Search

Background: Preclinical results showing therapeutic effect and low toxicity of metronomic chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide (Cy) + celecoxib (Cel) for mammary tumors encouraged its translation to the clinic for treating advanced breast cancer patients (ABCP).Patients and Methods: A single-arm, mono-institutional, non-randomized, phase II, two-step clinical trial (approved by Bioethics Committee and Argentine Regulatory Authority) was designed. Patients received Cy (50 mg po.d) + Cel (200 mg p.o.bid). Patient eligibility criteria included: ABCP who progressed to anthracyclines, taxanes and capecitabine, ≤4 chemotherapy schemes, with good performance status. Several pro- and anti-angiogenic molecules and cells were determined as biomarkers. Informed consent was signed by all patients. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit (CB).Results: Twenty patients were enrolled. Main clinical outcomes were prolonged disease stabilization and partial remission in 10/20 and 1/20 patients, respectively. CB was 55 %, and time to progression (TTP) was 21.1 weeks. Median TTP in patients who achieved CB was 35.6 weeks, and mean overall survival was 44.20 weeks. There were no grade 3/4 toxicities associated with treatment. Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) increased at the time of progression in patients who showed CB (P = 0.014). Baseline CECs and circulating endothelial progenitor cells showed marginal associations with TTP. Serum VEGF decreased (P = 0.050), sVEGFR-2 increased (P = 0.005) and VEGF/sVEGFR-2 ratio decreased during treatment (P = 0.041); baseline VEGF and VEGF/sVEGFR-2 were associated with TTP (P = 0.035 and P = 0.030, respectively), while sVEGFR-2 did not.Conclusions: Treatment was effective, showing low toxicity profile and excellent tolerability. The combination had anti-angiogenic effect. Increased levels of CEC could be useful for detecting progression. Baseline VEGF and VEGF/sVEGFR-2 values could be useful as early predictors of response.Trial Registration: ANMAT#4596/09. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate the frequency, impact, and management of sexual dysfunction associated with commonly prescribed antidepressants available in psychiatry outpatient clinics in Spain. We recruited 2163 adult patients who had undergone treatment with antidepressants for at least 8 weeks and had a history of normal sexual functioning before the prescription of the antidepressant, except for mildly impaired libido. We used the Psychotropic-Related Sexual Dysfunction Questionnaire (PRSexDQ-SALSEX) for evaluating the frequency and tolerance of sexual dysfunction and whether this side effect was spontaneously reported. Overall, 79% patients showed sexual dysfunction, as indicated by a total score ≥ 3 on the PRSexDQ-SALSEX; 64% showed moderate-severe sexual dysfunction, with no differences between men and women on these outcomes. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, treatment with a serotonergic antidepressant and having a severe clinical state of psychiatric illness were the factors associated with the highest likelihood of presenting with sexual dysfunction. Sexual dysfunction was spontaneously reported by 838 (41%) of the 2066 evaluable patients for this outcome. Among patients with sexual dysfunction, this condition was poorly tolerated by 22% of the patients, with these frequencies being significantly higher in men than in women. The most frequently used strategies employed by the psychiatrists in our study for dealing with sexual dysfunction were switching to another antidepressant (34%) and waiting for spontaneous resolution (33%). In conclusion, our results indicate that despite being a well-known, long-standing side effect of antidepressants, sexual dysfunction continues to be extremely common in patients receiving antidepressants, especially serotonergic ones, potentially jeopardizing treatment success in a substantial proportion of patients. There are important sex differences in the reporting and tolerance of sexual dysfunction that require further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study aimed at evaluating the validity and reliability of the Confusion Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Intensive are Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for delirium assessment in patients with mild or moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI). It suggests further studies aimed at developing specific tools to discriminate between delirium and other acute cognitive dysfunction in critically ill TBI patients.