Antitumor activity of colloidal silver on MCF-7 human breast cancer cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colloidal silver has been used as an antimicrobial and disinfectant agent. However, there is scarce information on its antitumor potential. The aim of this study was to determine if colloidal silver had cytotoxic effects on MCF-7 breast cancer cells and its mechanism of cell death.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>MCF-7 breast cancer cells were treated with colloidal silver (ranged from 1.75 to 17.5 ng/mL) for 5 h at 37°C and 5% CO₂atmosphere. Cell Viability was evaluated by trypan blue exclusion method and the mechanism of cell death through detection of mono-oligonucleosomes using an ELISA kit and TUNEL assay. The production of NO, LDH, and Gpx, SOD, CAT, and Total antioxidant activities were evaluated by colorimetric assays.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Colloidal silver had dose-dependent cytotoxic effect in MCF-7 breast cancer cells through induction of apoptosis, shown an LD₅₀(3.5 ng/mL) and LD₁₀₀(14 ng/mL) (*P < 0.05), significantly decreased LDH (*P < 0.05) and significantly increased SOD (*P < 0.05) activities. However, the NO production, and Gpx, CAT, and Total antioxidant activities were not affected in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. PBMC were not altered by colloidal silver.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The present results showed that colloidal silver might be a potential alternative agent for human breast cancer therapy.</p

Effectiveness of an intervention for improving drug prescription in primary care patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy:Study protocol of a cluster randomized clinical trial (Multi-PAP project)

This study was funded by the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias ISCIII (Grant Numbers PI15/00276, PI15/00572, PI15/00996), REDISSEC (Project Numbers RD12/0001/0012, RD16/0001/0005), and the European Regional Development Fund ("A way to build Europe").Background: Multimorbidity is associated with negative effects both on people's health and on healthcare systems. A key problem linked to multimorbidity is polypharmacy, which in turn is associated with increased risk of partly preventable adverse effects, including mortality. The Ariadne principles describe a model of care based on a thorough assessment of diseases, treatments (and potential interactions), clinical status, context and preferences of patients with multimorbidity, with the aim of prioritizing and sharing realistic treatment goals that guide an individualized management. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention that implements the Ariadne principles in a population of young-old patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The intervention seeks to improve the appropriateness of prescribing in primary care (PC), as measured by the medication appropriateness index (MAI) score at 6 and 12months, as compared with usual care. Methods/Design: Design:pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial. Unit of randomization: family physician (FP). Unit of analysis: patient. Scope: PC health centres in three autonomous communities: Aragon, Madrid, and Andalusia (Spain). Population: patients aged 65-74years with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic diseases) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs prescribed in ≥3months). Sample size: n=400 (200 per study arm). Intervention: complex intervention based on the implementation of the Ariadne principles with two components: (1) FP training and (2) FP-patient interview. Outcomes: MAI score, health services use, quality of life (Euroqol 5D-5L), pharmacotherapy and adherence to treatment (Morisky-Green, Haynes-Sackett), and clinical and socio-demographic variables. Statistical analysis: primary outcome is the difference in MAI score between T0 and T1 and corresponding 95% confidence interval. Adjustment for confounding factors will be performed by multilevel analysis. All analyses will be carried out in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: It is essential to provide evidence concerning interventions on PC patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity, conducted in the context of routine clinical practice, and involving young-old patients with significant potential for preventing negative health outcomes. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02866799Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Treatment with tocilizumab or corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory state: a multicentre cohort study (SAM-COVID-19)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between tocilizumab or corticosteroids and the risk of intubation or death in patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) with a hyperinflammatory state according to clinical and laboratory parameters. Methods: A cohort study was performed in 60 Spanish hospitals including 778 patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory data indicative of a hyperinflammatory state. Treatment was mainly with tocilizumab, an intermediate-high dose of corticosteroids (IHDC), a pulse dose of corticosteroids (PDC), combination therapy, or no treatment. Primary outcome was intubation or death; follow-up was 21 days. Propensity score-adjusted estimations using Cox regression (logistic regression if needed) were calculated. Propensity scores were used as confounders, matching variables and for the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). Results: In all, 88, 117, 78 and 151 patients treated with tocilizumab, IHDC, PDC, and combination therapy, respectively, were compared with 344 untreated patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (11.4%), 27 (23.1%), 12 (15.4%), 40 (25.6%) and 69 (21.1%), respectively. The IPTW-based hazard ratios (odds ratio for combination therapy) for the primary endpoint were 0.32 (95%CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.001) for tocilizumab, 0.82 (0.71-1.30; p 0.82) for IHDC, 0.61 (0.43-0.86; p 0.006) for PDC, and 1.17 (0.86-1.58; p 0.30) for combination therapy. Other applications of the propensity score provided similar results, but were not significant for PDC. Tocilizumab was also associated with lower hazard of death alone in IPTW analysis (0.07; 0.02-0.17; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Tocilizumab might be useful in COVID-19 patients with a hyperinflammatory state and should be prioritized for randomized trials in this situatio

Enhancer signatures stratify and predict outcomes of non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Most pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) do not produce excess hormones and are therefore considered ‘non-functional’1–3. As clinical behaviors vary widely and distant metastases are eventually lethal2,4, biological classifications might guide treatment. Using enhancer maps to infer gene regulatory programs, we find that non-functional PNETs fall into two major subtypes, with epigenomes and transcriptomes that partially resemble islet α- and β-cells. Transcription factors ARX and PDX1 specify these normal cells, respectively5,6, and 84% of 142 non-functional PNETs expressed one or the other factor, occasionally both. Among 103 cases, distant relapses occurred almost exclusively in patients with ARX+PDX1− tumors and, within this subtype, in cases with alternative lengthening of telomeres. These markedly different outcomes belied similar clinical presentations and histology and, in one cohort, occurred irrespective of MEN1 mutation. This robust molecular stratification provides insight into cell lineage correlates of non-functional PNETs, accurately predicts disease course and can inform postoperative clinical decisions

Enhancer signatures stratify and predict outcomes of non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

Most pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) do not produce excess hormones and are therefore considered ‘non-functional’1–3. As clinical behaviors vary widely and distant metastases are eventually lethal2,4, biological classifications might guide treatment. Using enhancer maps to infer gene regulatory programs, we find that non-functional PNETs fall into two major subtypes, with epigenomes and transcriptomes that partially resemble islet α- and β-cells. Transcription factors ARX and PDX1 specify these normal cells, respectively5,6, and 84% of 142 non-functional PNETs expressed one or the other factor, occasionally both. Among 103 cases, distant relapses occurred almost exclusively in patients with ARX+PDX1− tumors and, within this subtype, in cases with alternative lengthening of telomeres. These markedly different outcomes belied similar clinical presentations and histology and, in one cohort, occurred irrespective of MEN1 mutation. This robust molecular stratification provides insight into cell lineage correlates of non-functional PNETs, accurately predicts disease course and can inform postoperative clinical decisions

Publisher Correction : Enhancer signatures stratify and predict outcomes of non-functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (Nature Medicine, (2019), 25, 8, (1260-1265), 10.1038/s41591-019-0493-4)

In the version of this article initially published, a numbering error mistakenly associated author Paloma Cejas with affiliation 15, Hebrew University; the affiliation footnote has been removed. Affiliations 10 (published as Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School) and 11 (published as UMC Utrecht Cancer Center) were incorrectly transposed, affecting authors Menno R. Vriens, and Carlos Fernandez-del Castillo and Christina R. Ferrone, respectively. In Figure 2a, the image was misoriented by 90°, resulting in incorrect orientation of the dendrogram. The errors have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used