PRACTICAL APPLICATIONSProbiotic cultures should grow quickly in milk, provide adequate sensory and rheological properties to the product, and remain viable during storage. Commercially, it is very common to use yogurt starter culture (i.e. Streptococcus thermophilus [ST] and Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus) in 3 Corresponding

The objective of the present work was to study probiotic fermented milks during fermentation process and cold storage. Two strains of probiotic bacteria were used: Lactobacillus acidophilus (LA) and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (BL). The yogurt culture Lactobacillus bulgaricus (LB) was used as control. All strains were employed in coculture with the starter Streptococcus thermophilus (ST). Commercial skimmed milk powder was diluted in distilled water (12.4g 100g -1 ) and heat treated. All inoculated milks were incubated for fermentation at 42°C in a water bath until pH 4.50 was reached. Chemical changes during fermentation were followed by measuring: V m (maximum acidification rate that measures the decrease of pH units per minute and the values are expressed as mUpH/min), t Vmax (time to achieve the maximum acidification rate, in h), t pH5,0 (time to achieve pH5.0, in h) and t pH4.5 (time necessary to reach pH 4.5, in h). Rheological behavior was determined at d1 and firmness, pH and viability were followed until 28 days of storage at 4ºC. Fermentation time for probiotic cultures was longer than for yogurt culture. pH decreased and firmness increased during storage. The main change occurred in the first week. Probiotic bacteria grow during fermentation. ST dominated over the other strains and remained stable during all storage period. B. lactis and L. bulgaricus attain the final storage period stable. L. acidophilus, however, decreased before 14 days of storage and at d 28 doesn't fit the minimum requirements to achieve beneficial properties to health.

No abstract

Survival during or after the first-line chemotherapy remains poor among patients with MGC. Adverse events and health resource use were common in the first and second lines of treatment and in exclusive BSC. These results suggest that there is space for improvement in the treatment of MGC in Brazil.

objeCtives: To describe the effectiveness and side effects of oseltamivir for treatment of influenza through meta-analysis of published meta-analysis. Methods: Meta-analysis of meta-analyses published from 2009 in general and/or at risk population in all age groups was carried out. Studies that assessed the treatment of cases confirmed or diagnosed with Influenza-Like Illness (ILI) with oseltamivir at any doses in comparison with doing nothing, placebo or other medication, was included. Treatment with medicinal plants were excluded. The electronic databases PubMed and Cochrane Collaboration were consulted and reliability of meta-analysis was evaluated with the SURE methodology by independent pairs. The studies qualified as fatal flaws were excluded. For the combination of the outcomes we selected the outcomes comparable in age and risk group with the random effects model. Results: The search strategy captured 16 meta-analyses, and three studies were meta-analyzed. The outcomes selected were pneumonia in children and adults. In children, the reduction of pneumonia associate to influenza was 0.78 (0.52 -1.17); I2 = 57.4%; and Number Needed to Treat (NNT) to avoid a case of pneumonia was 254.4. In adults the reduction of pneumonia associate to influenza was 0.66 (0.34 -1.29); I2 = 86.5%; and the NNT was 214. ConClusions: This analysis showed effectiveness of oseltamivir in preventing influenza-associated pneumonia, but the combined estimates include the null value in the confidence intervals.

were extracted alongside whether the priority status, pre-or post-NOC pCODR submission, and if the drug was a first submission or line extension. Statistical comparisons were made using Student's t-test. RESULTS: 32 pCODR reports were extracted with an average of 203 days between pCODR submission to recommendation, with a wide variation between different drugs (range: 119-329 days, median: 198). There was no significant variation in the average time required for pCODR decision-making based on priority status (prioritisation granted: 232 days, [n= 3]; prioritisation not granted: 202 days, [n= 29]; p= 0.17). There was also no significant variation in time required for line extensions versus first submissions (line extension: 197 days, [n= 9]; first submissions: 205 days, [n= 23]; p= 0.34). pCODR decision-making time did also not significantly vary between those submitted prior-versus post-regulatory approval (pre-NOC: 213 days, [n= 18]; post-NOC: 191 days, [n= 14]; p= 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Although there are some wide variations in the time required for pCODR to issue recommendations between different drugs, this did not correlate with prioritisation status, whether the drug was a first submission or line extension, or if a submission was made pre-or post-NOC in a statistically significant manner. However, the small sample sizes may have precluded finding statistical significances. Further research is needed to define the key factors underlying this variation. PCN157 ImPaCt of federal regulatIoN oN aCCess to oral ChemotheraPy (oC) aNd hormoNal theraPy (ht) IN

2039 to EUR 9346, depending on care required, more costly than SREs without hospitalization (n= 165). These SREs had median costs of EUR 200 to EUR 1912, depending on care required. ConClusions: The impact of SREs on total costs could justify policy aimed at actively preventing SREs, e.g. with radionuclide therapy, possibly resulting in better quality of life and cost-reduction. Treatment of prostate cancer with bone metastases is not very costly compared to lung-and breast cancer with similar metastases. However, novel therapeutic options may dramatically increase treatment costs in the near future and proper head-to-head cost-effectiveness studies of all treatment modalities are therefore necessary. PCN72

No abstract