scholarly journals Combination of 0.05% Azelastine and 0.1% Tacrolimus Eye Drops in Children With Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis: A Prospective Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minjie Chen ◽  
Anji Wei ◽  
Bilian Ke ◽  
Jun Zou ◽  
Lan Gong ◽  
...  

Aims: To compare the efficacy of the combination of 0. 05% azelastine and 0.1% tacrolimus eye drops with 0.1% tacrolimus monotherapy in pediatric patients with vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC).Methods: Prospective study. Seventy-six patients with VKC were randomized 1:1 into monotherapy group with 0.1% tacrolimus or combination therapy group with 0.1% tacrolimus and 0.05% azelastine. The Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI) scores and the signs of conjunctival hyperemia, corneal involvement, and palpebral conjunctiva papillae were assessed at baseline and at 1, 2, and 6 weeks after treatment.Results: Two groups were comparable in age, sex, duration of VKC, OSDI, and clinical signs of VKC at baseline. Significant improvements in OSDI score and clinical signs were observed in both groups at all follow-up visits (all p < 0.001), compared with baseline. The combination therapy group showed a larger decrease in OSDI score from baseline (10.30 ± 0.9) compared with monotherapy group (7.30 ± 0.7, p =0.0085) at 1 week. Greater improvements in conjunctival hyperemia and conjunctival papillae were identified in the combination therapy group, compared with in the monotherapy group, at all follow-up visits (all p < 0.05). The corneal involvement scores in the combination group is significantly lower than the monotherapy group at 2 weeks after the treatment (p = 0.0488). No severe adverse effect was found in either group during the study.Conclusions: Compared with a monotherapy of 0.1% tacrolimus, the combination of 0.05% azelastine and 0.1% tacrolimus eye drops lead to faster and greater improvements in clinical signs and symptoms of vernal keratoconjunctivitis in pediatric patients.

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3903-3903
Author(s):  
Jiang Ji ◽  
Zhao Wang ◽  
Bing Han

Introduction: Hypomethylating agents (HMA) azacitidine and decitabine were the first-line therapy for intermediate/ higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients unsuitable for hematopoietic cell transplantation (HSCT). HMA combined with chemotherapy was recently used to achieve for a better outcome. However, few studies were carried out to compare the HMA monotherapy to the HMA and chemotherapy combination therapy. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy, survival benefit and safety of HMA monotherapy and combination therapy (with chemotherapy) in patients with intermediate/high-risk MDS or AML. Methods: Related articles published between January 2009 and April 2019 were selected and patients were separated as monotherapy group and combination group for meta-analysis. To further eliminate the potential influence of differences in patients' baseline characteristic between the two groups, subgroups with similar patients' baseline characteristics were selected for further analysis. Complete response (CR) rate, overall response (ORR) rate, 1-year overall survival (OS) rate, 1-month death rate and the proportion of adverse event (AE) were pooled and compared. Results: 13 RCT or cohort studies with 997 patients (790 in monotherapy group, 207 in HMA combination group) were selected for meta-analysis. For the pooled data, there was no significant difference in sex and cytogenetic risk between the 2 groups, but the age of combination therapy group was significantly younger than that of the monotherapy group (61.3±13.2 year-old vs 67.7±10.2 year-old, p=0.000). The CR and ORR rate were significantly higher in combination therapy group (53% vs 17%, p=0.000 for CR and 67% vs 44%, p=0.000 for ORR). However, the 1-year OS (56% for combination therapy vs 51% for HMA monotherapy group, p=0.282) and 1-month death rate (5% for combination therapy vs 4% for HMA monotherapy group, p=0.965) were similar between the two groups. The incidence of CTCAE grade 3-4 infection and bleeding were significantly higher (infection: 50% for combination therapy vs 25.7% for monotherapy group, p=0.003; bleeding: 27.5%% for combination therapy vs 7.8% for monotherapy group, p=0.004) in combination group. In subgroup analysis, 117 and 179 patients were included in combination group and HMA monotherapy group, respectively. There was no significant difference in age (69.5±4.6 vs 69.0±6.8 years old, p=0.451) and proportion of favorable/intermediate cytogenetic risk (62% vs 71%, p=0.114) between the two groups, but a significantly lower proportion of male was found in combination therapy group (57% vs 74%, p=0.003). Although combination group had a higher CR rate (49% vs 17%, p=0.000), it had similar ORR rate (58% vs 49%, p=0.140) to monotherapy group. Meanwhile, combination therapy came with higher 1-month death rate (12% vs 3%, p=0.008) and lower 1-year OS (54% vs 68%, p=0.013) compared with monotherapy group. Conclusions: HMA combined with chemotherapy could increase CR rate in all patients and ORR rate in younger patients, but could not improve OS. For patients with similar older age, combination therapy could result in higher 1-month death rate and less 1-year OS. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20517-e20517
Author(s):  
Fan Zhang ◽  
Tao Li ◽  
Yuzi Zhang ◽  
Shangli Cai ◽  
Lei Zhao ◽  
...  

e20517 Background: Immunotherapy combined with platinum-based chemotherapy is now standard first line treatment for NSCLC patients. However, limited evidence exists to show the efficacy of immunotherapy plus taxanes for patients who have progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy. Therefore, a retrospective study was conducted to assess whether immunotherapy plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumb could improve efficacy compared with immune monotherapy as second line therapy or beyond for NSCLC patients. Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC receiving anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy or combination therapy from 2015 to 2018 were identified in Chinese People’s Liberation Army General Hospital. Patients who received PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as first-line therapy or combined with therapies other than nab-paclitaxel and bevacizumab were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) and safety. Results: Of 59 patients, 42 were treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and 17 were treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab. With a median follow-up of 8.2 months, combination therapy group showed significantly longer PFS compared with monotherapy group (8.4m vs. 3.7m, P = 0.047). When adjusted by covariates in COX proportional regression model, both treatment group (P = 0.007, Hazard ration [HR] 0.32; 95%CI 0.14-0.73) and performance status (P = 0.018, HR 0.44; 95%CI 0.22-0.87) demonstrated significant contribution to longer PFS. In addition, ORR was 23.5% (4/17) in the combination therapy group versus 12.8% (5/39) in the monotherapy group (P = 0.265) and the DCR was 88.2% (15/17) in the combination therapy group versus 61.5% (24/39) in the monotherapy group (P = 0.061). The incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events were 23.5% (4/17) in the combination therapy group and 4.8% (2/42) in monotherapy group (P = 0.052). Conclusions: PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus nab-paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab resulted in significantly longer PFS and higher DCR as second line therapy of beyond in metastatic NSCLC patients. These findings need to be further explored by randomized controlled studies.


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-131
Author(s):  
Irina A. Bondar ◽  
Olesya Y. Shabelnikova ◽  
Ekaterina A. Sokolova ◽  
Olga V. Pyankova ◽  
Maksim L. Filipenko

Aim: The purpose of this study was to examine the phenotypic and genetic characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with different responses to treatment with metformin (MF) in the Novosibirsk region. Materials and methods: We examined 460 patients with T2DM in the Novosibirsk region. Patients were divided into groups according to their HbA1c level: patients who achieved the target HbA1c level during MF therapy (n = 209) and those who did not reach the target HbA1c level (n=251). Genotyping of ATM (rs11212617) was performed using polymerase chain reaction by TaqMan. Results: Patients who achieved the target HbA1c level during MF treatment (good response) were older (61. 1±9. 1 years vs. 57. 4±8. 4 years, p=0. 001), had later onset of diabetes (54. 6 ± 10. 1 years vs. 49. 2±8. 5 years, p = 0. 0001) and shorter duration of diabetes (6. 5±5. 9 years vs. 8. 2±6. 1 years, p=0. 03) compared with those who did not achieve the target HbA1c level. There was no statistically significant association between ATM rs11212617 and achieving the target HbA1c level among all patients [odds ratio (OR)=0. 94, 95% confidence interval = (0. 73–1. 23), p=0. 67] or those with MF monotherapy [OR=0. 90, (0. 65–1. 25), p=0. 54] or combination therapy [OR=1. 02, (0. 72–1. 43), p=0. 92]. There was an effect of age on response to MF therapy in all three groups (all patients: p=0. 001, MF monotherapy group: p=0. 04, combination therapy group: p=0. 0009). In the MF monotherapy group, low dose MF was associated with a good response (p=0. 03), and in the combination therapy group, males were more likely to have a good response (p=0. 003). Patients with genotype C/C or A/C for ATM (rs11212617) compared with those with genotype A/A were more likely to have high levels of triglycerides [2. 33 (1. 52–4. 2) mmol/l, 2. 09 (1. 35–3. 0) mmol/l and 1. 99 (1. 49–3. 21) mmol/l, respectively, p=0. 001], coronary heart disease (CHD) (13. 4%, 13. 4% and 9. 6%, respectively, p=0. 009) and myocardial infarction (7. 8%, 3. 2% and 4. 0%, respectively, p=0. 001). Conclusion: Patients with T2DM who had a good response to MF therapy were older, more likely to be male and had a later onset of T2DM. Genotype C/C for ATM rs11212617 was associated with high triglycerides, CHD and myocardial infarction. ATM rs11212617 was not associated with response to MF therapy in the Novosibirsk region. 


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
jingmao Yang ◽  
Liping Chen ◽  
Yajie Wang ◽  
Bei Lv ◽  
Hong Zhao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aim The efficacy of entecavir (ETV) add-on peg-interferon therapy compared with ETV monotherapy in treatment-naïve hepatitis B virus (HBV) patients remains controversial. We investigated whether adding Peg-interferon to ongoing ETV treatment leads to a better curative effect or not. Methods Eligible HBV patients (n=144) were randomly divided (1:1) to receive either ETV monotherapy (n=70) or peg-interferon add-on therapy from weeks 26 to 52 (n=74). Patients were followed-up for 2 years. We evaluated hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion rate, sustained virologic response (SVR), transient elastography value, and histological scores. Results At week 26, no patient achieved HBsAg seroconversion in either group. At week 52, one patient in the monotherapy group was HBsAg-negative but there was none in the combination therapy group. The monotherapy group showed significantly better liver function recovery results than the combination therapy group. At week 78, one patient in combination group had HBsAg seroconverted. At week 104, only three patients in the combination therapy group were HBsAg-negative compared with one patient in monotherapy. The mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT)and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels and transient elastography values decreased significantly compared with baseline. Both group showed a favorable decrease in alpha fetoprotein(AFP) (monotherapy:23.4±77.3 vs 2.4±0.91, P=0.149; combination therapy: 33.3±96.9 vs 4.3±5.5,P=0.085) and an improved result of liver biopsy examination scores. The combination group showed a better improvement in histology compared with the monotherapy group(mean transient elastography value 7.5±3.4 kPa [SD 1.9] vs. 12.8±13.9 kPa [SD 1.9], P=0.037). But this research didn’t show significant difference in HBsAg conversion rate (1.79% (1/56) vs 4.11% (3/73), P=0.632) as well as HBV-DNA sustained virologic response(93.2% vs 98.5%,P=0.15) between two groups. Conclusions Both therapies supported liver function recovery and histology improvement. Combination therapy did not show better antiviral efficacy in HBsAg or HBeAg seroconversion compared with monotherapy. However, combination therapy played a more positive role in reversing hepatic fibrosis compared with monotherapy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 132-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aleksei N. Sumin ◽  
Natalya A. Bezdenezhnykh ◽  
Natalya V. Fedorova ◽  
Anna V. Shcheglova ◽  
Elena V. Indukaeva ◽  
...  

Aim: The purpose of this study was to examine the phenotypic and genetic characteristics of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with different responses to treatment with metformin (MF) in the Novosibirsk region. Materials and methods: We examined 460 patients with T2DM in the Novosibirsk region. Patients were divided into groups according to their HbA1c level: patients who achieved the target HbA1c level during MF therapy (n = 209) and those who did not reach the target HbA1c level (n=251). Genotyping of ATM (rs11212617) was performed using polymerase chain reaction by TaqMan. Results: Patients who achieved the target HbA1c level during MF treatment (good response) were older (61. 1±9. 1 years vs. 57. 4±8. 4 years, p=0. 001), had later onset of diabetes (54. 6 ± 10. 1 years vs. 49. 2±8. 5 years, p = 0. 0001) and shorter duration of diabetes (6. 5±5. 9 years vs. 8. 2±6. 1 years, p=0. 03) compared with those who did not achieve the target HbA1c level. There was no statistically significant association between ATM rs11212617 and achieving the target HbA1c level among all patients [odds ratio (OR)=0. 94, 95% confidence interval = (0. 73–1. 23), p=0. 67] or those with MF monotherapy [OR=0. 90, (0. 65–1. 25), p=0. 54] or combination therapy [OR=1. 02, (0. 72–1. 43), p=0. 92]. There was an effect of age on response to MF therapy in all three groups (all patients: p=0. 001, MF monotherapy group: p=0. 04, combination therapy group: p=0. 0009). In the MF monotherapy group, low dose MF was associated with a good response (p=0. 03), and in the combination therapy group, males were more likely to have a good response (p=0. 003). Patients with genotype C/C or A/C for ATM (rs11212617) compared with those with genotype A/A were more likely to have high levels of triglycerides [2. 33 (1. 52–4. 2) mmol/l, 2. 09 (1. 35–3. 0) mmol/l and 1. 99 (1. 49–3. 21) mmol/l, respectively, p=0. 001], coronary heart disease (CHD) (13. 4%, 13. 4% and 9. 6%, respectively, p=0. 009) and myocardial infarction (7. 8%, 3. 2% and 4. 0%, respectively, p=0. 001). Conclusion: Patients with T2DM who had a good response to MF therapy were older, more likely to be male and had a later onset of T2DM. Genotype C/C for ATM rs11212617 was associated with high triglycerides, CHD and myocardial infarction. ATM rs11212617 was not associated with response to MF therapy in the Novosibirsk region.  


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1084.2-1085
Author(s):  
B. M. Fernandes ◽  
S. Garcia ◽  
F. Oliveira Pinheiro ◽  
M. Rato ◽  
D. Fonseca ◽  
...  

Background:In Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA), tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi) in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) has shown advantages concerning efficacy and immunogenicity in comparison with monotherapy. However, in clinical practice, up to 40% of patients under biological DMARDs (bDMARDs) are on monotherapy.Objectives:To compare the efficacy outcomes of TNFi in monotherapy and in combination therapy in a RA monocentric cohort.Methods:Retrospective, cross-sectional study including all the RA patients under TNFi followed at our Rheumatology Department and registered in the national database. Demographic, clinical and laboratorial data and disease activity measures were collected at the last visit of 2019 from each patient. Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were used to the comparison analysis between the two groups (continuous and categorical variables, respectively).Results:A total of 144 patients were included: 84% were females; at the last visit of 2019, the mean age was 56.3±10.9 years and the mean disease duration was 18.3±10.2 years; 73.6% were positive for rheumatoid factor (RF), 81.9% for anti-citrullinated protein autoantibodies (ACPA) and 45.1% had erosive disease. There were no statistically significant differences in these variables between the monotherapy and the combination therapy groups (table 1).Table 1.Demographic and disease-related variables in the monotherapy and the combination therapy group.Monotherapy(n=31)Combination therapy (n=113)Age - mean±SD59.1±14.0 years55.5±9.8 yearsDisease duration - mean±SD20.5±11.2 years17.7±9.7 yearsRF positive - n (%)20 (60.4%)86 (76.8%)ACPA positive - n (%)25 (80.6%)93 (85.3%)Erosive disease - n (%)15 (48.4%)50 (44.6%)Thirty-one patients (21.5%) were under monotherapy with TNFi and etanercept was the most frequent TNFi in both groups (54.8% vs 50.0%; monotherapy and combination therapy groups, respectively). At the start of the first bDMARD, the monotherapy group had a higher disease activity score 28 - 4 variables (DAS 28 4V; 6.083±0.930 vs 5.605±1.043, p=0.039) and a higher simple disease activity score (SDAI; 36.12±11.77 vs 28.76±9.98, p=0.035); also, in the monotherapy group more patients had already started the bDMARD in monotherapy (22.6% vs 2.7%, p<0.001), less patients were under (38.7% vs 73.2%, p=0.001) or had already been treated with (77.4% vs 93.8%, p=0.007) methotrexate, in comparison with the combination group therapy.At the last visit of 2019, the monotherapy group had a higher mean years of duration of iTNF treatment (5.5±5.8 vs 3.4±4.5, p=0.048), a higher mean patient global assessment - visual analogue scale (PGA-VAS; 49±18 vs 39±25, p=0.023), a higher mean prednisolone equivalent dose in mg/day (7.6±6.3 vs 5.6±3.2, p=0.045) and a lower proportion of American College of Rheumatology 50 and 70 responses (ACR 50: 12.9% vs 17.0%, p=0.023; ACR 70: 3.2% vs 10.7%, p=0.045) in comparison with the combination therapy group.Conclusion:In line with the literature, our real-life results demonstrate some direct (higher PGA-VAS and lower ACR 50 and 70 responses) and indirect (higher current prednisolone equivalent dose) data that suggest that patients with TNFi monotherapy may have a worst disease activity control in comparison with combination therapy.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


Blood ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 132 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 3979-3979 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunice S. Wang ◽  
Richard Aplenc ◽  
Deborah Chirnomas ◽  
Michael John Dugan ◽  
Salman Fazal ◽  
...  

Abstract Introduction: Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO; MylotargTM) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti-CD33 monoclonal antibody covalently linked to the potent antibiotic calicheamicin. Previous studies have shown GO is generally well tolerated and can induce durable second remissions when administered as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We report safety data from an expanded-access protocol (EAP) that allowed compassionate use of GO in patients with R/R AML or acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) and no access to comparable or alternative therapy. Methods: Conducted in the United States, the GO EAP (NCT02312037) was an open-label study in patients aged ≥3 months with R/R AML (including myelodysplastic syndrome) or APL who were considered to have the potential to derive clinical benefit and had exhausted other treatment options. The protocol allowed for treatment regimens tested in clinical trial settings and reported in the Mylotarg Investigators Brochure or peer-reviewed journals. Data from these trials indicated these regimens could potentially benefit a patient with R/R AML or APL. For R/R AML patients, the regimens included GO as monotherapy or in combination with anthracyclines and/or nucleoside-analogue containing regimens or hypomethylating agents. For patients with APL, these included GO as monotherapy or in combination with all-trans retinoic acid and/or arsenic trioxide. Patients were permitted to re-enroll in treatment, and their data are summarized according to each enrollment treatment. Results: A total of 331 patients received GO either as monotherapy for R/R AML (adult [aged ≥18 years]: n=118; pediatric [aged <18 years]: n=21), combination therapy for R/R AML (adult: n=99; pediatric: n=84), or treatment for APL (adult: n=9; pediatric: n=0). Mean age in the monotherapy, combination therapy, and APL groups was 55, 32, and 57 years, respectively. The most frequently administered doses of GO in the monotherapy group were 9 mg/m2 (1 dose: n=21 [15%]; doses on ≥2 days: n=29 [21%]) and 3 mg/m2 (1 dose: n=10 [7%]; doses on ≥2 days: n=33 [24%]). Nearly all patients in the combination-therapy group received 3 mg/m2 (1 dose: n=96 [53%]; doses on ≥2 days: n=76 [42%]). GO 6 mg/m2 was the most frequently administered dose in the APL group (1 dose: n=3 [33%]; doses on ≥2 days: n=4 [44%]). Treatment was discontinued in 94 (68%), 71 (39%), and 3 (33%) patients in the monotherapy, combination-therapy, and APL groups, respectively. Common reasons for discontinuation included resistant disease (monotherapy: n=25 [18%]; combination therapy: n=16 [9%]; APL: n=1 [11%]), adverse events (AEs) not related to study drug (monotherapy: n=7 [5%]; combination therapy: n=3 [2%]; APL: n=1 [11%]), and AEs related to study drug (monotherapy: n=6 [4]%; combination therapy: n=4 [2%]; APL: n=0). All-causality grade 5 AEs were reported in 114 (34%) patients: 72 (52%), 40 (22%), and 2 (22%) in the monotherapy, combination-therapy, and APL groups, respectively. The most common grade 5 AEs (excluding disease progression and AML) were sepsis in the monotherapy group (n=7 [5%]; 4 treatment-related), respiratory failure in the combination-therapy group (n=5 [3%]; 1 treatment-related), and intracranial hemorrhage in the APL group (n=1 [11%], not treatment-related). Grade ≥3 treatment-related, treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were reported for 84 (60%) patients in the monotherapy group, 102 (56%) patients in the combination-therapy group, and 7 (78%) patients in the APL group; hematologic TEAEs were most common, followed by hepatic TEAEs (Table). Possible hepatotoxicity was reported in 5 patients: 1 case each of veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and drug-induced liver injury in the monotherapy group and 2 cases of veno-occlusive liver disease (1 fatal) and 1 case of VOD in the combination-therapy group. Conclusions: GO was generally well tolerated; only a small proportion (<5%) of patients in each group discontinued treatment due to treatment-related TEAEs. The most frequent treatment-related, grade ≥3 TEAEs were hematologic. The incidence of hepatotoxicity was low across all cohorts. The results suggest GO is an important treatment option for patients with R/R AML or APL. Disclosures Wang: Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chirnomas:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Fazal:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau. Lin:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Nand:Pfizer: Honoraria. Pierce:Pfizer Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Shami:JSK Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lone Star Biotherapies: Equity Ownership; Baston Biologics Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy. Vermette:Pfizer: Employment, Equity Ownership. Abboud:Agios: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-52
Author(s):  
Lylys Surjani ◽  

Vernal keratoconjunctivitis (VKC) is an allergic eye disease with a chronic inflammatory condition, mostly bilateral, and affects upper tarsal conjunctiva. VKC is characterized by conjunctival infiltration by various types of inflammatory cells, especially eosinophils, although VKC was previously considered an IgE-mediated disease, but several other immunological pathways such as an increase of activated CD4 + T-lymphocytes, especially Th2, which indicates that hypersensitivity reactions are found against unknown pathogens. The rate of eye infection with shield ulcers ranges from about 9-10% which Staphylococcus epidermidis and Streptococcus pneumonia are the most common bacteria founded. Patients with VKC often present with symptoms which are intense itching, hyperemia conjunctiva, and watery eyes, photophobia, and a sensation like a foreign object. Clinical signs of VKC include papillary reactions of the upper tarsal conjunctiva and throughout the limbus. When eyelid eversion, bulbar and tarsal conjunctival hyperemia can be observed in the presence of papillae of varying size and occasionally a gelatinous infiltrate in the limbus area (Trantas Horner's nodule) which is necessary for the diagnosis of VKC. Avoiding specific/nonspecific triggers can prevent severe manifestations of VKC. Topical lubrication with artificial tears is used for long-term management of VKC patients, both during the active and passive phases. The main focus of VKC medical management is to relieve symptoms and prevent complications, the types of medications used include antihistamines, mast cell stabilizers, steroids, and immunosuppressive eye drops (Cyclosporin A (CsA) & Tacrolimus). Supratarsal injection of either short or medium acting corticosteroids is recommended as a therapeutic approach in patients with VKC. Excision of the giant papilla of tarsal conjunctiva with 0.02% intraoperative mitomycin-C was recommended in cases resulting in ptosis.


2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-21
Author(s):  
A G Evdokimova ◽  
Yu V Ryzhova ◽  
L V Gukolenko

The evaluation of the clinical efficacy and renoprotective effects of olmesartan and lercanidipine as monotherapy and when combined application in patients with arterial hypertension (AH) 1-2 degrees and microalbuminuria (MAU).It is established that the degree of blood pressure (BP) reduction and corrective influence on diurnal BP profile were similar in groups of monotherapy with olmesartan and lercanidipine. In the group of combined application of the studied drugs target BP levels were achieved in 88% of cases in the monotherapy group and 78% (1G) and 76% (2 G).Revealed renoprotective effects of olmesartan and lercanidipine as when used in monotherapy and in combination in patients with arterial hypertension of 1-2 degrees, and MAU, revealed reliable decrease in MAU. The greatest reduction in MAU was achieved in the combination therapy group.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingmao Yang ◽  
Liping Chen ◽  
Yajie Wang ◽  
Bei Lv ◽  
Hong Zhao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Aim The efficacy of entecavir (ETV) add-on peg-interferon therapy compared with ETV monotherapy in treatment-naïve hepatitis B virus (HBV) patients remains controversial. We investigated whether adding Peg-interferon to ongoing ETV treatment leads to a better curative effect or not. Methods Eligible HBV patients (n=144) were randomly divided (1:1) to receive either ETV monotherapy (n=70) or peg-interferon add-on therapy from weeks 26 to 52 (n=74). Patients were followed-up for 2 years. We evaluated hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) and hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) seroconversion rate, sustained virologic response (SVR), transient elastography value, and histological scores. Results At week 26, no patient achieved HBsAg seroconversion in either group. At week 52, one patient in the monotherapy group was HBsAg-negative but there was none in the combination therapy group. The monotherapy group showed significantly better liver function recovery results than the combination therapy group. At week 78, one patient in combination group had HBsAg seroconverted. At week 104, only three patients in the combination therapy group were HBsAg-negative compared with one patient in monotherapy. The mean alanine aminotransferase (ALT)and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels and transient elastography values decreased significantly compared with baseline. Both group showed a favorable decrease in alpha fetoprotein(AFP) (monotherapy:23.4±77.3 vs 2.4±0.91, P=0.149; combination therapy: 33.3±96.9 vs 4.3±5.5,P=0.085) and an improved result of liver biopsy examination scores. The combination group showed a better improvement in histology compared with the monotherapy group(mean transient elastography value 7.5±3.4 kPa [SD 1.9] vs. 12.8±13.9 kPa [SD 1.9], P=0.037). But this research didn’t show significant difference in HBsAg conversion rate (1.79% (1/56) vs 4.11% (3/73), P=0.632) as well as HBV-DNA sustained virologic response(93.2% vs 98.5%,P=0.15) between two groups. Conclusions Both therapies supported liver function recovery and histology improvement. Combination therapy did not show better antiviral efficacy in HBsAg or HBeAg seroconversion compared with monotherapy. However, combination therapy played a more positive role in reversing hepatic fibrosis compared with monotherapy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document