Promising self-emulsifying drug delivery system loaded with lycopene from red guava (Psidium guajava L.): in vivo toxicity, biodistribution and cytotoxicity on DU-145 prostate cancer cells

Background Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDSs) have attracted attention because of their effects on solubility and bioavailability of lipophilic compounds. Herein, a SEDDS loaded with lycopene purified from red guava (nanoLPG) was produced. The nanoemulsion was characterized using dynamic light scattering (DLS), zeta potential measurement, nanoparticle tracking analysis (NTA), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), lycopene content quantification, radical scavenging activity and colloidal stability in cell culture medium. Then, in vivo toxicity and tissue distribution in orally treated mice and cytotoxicity on human prostate carcinoma cells (DU-145) and human peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were evaluated. Results NanoLPG exhibited physicochemical properties with a size around 200 nm, negative zeta-potential, and spherical morphology. The size, polydispersity index, and zeta potential parameters suffered insignificant alterations during the 12 month storage at 5 °C, which were associated with lycopene stability at 5 °C for 10 months. The nanoemulsion showed partial aggregation in cell culture medium at 37 °C after 24 h. NanoLPG at 0.10 mg/mL exhibited radical scavenging activity equivalent to 0.043 ± 0.002 mg Trolox/mL. The in vivo studies did not reveal any significant changes in clinical, behavioral, hematological, biochemical, and histopathological parameters in mice orally treated with nanoLPG at 10 mg/kg for 28 days. In addition, nanoLPG successfully delivered lycopene to the liver, kidney and prostate in mice, improved its cytotoxicity against DU-145 prostate cancer cells—probably by pathway independent on classical necrosis and apoptosis—and did not affect PBMC viability. Conclusions Thus, nanoLPG stands as a promising and biosafe lycopene delivery system for further development of nanotechnology-based health products

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact.

Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard

ABC-SPH risk score for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients : development, external validation and comparison with other available scores

The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, this cohort aimed to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients and to compare this score with other existing ones. Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March-July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August-September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Median (25-75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48-72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO/FiO ratio, platelet count, and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829-0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833-0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870-0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). An easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation was designed and validated for early stratification of in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19

ABC₂-SPH risk score for in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients

Objectives: The majority of available scores to assess mortality risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in the emergency department have high risk of bias. Therefore, this cohort aimed to develop and validate a score at hospital admission for predicting in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients and to compare this score with other existing ones. Methods: Consecutive patients (≥ 18 years) with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the participating hospitals were included. Logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a prediction model for in-hospital mortality, based on the 3978 patients admitted between March–July, 2020. The model was validated in the 1054 patients admitted during August–September, as well as in an external cohort of 474 Spanish patients. Results: Median (25–75th percentile) age of the model-derivation cohort was 60 (48–72) years, and in-hospital mortality was 20.3%. The validation cohorts had similar age distribution and in-hospital mortality. Seven significant variables were included in the risk score: age, blood urea nitrogen, number of comorbidities, C-reactive protein, SpO2/FiO2 ratio, platelet count, and heart rate. The model had high discriminatory value (AUROC 0.844, 95% CI 0.829–0.859), which was confirmed in the Brazilian (0.859 [95% CI 0.833–0.885]) and Spanish (0.894 [95% CI 0.870–0.919]) validation cohorts, and displayed better discrimination ability than other existing scores. It is implemented in a freely available online risk calculator (https://abc2sph.com/). Conclusions: An easy-to-use rapid scoring system based on characteristics of COVID-19 patients commonly available at hospital presentation was designed and validated for early stratification of in-hospital mortality risk of patients with COVID-19.</p

Implementation of a Brazilian Cardioprotective Nutritional (BALANCE) Program for improvement on quality of diet and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: A randomized, multicenter trial

Background: Appropriate dietary recommendations represent a key part of secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease (CVD). We evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation of a nutritional program on quality of diet, cardiovascular events, and death in patients with established CVD. Methods: In this open-label, multicenter trial conducted in 35 sites in Brazil, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 45 years or older to receive either the BALANCE Program (experimental group) or conventional nutrition advice (control group). The BALANCE Program included a unique nutritional education strategy to implement recommendations from guidelines, adapted to the use of affordable and regional foods. Adherence to diet was evaluated by the modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, stroke, myocardial revascularization, amputation, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Secondary end points included biochemical and anthropometric data, and blood pressure levels. Results: From March 5, 2013, to Abril 7, 2015, a total of 2534 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either the BALANCE Program group (n = 1,266) or the control group (n = 1,268) and were followed up for a median of 3.5 years. In total, 235 (9.3%) participants had been lost to follow-up. After 3 years of follow-up, mean modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index (scale 0-70) was only slightly higher in the BALANCE group versus the control group (26.2 ± 8.4 vs 24.7 ± 8.6, P <.01), mainly due to a 0.5-serving/d greater intake of fruits and of vegetables in the BALANCE group. Primary end point events occurred in 236 participants (18.8%) in the BALANCE group and in 207 participants (16.4%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI 0.95-1.38; P =.15). Secondary end points did not differ between groups after follow-up. Conclusions: The BALANCE Program only slightly improved adherence to a healthy diet in patients with established CVD and had no significant effect on the incidence of cardiovascular events or death. © 2019 The Author

Delaying surgery for patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Not availabl

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic

Aim This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data. Results From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV-2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58–14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86–36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01–5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32–6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16–10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%). Conclusion Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks