Live Chat
Today's Hours: 8:00am - 10:00pm
Lane Medical Library

Search

Filter Applied Clear All

Filter Results

Did You Mean:

Search Results

Sort by
relevance
  • Article
    Yamashita H, Mori K, Kuwahara Y, Kamegawa T, Wen M, Verma P, Che M.
    Chem Soc Rev. 2018 Nov 12;47(22):8072-8096.
    Silica-based micro-, meso-, macro-porous materials offer attractive routes for designing single-site photocatalysts, supporting semiconducting nanoparticles, anchoring light-responsive metal complexes, and encapsulating metal nanoparticles to drive photochemical reactions by taking advantage of their large surface area, controllable pore channels, remarkable transparency to UV/vis and tailorable physicochemical surface characteristics. This review mainly focuses on the fascinating photocatalytic properties of silica-supported Ti catalysts from single-site catalysts to nanoparticles, their surface-chemistry engineering, such as the hydrophobic modification and synthesis of thin films, and the fabrication of nanocatalysts including morphology controlled plasmonic nanostructures with localized surface plasmon resonance. The hybridization of visible-light responsive metal complexes with porous materials for the construction of functional inorganic-organic supramolecular photocatalysts is also included. In addition, the latest progress in the application of MOFs as excellent hosts for designing photocatalytic systems is described.
    Digital Access Access Options
  • Article
    Santillo E, Migale M.
    World J Clin Cases. 2022 Aug 16;10(23):8088-8096.
    When the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread globally from the Hubei region of China in December 2019, the impact on elderly people was particularly unfavorable. The mortality associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection was highest in older individuals, in whom frailty and comorbidities increased susceptibility to severe forms of COVID-19. Unfortunately, in older patients, the course of COVID-19 was often characterized by significant cardiovascular complications, such as heart failure decompensation, arrhythmias, pericarditis, and myopericarditis. Ensuring that the elderly have adequate therapeutic coverage against known cardiovascular diseases and risk factors is particularly important in the COVID-19 era. Beta blockers are widely used for the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease. The clinical benefits of beta blockers have been confirmed in elderly patients, and in addition to their negative chronotropic effect, sympathetic inhibition and anti-inflammatory activity are theoretically of great benefit for the treatment of COVID-19 infection. Beta blockers have not been clearly shown to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection, but there is evidence from published studies including elderly patients that beta blockers are associated with a more favorable clinical course of COVID-19 and reduced mortality. In this minireview, we summarize the most important evidence available in the literature on the usefulness of beta blocker therapy for older patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Digital Access Access Options
  • Article
    Gomes CA, Andriolo RB, Bennett C, Lustosa SA, Matos D, Waisberg DR, Waisberg J.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 22(5):CD008096.
    BACKGROUND: A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG compared with NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances.
    SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to January 2014, and contacted the main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.
    SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).
    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%.
    MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 randomised controlled studies with 735 participants which produced 16 meta-analyses of outcome data. Meta-analysis indicated that the primary outcome of intervention failure, occurred in lower proportion of participants with PEG compared to NGT (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.59, eight studies, 408 participants, low quality evidence) and this difference was statistically significant. For this outcome, we also subgrouped the studies by endoscopic gastrostomy technique into pull, and push and not reported. We observed a significant difference favouring PEG in the pull subgroup (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.35, three studies, 90 participants). Thepush subgroup contained only one clinical trial and the result favoured PEG (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.74, one study, 33 participants) techniques. We found no statistically significant difference in cases where the technique was not reported (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.44, four studies, 285 participants).There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of mortality (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.28, 644 participants, nine studies, very low quality evidence), overall reports of any adverse event at any follow-up time point (ITT analysis, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.34), 597 participants, 6 studies, moderate quality evidence), specific adverse events including pneumonia (aspiration) (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.06, 645 participants, seven studies, low quality evidence), or for the meta- analyses of the secondary outcome of nutritional status including weight change from baseline, and mid-arm circumference at endpoint, although there was evidence in favour of PEG for meta-analyses of mid-arm circumference change from baseline (MD 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.31, 115 participants, two studies), and levels of serum albumin were higher in the PEG group (MD 6.03, 95% CI 2.31 to 9.74, 107 participants).For meta-analyses of the secondary outcomes of time on enteral nutrition, there was no statistically significant difference (MD 14.48, 95% CI -2.74 to 31.71; 119 participants, two studies). For meta-analyses of quality of life measures (EuroQol) outcomes in two studies with 133 participants, for inconvenience (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), discomfort (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.29), altered body image (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18; P = 0.001) and social activities (RR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.18) the intervention favoured PEG, that is, fewer participants found the intervention of PEG to be inconvenient, uncomfortable or interfered with social activities. However, there were no significant differences between the groups for pain, ease of learning to use, or the secondary outcome of length of hospital stay (two studies, 381 participants).
    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure may be more effective and safe compared with NGT. There is no significant difference in mortality rates between comparison groups, or in adverse events, including pneumonia related to aspiration. Future studies should include details of participant demographics including underlying disease, age and gender, and the gastrostomy technique.
    Digital Access Access Options
  • Article
    Yan C, Zhang J, Huang M, Xiao J, Li N, Wang T, Ling R.
    J Mater Chem B. 2023 08 30;11(34):8096-8116.
    Utilizing small interfering RNA (siRNA) as a treatment for cancer, a disease largely driven by genetic aberrations, shows great promise. However, implementing siRNA therapy in clinical practice is challenging due to its limited bioavailability following systemic administration. An attractive approach to address this issue is the use of a nanoparticle (NP) delivery platform, which protects siRNA and delivers it to the cytoplasm of target cells. We provide an overview of design considerations for using lipid-based NPs, polymer-based NPs, and inorganic NPs to improve the efficacy and safety of siRNA delivery. We focus on the chemical structure modification of carriers and NP formulation optimization, NP surface modifications to target breast cancer cells, and the linking strategy and intracellular release of siRNA. As a practical example, recent advances in the development of siRNA therapeutics for treating breast cancer are discussed, with a focus on inhibiting cancer growth, overcoming drug resistance, inhibiting metastasis, and enhancing immunotherapy.
    Digital Access Access Options
  • Article
    Gomes CA, Lustosa SA, Matos D, Andriolo RB, Waisberg DR, Waisberg J.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14(3):CD008096.
    BACKGROUND: A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG as compared to NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances, by updating our previous Cochrane review.
    SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to September 2011, as well as contacting main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.
    SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failure (e.g. feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).
    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors performed selection, data extraction and evaluation of methodological quality of studies. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I² > 50%.
    MAIN RESULTS: We included nine randomised controlled studies. We did not identify new eligible studies published after our previous review literature search date (August 2009). Intervention failure occurred in 19/156 patients in the PEG group and 63/158 patients in the NGT group (RR 0.24, 95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P = 0.01) in favour of PEG. There was no statistically significant difference between comparison groups in complications (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.11, P = 0.93).
    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PEG was associated with a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure is more effective and safe as compared to NGT. There is no significant difference of mortality rates between comparison groups, and pneumonia irrespective of underlying disease (medical diagnosis). Future studies should include previously planned and executed follow-up periods, the gastrostomy technique, and the experience of the professionals to allow more detailed subgroup analysis.
    Digital Access Access Options
  • Article
    Gomes CA, Lustosa SA, Matos D, Andriolo RB, Waisberg DR, Waisberg J.
    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Nov 10(11):CD008096.
    BACKGROUND: A number of conditions compromise the passage of food along the digestive tract. Nasogastric tube (NGT) feeding is a classic, time-proven technique, although its prolonged use can lead to complications such as lesions to the nasal wing, chronic sinusitis, gastro-oesophageal reflux, and aspiration pneumonia. Another method of infusion, percutaneous endoscopy gastrostomy (PEG), is generally used when there is a need for enteral nutrition for a longer time period. There is a high demand for PEG in patients with swallowing disorders, although there is no consistent evidence about its effectiveness and safety as compared to NGT.
    OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PEG as compared to NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances.
    SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and LILACS from inception to August 2009, as well as contacting main authors in the subject area. There was no language restriction in the search.
    SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials comparing PEG versus NGT for adults with swallowing disturbances or dysphagia and indications for nutritional support, with any underlying diseases. The primary outcome was intervention failures (feeding interruption, blocking or leakage of the tube, no adherence to treatment).
    DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors performed selection, data extraction and evaluation of methodological quality of studies. For dichotomous and continuous variables, we used risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD), respectively with the random-effects statistical model and 95% confidence interval (CI). We assumed statistical heterogeneity when I(2) > 50%.
    MAIN RESULTS: We included nine randomised controlled studies. Intervention failure occurred in 19/156 patients in the PEG group and 63/158 patients in the NGT group (RR 0.24 (95%CI 0.08 to 0.76, P = 0.01)) in favour of PEG. There was no statistically significant difference between comparison groups in complications (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.11, P = 0.93).
    AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PEG was associated to a lower probability of intervention failure, suggesting the endoscopic procedure is more effective and safe as compared to NGT. There is no significant difference of mortality rates between comparison groups, and pneumonia irrespective of underlying disease (medical diagnosis). Future studies should include previously planned and executed follow-up periods, the gastrostomy technique, and the experience of the professionals to allow more detailed subgroup analysis.
    Digital Access Access Options