Although ARMs may decrease the mortality of patients with ARDS without increasing the risk for major adverse events, current evidence is not definitive. Large-scale ongoing trials addressing this question may provide data better applicable to clinical practice.
Benefit from chemotherapy for well-differentiated/de-differentiated (WD/DD) liposarcomas has been reported to be minimal, however traditional response criteria may not adequately capture positive treatment effect. In this study, we evaluate benefit from first-line chemotherapy and characterize imaging response characteristics in patients with retroperitoneal (RP) WD/DD liposarcoma treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Response was assessed using RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) and an exploratory analysis of vascular response was characterized. Among 82 patients evaluable for response to first-line therapy, 31 patients received neoadjuvant chemotherapy for localized/locally advanced disease; 51 received chemotherapy for unresectable recurrent/metastatic disease. Median overall survival from the start of chemotherapy was 29 months (95% CI 24–40 months). Response rates by RECIST: partial response (PR) 21% (17/82), stable disease (SD) 40%, and progression (PD) 39%. All RECIST responses were in patients receiving combination chemotherapy. A qualitative vascular response was seen in 24 patients (31%). Combination chemotherapy yields a response rate of 24% and a clinical benefit rate (CR/PR/SD > 6 months) of 44%, higher than previously reported in DD liposarcoma. A higher percentage of patients experience a vascular response with chemotherapy that is not adequately captured by RECIST in these large heterogeneous tumors.
Teicoplanin and vancomycin are both effective in treating those with proven or suspected infection; however the incidence of adverse effects including nephrotoxicity was lower with teicoplanin. There were no cases of AKI needing dialysis. It remains unclear whether the differential effect on kidney function should influence which antibiotic be prescribed, although it may be reasonable to consider teicoplanin for patients at higher risk for AKI needing dialysis.
SUMMARYTight control of blood glucose reduces cardiovascular events and total mortality is conflicting. To summarize clinical effects of tight versus conventional glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes. We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Knowledge with no limits of language and time. Further trials were searched from the reference lists of identified studies. We included randomized controlled comparing different levels of blood glucose control intensity in type 2 diabetic patients. Two independent reviewers extracted data of eligible studies using standard case report forms. We investigated total mortality, cardiovascular and microvascular events, and hypoglycemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. We used random-effects models to obtain relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We included 6 trials involving 27,654 patients. There was no significant effect of tight blood glucose control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.90-1.17) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.83-1.29). Tight glucose control reduced the risk for nonfatal MI (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.76-0.95), although had no effect on the incidence of nonfatal stroke (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.88-1.17). For microvascular events, tight glucose control reduced the risk progression of retinopathy (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.71-0.91), incidence of peripheral neuropathy (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89-0.99), and progression of nephropathy (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.80), but had not significant effect on the incidence of nephropathy (RR 0.69;. The risk of severe hypoglycemia increased with tight glucose control (RR 2.39; 95% CI 1.79-3.18). Tight blood glucose control reduces the risk for some macrovascular and microvascular events, without effect on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Tight glucose control increases the risk of severe hypoglycemia.
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.