Estaquia de Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet

A Ipomoea cairica (L.) Sweet é uma trepadeira herbácea nativa, amplamente utilizada na medicina popular brasileira e inexistem informações sobre a propagação vegetativa. Em vista disso, objetivou-se avaliar a presença de folhas nas estacas, o substrato e a dose de reguladores vegetais mais adequados para a propagação por estaquia. Foram conduzidos dois experimentos, no primeiro, foram avaliados dois tipos de estacas (com e sem folhas) e quatro substratos (areia, casca de arroz carbonizada, latossolo vermelho distrófico + matéria orgânica - 1:1, latossolo vermelho distrófico + matéria orgânica + areia - 1:1:2), enquanto no segundo foram testadas cinco concentrações diferentes de AIB (0, 250, 500, 750 e 1000 mg L-1). Após 20 dias, obteve-se 86,2% de estacas enraizadas no substrato areia e, no segundo experimento, observou-se que o AIB não influenciou a porcentagem de enraizamento (94% em média). Conclui-se que a presença de folhas melhora a qualidade do enraizamento, que os substratos indicados para a propagação são areia e casca de arroz carbonizada devido ao maior enraizamento, fácil disponibilidade e baixo custo, e que a utilização de AIB na concentração 250 mg L-1 é a mais adequada para propagação por estaquia de I. cairica

INOVATYON/ ENGOT-ov5 study: Randomized phase III international study comparing trabectedin/pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) followed by platinum at progression vs carboplatin/PLD in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer progressing within 6-12 months after last platinum line.

BACKGROUND: This trial investigated the hypothesis that the treatment with trabectedin/PLD (TP) to extend the platinum-free interval (TFIp) can improve overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). METHODS: Patients with OC (up to two previous platinum-based lines), with a TFIp of 6-12 months, were randomised to receive carboplatin/PLD (CP) or TP followed by platinum therapy at relapse. The primary endpoint was OS (HR: 0.75). RESULTS: The study enrolled 617 patients. The median TFIp was 8.3 months and 30.3% of patients had received two previous platinum lines. 74% and 73.9% of patients, respectively, received a subsequent therapy (ST) in the CP and TP arm; in the latter TP arm 87.2% of ST was platinum-based, as per protocol. The median OS was 21.4 for CP and 21.9 months for TP (HR 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94-1.35; p = 0.197). Grade 3-5 adverse reactions occurred in 37.1% of patients in the CP arm and 69.7% of patients in the TP arm, and the most frequent were neutropenia (22.8% CP, 39.5% TP), gastrointestinal (7.1% CP, 17.4% TP), hepatic (0.7% CP, 19.1% TP). CONCLUSIONS: This study did not meet the primary endpoint. CP combination remains the standard for patients with recurrent OC and a 6-12 months TFIp; TP is an effective treatment in patients suffering from persistent platinum toxicities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01379989

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