Antimuscarinics in the Treatment of OAB: Is there a First-Line and a Second-Line Choice?

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 1187-1197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apostolos Apostolidis
Keyword(s):  
Second Line ◽  
First Line

Social Representations and Commitment

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Bonetto ◽  
Fabien Girandola ◽  
Grégory Lo Monaco
Keyword(s):  
Social Representations ◽  
Social Representation ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
First Line ◽  
Research Perspectives ◽  
The Social ◽  
Bibliographic Search ◽  
English Articles

Abstract. This contribution consists of a critical review of the literature about the articulation of two traditionally separated theoretical fields: social representations and commitment. Besides consulting various works and communications, a bibliographic search was carried out (between February and December, 2016) on various databases using the keywords “commitment” and “social representation,” in the singular and in the plural, in French and in English. Articles published in English or in French, that explicitly made reference to both terms, were included. The relations between commitment and social representations are approached according to two approaches or complementary lines. The first line follows the role of commitment in the representational dynamics: how can commitment transform the representations? This articulation gathers most of the work on the topic. The second line envisages the social representations as determinants of commitment procedures: how can these representations influence the effects of commitment procedures? This literature review will identify unexploited tracks, as well as research perspectives for both areas of research.

mCRPC: Cabazitaxel zukünftige Second-line-Option nach Docetaxel?

2010 ◽  
Vol 01 (06) ◽  
pp. 282-282
Author(s):  
Birgit-Kristin Pohlmann
Keyword(s):  
Second Line ◽  
First Line

Bislang steht für Patienten mit metastasiertem kastrationsresistentem Prostatakarzinom (mCRPC), die auf die Standard-First-line-Chemotherapie mit Docetaxel nicht mehr adäquat ansprechen, keine Evidenz-basierte Therapieoption zur Verfügung. Große Hoffnungen verbinden sich daher mit Cabazitaxel, einer neuen Substanz, die diesen Patienten noch einmal die Chance auf eine Überlebenszeitverlängerung bietet. In den USA ist Cabazitaxel bereits für die Second-line-Behandlung beim mCRPC nach Docetaxel-Versagen zugelassen. In Europa ist die Zulassung für diese Indikation bean-tragt.

A Rational Sequencing of Anti-Angiogenic Agents as Second-Line Treatment Choice for mCRC Patients Progressing After a Bevacizumab-Based First Line

2020 ◽  
pp. 14-19
Author(s):  
Sara De Dosso
Keyword(s):  
Acquired Resistance ◽  
Predictive Biomarker ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Vascular Endothelial ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Vegf Pathway ◽  
Effective Choice ◽  
Endothelial Growth Factor

A large proportion of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) experience disease progression after first-line treatment with chemotherapy and bevacizumab, an anti-angiogenic agent, as a result of acquired resistance. However, blocking angiogenesis by targeted therapy towards the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway still forms an essential part of the second-line treatment strategy. Although three approved evidence-based choices for angiogenic agents (continuing treatment with bevacizumab, ramucirumab and aflibercept) are currently available in the second line, making the most effective choice is challenging due to the lack of studies directly comparing these agents. Moreover, despite huge investigational efforts, no predictive biomarker for anti-angiogenic cancer therapies could be identified so far.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Addition of Bevacizumab to Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 718-724 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wen-Cong Ruan ◽  
Yue-Ping Che ◽  
Li Ding ◽  
Hai-Feng Li
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
Clinical Prognosis ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Pre-treated patients with first-line treatment can be offered a second treatment with the aim of improving their poor clinical prognosis. The therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who did not respond to first-line therapy has limited treatment options. Recently, many studies have paid much attention to the efficacy of bevacizumab as an adjuvant treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy compared with bevacizumab-naive based chemotherapy as second-line treatment in people with metastatic CRC. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for eligible studies updated to March 2018. Randomized-controlled trials comparing addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy without bevacizumab in MCRC patients were included, of which, the main interesting results were the efficacy and safety profiles of the addition of bevacizumab in patients with MCRC as second-line therapy. Result: Five trials were eligible in the meta-analysis. Patients who received the combined bevacizumab and chemotherapy treatment in MCRC as second-line therapy showed a longer overall survival (OS) (OR=0.80,95%CI=0.72-0.89, P<0.0001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (OR=0.69,95%CI=0.61-0.77, P<0.00001). In addition, there was no significant difference in objective response rate (ORR) (RR=1.36,95%CI=0.82-2.24, P=0.23) or severe adverse event (SAE) (RR=1.02,95%CI=0.88-1.19, P=0.78) between bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and bevacizumabnaive based chemotherapy. Conclusion: Our results suggest that the addition of bevacizumab to the chemotherapy therapy could be an efficient and safe treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer as second-line therapy and without increasing the risk of an adverse event.

scholarly journals Immediate hypersensitivity reaction followed by successful oral desensitization to ursodiol

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erika Yue Lee ◽  
Christine Song
Keyword(s):  
Hypersensitivity Reaction ◽  
Primary Biliary Cholangitis ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Immediate Hypersensitivity ◽  
First Line ◽  
Case Presentation ◽  
Desensitization Protocol ◽  
First Line Treatment ◽  
Oral Desensitization

Abstract Background Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ursodiol is rare and there is no previously published protocol on ursodiol desensitization. Case presentation A 59-year-old woman with primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) developed an immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ursodiol—the first-line treatment for PBC. When she switched to a second-line treatment, her PBC continued to progress. As such, she completed a novel 12-step desensitization protocol to oral ursodiol. She experienced recurrent pruritus after each dose following desensitization, which subsided after a month of being on daily ursodiol. Conclusion Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to ursodiol is uncommon. Our case demonstrated that this novel desensitization protocol to ursodiol could be safely implemented when alternative options are not available or have proven inferior in efficacy.

scholarly journals Patient profiles as an aim to optimize selection in the second line setting: the role of aflibercept

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. González Astorga ◽  
F. Salvà Ballabrera ◽  
E. Aranda Aguilar ◽  
E. Élez Fernández ◽  
P. García-Alfonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Effective Therapeutic Option ◽  
Line Setting ◽  
First Line Treatment

AbstractColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. For metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients, it is recommended, as first-line treatment, chemotherapy (CT) based on doublet cytotoxic combinations of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX). In addition to CT, biological (targeted agents) are indicated in the first-line treatment, unless contraindicated. In this context, most of mCRC patients are likely to progress and to change from first line to second line treatment when they develop resistance to first-line treatment options. It is in this second line setting where Aflibercept offers an alternative and effective therapeutic option, thought its specific mechanism of action for different patient’s profile: RAS mutant, RAS wild-type (wt), BRAF mutant, potentially resectable and elderly patients. In this paper, a panel of experienced oncologists specialized in the management of mCRC experts have reviewed and selected scientific evidence focused on Aflibercept as an alternative treatment.

scholarly journals 1338. Analysis of Prescription Guideline Adherence in Pediatric Outpatient Pneumonia Treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S680-S681
Author(s):  
Carly Heck ◽  
Judith Martin ◽  
Marcia Kurs-Lasky
Keyword(s):  
Drug Allergy ◽  
Health Concern ◽  
Second Line ◽  
First Line ◽  
Second Line Therapy ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Line Therapy ◽  
Comparison Results ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Recommended Therapy

Abstract Background Background: Antibiotic resistance is a major public health concern. A modifiable intervention is outpatient antibiotic stewardship. The goal of this study was to review the electronic health records (EHR) of children diagnosed with community acquired pneumonia (CAP) to compare patients who received non-guideline concordant therapy with those prescribed recommended therapy. Methods Methods: This was a retrospective chart review of 300 children (6 months to 6 years old) with an outpatient diagnosis of CAP between July 2017 and June 2019. 45 Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh (CHP) and UPMC Children’s Community Pediatrics (CCP) practices were included. CHP practices are academic-based with trainees involved in visits, while CCP practices do not include trainees. First-line recommended therapy was defined as amoxicillin, second-line therapy as azithromycin or amoxicillin-clavulanate, and all other prescriptions were defined as other. Patients prescribed first-line therapy were compared to patients with second-line therapy or other. If first-line therapy was not prescribed, the EHR was manually reviewed for justification. If drug allergy was listed, the medication allergy and type of reaction were recorded. Results Results: In this study the minority of children (43%) were prescribed first-line therapy. This group was younger (57 vs. 63 months of age), more likely to be Non-white (80%), and seen at the CHP locations than those prescribed non-guideline concordant therapy. The average symptom duration was shorter, heart rate and respiratory rate were higher and the presence of fever was more common in the first-line therapy group. Justification for non-guideline therapy was most often reported as to provide coverage for atypical organisms. The most common drug allergy recorded was amoxicillin, and urticaria with unknown timing was the most common type of reaction. Demographics Comparison Results Justification for Second-line / Other Therapy and Drug Allergy Results Conclusion This project observed a high proportion of children being prescribed non-guideline concordant therapy for a diagnosis of CAP. Age, race, practice location, and severity of illness measures showed a statistically significant difference between groups. This study highlights the importance of education which reviews the current guidelines and the most likely pathogens for children with CAP. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Second-Line Treatment in RAS Wild-Type/Mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer in the Precision Medicine Era

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (14) ◽  
pp. 7717
Author(s):  
Guido Giordano ◽  
Pietro Parcesepe ◽  
Giuseppina Bruno ◽  
Annamaria Piscazzi ◽  
Vincenzo Lizzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Second Line ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
First Line ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Mutational Status ◽  
First Line Treatment

Target-oriented agents improve metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) survival in combination with chemotherapy. However, the majority of patients experience disease progression after first-line treatment and are eligible for second-line approaches. In such a context, antiangiogenic and anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) agents as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors have been approved as second-line options, and RAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite status represent the molecular drivers that guide therapeutic choices. Patients harboring K- and N-RAS mutations are not eligible for anti-EGFR treatments, and bevacizumab is the only antiangiogenic agent that improves survival in combination with chemotherapy in first-line, regardless of RAS mutational status. Thus, the choice of an appropriate therapy after the progression to a bevacizumab or an EGFR-based first-line treatment should be evaluated according to the patient and disease characteristics and treatment aims. The continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression or its substitution with another anti-angiogenic agents has been shown to increase survival, whereas anti-EGFR monoclonals represent an option in RAS wild-type patients. In addition, specific molecular subgroups, such as BRAF-mutated and Microsatellite Instability-High (MSI-H) mCRCs represent aggressive malignancies that are poorly responsive to standard therapies and deserve targeted approaches. This review provides a critical overview about the state of the art in mCRC second-line treatment and discusses sequential strategies according to key molecular biomarkers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document