-
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases Feb 2019Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired...
OBJECTIVES
Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMSs) are a genotypically and phenotypically heterogeneous group of neuromuscular disorders, which have in common an impaired neuromuscular transmission. Since the field of CMSs is steadily expanding, the present review aimed at summarizing and discussing current knowledge and recent advances concerning the etiology, clinical presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of CMSs.
METHODS
Systematic literature review.
RESULTS
Currently, mutations in 32 genes are made responsible for autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive CMSs. These mutations concern 8 presynaptic, 4 synaptic, 15 post-synaptic, and 5 glycosilation proteins. These proteins function as ion-channels, enzymes, or structural, signalling, sensor, or transporter proteins. The most common causative genes are CHAT, COLQ, RAPSN, CHRNE, DOK7, and GFPT1. Phenotypically, these mutations manifest as abnormal fatigability or permanent or fluctuating weakness of extra-ocular, facial, bulbar, axial, respiratory, or limb muscles, hypotonia, or developmental delay. Cognitive disability, dysmorphism, neuropathy, or epilepsy are rare. Low- or high-frequency repetitive nerve stimulation may show an abnormal increment or decrement, and SF-EMG an increased jitter or blockings. Most CMSs respond favourably to acetylcholine-esterase inhibitors, 3,4-diamino-pyridine, salbutamol, albuterol, ephedrine, fluoxetine, or atracurium.
CONCLUSIONS
CMSs are an increasingly recognised group of genetically transmitted defects, which usually respond favorably to drugs enhancing the neuromuscular transmission. CMSs need to be differentiated from neuromuscular disorders due to muscle or nerve dysfunction.
Topics: Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Humans; Mutation; Myasthenic Syndromes, Congenital; Neuromuscular Agents; Proteins
PubMed: 30808424
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-019-1025-5 -
Cureus Dec 2023Myasthenia gravis (MG), a rare disease, is the most common neuromuscular junction problem. It's the quintessential autoimmune disease with ocular, bulbar, respiratory,... (Review)
Review
Myasthenia gravis (MG), a rare disease, is the most common neuromuscular junction problem. It's the quintessential autoimmune disease with ocular, bulbar, respiratory, axial, and limb muscles exhibiting a typical fatigable weakening due to the development of antibodies against the acetylcholine receptor (AChR). Infections, stress, surgeries, thymus gland anomalies, and pharmaceutical side effects can also cause it. Ocular symptoms are initially experienced by most of the sufferers. The majority of the sufferers will go through at least one episode of symptom exacerbation during their illness. The immune system in MG interferes with nerve-muscle communication, causing muscles to become weak and tired quickly. The actual cause is not yet known, but a problem in the thymus gland may be the cause. In a person suffering from this disease, the size of the thymus becomes larger than normal, which is also called thymic hyperplasia. It is more common for women to have early-onset MG (EOMG) than for males to have late-onset MG (LOMG). Merely clinical evidence, encompassing the patients' medical history and physical indications of fluctuating muscle weakness in a specific region, is utilized to diagnose MG. Complementary diagnostic procedures and lab techniques aid in confirming the synaptic dysfunction and characterizing its kind and degree. Early diagnosis and the availability of effective treatments have reduced the burden of severe impairment and high mortality previously associated with MG. Current immunomodulation-based therapies come with side effects brought on by persistent immune suppression. Improved knowledge of this relatively uncommon but curable condition is required among primary carers. The objective of this review is to provide information about MG and to help people recognize its symptoms and start treatment without panic so that the progression of this disease can be stopped and complications can be avoided.
PubMed: 38186498
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50017 -
Muscle & Nerve Aug 2017Rituximab is a chimeric mouse/human anti-CD20 monoclonal immunoglobulin. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of rituximab in 169 myasthenia gravis (MG) patients from... (Review)
Review
Rituximab is a chimeric mouse/human anti-CD20 monoclonal immunoglobulin. We reviewed the efficacy and safety of rituximab in 169 myasthenia gravis (MG) patients from case reports and series. Antibodies to the acetylcholine receptor (AChR) were present in 59% and muscle-specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) in 34%. Modified Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America postintervention scale of minimal manifestations (MM) or better occurred in 44%, and combined pharmacologic and chronic stable remission in 27% overall; MM or better was achieved in 72% of MuSK MG and 30% of AChR MG (Pā<ā0.001). Posttreatment relapses decreased more in MuSK MG (Pā=ā0.05). Response predictors were MuSK MG, less severe disease, and younger age at treatment. Among a responder subset, 26% of AChR and 82% of MuSK MG patients showed decreased posttreatment antibody titers. Rituximab was generally well tolerated. Detectable serum rituximab and depleted CD20 B-cells were observed up to 20 and 16 weeks, respectively, after 4 weekly infusions. Muscle Nerve 56: 185-196, 2017.
Topics: Humans; Immunologic Factors; Myasthenia Gravis; Rituximab
PubMed: 28164324
DOI: 10.1002/mus.25597 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2018Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One approach to symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Alzheimer's disease is the most common cause of dementia in older people. One approach to symptomatic treatment of Alzheimer's disease is to enhance cholinergic neurotransmission in the brain by blocking the action of the enzyme responsible for the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. This can be done by a group of drugs known as cholinesterase inhibitors. Donepezil is a cholinesterase inhibitor.This review is an updated version of a review first published in 1998.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical efficacy and safety of donepezil in people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease; to compare the efficacy and safety of different doses of donepezil; and to assess the effect of donepezil on healthcare resource use and costs.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and a number of other sources on 20 May 2017 to ensure that the search was as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. In addition, we contacted members of the Donepezil Study Group and Eisai Inc.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all double-blind, randomised controlled trials in which treatment with donepezil was administered to people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease for 12 weeks or more and its effects compared with those of placebo in a parallel group of patients, or where two different doses of donepezil were compared.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
One reviewer (JSB) extracted data on cognitive function, activities of daily living, behavioural symptoms, global clinical state, quality of life, adverse events, deaths and healthcare resource costs. Where appropriate and possible, we estimated pooled treatment effects. We used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty studies involving 8257 participants met the inclusion criteria of the review, of which 28 studies reported results in sufficient detail for the meta-analyses. Most studies were of six months' duration or less. Only one small trial lasted 52 weeks. The studies tested mainly donepezil capsules at a dose of 5 mg/day or 10 mg/day. Two studies tested a slow-release oral formulation that delivered 23 mg/day. Participants in 21 studies had mild to moderate disease, in five studies moderate to severe, and in four severe disease. Seventeen studies were industry funded or sponsored, four studies were funded independently of industry and for nine studies there was no information on source of funding.Our main analysis compared the safety and efficacy of donepezil 10 mg/day with placebo at 24 to 26 weeks of treatment. Thirteen studies contributed data from 3396 participants to this analysis. Eleven of these studies were multicentre studies. Seven studies recruited patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, two with moderate to severe, and four with severe Alzheimer's disease, with a mean age of about 75 years. Almost all evidence was of moderate quality, downgraded due to study limitations.After 26 weeks of treatment, donepezil compared with placebo was associated with better outcomes for cognitive function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive (ADAS-Cog, range 0 to 70) (mean difference (MD) -2.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.31 to -2.02, 1130 participants, 5 studies), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (MD 1.05, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.37, 1757 participants, 7 studies) and the Severe Impairment Battery (SIB, range 0 to 100) (MD 5.92, 95% CI 4.53 to 7.31, 1348 participants, 5 studies). Donepezil was also associated with better function measured with the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study activities of daily living score for severe Alzheimer's disease (ADCS-ADL-sev) (MD 1.03, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.85, 733 participants, 3 studies). A higher proportion of participants treated with donepezil experienced improvement on the clinician-rated global impression of change scale (odds ratio (OR) 1.92, 95% CI 1.54 to 2.39, 1674 participants, 6 studies). There was no difference between donepezil and placebo for behavioural symptoms measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI) (MD -1.62, 95% CI -3.43 to 0.19, 1035 participants, 4 studies) or by the Behavioural Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE-AD) scale (MD 0.4, 95% CI -1.28 to 2.08, 194 participants, 1 study). There was also no difference between donepezil and placebo for Quality of Life (QoL) (MD -2.79, 95% CI -8.15 to 2.56, 815 participants, 2 studies).Participants receiving donepezil were more likely to withdraw from the studies before the end of treatment (24% versus 20%, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.50, 2846 participants, 12 studies) or to experience an adverse event during the studies (72% vs 65%, OR 1.59, 95% 1.31 to 1.95, 2500 participants, 10 studies).There was no evidence of a difference between donepezil and placebo for patient total healthcare resource utilisation.Three studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 5 mg/day over 26 weeks. The 5 mg dose was associated with slightly worse cognitive function on the ADAS-Cog, but not on the MMSE or SIB, with slightly better QoL and with fewer adverse events and withdrawals from treatment. Two studies compared donepezil 10 mg/day to donepezil 23 mg/day. There were no differences on efficacy outcomes, but fewer participants on 10 mg/day experienced adverse events or withdrew from treatment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is moderate-quality evidence that people with mild, moderate or severe dementia due to Alzheimer's disease treated for periods of 12 or 24 weeks with donepezil experience small benefits in cognitive function, activities of daily living and clinician-rated global clinical state. There is some evidence that use of donepezil is neither more nor less expensive compared with placebo when assessing total healthcare resource costs. Benefits on 23 mg/day were no greater than on 10 mg/day, and benefits on the 10 mg/day dose were marginally larger than on the 5 mg/day dose, but the rates of withdrawal and of adverse events before end of treatment were higher the higher the dose.
Topics: Alzheimer Disease; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Cognition; Cognition Disorders; Donepezil; Humans; Indans; Nootropic Agents; Piperidines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29923184
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001190.pub3 -
Journal of Asthma and Allergy 2023Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Airway hyperresponsiveness (AHR) is a key feature of asthma. Biologic therapies used to treat asthma target specific components of the inflammatory pathway, and their effects on AHR can provide valuable information about the underlying disease pathophysiology. This review summarizes the available evidence regarding the effects of biologics on allergen-specific and non-allergen-specific airway responses in patients with asthma.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, including risk-of-bias assessment. PubMed and Ovid were searched for studies published between January 1997 and December 2021. Eligible studies were randomized, placebo-controlled trials that assessed the effects of biologics on AHR, early allergic response (EAR) and/or late allergic response (LAR) in patients with asthma.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were identified for inclusion. Bronchoprovocation testing was allergen-specific in 18 studies and non-allergen-specific in 12 studies. Omalizumab reduced AHR to methacholine, acetylcholine or adenosine monophosphate (3/9 studies), and reduced EAR (4/5 studies) and LAR (2/3 studies). Mepolizumab had no effect on AHR (3/3 studies), EAR or LAR (1/1 study). Tezepelumab reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol (3/3 studies), and reduced EAR and LAR (1/1 study). Pitrakinra reduced LAR, with no effect on AHR (1/1 study). Etanercept reduced AHR to methacholine (1/2 studies). No effects were observed for lebrikizumab, tocilizumab, efalizumab, IMA-638 and anti-OX40 ligand on AHR, EAR or LAR; benralizumab on LAR; tralokinumab on AHR; and Ro-24-7472 on AHR or LAR (all 1/1 study each). No dupilumab or reslizumab studies were identified.
CONCLUSION
Omalizumab and tezepelumab reduced EAR and LAR to allergens. Tezepelumab consistently reduced AHR to methacholine or mannitol. These findings provide insights into AHR mechanisms and the precise effects of asthma biologics. Furthermore, findings suggest that tezepelumab broadly targets allergen-specific and non-allergic forms of AHR, and the underlying cells and mediators involved in asthma.
PubMed: 37496824
DOI: 10.2147/JAA.S410592 -
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Feb 2020Achalasia is a primary esophageal motor disorder of unknown etiology characterized by degeneration of the myenteric plexus, which results in impaired relaxation of the...
Achalasia is a primary esophageal motor disorder of unknown etiology characterized by degeneration of the myenteric plexus, which results in impaired relaxation of the esophagogastric junction (EGJ), along with the loss of organized peristalsis in the esophageal body. The criterion standard for diagnosing achalasia is high-resolution esophageal manometry showing incomplete relaxation of the EGJ coupled with the absence of organized peristalsis. Three achalasia subtypes have been defined based on high-resolution manometry findings in the esophageal body. Treatment of patients with achalasia has evolved in recent years with the introduction of peroral endoscopic myotomy. Other treatment options include botulinum toxin injection, pneumatic dilation, and Heller myotomy. This American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Standards of Practice Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of achalasia, based on an updated assessment of the individual and comparative effectiveness, adverse effects, and cost of the 4 aforementioned achalasia therapies.
Topics: Acetylcholine Release Inhibitors; Botulinum Toxins; Dilatation; Disease Management; Endoscopy, Digestive System; Esophageal Achalasia; Esophageal Sphincter, Lower; Heller Myotomy; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Manometry; Myotomy; Societies, Medical; United States
PubMed: 31839408
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.04.231 -
Toxins Feb 2021AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) has been used for various cosmetic purposes, including minimization of moderate to severe lines, or other cosmetic indications, in the...
AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) has been used for various cosmetic purposes, including minimization of moderate to severe lines, or other cosmetic indications, in the face and neck. We carried out a systematic review to identify all relevant evidence on the treatment approaches and outcomes of aboBoNT-A as a cosmetic treatment of the middle and lower areas of the face, and the neck. Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, congress proceedings and review bibliographies were searched for relevant studies. Identified articles were screened against pre-specified eligibility criteria. Of 560 unique articles identified, 10 were included for data extraction (three observational studies, 1 randomized controlled trial [with two articles] and five non-randomized trials). The articles provided data on gummy/asymmetric smile (2), marionette lines (5), masseter muscle volume (2), nasal wrinkles (2), perioral wrinkles (3) and the platysma muscle (4). All articles reporting on efficacy of aboBoNT-A demonstrated positive results, including reduction of wrinkles (5), reduction of masseter muscle (2) and degree of gummy smile (1) compared with before treatment. No serious adverse events were reported and patient satisfaction was high. In conclusion, positive findings support further research of aboBoNT-A for the middle and lower areas of the face, and in the neck, which are largely unapproved indications.
Topics: Acetylcholine Release Inhibitors; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Cosmetic Techniques; Esthetics; Face; Facial Expression; Female; Humans; Injections; Male; Middle Aged; Neck; Off-Label Use; Patient Satisfaction; Skin Aging; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 33671800
DOI: 10.3390/toxins13020169 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Autism spectrum disorder (autism) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by impairments in social communication and interaction, plus restricted, repetitive... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Autism spectrum disorder (autism) is a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by impairments in social communication and interaction, plus restricted, repetitive patterns of behaviour and interests. Whilst some people embrace autism as part of their identity, others struggle with their difficulties, and some seek treatment. There are no current interventions that result in complete reduction of autism features. Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter for the cholinergic system and has a role in attention, novelty seeking, and memory. Low levels of acetylcholine have been investigated as a potential contributor to autism symptomatology. Donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine (commonly referred to as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors) all inhibit acetylcholinesterase, and have slightly different modes of action and biological availability, so their effectiveness and side-effect profiles may vary. The effect of various acetylcholinesterase inhibitor on core autism features across the lifespan, and possible adverse effects, have not been thoroughly investigated.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and harms of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for people with the core features (social interaction, communication, and restrictive and repetitive behaviours) of autism. To assess the effects of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors on non-core features of autism.
SEARCH METHODS
In November 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and two trials registers. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews, and contacted authors of relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (e.g. galantamine, donepezil, or rivastigmine) of varying doses, delivered orally or via transdermal patch, either as monotherapy or adjunct therapy, with placebo. People of any age, with a clinical diagnosis of autism were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were core features of autism and adverse effects. Secondary outcomes were language, irritability, hyperactivity, and general health and function. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two RCTs (74 participants). One study was conducted in Iran, the second in the USA, although exact location in the USA is unclear. Galantamine plus risperidone versus placebo plus risperidone One study compared the effects of galantamine plus risperidone to placebo plus risperidone (40 participants, aged 4 years to 12 years). Primary and secondary outcomes of interest were measured postintervention, using subscales of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (score 0 to 3; higher scores = greater impairment). Very low-certainty evidence showed there was little to no difference between the two groups postintervention for social communication (mean difference (MD) -2.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.88 to 0.38), and restricted and repetitive behaviour (MD -0.55, 95% CI -3.47 to 2.37). Overall autism features were not assessed. Adverse events may be higher in the galantamine plus risperidone group (75%) compared with the placebo plus risperidone group (35%): odds ratio 5.57, 95% CI 1.42 to 21.86, low-certainty evidence. No serious adverse events were reported. Low-certainty evidence showed a small difference in irritability (MD -3.50, 95% CI -6.39 to -0.61), with the galantamine plus risperidone group showing a greater decline on the irritability subscale than the placebo group postintervention. There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in hyperactivity postintervention (MD -5.20, 95% CI -10.51 to 0.11). General health and function were not assessed. Donepezil versus placebo One study compared donepezil to placebo (34 participants aged 8 years to 17 years). Primary outcomes of interest were measured postintervention, using subscales of the Modified Version of The Real Life Rating Scale (scored 0 to 3; higher scores = greater impairment). Very low-certainty evidence showed no evidence of group differences immediately postintervention in overall autism features (MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.33), or in the autism symptom domains of social communication (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.30), and restricted and repetitive behaviours (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.35). Significant adverse events leading to study withdrawal in at least one participant was implied in the data analysis section, but not explicitly reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of donepezil, compared to placebo, on the secondary outcomes of interest, including irritability (MD 1.08, 95% CI -0.41 to 2.57), hyperactivity (MD 2.60, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.70), and general health and function (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.54) postintervention. Across all analyses within this comparison, we judged the evidence to be very low-certainty due to high risk of bias, and very serious imprecision (results based on one small study with wide confidence intervals). The study narratively reported adverse events for the study as a whole, rather than by treatment group.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Evidence about the effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors as a medication to improve outcomes for autistic adults is lacking, and for autistic children is very uncertain. There is a need for more evidence of improvement in outcomes of relevance to clinical care, autistic people, and their families. There are a number of ongoing studies involving acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, and future updates of this review may add to the current evidence.
Topics: Child; Humans; Acetylcholine; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Cholinesterase Inhibitors; Donepezil; Galantamine; Risperidone; Rivastigmine; Child, Preschool; Adolescent
PubMed: 37267443
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013851.pub2 -
Journal of Psychopharmacology (Oxford,... Jan 2016Our brains are highly responsive to novelty. However, how novelty is processed in the brain, and what neurotransmitter systems play a role therein, remains elusive.... (Review)
Review
Our brains are highly responsive to novelty. However, how novelty is processed in the brain, and what neurotransmitter systems play a role therein, remains elusive. Here, we systematically review studies on human participants that have looked at the neuromodulatory basis of novelty detection and processing. While theoretical models and studies on nonhuman animals have pointed to a role of the dopaminergic, cholinergic, noradrenergic and serotonergic systems, the human literature has focused almost exclusively on the first two. Dopamine was found to affect electrophysiological responses to novelty early in time after stimulus presentation, but evidence on its effects on later processing was found to be contradictory: While neuropharmacological studies mostly yielded null effects, gene studies did point to an important role for dopamine. Acetylcholine seems to dampen novelty signals in the medial temporal lobe, but boost them in frontal cortex. Findings on 5-HT (serotonin) were found to be mostly contradictory. Two large gaps were identified in the literature. First, few studies have looked at neuromodulatory influences on behavioral effects of novelty. Second, no study has looked at the involvement of the noradrenergic system in novelty processing.
Topics: Animals; Brain; Electrophysiological Phenomena; Exploratory Behavior; Humans; Models, Theoretical; Neurotransmitter Agents
PubMed: 26601905
DOI: 10.1177/0269881115612238 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2022The use of acetylcholine for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina is recommended by international guidelines. However, its intracoronary use is still off-label due to the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The use of acetylcholine for the diagnosis of vasospastic angina is recommended by international guidelines. However, its intracoronary use is still off-label due to the absence of safety studies. We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature to identify adverse events related to the intracoronary administration of acetylcholine for vasoreactivity testing to fill this gap.
METHODS AND RESULTS
We conducted a systematic review of observational studies and randomized controlled trials dealing with the intracoronary administration of acetylcholine. Articles were searched in MEDLINE (PubMed) using the MeSH strategy. Three independent reviewers determined whether the studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 434 articles were selected. Data concerning clinical characteristics, study population, acetylcholine dosage, and adverse effects were retrieved from the articles. Overall, 71,566 patients were included, of which only 382 (0.5%) developed one adverse event, and there were no fatal events reported (0%).
CONCLUSIONS
Intracoronary administration of acetylcholine in the setting of coronary spasm provocation testing is safe and plays a central role in the evaluation of coronary vasomotion disorders, making it worthy of becoming a part of clinical practice in all cardiac catheterization laboratories.
PubMed: 35207403
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11041129