39 research outputs found

    The influence of allogenic blood transfusion in patients having free-flap primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma

    Get PDF
    The influence of perioperative blood transfusion in oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma remains uncertain. It is believed that blood transfusion downregulates the immune system and may have an influence on cancer recurrence and survival. In all, 559 consecutive patients undergoing primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma between 1992 and 2002 were included in this study. Known prognostic variables along with transfusion details were obtained from head and neck cancer and blood transfusion service databases, respectively. Adjusting for relevant prognostic factors in Cox regression, the hazard ratio for patients having 3 or more transfused units relative to those not transfused was 1.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93–2.47) for disease-specific and 1.52 (95% CI 1.05–2.22) for overall mortality. Blood transfusion of 3 or more units might confer a worse prognosis in patients undergoing primary surgery for oral and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Therefore, every effort should be made to limit the amount of blood transfused to the minimum requirement

    Congenital and childhood atrioventricular blocks: pathophysiology and contemporary management

    Get PDF
    Atrioventricular block is classified as congeni- tal if diagnosed in utero, at birth, or within the first month of life. The pathophysiological process is believed to be due to immune-mediated injury of the conduction system, which occurs as a result of transplacental pas- sage of maternal anti-SSA/Ro-SSB/La antibodies. Childhood atrioventricular block is therefore diagnosed between the first month and the 18th year of life. Genetic variants in multiple genes have been described to date in the pathogenesis of inherited progressive car- diac conduction disorders. Indications and techniques of cardiac pacing have also evolved to allow safe perma- nent cardiac pacing in almost all patients, including those with structural heart abnormalities

    The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

    Get PDF

    Population-level risks of alcohol consumption by amount, geography, age, sex, and year: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2020

    Get PDF
    Background The health risks associated with moderate alcohol consumption continue to be debated. Small amounts of alcohol might lower the risk of some health outcomes but increase the risk of others, suggesting that the overall risk depends, in part, on background disease rates, which vary by region, age, sex, and year. Methods For this analysis, we constructed burden-weighted dose–response relative risk curves across 22 health outcomes to estimate the theoretical minimum risk exposure level (TMREL) and non-drinker equivalence (NDE), the consumption level at which the health risk is equivalent to that of a non-drinker, using disease rates from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2020 for 21 regions, including 204 countries and territories, by 5-year age group, sex, and year for individuals aged 15–95 years and older from 1990 to 2020. Based on the NDE, we quantified the population consuming harmful amounts of alcohol. Findings The burden-weighted relative risk curves for alcohol use varied by region and age. Among individuals aged 15–39 years in 2020, the TMREL varied between 0 (95% uncertainty interval 0–0) and 0·603 (0·400–1·00) standard drinks per day, and the NDE varied between 0·002 (0–0) and 1·75 (0·698–4·30) standard drinks per day. Among individuals aged 40 years and older, the burden-weighted relative risk curve was J-shaped for all regions, with a 2020 TMREL that ranged from 0·114 (0–0·403) to 1·87 (0·500–3·30) standard drinks per day and an NDE that ranged between 0·193 (0–0·900) and 6·94 (3·40–8·30) standard drinks per day. Among individuals consuming harmful amounts of alcohol in 2020, 59·1% (54·3–65·4) were aged 15–39 years and 76·9% (73·0–81·3) were male. Interpretation There is strong evidence to support recommendations on alcohol consumption varying by age and location. Stronger interventions, particularly those tailored towards younger individuals, are needed to reduce the substantial global health loss attributable to alcohol. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

    Evaluation of the efficacy of ChAd63-MVA vectored vaccines expressing CS & ME-TRAP against controlled human malaria infection in malaria naïve individuals

    Get PDF
    Background.?Circumsporozoite protein (CS) is the antigenic target for RTS,S, the most advanced malaria vaccine to date. Heterologous prime-boost with the viral vectors ChAd63-MVA is the most potent inducer of T-cells in humans, demonstrating significant efficacy when expressing the pre-erythrocytic antigen insert ME-TRAP. We hypothesised that ChAd63-MVA containing CS may result in significant, clinical protective efficacy.Methods.?We conducted an open-label, two-site partially randomized sporozoite controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) study to compare the clinical efficacy of ChAd63-MVA CS with ChAd63-MVA ME-TRAP. The study was registered at: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01623557).Results.?1/15 (7%) vaccinees receiving ChAd63-MVA CS and 2/15 (13%) vaccinees receiving ChAd63-MVA ME-TRAP were sterilely protected post-CHMI. 3/15 (20%) vaccinees receiving ChAd63-MVA CS and 5/15 (33%) vaccinees receiving ChAd63-MVA ME-TRAP demonstrated a delay in time to treatment compared to unvaccinated controls. In qPCR analyses, ChAd63-MVA CS was estimated to reduce liver parasite burden by 69-79%, compared to 79-84% for ChAd63-MVA ME-TRAP.Conclusions.?ChAd63-MVA CS does result in a reduction in liver parasite burden but ChAd63-MVA ME-TRAP remains the most promising antigenic insert for a vectored liver-stage vaccine. Detailed analyses of parasite kinetics may allow detection of smaller, but biologically important differences in vaccine efficacy that can influence future vaccine developmen
    corecore