http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : ( Alaa Hamdan ) (검색결과 4 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
( Faiza Ahmed ),( Israr Khan ),( Nazma Hanif ),( Alaa Hamdan ),( Mohammad Ali Zaidi ),( Zeynep Yukselen ),( Umer Salman ),( Sakshi Mishra ),( Jack Michel ),( Muhammad Haris Khan ),( Andre Thompson ),( 대한결핵 및 호흡기학회 2021 대한결핵 및 호흡기학회 추계학술대회 초록집 Vol.129 No.-
Background Pralsetinib and selpercatinib are anticancer drugs targeting RET fusions (oncogenic drivers) in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The US FDA approved both drugs in 2020 for the treatment of RET-fusion positive NSCLC. Methods We assessed the efficacy & safety of pralsetinib versus selpercatinib in RET fusion-positive NSCLC in two clinical trials: phase1/2 ARROW trial (n=354) and phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial (n=144). Results In patients who had previously received platinum-based therapy (n=105), Drilon et al., 2020 showed an overall response rate (ORR) of 64% (95% CI, 54-73) and a median duration of response (mDOR) of 17.5 months (95% CI, 12.0-NE) with selpercatinib in phase 1/2 LIBRETTO-001 trial. Furthermore, a complete response (CR) of 2%, partial response (PR) of 62%, stable disease (SD) of 29%, and median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 16.5 months ( 95% CI, 13.7 - NE) were reported. Treatment naive patients (n=39) demonstrated an ORR of 85% (95% CI, 70-94) and PR of 85%. The responses were determined by the independent review committee. Lee et al., 2019 (n=111) demonstrated a rapid lowering of RET circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in 81% of NSCLC patients with pralsetinib therapy. A phase 1/2 ARROW trial (n= 116) exhibited a median follow-up of 8.8 months in patients who received pralsetinib 400 mg daily. Additionally, ORR was 65%, CR 6%, disease control rate 93 (95% CI, 87 - 97), and resulted in overall tumor size reduction in 96% of patients. Refer to (Table 1) for further details. Conclusion Pralsetinib and Selpercatinib have shown promising anti-tumor activity and an acceptable safety profile in RET fusion-positive NSCLC. However, we cannot draw a firm conclusion regarding which one is better due to insufficient data. Clinical trials, including AcceleRET, are still ongoing, and data is pending. Further comparative studies are needed to derive meaningful survival outcomes.
-
Manoj Kumar Reddy Somagutta,Lourdes Pormento Maria Kezia,Pousette Hamid,Alaa Hamdan,Muhammad Adnan Khan,Rockeven Desir,Rupalakshmi Vijayan,Saloni Shirke,Rishan Jeyakumar,Zeryab Dogar,Sarabjot Singh Ma 대한감염학회 2021 Infection and Chemotherapy Vol.53 No.2
This study aims to assess anakinra's safety and efficacy for treating severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Numerous electronic databases were searched and finally 15 studies with a total of 3,530 patients, 757 in the anakinra arm, 1,685 in the control arm were included. The pooled adjusted odds ratio (OR) for mortality in the treatment arm was 0.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 - 0.54, I2 = 48%), indicating a significant association between anakinra and mortality. A significant association was found regarding mechanical ventilation requirements in anakinra group compared to the control group OR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.49 - 0.95, I2 = 50%). For the safety of anakinra, we evaluated thromboembolism risk and liver transaminases elevation. Thromboembolism risk was OR, 1.59 (95% CI, 0.65 - 3.91, I2 = 0%) and elevation in liver transaminases with OR was 1.35 (95% CI, 0.61 - 3.03, I2 = 76%). Both were not statistically significant over the control group. Anakinra is beneficial in lowering mortality in COVID-19 patients. However, these non-significant differences in the safety profile between the anakinra and control groups may have been the result of baseline characteristics of the intervention group, and further studies are essential in evaluating anakinra's safety profile.
-
Manoj Kumar Reddy Somagutta,Maria Kezia Lourdes Pormento,Muhammad Adnan Khan,Alaa Hamdan,Namrata Hange,Manish KC,Sukrut Pagad,Molly Sanjay Jain,Sivasthikka Lingarajah,Vishal Sharma,Jaspreet Kaur,Berna 대한중환자의학회 2021 Acute and Critical Care Vol.36 No.3
Background: Previous studies have suggested favorable outcomes of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid (vitamin C), and thiamine (HAT) therapy in patients with sepsis. However, similar results have not been duplicated in sequential studies. This meta-analysis aimed to reevaluate the value of HAT treatment in patients with sepsis. Methods: Electronic databases were searched up until October 2020 for any studies that compared the effect of HAT versus non-HAT use in patients with sepsis. Results: Data from 15 studies (eight randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and seven cohort studies) involving 67,349 patients were included. The results from the RCTs show no significant benefit of triple therapy on hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.99; P=0.92; I2=0%); intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (RR, 0.77; P=0.20; I2=58%); ICU length of stay (weighted mean difference [WMD], 0.11; P=0.86; I2=37%) or hospital length of stay (WMD: 0.57; P=0.49; I2=17%), and renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.64; P=0.44; I2=39%). The delta Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score favored treatment after a sensitivity analysis (WMD, –0.72; P=0.01; I2=32%). However, a significant effect was noted for the duration of vasopressor use (WMD, –25.49; P<0.001; I2=46%). The results from cohort studies have also shown no significant benefit of HAT therapy on hospital mortality, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, length of hospital stay, the delta SOFA score, the use of renal replacement therapy, or vasopressor duration. Conclusions: HAT therapy significantly reduced the duration of vasopressor use and improved the SOFA score but appeared not to have significant benefits in other outcomes for patients with sepsis. Further RCTs can help understand its benefit exclusively.
-
( Faiza Ahmed ),( Israr Khan ),( Alejandra Castro-varela ),( Alanna Barrios-ruiz ),( Zarlakhta Zamani ),( Alaa Hamdan ),( Sakshi Mishra ),( Muhammad Khan ),( Umer Salman ),( Zeynep Yukselen ),( Kim An 대한결핵 및 호흡기학회 2021 대한결핵 및 호흡기학회 추계학술대회 초록집 Vol.129 No.0
Background The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved tepotinib and capmatinib for the treatment of mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) exon-14 mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in February 2021 and May 2020, but no comparative study has been done so far. Here we compare Results of two-phase 2 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of these new drugs. Methods Studies demonstrating the role of tepotinib and capmatinib in NSCLC patients were identified using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases from inception till February 2021. Results Participants received tepotinib (n=152) and capmatinib (n=97) in two distinct studies. The main efficacy measures in the combined-biopsy group were overall response rate (ORR) of 46% and 56% with tepotinib therapy in VISION trial as per independent review committee and investigator assessment. In contrast, ORR of 41% was noted in previously treated patients vs. 68% in treatment naive patients with capmatinib monotherapy in GEOMETRY mono-1 study. Patients in the tepotinib group showed a median duration of response (mDOR) and a median progression free survival (mPFS) of 11.1 months and 8.5 months, respectively. While with capmatinib study, the mDOR varied from 9.7 months with a mPFS of 5.4 months in those who received prior therapy to mDOR of 12.6 months with a mPFS of 12.4 months in capmatinib monotherapy. The most commonly reported toxicity was grade 3-4 peripheral edema in both arms (tepotinib: 7% vs. Capmatinib: 11%/14%). Conclusions Both drugs exhibited promising activity in the treatment of NSCLC carrying MET exon 14 skipping mutation. However, capmatinib showed an improved ORR, mDOR, and mPFS in treatment naive patients compared to patients treated with tepotinib. Further large and long-term direct comparative clinical trials are warranted to elaborate on beneficial outcomes.
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
