, moderate-to-high-risk patients (aHR ·39; 95% CI ·20, ·77). Significant associations with the primary outcome included history of lung disease (HR 7·13; 95% CI 5·12, 9·95), immunocompromised state (HR 6·59; 95% CI 2·91-14·94), and high social vulnerability (HR 2·29, 95% CI 1·56-3·36). Two predominant variants were noted during the period of observation: the Epsilon variant and the Delta variant. Only select monoclonal antibody therapies significantly reduced ED visits, hospitalizations, and death due to COVID-19 during. Vaccination diminished effectiveness of Mabs. Variant data and vaccination status should be considered when assessing the benefit of novel COVID-19 treatments.
On variants and vaccines: The effectiveness of Covid-19 monoclonal antibody therapy during two distinct periods in the pandemic
While Covid-19 monoclonal antibody therapies (Mab) have been available in the outpatient setting for over a year and a half, little is known about the impact of emerging variants and vaccinations on the effectiveness of Mab therapies. We sought to determine the effectiveness of Covid-19 Mab therapies during the first two waves of the pandemic in Los Angeles County and assess the impact of vaccines, variants, and other confounding factors. We retrospectively examined records for 2209 patients of with confirmed positive molecular SARS-CoV2 test either referred for outpatient Mab therapy or receiving Mab treatment in the emergency department (ED) between December 2020 and 2021. Our primary outcome was the combined 30-day incidence of ED visit, hospitalization, or death following the date of referral. Additionally, SARS-CoV2 isolates of hospitalized patients receiving Mabs were sequenced. The primary outcome was significantly reduced with combination therapy compared to bamlanivimab or no treatment (aHR 0·60; 95% CI ·37, ·99), with greater benefit in unvaccinated, moderate-to-high-risk patients (aHR ·39; 95% CI ·20, ·77). Significant associations with the primary outcome included history of lung disease (HR 7·13; 95% CI 5·12, 9·95), immunocompromised state (HR 6·59; 95% CI 2·91-14·94), and high social vulnerability (HR 2·29, 95% CI 1·56-3·36). Two predominant variants were noted during the period of observation: the Epsilon variant and the Delta variant. Only select monoclonal antibody therapies significantly reduced ED visits, hospitalizations, and death due to COVID-19 during. Vaccination diminished effectiveness of Mabs. Variant data and vaccination status should be considered when assessing the benefit of novel COVID-19 treatments.