No abstract

Favipiravir is considered a potential treatment for COVID-19 due its efficacy against different viral infections. We aimed to explore the safety and efficacy of favipiravir in treatment of COVID-19 mild and moderate cases. It was randomized-controlled open-label interventional phase 3 clinical trial [NCT04349241]. 100 patients were recruited from 18th April till 18th May. 50 patients received favipiravir 3200 mg at day 1 followed by 600 mg twice (day 2–day 10). 50 patients received hydroxychloroquine 800 mg at day 1 followed by 200 mg twice (day 2–10) and oral oseltamivir 75 mg/12 h/day for 10 days. Patients were enrolled from Ain Shams University Hospital and Assiut University Hospital. Both arms were comparable as regards demographic characteristics and comorbidities. The average onset of SARS-CoV-2 PCR negativity was 8.1 and 8.3 days in HCQ-arm and favipiravir-arm respectively. 55.1% of those on HCQ-arm turned PCR negative at/or before 7th day from diagnosis compared to 48% in favipiravir-arm (p = 0.7). 4 patients in FVP arm developed transient transaminitis on the other hand heartburn and nausea were reported in about 20 patients in HCQ-arm. Only one patient in HCQ-arm died after developing acute myocarditis resulted in acute heart failure. Favipiravir is a safe effective alternative for hydroxychloroquine in mild or moderate COVID-19 infected patients.

We summarize the results of HCV RNA testing of 12 month old infants born to HCV infected mothers in Cairo, Egypt. We used real-time PCR testing and demonstrated a transmission rate of 14.3%.

No abstract

Methods: Consent was obtained from gastric cancer patients who were undergoing pretreatment esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or gastric resection after neoadjuvant therapy. Tumor samples were coated with Matrigel and implanted into the subcutaneous tissue in the flanks of NSG mice. Approximately 10 mg of tumor obtained from EGD biopsies and approximately 100 mm3 obtained from resections were implanted into each flank. Two implants were performed for EGD samples and four implants were performed for resection samples. Tumors were serially measured and passaged when the greatest dimension reached 1.5 cm, or if there was overlying skin necrosis. Results: We implanted EGD biopsies from 70 patients and resection samples from 26. There were 43 Hispanic/Latino and 16 Black patients in the pre-treatment EGD cohort and 15 Hispanic/Latino and 5 Black patients in the post-treatment resection group. The engraftment rates were 43% for EGD biopsies and 62% for resection samples. Median time to first passage was 10 weeks (range: 5.3 to 23) for EGD biopsies and 21 weeks (5.9 to 43) for post-treatment resection samples. Race/ethnicity, presenting clinical stage, Lauren status, tumor differentiation, lymphovascular invasion, perineural invasion, H. pylori status, and Her2 status were not associated with engraftment rates. Histology was generally maintained through passages but mucinous components were lost over time, leaving only solid, poorly differentiated tumor. Almost all samples were able to be serially passaged and reconstituted after deep freeze and thaw. Conclusion:We have established multiple PDX lines from American minority patients. These lines will be a useful platform to investigate biologic factors that contribute to gastric cancer outcome disparities that are associated with race and ethnicity in the United States.of HIF-1alpha and PKM1 expression on acquisition of resistance in gastric cancer 2

IL28B-CC genotype and 12-month postpartum undetectable viremia were the best predictors for viral decline and subsequent clearance. These 2 predictors should influence clinical decision making.

After concerns were brought to the Editors' attention after publication, the raw data underlying the study were requested. The authors provided several versions of their dataset. Post-publication peer review confirmed that none of these versions fully recapitulates the results presented in the cohort background comparisons, casting doubt on the reliability of the data. Additional concerns were raised about the randomisation procedure, as the equal distribution of male and female patients is unlikely unless sex is a parameter considered during randomisation. However, based on the clarification provided by the authors, sex was not considered during this process. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented.

No abstract