Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety of microwave therapy versus suction-curettage through small incisions in the treatment of axillary osmidrosis

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Suction Curettage ◽  
Axillary Osmidrosis ◽  
Microwave Therapy

Clinical efficacy and safety of the combination therapy of peginterferon alpha and ribavirin in cirrhotic patients with HCV infection

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Ryeol Cheong ◽  
Hyun Young Woo ◽  
Jeong Heo ◽  
Ki Tae Yoon ◽  
Dong Uk Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Combination Therapy ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Hcv Infection ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cirrhotic Patients

Review on the Clinical Pharmacology of Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate for the Treatment of COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (6) ◽  
pp. 427-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Cui ◽  
Siqi Tu ◽  
Valerie Sia Jie En ◽  
Xiaobei Li ◽  
Xueting Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Drug Interactions ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
The United States ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Infected People ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Therapeutic Drugs

Background: As the number of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infected people is greatly increasing worldwide, the international medical situation becomes very serious. Potential therapeutic drugs, vaccine and stem cell replacement methods are emerging, so it is urgent to find specific therapeutic drugs and the best treatment regimens. After the publications on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with anti- SARS-COV-2 activity in vitro, a small, non-randomized, open-label clinical trial showed that HCQ treatment was significantly associated with reduced viral load in patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Meanwhile, a large prophylaxis study of HCQ sulfate for COVID-19 has been initiated in the United States. HCQ offered a promising efficacy in the treatment of COVID-19, but the optimal administration is still being explored. Methods: We used the keyword "hydroxychloroquine" to conduct a literature search in PubMed to collect relevant literature on the mechanism of action of HCQ, its clinical efficacy and safety, pharmacokinetic characteristics, precautions for clinical use and drug interactions to extract and organize information. Results: This paper reviews the mechanism, clinical efficacy and safety, pharmacokinetic characteristics, exposureresponse relationship and precautions and drug interactions of HCQ, and summarizes dosage recommendations for HCQ sulfate. Conclusion: It has been proved that HCQ, which has an established safety profile, is effective against SARS-CoV-2 with sufficient pre-clinical rationale and evidence. Data from high-quality clinical trials are urgently needed worldwide.

Galcanezumab for the prevention of migraine

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay M Frerichs ◽  
Deborah I Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Preventive Treatment ◽  
Calcitonin Gene Related Peptide ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Related Peptide ◽  
Calcitonin Gene

Migraine is a common and disabling disorder affecting approximately 1.02 billion people worldwide. Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) has been identified as playing an important role in the pathophysiology of migraine and several migraine-specific therapies targeting the CGRP ligand or its receptor have been approved since 2018 for the acute and preventive treatment of migraine. This review focuses on the pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety/tolerability of galcanezumab, an anti-CGRP monoclonal antibody approved for the prevention of migraine.

scholarly journals Comparison of clinical efficacy and safety between dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (7) ◽  
pp. 030006052110327
Author(s):  
Weihua Liu ◽  
Wenli Yu ◽  
Hongli Yu ◽  
Mingwei Sheng
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ◽  
Weighted Mean Difference ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Similar Efficacy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Weighted Mean

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods Relevant studies comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol among patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy were retrieved from databases such as PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Results Seven relevant studies (dexmedetomidine group, n = 238; propofol group, n = 239) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the induction time (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 3.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.95–7.88, I2 = 99%) and recovery time (WMD = 2.74, 95% CI = −2.72–8.19, I2 = 98%). Subgroup analysis revealed no significant differences in the risks of hypotension (risk ratio [RR] = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.25–1.22) and nausea and vomiting (RR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.46–2.22) between the drugs, whereas dexmedetomidine carried a lower risk of hypoxia (RR = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.11–0.63) and higher risk of bradycardia (RR = 3.01, 95% CI = 1.38–6.54). Conclusions Dexmedetomidine had similar efficacy and safety profiles as propofol in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

A Porcine Study of the Area of Heated Tissue During Hot‐Balloon Ablation: Implications for the Clinical Efficacy and Safety

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shiro Nakahara ◽  
Yuji Wakamatsu ◽  
Hirotsugu Sato ◽  
Naoto Otsuka ◽  
Reiko Fukuda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Balloon Ablation
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document