Introduction: Dysregulation of histone deacetylase (HDAC) activity is an epigenetic hallmark of multiple myeloma (MM), leading to aberrant gene expression and cellular signaling in myeloma cell growth, survival and resistance to therapy. Hyper-methylation at diagnosis is a frequent observation, which eventually may convert to hypo-methylation during advanced phases.
Areas covered: A literature search on ‘HDAC inhibitors’ and ‘multiple myeloma’ was carried out using PubMed and Google Scholar in the preparation of this overview on clinical efficacy and safety data.
Expert opinion: First-generation non-selective HDAC inhibitors have demonstrated minimal single-agent activity in refractory MM. Subsequently, combination therapy has proven an improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) but not response rates. The main concerns are associated with toxicities. Ongoing studies on new and more selective agents, i.e. Romidepsin or Ricolinostat, are promising in terms of better efficacy and less toxicity. 相似文献
目的:应用99mTc-DTPA肾动脉显像评价Stanford不同分型主动脉夹层患者术后左、右侧肾功能及总体肾功能受损程度,帮助临床制定进一步的治疗方案,改善患者预后。方法:回顾性分析2018年3月8日至2019年7月19日,在本院核医学科行99mTc-DTPA肾动态显像的主动脉夹层术后患者48例,评价患者双肾血流灌注、总肾小球滤过率(GFR)和分肾的GFR,比较Stanford主动脉夹层A型(简称A型)患者和主动脉夹层B型(简称B型)患者之间总肾功能及分肾功能,血肌酐、血尿素氮及血尿酸水平的差异。结果:B型患者术后总GFR低于A型患者(67.5 vs.80.6 m L/min,P<0.05),其中以左肾功能受损为著(30.9 vs.40.3 m L/min,P<0.05),差异有统计学意义。结论:肾动态显像对主动脉夹层术后患者早期评价肾功能有重要价值。主动脉夹层B型患者GFR较A型减低,且左侧肾GFR减低更明显,临床可以早期采取干预措施,改善主动脉夹层患者预后。 相似文献
Background: Large randomized trials show that in appropriately selected patients with left ventricular dysfunction, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) can improve overall survival at 2–5 years. Since direct implementation of the criteria used in the MADIT II and SCD-HeFT will lead to a marked rise in ICD implants, there is a growing fear that increased use of ICDs may cause a dramatic burden to health care systems. The ICD has traditionally been seen as an expensive form of treatment, which is difficult to accept at the first look. This is mainly due to the nonlinear character of the ICD investment, characterized by high initial expenditure, followed by a deferred pay-off in terms of clinical benefits. Cost-effectiveness analysis may help provide a different perspective on the problem of ICD cost, as may estimation of the daily cost of ICD treatment, assuming a time horizon of 5–7 years—a particularly interesting subject for further registry studies. Methods and Results: Based on real expenditure data from 2002 to 2005, as recorded in the Search-MI Registry-Italian Sub-study of patients implanted on MADIT II indications, we estimated the daily costs associated with the device and leads. Over a 5–7 year time horizon, the average daily cost was estimated to be €4.60–€6.70. Translation of these figures into U.S. market conditions suggests a daily cost of around $7.90–$11.40. Conclusions: These findings appear useful to help evaluate the affordability of ICD in comparison with other therapeutic options in a context of limited available economic resources. 相似文献