-
Journal Der Deutschen Dermatologischen... Feb 2024Rosacea is a common chronic skin disease distributed primarily around the central face. Ocular manifestations of rosacea are poorly studied, and estimates of prevalence... (Review)
Review
Rosacea is a common chronic skin disease distributed primarily around the central face. Ocular manifestations of rosacea are poorly studied, and estimates of prevalence vary widely, ranging from 6% to 72% in the rosacea population. Treatment options for ocular rosacea include lid hygiene, topical and oral antibiotics, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion, oral vitamin A derivatives, and intense pulsed light; however, a direct comparison of treatment methods for ocular rosacea is lacking. This review aims to compare treatment efficacy and adverse events for different treatment modalities in ocular rosacea. We performed a systematic review by searching Cochrane, MEDLINE and Embase. Title, abstract, full text screening, and data extraction were done in duplicate. Sixty-six articles met the inclusion criteria, representing a total of 1,275 patients. The most effective treatment modalities were topical antimicrobials and oral antibiotics, which achieved complete or partial response in 91% (n = 82/90) and 89% (n = 525/580) of patients respectively, followed by intense pulsed light (89%, n = 97/109 partial response), cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (87% n = 40/46), and lid hygiene (65%, n = 67/105). Combination treatments achieved a complete or partial response in 90% (n = 69/77). Results suggest that topical antimicrobials, oral antibiotics, intense pulsed light. and cyclosporine were the most efficacious single modality treatments.
Topics: Humans; Emulsions; Rosacea; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Cyclosporine; Skin Diseases
PubMed: 38243868
DOI: 10.1111/ddg.15290 -
Nanotoxicology Apr 2024Amphotericin B (AmB) is a broad-spectrum therapeutic and effective drug, but it has serious side effects of toxicity and solubility. Therefore, reducing its toxicity... (Review)
Review
Amphotericin B (AmB) is a broad-spectrum therapeutic and effective drug, but it has serious side effects of toxicity and solubility. Therefore, reducing its toxicity should be considered in therapeutic applications. Nanotechnology has paved the way to improve drug delivery systems and reduce toxicity. The present study, for the first time, comprehensively reviews the studies from 2011 to 2023 on reducing the toxicity of AmB. The findings showed that loading AmB with micellar structures, nanostructured lipid carriers, liposomes, emulsions, poly lactide-co-glycolide acid, chitosan, dendrimers, and other polymeric nanoparticles increases the biocompatibility and efficacy of the drug and significantly reduces toxicity. In addition, modified carbon nanoparticles (including graphene, carbon nanotubes, and carbon dots) with positively charged amine groups, PEI, and other components showed favorable drug delivery properties. Uncoated and coated magnetic nanoparticles and silver NPs-AmB composites had less cytotoxicity and more antifungal activity than free AmB. Citrate-reduced GNPs and lipoic acid-functionalized GNPs were also effective nanocarriers to reduce AmB cytotoxicity and improve anti-leishmania efficacy. In addition, zinc oxide-NPs and PEGylated zinc oxide-NPs showed favorable antifungal activity and negligible toxicity. According to a review study, carbon-based nanoparticles, metal nanoparticles, and especially polymer nanoparticles caused some reduction in the toxicity and improved solubility of AmB in water. Overall, considering the discussed nanocarriers, further research on the application of nanotechnology as a cost-effective candidate to improve the efficiency and reduce the cytotoxicity of AmB is recommended.
PubMed: 38646931
DOI: 10.1080/17435390.2024.2340467 -
Medicine Mar 2024Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is rare, but fatal; the current widely used treatment is lipid emulsion (LE). The goal of this study was to analyze and review...
BACKGROUND
Local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is rare, but fatal; the current widely used treatment is lipid emulsion (LE). The goal of this study was to analyze and review case reports on LE treatment for LAST in pediatric patients.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review using case reports on LE treatment for LAST in pediatric patients, searching PubMed and Scopus databases to March 2023 using the following keywords: ("local anesthetic toxicity" OR "local anesthetic systemic toxicity" OR LAST") AND ("newborn" OR "infant" OR "child" OR "children" OR "adolescent" OR "pediatric") AND ("lipid emulsion" OR "Intralipid").
RESULTS
Our search yielded 21 cases, revealing that nearly 43% patients with LAST were less than 1 year old, and most cases were caused by bupivacaine (approximately 67% cases). "Inadvertent intravascular injection" by anesthesiologists and "overdose of local anesthetics" mainly by surgeons were responsible for 52% and 24% cases of LAST, respectively. LAST occurred in the awake state (52%) and under general anesthesia (48%), mainly causing seizures and arrhythmia, respectively. Approximately 55% of patients received LE treatment in <10 minutes after LAST, mainly improving cardiovascular symptoms. A 20% LE (1.5 mL/kg) dose followed by 0.25 mL/kg/minutes dose was frequently used. LE and anticonvulsants were mainly used in the awake state, whereas LE with or without vasopressors was mainly used under general anesthesia. LE treatment led to full recovery from LAST in 20 cases; however, 1 patient died due to underlying disease.
CONCLUSION
Consequently, our findings reveal that LE is effective in treating pediatric LAST.
Topics: Humans; Child; Infant; Anesthetics, Local; Emulsions; Anesthesia, Local; Bupivacaine; Drug Overdose
PubMed: 38489714
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037534 -
American Journal of Therapeutics
Recurrence of Symptoms or Re-elevation of Drug Concentration After Termination of Lipid Emulsion Treatment for Drug Toxicity: Analysis of Case Reports and Systematic Review.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Fat Emulsions, Intravenous; Recurrence; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
PubMed: 38219233
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000001687