Adverse events in analgesic treatment with tramadol associated with CYP2D6 extensive-metaboliser and OPRM1 high-expression variants

2010 ◽  
Vol 69 (10) ◽  
pp. 1889-1890 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Kim ◽  
C.-B. Choi ◽  
C. Kang ◽  
S.-C. Bae ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
High Expression ◽  
Analgesic Treatment ◽  
Extensive Metaboliser

Supportive care organization: Patients and oncologist national survey comparison.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 202-202
Author(s):  
Florian Scotte ◽  
Christian Herve ◽  
Jean Marc Tourani ◽  
Roland Bugat ◽  
Fadila Farsi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Supportive Care ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Care Organization ◽  
Analgesic Treatment ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
French Speaking ◽  
Professional Resources

202 Background: The medical doctor's (MD) perspective of supportive care in cancer (SCC) in France was previously assessed on a national survey. However, the opinion of patients (P) has never been evaluated nor compared to MD’s perception.Wepromoted and compared P and MD awareness via national surveys to monitor implementation and information delivered to patients on SCC. Methods: The French Speaking Association for SCC (AFSOS) conducted two observational studies, analyzed with a Chi2 test: S1: a 30 points questionnaire sent to 2,263 physicians caring for cancer P (oncologists, radiotherapists, haematologists, gastroenterologists); and S2: a 40 points questionnaire performed by physicians to P, using a face-to-face method. Results: 711 MDs returned S1 and S2 was conducted with 1,562 P. In S1, MDs declared relying on SCC organization (81%) but 19% of P declared they were offered to benefit from an organization called SCC (54% at diagnosis, 35% after complication). The name SCC was known by 34% of P, most frequently described as complementary care to specific treatments (55%). Palliative Care word had been previously heard by 80% P, mostly considered as care to improve quality of life during cancer treatment for 59%. In S2, professional resources identified outside the hospital were: general practitioners (84%), nurses (58%), pharmacists (52%). According to P, the top 3 supportive care consultations proposed were psychology (61%), nutrition (55%) and announcement organization (55%), while MDs mentioned palliative care (98%), psychological care (98%), social care (98%), S2 showed that supportive treatment was prescribed to 63% of P, mostly by their oncologist (74%), and 64% of those P received information on side-effects. Epoetin was prescribed to 25% and analgesics to 73%, with discussion on adverse events respectively for 38% and 53%. MDs declared delivering information on adverse events to 49% of P receiving epoetin and to 74% of P running for analgesic treatment. Conclusions: Oncologist is the cornerstone of SCC organization. Information as well as treatment must be developed to further enhance SCC and patient quality of care.

scholarly journals Interactions of Spike-RBD of SARS-CoV-2 and Platelet Factor 4: New Insights in the Etiopathogenesis of Thrombosis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (16) ◽  
pp. 8562
Author(s):  
Margherita Passariello ◽  
Cinzia Vetrei ◽  
Felice Amato ◽  
Claudia De Lorenzo
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Heparin Therapy ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Platelet Factor 4 ◽  
Spike Protein ◽  
High Expression ◽  
Platelet Factor ◽  
Specific Antibodies ◽  
First Time

The rare but dangerous adverse events evidenced after massive vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 are represented by thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. The patients diagnosed with severe COVID-19 may develop a pro-thrombotic state with a much higher frequency, thus we decided to investigate the role of Spike protein (the only common product of the two conditions) or the anti-Spike antibodies in the etiopathogenesis of thrombosis. A pathogenic Platelet Factor 4 (PF4)-dependent syndrome, unrelated to the use of heparin therapy, has been reported after the administration of vaccines in the patients manifesting acute thrombocytopenia and thrombosis. Thus, we aimed at shedding light on the structural similarities of Spike of SARS-CoV-2 and PF4 on their eventual biochemical interactions and on the role of their specific antibodies. The similarities between PF4 and Spike-RBD proteins were evaluated by a comparison of the structures and by testing the cross-reactivity of their specific antibodies by ELISA assays. We found that the anti-Spike antibodies do not recognize PF4, on the contrary, the anti-PF4 antibodies show some cross-reactivity for Spike-RBD. More interestingly, we report for the first time that the PF4 and Spike-RBD proteins can bind each other. These data suggest that the interaction of the two proteins could be involved in the generation of anti-PF4 antibodies, their binding to Spike-RBD, which could lead to platelets aggregation due also to their high expression of ACE2

Postvaccination Adverse Events

2010 ◽  
Vol 44 (12) ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
STEPHEN I. PELTON
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events

Group to Look at Genetics of Drug Adverse Events

2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (10) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
TIMOTHY F. KIRN
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events

Drug-Related Adverse Events Soar, Add to Hospital Stays

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
MARY ELLEN SCHNEIDER
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Hospital Stays

CMS Clamps Down On Adverse Events

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
JANE ANDERSON
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events

Minimizing Carry-Over Effects After Treatment Failure and Maximizing Therapeutic Outcome

2014 ◽  
Vol 222 (3) ◽  
pp. 171-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareile Hofmann ◽  
Nathalie Wrobel ◽  
Simon Kessner ◽  
Ulrike Bingel
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Failure ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Subsequent Treatment ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Administration Route ◽  
Healthy Human ◽  
Negative Experiences ◽  
Analgesic Treatment ◽  
Balanced Design ◽  
Carry Over

According to experimental and clinical evidence, the experiences of previous treatments are carried over to different therapeutic approaches and impair the outcome of subsequent treatments. In this behavioral pilot study we used a change in administration route to investigate whether the effect of prior treatment experience on a subsequent treatment depends on the similarity of both treatments. We experimentally induced positive or negative experiences with a topical analgesic treatment in two groups of healthy human subjects. Subsequently, we compared responses to a second, unrelated and systemic analgesic treatment between both the positive and negative group. We found that there was no difference in the analgesic response to the second treatment between the two groups. Our data indicate that a change in administration route might reduce the influence of treatment history and therefore be a way to reduce negative carry-over effects after treatment failure. Future studies will have to validate these findings in a fully balanced design including larger, clinical samples.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document