Clinical outcomes of chemotherapy in cancer patients with different ethnicities

Abstract Background Choosing the most effective chemotherapeutic agent with safest side effect profile is a common challenge in cancer treatment. Although there are standardized chemotherapy protocols in place, protocol changes made after extensive clinical trials demonstrate significant improvement in the efficacy and tolerability of certain drugs. The pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and tolerance of anti‐cancer medications are all highly individualized. A driving force behind these differences lies within a person's genetic makeup. Recent findings Pharmacogenomics, the study of how an individual's genes impact the processing and action of a drug, can optimize drug responsiveness and reduce toxicities by creating a customized medication regimen. However, these differences are rarely considered in the initial determination of standardized chemotherapeutic protocols and treatment algorithms. Because pharmacoethnicity is influenced by both genetic and nongenetic variables, clinical data highlighting disparities in the frequency of polymorphisms between different ethnicities is steadily growing.  Recent data suggests that ethnic variations in the expression of allelic variants may result in different pharmacokinetic properties of the anti‐cancer medication. In this article, the clinical outcomes of various chemotherapy classes in patients of different ethnicities were reviewed. Conclusion Genetic and nongenetic variables contribute to the interindividual variability in response to chemotherapeutic drugs. Considering pharmacoethnicity in the initial determination of standard chemotherapeutic protocols and treatment algorithms can lead to better clinical outcomes of patients of different ethnicities

Oxidative stress and COVID-19-associated neuronal dysfunction: mechanisms and therapeutic implications

Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-CoV-2 virus causes novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and there is a possible role for oxidative stress in the pathophysiology of neurological diseases associated with COVID-19. Excessive oxidative stress could be responsible for the thrombosis and other neuronal dysfunctions observed in COVID-19. This review discusses the role of oxidative stress associated with SARS-CoV-2 and the mechanisms involved. Furthermore, the various therapeutics implicated in treating COVID-19 and the oxidative stress that contributes to the etiology and pathogenesis of COVID-19-induced neuronal dysfunction are discussed. Further mechanistic and clinical research to combat COVID-19 is warranted to understand the exact mechanisms, and its true clinical effects need to be investigated to minimize neurological complications from COVID-19

Effects of once-weekly exenatide on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo