VTE Prophylaxis in Cesarean Section

Venous thromboembolism (VT is a major cause of maternal mortality and severe morbidity. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods of prophylaxis are therefore often used for women considered to be a risk including women who have given birth by cesarean section. The risk is potentially increased in women with a personal or family history of VTE, women with genetic or acquired thrombophilia, and another risk factors like sickle cell disease, inflammatory bowel disease, active cancer, obesity, preeclampsia·and SARS COVID 19 infection. However, a specific score in obstetrics has not yet been well defined. Recommendations from major society guidelines for post-cesarean section (C/S) thromboprophylaxis differ greatly; the safety and efficacy of drug prophylaxis - mainly low molecular weight heparins - has been demonstrated, but large scale randomized trials of currently-used interventions should be conducted. The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the indications and contraindications for VTE prophylaxis in cesarean sections, prophylaxis regimens and potential adverse events.

Experience of the preventive use of the drug Riamilovir in the foci of coronavirus infection (COVID-19)

Aim. The assessment of the effectiveness, safety and tolerance of the drug Riamilovir for emergency drug prevention in the foci of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19). Materials and methods. The trial included 113 persons aged 18 years and older who had level 1 contacts with patients with a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19), who had not previously been ill, with negative PCR results for COVID-19. Results. The high effectiveness, safety and good tolerance of the preventive use of the drug Riamilovir for the period of 20 days of taking a prophylactic dose of 1 capsule (250 mg) per day in the foci of COVID-19 has been established. Conclusion. The effectiveness and safety of the preventive use of the drug Riamilovir allow to recommend it for emergency drug prophylaxis in contact persons in the foci of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19).

Prophylaxis for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis

ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19).DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 19 January 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 January 2021.Study selectionRandomized trials in which people at risk of covid-19 were randomized to drug prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsAfter duplicate data abstraction, we conducted random-effects bayesian network meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included studies using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomized trials – six addressing hydroxychloroquine (6,059 participants), one addressing ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (234 participants) and two addressing ivermectin alone (540 participants), all compared to standard care or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine has no important effect on admission to hospital (risk difference (RD) 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% credible interval (CrI) 3 fewer to 4 more, high certainty) or mortality (RD 1 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 2 fewer to 3 more, high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably has no important effect on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 2 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 18 fewer to 28 more, moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (RD 19 more per 1,000, 95% CrI 1 fewer to 70 more, moderate certainty) and may have no important effect on suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 15 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 64 fewer to 41 more, low certainty). Due to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision – and thus very low certainty evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 52 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 58 fewer to 37 fewer), and ivermectin alone on laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 50 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable or laboratory-confirmed infection (RD 159 fewer per 1,000, 95% CrI 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain uncertain.ConclusionHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis does not have an important effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not have an important effect on laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, we are highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.FundingThis study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR-IRSC:0579001321).Readers’ noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.

Traumatic brain injury

Chapter 7 covers the definition, epidemiology, pathophysiology, and management of traumatic brain injury (TBI). It explains the fundamental concepts of brain physiology: intracranial compliance; intracranial hypertension; cerebral perfusion pressure; cerebral blood flow; and autoregulation. Medical management of TBI is detailed, including hyperosmolar therapy and nutritional support. Neuromonitoring of patients with TBI in the intensive care unit is discussed, including the evidence base for seizure monitoring and antiepileptic drug prophylaxis. Patients with severe TBI and refractory intracranial hypertension may need escalation to second-tier therapies, which are evaluated, including the evidence for decompressive craniectomy. A concise summary of the different therapies is included.

Research Progress of Drug Prophylaxis for Lens Capsule Opacification after Cataract Surgery

Phacoemulsification combined with intraocular lens (IOL) implantation is the international standard operation procedure for cataract and has been generalized worldwide. However, lens capsule opacification, one of the common complications after cataract surgery, impacts the recovery of patients’ visual function to a large extent. Lens capsule opacification has two types, anterior capsule opacification (ACO) and posterior capsule opacification (PCO), according to the location. There is not an accepted approach to treat ACO. Nd : YAG laser capsulotomy, the common treatment of PCO, can effectively improve the vision, but may cause a series of complications and is inappropriate for children who are too young to cooperate with this treatment. It is generally known that the responses of lens epithelial cells (LECs) after cataract surgery, including cell proliferation, migration, and epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT), play a key role in the pathogenesis of lens capsule opacification. Scholars found that substantial drugs can reduce the occurrence of lens capsule opacification by inhibiting, clearing, or killing LECs, and made great efforts as well as innovations on the exploration of drug species or modes of administration. This article is a systematic interpretation and elaboration about how to prevent lens capsule opacification after cataract surgery via different drugs.

Feasibility of olanzapine at reduced dose in highly emetogenic chemotherapy: A randomised controlled trial against aprepitant in triple therapy (FORESIGHT).

12087 Background: Olanzapine is used as an adjunct antiemetic in oncology as salvage therapy and in four-drug prophylaxis. Growing literature supports its effectiveness in initial three-drug prophylaxis in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: This prospective, multi-centre, open-label study evaluated the feasibility of a large-scale randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and tolerability of 5 mg olanzapine once daily for four days (starting the night before chemotherapy) versus standard dose aprepitant (in tritherapy with standard ondansetron and dexamethasone) in treatment-naive patients receiving the first cycle of a HEC. Secondary outcomes included: complete response (no nausea, no emesis, no use of rescue medication), complete remission (no emesis, no rescue medication), intensity of patient-reported nausea and emesis on a visual analog scale, quality of life (scored with the Functional Living Index Emesis [FLIE]), and incidence of adverse events. Results: We randomized 30 patients in an intent-to-treat analysis. The large-scale trial was deemed not feasible without support from a research centre. Complete response rates were significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the delayed phase (24-120h post-chemotherapy) (86,7% v 21,4%, p < 0,001) and overall phase (0-120h post-chemotherapy) (60,0% v 21,4%, p = 0,04). Similar results were observed for complete remission. Intensity of patient-reported nausea was significantly lower in the olanzapine group in the delayed phase (p = 0,001). FLIE scores were significantly lower for the nausea domain (mean 62,3 v 60,9, p = 0,004) and overall score (124,3 v 108,8, p = 0,006). Depression on the ESAS-R was more common in the aprepitant group (0% v 38%, p = 0,01). Other adverse events were not significantly different. Conclusions: Support from a research centre must be ensured for study feasibility. Tritherapy olanzapine significantly improved complete response and remission in the delayed and overall phases post-chemotherapy among patients receiving HEC. It was also associated with higher quality of life and a reassuring safety profile. This feasibility trial, despite its small sample size, is one of the first prospective randomised trials to suggest similar efficacy of 5 mg olanzapine to aprepitant and to measure a difference in patient quality of life with this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT04075955 .

Neuro-Oncology Practice Clinical Debate: long-term antiepileptic drug prophylaxis in patients with glioma

Patients with primary brain tumors often experience seizures, which can be the presenting symptom or occur for the first time at any point along the illness trajectory. In addition to causing morbidity, seizures negatively affect independence and quality of life in other ways, for example, by leading to loss of driving privileges. Long-term therapy with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is the standard of care in brain tumor patients with seizures, but the role of prophylactic AEDs in seizure-naive patients remains controversial. In this article, experts in the field discuss the issues of AED efficacy and toxicity, and explain their differing recommendations for routine use of prophylactic AEDs.