Search

A letter to the editor is presented which discusses a case of unique acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with cryptic NUP98-NSD1 gene and additional sex combs-like 1 (ASXL1) gene mutation in a 27-year-old patient who was admitted for blood abnormalities.

Introduction: Comparative efficacy and safety are important issues for appropriate drug selection for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment. Therefore we conducted a meta-analysis, where we compared atomoxetine (ATX) and methylphenidate (MPH) for ADHD treatment in children and adolescents.Method: Literature retrieval was conducted in relevant databases from their inception to April 2016 to select head-to-head trials that compared ATX and MPH in children and adolescents. Outcomes like response rate, ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD–RS) score, and adverse events were compared between ATX and MPH treatments. The standardized mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used as the effect size for continuous data or dichotomous data, respectively.Results: Eleven eligible randomized-controlled trials were included, and two of them were double-blind, while the remaining were open-label. Compared to ATX, MPH showed a higher response rate (RR = 1.14, 95% CI [1. 09, 1.20]), decreased inattention (SMD = −0.13, 95% CI [−0.25, −0.01]) and lower risk of adverse events (drowsiness: RR = 0.17, 95% CI [0.11, 0.26; nausea: RR = 0.49; 95% CI [0.29, 0.85; vomiting: RR = 0.41, 95% CI [0.27, 0.63]). However, MPH presented a higher risk of insomnia than ATX (RR = 2.27, 95% CI [1.63, 3.15],p < .01).Conclusion: Results of the meta-analysis add additional evidence of the effectiveness of both ATX and MPH and suggest that MPH should be a first treatment option in most patients with ADHD. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Objectives:Imatinib, a breakpoint cluster region-Abelson murine leukemia tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has revolutionized the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). However, the development of multidrug resistance (MDR) limits the clinical application of imatinib. In this study, we aimed to investigate the mechanisms of long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) HOTAIR in CML resistance to imatinib. Methods:Thirty-four CML patients were divided into multidrug resistance protein 1 (MRP1)-low and MRP1-high groups according to the median expression. Real-time PCR (qPCR) was used to detect the expression of lncRNA HOTAIR in CML patients, and MTT assay and flow cytometry assay were employed to detect the biological function of silencing lncRNA HOTAIR on the cell survival rate and apoptotic rate. An imatinib-resistant human CML cell line K562 (K562-R) was established, and western blot was used to detect the impact of lncRNA HOTAIR on the activation of PI3K/Akt signaling pathway. Results:Our results showed that lncRNA HOTAIR was greatly upregulated in the MRP1-high patients as well as in the K562-imatinib-resistant cells compared with control. Knockdown of HOTAIR expression downregulated the MRP1 expression levels in the K562-imatinib cells and resulted in higher sensitivity to the imatinib treatment. In addition, the activation of PI3K/Akt was greatly attenuated when HOTAIR was knocked down in K562-imatinib cells. Discussions:These data suggest that the knockdown of HOTAIR may play a crucial role in improving acquired resistance to imatinib in CML K562-R cells via PI3K/Akt pathway. Conclusions:LncRNA HOTAIR modulates CML cell MDR in a PI3K/Akt-dependent way. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A letter to the editor is presented concerning a study that examined how somatic mutation of the Set binding protein 1 might have only rare occurrence in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and mixed phenotype acute leukemia and that the mutation might not be involved in the leukemogenesis of ALL.