1,721,138 research outputs found
The paradigm shift in ANCA-Associated vasculitis: Prime time for the complement targeting
No full textEditorial: “Toward Precision Medicine in Vasculitis”
No full textEditorial: "Toward Precision Medicine in
Vasculitis
The place of cyclical therapy for the treatment of membranous nephropathy in the era of rituximab
No full textPrimary membranous nephropathy (MN) is the most frequent cause of nephrotic syndrome in adults, due to a variety of autoantibodies, most frequently against phospholipase A2 receptor (PLA2R). In severe cases or when spontaneous remission is not achieved, immunosuppression is required. Cyclical therapy, based on glucocorticoids and cyclophosphamide on alternate months for 6 months, has proven effective to induce remission and reduce the risk of end-stage renal disease. Since the early 2000s, rituximab (RTX) has emerged as a key player in the management of MN, showing overall comparable effectiveness and likely better safety compared with the cyclical regimen, despite the lack of adequately powered trials comparing the two approaches head to head. For these reasons, RTX is now considered the agent of choice for most patients with MN. However, there are still uncertainties. Around 20-40% of patients are resistant to RTX, especially in the setting of high anti-PLA2R levels, and this drug remains relatively unexplored in patients with the most severe disease. In these scenarios, although the expanding therapeutic armamentarium is probably going to provide further options, the cyclical regimen still plays a key role as a safety net. The aim of this article is to illustrate the role of cyclical therapy in the RTX era
Prevention of arterial thrombosis recurrence in anti-phospholipid syndrome: are anti-platelets the answer?
No full text
Failure of mebendazole in the treatment of humans with Trichinella spiralis infection at the stage of encapsulating larvae
No full text
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
