icon
Filter
Select Therapy Area
Filters
Clear All Filters

Medshorts

By month
Blood Related
Blood Related
2 Min Read
24 Jun

Safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients

A recent study suggests that efbemalenograstim alfa is safe and effective for significantly decreasing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This study was published in the journal, Supportive Care in Cancer.

This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 122 subjects, who received up to 4 cycles of TA chemotherapy that included 75 mg/m2 docetaxel + 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin. The participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous injection of a single dose of 20 mg of efbemalenograstim alfa or placebo on day 2 of cycle 1. All subjects were administered efbemalenograstim alfa on day 2 of cycles 2, 3, and 4. Duration of severe (grade 4) neutropenia (DSN), incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), depth of neutrophil nadir, time to neutrophil recovery, and safety information were recorded.

At the end of the study, it was found that for the primary endpoint, mean DSN in cycle 1 for efbemalenograstim alfa and placebo was 1.3 days and 3.9 days, respectively. In cycle 1, the incidence of FN was lower in efbemalenograstim alfa group than in placebo group (4.8% vs. 25.6%). Moreover, patients required less intravenous antibiotics in the efbemalenograstim alfa group compared to the patients in the placebo group (3.6% vs. 17.9%).

Based on the above results, it can be concluded that efbemalenograstim alfa is safe and effective for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

Safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients

A recent study suggests that efbemalenograstim alfa is safe and effective for significantly decreasing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This study was published in the journal, Supportive Care in Cancer.

This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 122 subjects, who received up to 4 cycles of TA chemotherapy that included 75 mg/m2 docetaxel + 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin. The participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous injection of a single dose of 20 mg of efbemalenograstim alfa or placebo on day 2 of cycle 1. All subjects were administered efbemalenograstim alfa on day 2 of cycles 2, 3, and 4. Duration of severe (grade 4) neutropenia (DSN), incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), depth of neutrophil nadir, time to neutrophil recovery, and safety information were recorded.

At the end of the study, it was found that for the primary endpoint, mean DSN in cycle 1 for efbemalenograstim alfa and placebo was 1.3 days and 3.9 days, respectively. In cycle 1, the incidence of FN was lower in efbemalenograstim alfa group than in placebo group (4.8% vs. 25.6%). Moreover, patients required less intravenous antibiotics in the efbemalenograstim alfa group compared to the patients in the placebo group (3.6% vs. 17.9%).

Based on the above results, it can be concluded that efbemalenograstim alfa is safe and effective for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

button
Blood Related
2 Min Read
24 Jun

Safety and efficacy of efbemalenograstim alfa for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients

A recent study suggests that efbemalenograstim alfa is safe and effective for significantly decreasing the duration of severe neutropenia and the incidence of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy. This study was published in the journal, Supportive Care in Cancer.

This phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 122 subjects, who received up to 4 cycles of TA chemotherapy that included 75 mg/m2 docetaxel + 60 mg/m2 doxorubicin. The participants were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous injection of a single dose of 20 mg of efbemalenograstim alfa or placebo on day 2 of cycle 1. All subjects were administered efbemalenograstim alfa on day 2 of cycles 2, 3, and 4. Duration of severe (grade 4) neutropenia (DSN), incidence of febrile neutropenia (FN), depth of neutrophil nadir, time to neutrophil recovery, and safety information were recorded.

At the end of the study, it was found that for the primary endpoint, mean DSN in cycle 1 for efbemalenograstim alfa and placebo was 1.3 days and 3.9 days, respectively. In cycle 1, the incidence of FN was lower in efbemalenograstim alfa group than in placebo group (4.8% vs. 25.6%). Moreover, patients required less intravenous antibiotics in the efbemalenograstim alfa group compared to the patients in the placebo group (3.6% vs. 17.9%).

Based on the above results, it can be concluded that efbemalenograstim alfa is safe and effective for reducing the risk of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients undergoing myelosuppressive chemotherapy.

button
Derma
Derma
2 Min Read
21 Jun

Comparison of topical permethrin 5% vs. benzyl benzoate 25% in managing scabies

A recent study found that the application of benzyl benzoate 25% (BB) has proven to be highly effective in treating scabies, with a significant cure rate and acceptable tolerability, when compared to the use of topical permethrin 5%. This study’s results were published in The British journal of dermatology.

In this double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, a total of 110 patients with dermoscopy-verified scabies infestation were included. These patients were then randomly assigned to receive topical permethrin 5% (n=55) or topical BB 25% (n=55). Both treatments were applied daily for three consecutive days. The treatment outcomes were assessed through dermoscopy during a follow-up visit after three weeks.

At the end of the study, the dermoscopy-verified cure rate was 27% in the permethrin group and 87% in the BB group following treatment. Permethrin 5% cream demonstrated outstanding tolerability and safety, whereas the BB emulsion caused a burning sensation in 43% of individuals.

In most cases of scabies, topical permethrin was found to be ineffective, whereas BB demonstrated a remarkable cure rate and acceptable tolerability. Considering the decreased sensitivity of scabies mites to permethrin 5%, the above study findings suggest that BB may be the appropriate first-line treatment for treating scabies.

Comparison of topical permethrin 5% vs. benzyl benzoate 25% in managing scabies

A recent study found that the application of benzyl benzoate 25% (BB) has proven to be highly effective in treating scabies, with a significant cure rate and acceptable tolerability, when compared to the use of topical permethrin 5%. This study’s results were published in The British journal of dermatology.

In this double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, a total of 110 patients with dermoscopy-verified scabies infestation were included. These patients were then randomly assigned to receive topical permethrin 5% (n=55) or topical BB 25% (n=55). Both treatments were applied daily for three consecutive days. The treatment outcomes were assessed through dermoscopy during a follow-up visit after three weeks.

At the end of the study, the dermoscopy-verified cure rate was 27% in the permethrin group and 87% in the BB group following treatment. Permethrin 5% cream demonstrated outstanding tolerability and safety, whereas the BB emulsion caused a burning sensation in 43% of individuals.

In most cases of scabies, topical permethrin was found to be ineffective, whereas BB demonstrated a remarkable cure rate and acceptable tolerability. Considering the decreased sensitivity of scabies mites to permethrin 5%, the above study findings suggest that BB may be the appropriate first-line treatment for treating scabies.

button
Derma
2 Min Read
21 Jun

Comparison of topical permethrin 5% vs. benzyl benzoate 25% in managing scabies

A recent study found that the application of benzyl benzoate 25% (BB) has proven to be highly effective in treating scabies, with a significant cure rate and acceptable tolerability, when compared to the use of topical permethrin 5%. This study’s results were published in The British journal of dermatology.

In this double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, a total of 110 patients with dermoscopy-verified scabies infestation were included. These patients were then randomly assigned to receive topical permethrin 5% (n=55) or topical BB 25% (n=55). Both treatments were applied daily for three consecutive days. The treatment outcomes were assessed through dermoscopy during a follow-up visit after three weeks.

At the end of the study, the dermoscopy-verified cure rate was 27% in the permethrin group and 87% in the BB group following treatment. Permethrin 5% cream demonstrated outstanding tolerability and safety, whereas the BB emulsion caused a burning sensation in 43% of individuals.

In most cases of scabies, topical permethrin was found to be ineffective, whereas BB demonstrated a remarkable cure rate and acceptable tolerability. Considering the decreased sensitivity of scabies mites to permethrin 5%, the above study findings suggest that BB may be the appropriate first-line treatment for treating scabies.

button
Respiratory
Respiratory
2 Min Read
20 Jun

iOLA associated with a reduced risk of severe postoperative pulmonary complications compared to standard lung-protective ventilation

 A study has shown that in  individuals undergoing lung resection with one-lung ventilation, individualised open-lung approach (iOLA) had a lower risk of severe postoperative pulmonary complications compared to conventional lung-protective ventilation. This study’s findings were published in the journal, Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In this randomised controlled trial, patients aged 18 years and above were randomised into two groups: one receiving iOLA (n=670) and the other receiving standard lung-protective ventilation (n=638). The iOLA treatment involved an alveolar recruitment manoeuvre with an end-inspiratory pressure of 40 cm H2O, followed by individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) adjusted to achieve optimal respiratory system compliance. Additionally, participants in the iOLA group received personalised postoperative respiratory support through high-flow oxygen therapy. On the other hand, participants in the standard lung-protective ventilation group received 4 cm H2O of PEEP during surgery and conventional oxygen therapy after surgery. The primary outcome measured was the occurrence of severe postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 days after surgery.

At the end of the study, patients in the iOLA group had a lower incidence of severe postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 days post-surgery compared to those in the standard lung-protective ventilation group [40 patients (6%) vs 97 patients (15%)].

According to the above study, in patients undergoing lung resection with one-lung ventilation, the utilization of iOLA was found to be linked to a decreased likelihood of experiencing severe postoperative pulmonary complications in comparison to the use of conventional lung-protective ventilation.

iOLA associated with a reduced risk of severe postoperative pulmonary complications compared to standard lung-protective ventilation

 A study has shown that in  individuals undergoing lung resection with one-lung ventilation, individualised open-lung approach (iOLA) had a lower risk of severe postoperative pulmonary complications compared to conventional lung-protective ventilation. This study’s findings were published in the journal, Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In this randomised controlled trial, patients aged 18 years and above were randomised into two groups: one receiving iOLA (n=670) and the other receiving standard lung-protective ventilation (n=638). The iOLA treatment involved an alveolar recruitment manoeuvre with an end-inspiratory pressure of 40 cm H2O, followed by individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) adjusted to achieve optimal respiratory system compliance. Additionally, participants in the iOLA group received personalised postoperative respiratory support through high-flow oxygen therapy. On the other hand, participants in the standard lung-protective ventilation group received 4 cm H2O of PEEP during surgery and conventional oxygen therapy after surgery. The primary outcome measured was the occurrence of severe postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 days after surgery.

At the end of the study, patients in the iOLA group had a lower incidence of severe postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 days post-surgery compared to those in the standard lung-protective ventilation group [40 patients (6%) vs 97 patients (15%)].

According to the above study, in patients undergoing lung resection with one-lung ventilation, the utilization of iOLA was found to be linked to a decreased likelihood of experiencing severe postoperative pulmonary complications in comparison to the use of conventional lung-protective ventilation.

button
Respiratory
2 Min Read
20 Jun

iOLA associated with a reduced risk of severe postoperative pulmonary complications compared to standard lung-protective ventilation

 A study has shown that in  individuals undergoing lung resection with one-lung ventilation, individualised open-lung approach (iOLA) had a lower risk of severe postoperative pulmonary complications compared to conventional lung-protective ventilation. This study’s findings were published in the journal, Lancet Respiratory Medicine.

In this randomised controlled trial, patients aged 18 years and above were randomised into two groups: one receiving iOLA (n=670) and the other receiving standard lung-protective ventilation (n=638). The iOLA treatment involved an alveolar recruitment manoeuvre with an end-inspiratory pressure of 40 cm H2O, followed by individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) adjusted to achieve optimal respiratory system compliance. Additionally, participants in the iOLA group received personalised postoperative respiratory support through high-flow oxygen therapy. On the other hand, participants in the standard lung-protective ventilation group received 4 cm H2O of PEEP during surgery and conventional oxygen therapy after surgery. The primary outcome measured was the occurrence of severe postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 days after surgery.

At the end of the study, patients in the iOLA group had a lower incidence of severe postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 days post-surgery compared to those in the standard lung-protective ventilation group [40 patients (6%) vs 97 patients (15%)].

According to the above study, in patients undergoing lung resection with one-lung ventilation, the utilization of iOLA was found to be linked to a decreased likelihood of experiencing severe postoperative pulmonary complications in comparison to the use of conventional lung-protective ventilation.

button

Courses

Therapy area
CoughRespiratory
button
CoughRespiratory
13 Oct 23
button

Videos

Oncology
07 Jun 24
button
Urology
31 May 24
button
Pediatric
31 May 24
button