Objective Noonan syndrome (NS) is a common autosomal dominant developmental disorder, mainly characterized by congenital heart defects, short stature, and a variable degree of developmental delay. We have reviewed the prenatal findings in NS and we have correlated them with genotype and postnatal phenotype.Methods The cohort consisted of 47 patients with molecular diagnosis of NS. Prenatal and postnatal phenotypes were assessed by analysis of medical records, and clinical follow-up. Postnatal clinical phenotype, congenital heart disease, neuropsychomotor development, and growth pattern were arbitrarily scored in terms of severity.Results Mean age at diagnosis of NS was 7 years (ranging from birth to 38 years). Abnormal maternal serum triple screen was present in 36% of cases, nuchal translucency >2.5 mm in 41%, polyhydramnios in 38% and fetal anomalies at prenatal ultrasonography in 21%. No statistical association was observed between prenatal findings and NS genotype or scores of postnatal clinical phenotype, congenital heart disease, neuropsychomotor development, or short stature. Presence of morphologic fetal anomalies at ultrasonography was associated with developmental delay/intellectual disabilities (p < 0.001) and juvenile myelomonocytic leukaemia (p = 0.006).Conclusions Abnormal prenatal findings are frequent in NS pregnancies, though they are not specific and most are not useful for the prediction of the postnatal phenotype.
In the general population, up to 10% of children treated by antibiotics have cutaneous adverse drug reaction, but allergy is confirmed in less than 20% of patients. Most of the non-allergic reactions are probably due to virus, such as enterovirus acute infection or Ebstein-Barr Virus (EBV) acute infection or reactivation. Especially in children, viruses have the propensity to induce skin lesions (maculopapular rash, urticaria) due to their skin infiltration or immunologic response. In drug-related skin eruptions, a virus can participate by activating an immune predisposition. The culprit antibiotic is then the trigger for reacting. Even in severe drug-induced reactions, such as Drug Reaction with Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms (DRESS) syndrome, viruses take part in immune phenomena, especially herpes viruses. Understanding the mechanisms of both virus- and drug-induced skin reaction is important to develop our clinical reflection and give an adaptive care to the patient. Our aim is to review current knowledge on the different aspects and potential roles of viruses in the different type of drug hypersensitivity reactions (DHR). Although major advances have been made those past year, further studies are needed for a better understanding of the link between viruses and DHR, to improve management of those patients.
Background Dolutegravir (DTG)–based dual therapy is becoming a new paradigm for both the initiation and maintenance of HIV treatment. The SIMPL’HIV study investigated the outcomes of virologically suppressed patients on standard combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) switching to DTG + emtricitabine (FTC). We present the 48-week efficacy and safety data on DTG + FTC versus cART. Methods and findings SIMPL’HIV was a multicenter, open-label, non-inferiority randomized trial with a factorial design among treatment-experienced people with HIV in Switzerland. Participants were enrolled between 12 May 2017 and 30 May 2018. Patients virologically suppressed for at least 24 weeks on standard cART were randomized 1:1 to switching to DTG + FTC or to continuing cART, and 1:1 to simplified patient-centered monitoring versus standard monitoring. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients virologically suppressed with <100 copies/ml through 48 weeks. The secondary endpoints included virological suppression at 48 weeks according to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) snapshot analysis. Non-inferiority of DTG + FTC versus cART for viral suppression was assessed using a stratified Mantel–Haenszel risk difference, with non-inferiority declared if the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval was greater than −12%. Adverse events were monitored to assess safety. Quality of life was evaluated using the PROQOL-HIV questionnaire. Ninety-three participants were randomized to DTG + FTC, and 94 individuals to cART. Median nadir CD4 count was 246 cells/mm3; median age was 48 years; 17% of participants were female. DTG + FTC was non-inferior to cART. The proportion of patients with viral suppression (<100 copies/ml) through 48 weeks was 93.5% in the DTG + FTC arm and 94.7% in the cART arm in the intention-to-treat population (risk difference −1.2%; 95% CI −7.8% to 5.6%). Per-protocol analysis showed similar results, with viral suppression in 96.5% of patients in both arms (risk difference 0.0%; 95% CI −5.6% to 5.5%). There was no relevant interaction between the type of treatment and monitoring (interaction ratio 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; p = 0.81). Using the FDA snapshot algorithm, 84/93 (90.3%) participants in the DTG + FTC arm had an HIV-1 RNA viral load of <50 copies/ml compared to 86/94 (91.5%) participants on standard cART (risk difference −1.1%; 95% CI −9.3% to 7.1%; p = 0.791). The overall proportion of patients with adverse events and discontinuations did not differ by randomization arm. The proportion of patients with serious adverse events was higher in the cART arm (16%) compared to the DTG + FTC arm (6.5%) (p = 0.041), but none was considered to be related to the study medication. Quality of life improved more between baseline and week 48 in the DTG + FTC compared to the cART arm (adjusted difference +2.6; 95% CI +0.4 to +4.7). The study’s main limitations included a rather small proportion of women included, the open label design, and its short duration. Conclusions In this study, DTG + FTC as maintenance therapy was non-inferior to cART in terms of efficacy, with a similar safety profile and a greater improvement in quality of life, thus expanding the offer of 2-drug simplification options among virologically suppressed individuals. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03160105.
Background: While the landscape of vaccine and treatment candidates against the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reviewed systematically, prophylactic candidates remain unexplored. Objectives: To map pre-and postexposure prophylactic (PrEP and PEP) candidate for COVID-19. Data sources: PubMed/Medline, Embase, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform clinical trial registries and medRxiv. Study eligibility criteria and participants: All studies in humans or animals and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in humans reporting primary data on prophylactic candidates against COVID-19, excluding studies focused on key populations. Interventions: PrEP and PEP candidate for COVID-19. Methods: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis of COVID-19 PrEP and PEP studies and RCTs complemented by search of medRxiv and PubMed and Embase for studies reporting RCT outcomes since systematic review search completion. Results: We identified 13 studies (from 2119 database records) and 117 RCTs (from 5565 RCTs listed in the registries) that met the inclusion criteria. Non-RCT studies reported on cross-sectional studies using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in humans (n ¼ 2) or reported on animal studies (n ¼ 7), most of which used antibodies. All five completed RCTs focused on the use of HCQ as either PrEP or PEP, and these and the cross-sectional studies reported no prophylactic effect. The majority of ongoing RCTs evaluated HCQ or other existing candidates including nonesevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines, anti(retro)virals or use of vitamins and supplements. Conclusions: The key message from completed studies and RCTs seems to be that HCQ does not work. There is little evidence regarding other compounds, with all RCTs using candidates other than HCQ still ongoing. It remains to be seen if the portfolio of existing molecules being evaluated in RCTs will identify successful prophylaxis against COVID-19 or if there is a need for the development of new candidates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.