Memory-Safety Challenge Considered Solved? An In-Depth Study with All Rust CVEs

Rust is an emerging programming language that aims at preventing memory-safety bugs without sacrificing much efficiency. The claimed property is very attractive to developers, and many projects start using the language. However, can Rust achieve the memory-safety promise? This article studies the question by surveying 186 real-world bug reports collected from several origins, which contain all existing Rust common vulnerability and exposures (CVEs) of memory-safety issues by 2020-12-31. We manually analyze each bug and extract their culprit patterns. Our analysis result shows that Rust can keep its promise that all memory-safety bugs require unsafe code, and many memory-safety bugs in our dataset are mild soundness issues that only leave a possibility to write memory-safety bugs without unsafe code. Furthermore, we summarize three typical categories of memory-safety bugs, including automatic memory reclaim, unsound function, and unsound generic or trait. While automatic memory claim bugs are related to the side effect of Rust newly-adopted ownership-based resource management scheme, unsound function reveals the essential challenge of Rust development for avoiding unsound code, and unsound generic or trait intensifies the risk of introducing unsoundness. Based on these findings, we propose two promising directions toward improving the security of Rust development, including several best practices of using specific APIs and methods to detect particular bugs involving unsafe code. Our work intends to raise more discussions regarding the memory-safety issues of Rust and facilitate the maturity of the language.

Evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in the treatment of upper GIT disorders

Introduction: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are most prescribed medication classes and have similar efficacy between generic and brand names. PPIs are used for treatment upper GIT disorders. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Methods: A cross sectional study conducted randomly on pharmacies, patients and Doctors to collect a data regarding the effectiveness and safely use of PPI through predesigned questionnaire containing information about dosage, types, side effect, effectiveness and safety of PPIs. The collected data was analysis by using Chi-square for determine the significant differences at α < 0.05. Result: The result of present study revealed numbers of points in which the questionnaire were intended for pharmacies, patients and doctors knowledge, effectiveness and safety of PPIs. The data gathered from pharmacy shown PPI dispensed without prescription (P< 0.05) in dose of 20 mg of omeprazole and for treatment of gastritis, stomachache and on medication use (P< 0.05). No side effect or any problem, safe, and effective of PPIs was from patients seeking PPIs to the drug dispensers. Furthermore, questionnaire for patients whom seeking treatment shown some similarity to pharmacies answers, however lack the knowledge about side effect of PPIs, and PPIs withdraw among patients. PPIs was found to be used by patients due to the advices of friends (P< 0.05). The last part in this study was doctors involved in which some common similarity were also identified between doctors, patients and pharmacies responses. Although, Doctors responses were revealed that PPIs should be used by prescription in single dose of common types of PPIs (P< 0.05). Conclusion: Due to the short time use of PPIs have been reported. This study suggested that, even no side effect and highly effective of PPIs reported, the PPIs should be monitoring and use under prescription.

Validity of a single-item indicator of treatment side effect bother in a diverse sample of cancer patients

Purpose With higher efficacy of cancer therapies, the numbers and types of side effects experienced by patients have also increased, evidencing a need for brief assessments of side effect bother. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) includes the item “I am bothered by side effects of treatment” (GP5). This study aimed to confirm GP5’s validity in a large, diverse, real-world patient sample. Methods Real-world data were drawn from 10 Adelphi Disease Specific Programmes (DSP™) conducted between 2015 and 2019 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the USA, covering 10 cancer sites. We examined correlations between GP5 responses and varied measures of patient-reported global health and the number of side effects experienced. We explored whether more advanced patients and those with worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Rating (ECOG PSR) reported greater side effect bother. Finally, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) assessment using the Mantel–Haenszel approach. Results The sample included 6755 advanced cancer patients. GP5 responses were distributed similarly across most cancer sites. A moderate, negative correlation (rpolyserial = − 0.43) between GP5 responses and global health evidenced convergent validity. Known groups validity was evidenced by dichotomised distributions of GP5, showing expected results between cancer stage 2 vs. 3 and 4 and with ECOG PSR (p < 0.001). Little evidence of DIF was found. Conclusion GP5 exhibited evidence of validity across cancer sites and countries and appeared to measure the same construct across these countries. GP5 has significant promise as a summary indicator of side effect bother.

Diacerein Versus Chondroitin Sulfate in Treatment of Adult Kashin-Beck Disease: An Intervention Trial in Heilongjiang Province, China

Background: Kashin-Beck disease (KBD) is a special type of osteoarthritis and has disabled and stunted the growth of hundreds of people in China. It also can affect patients' ability to work and live. So, how to conduct effective treatment for adult KBD patients has become a major public health problem in current KBD endemic areas. In this trial, therapeutic effects of diacerein and chondroitin sulfate on adult KBD was to evaluate and compare so that we can screen out more suitable drug. Methods: 308 KBD patients were divided into two groups and received chondroitin sulphate (Group A) and diacerein (Group B) for 24 weeks, respectively. Data were collected at 0 week (baseline), 12 weeks (primary end point) and 24 weeks (secondary end point) to calculate the proportion of patients with effective therapeutic effect and overall improvement rate (primary efficacy parameters), WOMAC pain and stiffness scores (secondary efficacy parameters). Blood sample was collected to measure liver and renal function indexes. All indexes and parameters were analysed with SPSS software and intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis was applied. Results: Two primary efficacy parameters in group B at primary end point were significantly higher than those in group A (P=0.021, P=0.007), but no statistical differences were seen in these two primary efficacy parameters between two groups at secondary end point or between primary and secondary end points in same group (all P>0.05). In both groups, with the prolongation of treatment time, WOMAC pain and stiffness scores decreased significantly (all P<0.001), but no significant differences were seen between primary and secondary end points (all P>0.05). In addition, in both groups, the occurrences of total adverse events were relatively low and no side effect on liver function was seen. Diacerein also had no side effect on renal function. Conclusion: For treatment of adult KBD, both diacerein and chondroitin sulfate were effective, and diacerein might work stronger than chondroitin sulfate. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, the optimal intervention time of diacerein was 12 weeks. Trial registration: The trial was registered complementally on 31/10/2020, and the registration number in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry is ChiCTR2000039600 (http://www.chictr.org.cn).

Severe Persistent Eczema in a Recipient of the Gam-COVID-Vac vaccine

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts have been made to design safe and effective vaccines against SARS-CoV-2. Numerous vaccines have been designed and tested in limited clinical trials in various countries. Among them, the Sputnik V vaccine has shown a relatively safe profile and, to our knowledge, has no associated major side effects. We describe the case of a 40-year-old female healthcare worker who developed severe persistent eczematous lesions on the second day after she received the first dose of the Sputnik vaccine. The eczematous lesions were refractory to an antihistamine and persisted at the 1 month follow-up. Severe persistent eczematous lesions should be viewed as a potential side effect of vaccination with the Sputnik V vaccine. Moreover, a severe allergic reaction to a COVID-2019 vaccine may indicate the vaccine is ineffective in the recipient.

Side Effects and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines among the Egyptian Population

Background: Knowledge about a vaccine’s side effects and efficacy is important to improving public vaccine acceptance. This study aimed to detect the safety and efficacy of vaccines among the Egyptian population. Methodology and Results: Data was collected using an online survey from participants who took two doses of the BBIBP-CorV, ChAdOx1, or BNT162 vaccines. Pain at the vaccine injection site, muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, fever, and headache were the most common side effects after the first and second doses. The number pf side effects was higher in ChAdOx1 than in BNT162 and BBIBP-CorV. Most of the side effects started on the first day after vaccination and persisted for 1–2 days. Vaccinated people with past coronavirus infections before vaccination developed better antibodies than those who were only vaccinated. The side-effect severity was greater after the first dose of BBIBP-CorV and ChAdOx1 than after the second dose, but in contrast, the side-effect severity was greater after the second dose of BNT162 vaccine than after the first dose. ChAdOx1 was more effective than BBIBP-CorV, and one dose of ChAdOx1 produced an immune response similar to that of two doses of BBIBP-CorV. Conclusions: Coronavirus vaccines were well-tolerated, safe, and produced an immune response against the virus in most cases. Most postvaccine side effects were mild to moderate, which indicated the building of immunity by the body for protection.

Consider differentials before diagnosing COVID-19 associated polyradiculitis

Evidence is accumulating that SARS-CoV-2 infections and SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations can induce Guillain-Barre syndrome (GBS). More than 400 GBS cases after SARS-CoV-2 infection respectively vaccination have been reported as per the end of 2021. GBS is usually diagnosed according to the Brighton criteria, but also the Besta criteria or Hadden criteria are applied. The diagnosis can be supported by MRI with contrast medium of the cranial or spinal nerves showing enhancing nerve roots. As GBS can be complicated by autonomic dysfunction such as pupillary abnormalities, salivatory dysfunction, reduced heart rate variability, bowel disturbance (constipation, diarrhea), urinary hesitancy, urinary retention, or impotence, it is crucial to investigate GBS patients for autonomic involvement. Before diagnosing GBS various differentials need to be excluded, including neuropathy as a side effect of the anti-SARS-CoV-2 medication, critical ill neuropathy in COVID-19 patients treated on the ICU, and compression neuropathy in COVID-19 patients requiring long-term ventilation.