EFFECT OF AMLODIPINE AND ENALAPRIL ON WOUND HEALING IN DIABETIC WISTAR ALBINO RATS

Objective: A number of structural and functional mechanisms have been identified in the pathogenesis of impaired wound healing in diabetes. Diabetes promotes endothelial dysfunction as evidenced by decreased nitric oxide (NO) production. NO deficiency and resultant impaired angiogenesis have been implicated in impaired wound healing in diabetes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of amlodipine and enalapril on wound healing in streptozotocin induced diabetic rats based on previous observations that amlodipine increases NO bioavailability and enalapril promote angiogenesis.Methods: Four groups for each wound model (n=6 in each group; total 8 groups) were used and served as diabetic control, active control (glibenclamide), amlodipine, and enalapril groups. Wound closure rate and re-epithelialization were studied in the excision wounds. Incision wounds were studied for wound breaking strength while dead space wounds were studied for granulation tissue weight, hydroxyproline content, and histological changes in granulation tissue.Results: Amlodipine and enalapril significantly (P<0.05) increased re-epithelialization in excision wound model. Amlodipine significantly improved incision wound breaking strength while enalapril increased granulation tissue formation. None of the study agents had a significant effect on wound granulation tissue histology.Conclusion: Amlodipine and enalapril enhance the re-epithelialization in the diabetic wound. Choosing amlodipine or enalapril as antihypertensive in diabetic patients may help to improve impaired wound healing in these patients. Further human trials are needed to demonstrate similar benefits in diabetic patients with wounds.Keywords:Antihypertensive drugs, Diabetic ulcers, Re-epithelization, StreptozotocinÂ

an individual participant data meta-analysis

Background The impact of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) on influenza-related pneumonia (IRP) is not established. Our objective was to investigate the association between NAI treatment and IRP incidence and outcomes in patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection. Methods A worldwide meta- analysis of individual participant data from 20 634 hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 (n = 20 021) or clinically diagnosed (n = 613) ‘pandemic influenza’. The primary outcome was radiologically confirmed IRP. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using generalised linear mixed modelling, adjusting for NAI treatment propensity, antibiotics and corticosteroids. Results Of 20 634 included participants, 5978 (29·0%) had IRP; conversely, 3349 (16·2%) had confirmed the absence of radiographic pneumonia (the comparator). Early NAI treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) versus no NAI was not significantly associated with IRP [adj. OR 0·83 (95% CI 0·64–1·06; P = 0·136)]. Among the 5978 patients with IRP, early NAI treatment versus none did not impact on mortality [adj. OR = 0·72 (0·44–1·17; P = 0·180)] or likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 1·17 (0·71–1·92; P = 0·537)], but early treatment versus later significantly reduced mortality [adj. OR = 0·70 (0·55–0·88; P = 0·003)] and likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 0·68 (0·54–0·85; P = 0·001)]. Conclusions Early NAI treatment of patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection versus no treatment did not reduce the likelihood of IRP. However, in patients who developed IRP, early NAI treatment versus later reduced the likelihood of mortality and needing ventilatory support

Impact of neuraminidase inhibitors on influenza A(H1N1)pdm09‐related pneumonia: an individual participant data meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND: The impact of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) on influenza‐related pneumonia (IRP) is not established. Our objective was to investigate the association between NAI treatment and IRP incidence and outcomes in patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection. METHODS: A worldwide meta‐analysis of individual participant data from 20 634 hospitalised patients with laboratory‐confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 (n = 20 021) or clinically diagnosed (n = 613) ‘pandemic influenza’. The primary outcome was radiologically confirmed IRP. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using generalised linear mixed modelling, adjusting for NAI treatment propensity, antibiotics and corticosteroids. RESULTS: Of 20 634 included participants, 5978 (29·0%) had IRP; conversely, 3349 (16·2%) had confirmed the absence of radiographic pneumonia (the comparator). Early NAI treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) versus no NAI was not significantly associated with IRP [adj. OR 0·83 (95% CI 0·64–1·06; P = 0·136)]. Among the 5978 patients with IRP, early NAI treatment versus none did not impact on mortality [adj. OR = 0·72 (0·44–1·17; P = 0·180)] or likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 1·17 (0·71–1·92; P = 0·537)], but early treatment versus later significantly reduced mortality [adj. OR = 0·70 (0·55–0·88; P = 0·003)] and likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 0·68 (0·54–0·85; P = 0·001)]. CONCLUSIONS: Early NAI treatment of patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection versus no treatment did not reduce the likelihood of IRP. However, in patients who developed IRP, early NAI treatment versus later reduced the likelihood of mortality and needing ventilatory support

Neuraminidase Inhibitors and Hospital Length of Stay: A Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data to Determine Treatment Effectiveness Among Patients Hospitalized With Nonfatal 2009 Pandemic Influenza A(H1N1) Virus Infection

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: [email protected]. BACKGROUND: The effect of neuraminidase inhibitor (NAI) treatment on length of stay (LoS) in patients hospitalized with influenza is unclear. METHODS: We conducted a one-stage individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis exploring the association between NAI treatment and LoS in patients hospitalized with 2009 influenza A(H1N1) virus (A[H1N1]pdm09) infection. Using mixed-effects negative binomial regression and adjusting for the propensity to receive NAI, antibiotic, and corticosteroid treatment, we calculated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Patients with a LoS o

Cross sensitivity between ciprofloxacin and levofloxacin for an immediate hypersensitivity reaction

Seven years old male child (24 kg weight) diagnosed as a case of sub acute appendicitis treated with ciprofloxacin, immediately developed multiple erythmatous papules. Reaction subsided after withholding ciprofloxacin and treatment with dexamethasone and chlorpheneramine maleate. It was developed again when treated with levofloxacin and subsided after withdrawal. IgE binding at 7th position of core structure of fluoroquinolones likely to be the mechanism. As all the fluoroquinolones have similar core structure, hypersensitivity to one may have cross sensitivity to other fluoroquinolones. It is advisable to avoid other fluoroquinolones and switch over to other group of antibiotics when hypersensitivity to one occurs

Adverse drug reaction profile of oseltamivir in Indian population: A prospective observational study

Objectives: To analyze the pattern of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) of oseltamivir and its comparison with available data. Materials and Methods: Suspected or confirmed cases of H1N1 influenza A on therapeutic regimen and close contacts of cases H1N1 influenza A on prophylactic regimen of oseltamivir were included. Data were collected by personal interview after obtaining written informed consent. Causality, severity, and preventability assessments were done by using Naranjo′s scale, modified Hartwig and Siegel′s scale, and modified Schumock and Thornton Scale, respectively. Data were expressed in proportions. Frequency of ADRs in therapeutic and prophylactic groups were compared with phase III trial of oseltamivir by using Chi-square test. Results: Total 294 patients were interviewed. In prophylactic group, 107 of 257 (41.63%) and in therapeutic, group 23 of 37 (62.16%) developed ADRs. ADRs reported in therapeutic group was significantly (P = 0.029) higher as compared with prophylactic group. Frequently observed ADRs in both the groups were gastritis, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea weakness, sedation, loneliness, sadness, headache, and abdominal pain. Naranjo′s algorithm showed all ADRs in probable category in prophylactic group, 27.78% probable and 72.22% possible reactions in therapeutic group. Severity assessment showed 76% mild and 24% moderate reactions in therapeutic group, 89% mild and 11% moderate reactions in prophylactic group. Severity of ADRs was significantly higher in therapeutic group. Most of ADRs were in nonpreventable category, except gastritis, nausea and vomiting were in definitely preventable category. Conclusion: Oseltamivir is well tolerated in Indian population. Gastrointestinal side effects are most common and preventable

Impact of neuraminidase inhibitors on influenza A(H1N1)pdm09‐related pneumonia: an individual participant data meta‐analysis

BACKGROUND: The impact of neuraminidase inhibitors (NAIs) on influenza‐related pneumonia (IRP) is not established. Our objective was to investigate the association between NAI treatment and IRP incidence and outcomes in patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection. METHODS: A worldwide meta‐analysis of individual participant data from 20 634 hospitalised patients with laboratory‐confirmed A(H1N1)pdm09 (n = 20 021) or clinically diagnosed (n = 613) ‘pandemic influenza’. The primary outcome was radiologically confirmed IRP. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated using generalised linear mixed modelling, adjusting for NAI treatment propensity, antibiotics and corticosteroids. RESULTS: Of 20 634 included participants, 5978 (29·0%) had IRP; conversely, 3349 (16·2%) had confirmed the absence of radiographic pneumonia (the comparator). Early NAI treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) versus no NAI was not significantly associated with IRP [adj. OR 0·83 (95% CI 0·64–1·06; P = 0·136)]. Among the 5978 patients with IRP, early NAI treatment versus none did not impact on mortality [adj. OR = 0·72 (0·44–1·17; P = 0·180)] or likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 1·17 (0·71–1·92; P = 0·537)], but early treatment versus later significantly reduced mortality [adj. OR = 0·70 (0·55–0·88; P = 0·003)] and likelihood of requiring ventilatory support [adj. OR = 0·68 (0·54–0·85; P = 0·001)]. CONCLUSIONS: Early NAI treatment of patients hospitalised with A(H1N1)pdm09 virus infection versus no treatment did not reduce the likelihood of IRP. However, in patients who developed IRP, early NAI treatment versus later reduced the likelihood of mortality and needing ventilatory support

Effectiveness of neuraminidase inhibitors in reducing mortality in patients admitted to hospital with influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection: a meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors were widely used during the 2009-10 influenza A H1N1 pandemic, but evidence for their effectiveness in reducing mortality is uncertain. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to investigate the association between use of neuraminidase inhibitors and mortality in patients admitted to hospital with pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. METHODS: We assembled data for patients (all ages) admitted to hospital worldwide with laboratory confirmed or clinically diagnosed pandemic influenza A H1N1pdm09 virus infection. We identified potential data contributors from an earlier systematic review of reported studies addressing the same research question. In our systematic review, eligible studies were done between March 1, 2009 (Mexico), or April 1, 2009 (rest of the world), until the WHO declaration of the end of the pandemic (Aug 10, 2010); however, we continued to receive data up to March 14, 2011, from ongoing studies. We did a meta-analysis of individual participant data to assess the association between neuraminidase inhibitor treatment and mortality (primary outcome), adjusting for both treatment propensity and potential confounders, using generalised linear mixed modelling. We assessed the association with time to treatment using time-dependent Cox regression shared frailty modelling. FINDINGS: We included data for 29,234 patients from 78 studies of patients admitted to hospital between Jan 2, 2009, and March 14, 2011. Compared with no treatment, neuraminidase inhibitor treatment (irrespective of timing) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0·81; 95% CI 0·70-0·93; p=0·0024). Compared with later treatment, early treatment (within 2 days of symptom onset) was associated with a reduction in mortality risk (adjusted OR 0·48; 95% CI 0·41-0·56; p<0·0001). Early treatment versus no treatment was also associated with a reduction in mortality (adjusted OR 0·50; 95% CI 0·37-0·67; p<0·0001). These associations with reduced mortality risk were less pronounced and not significant in children. There was an increase in the mortality hazard rate with each day's delay in initiation of treatment up to day 5 as compared with treatment initiated within 2 days of symptom onset (adjusted hazard ratio [HR 1·23] [95% CI 1·18-1·28]; p<0·0001 for the increasing HR with each day's delay). INTERPRETATION: We advocate early instigation of neuraminidase inhibitor treatment in adults admitted to hospital with suspected or proven influenza infection. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche