323,327 research outputs found
Callorhynchocotyle marplatensis Suriano & Incorvaia 1982
No full textCallorhynchocotyle marplatensis Suriano & Incorvaia, 1982 (Figs 5, 6, Tables 1, 2) Synonyms: Callorhynchocotyle callorhynchi Suriano & Incorvaia, 1989; Callorhinchocotyle callorhynci Suriano & Incorvaia, 1989. Type host. Callorhinchus callorhynchus (Linnaeus) (Callorhynchidae, Holocephali). Type locality. Mar Del Plata coastal region, Argentina, South America (38 °S; 57 °W). Additional locality. Uruguay coastal region, South America (Boeger et al. 1989). Site on host. Gills. Material examined. USNPC 080279.00: vouchers M 1496 -1, 6, 7 and 10. Redescription. Total body (Fig. 5 A) length (excluding haptor) 9750 ± 1021.4 (8300–10600, n = 4), maximum body width 917 ± 171.6 (683–1095, n = 4). Oral sucker (Fig. 5 A) non-papillate, diameter 335 ± 36.5 (290–365, n = 4). Pharynx 75 ± 5.8 (67–81, n = 4) long, 79 ± 5.3 (72–84, n = 4) wide (Fig. 5 A). Branched intestinal caeca unite posterior to testes and extend into haptor (Fig. 5 A). Asymmetrical haptor 2930 ± 995.7 (1933–3920, n = 4) long, 1225 ± 646.5 (277–1640, n = 4) wide with 3 paired sucker sclerite complexes sensu Boeger et al. (1989). Haptoral suckers non-papillate. Sucker sclerites of complex 3 (Fig. 6 A): circumference length 1197 ± 42.9 (1149–1249, n = 4); total length 535 ± 27.2 (503–562, n = 4); total diameter 336 ± 17.0(314–355, n = 4); width 69 ± 6.5 (60–76, n = 4); shaft length 506 ± 21.6 (480–528, n = 4); inner diameter 269 ± 11.1 (255–280, n = 4); aperture angle 56 ° ± 4.5 (50 °– 61 °, n = 4); aperture 302 ± 25.8 (278–332, n = 4); hook-side curve length 116 ± 3.3 (113–120, n = 4) and shaft-side curve length 134 ± 6.3 (123–141, n = 4). Complex 3 sucker-sclerite hook length 172 ± 5.3 (168–180, n = 4); hook curve length 30 ± 7.7 (23–41, n = 4); aperture 138 ± 3.7 (134–142, n = 4) and base width 46 ± 5.0(41–53, n = 4). Sucker sclerites of complex 2 (Fig. 6 B): circumference length 1244 ± 43.9 (1206–1306, n = 4); total length 541 ± 22.7 (511–566, n = 4); total diameter 344 ± 22.8 (320–374, n = 4); width 66 ± 8.2 (59–78, n = 4); shaft length 523 ± 26.0(498–559, n = 4); inner diameter 280 ± 14.0(265–299, n = 4); aperture angle 54 ° ± 2.5 (51 °– 57 °, n = 4); aperture 303 ± 19.0(278–381, n = 4); hook-side curve length 105 ± 9.5 (99–119, n = 4) and shaft-side curve length 140 ± 5.5 (135–147, n = 4). Complex 2 sucker-sclerite hook length 153 ± 12.0(145–171, n = 4); hook curve length 30 ± 3.3 (28–35, n = 4); aperture 121 ± 9.9 (110–134, n = 4) and base width 38 ± 3.5 (35–43, n = 4). Sucker sclerites of complex 1 (Fig. 6 C) smaller than similarly sized sucker sclerites of complex 2 and 3 with circumference length 922 ± 30.7 (896–966, n = 4); total length 418 ± 11.6 (401–423, n = 4); total diameter 262 ± 20.1 (233–280, n = 4); width 42 ± 5.3 (35–47, n = 4); shaft length 420 ± 9.2 (408–427, n = 4); inner diameter 222 ± 15.3 (199–232, n = 4); aperture 270 ± 18.7 (256–297, n = 4); hook-side curve length 68 ± 4.0(64–72, n = 4) and shaft-side curve length 101 ± 14.0(88–114, n = 4). Complex 1 sucker-sclerite hook length 59 ± 4.4 (54–64, n = 4); hook curve length 15 ± 1.1 (13–16, n = 4); aperture 47 ± 5.3 (40–53, n = 4) and base-width 16 ± 0.8 (15–17, n = 4). Dorsal haptoral appendix 1655 ± 124.7 (1514–1773, n = 4) long, 286 ± 48.4 (223–337, n = 4) wide. Terminal suckers of appendix 232 ± 28.4 (193–264, n = 6) long, 141 ± 20.0(120–167, n = 6) wide. Pair of hamuli between appendix terminal suckers (Fig 5 A). Hamulus (Fig. 5 B) total length 58 ± 3.3 (56–61, n = 2); hook point length 14 ± 0.3, n = 2; hook shank length 17 ± 0.1, n = 2; total diameter 26 ± 2.0(25–28, n = 2); hook distal point width 4 ± 0.2, n = 2; outer aperture angle 17 ° ± 0.1 (n = 2); inner aperture angle 67 ° ± 18.2 (54 °– 80 °, n = 2); aperture 88 ± 19.6 (74–102, n = 2); hook shank base width 6 ± 0.6, n = 2; inner root-shaft length 45 ± 1.7 (44–46, n = 2); outer root-shaft length 41 ± 3.9 (38–44, n = 2); root base angle 105 ° ± 4.4 (102 °– 108 °, n = 2), and root base width 23 ± 0.9 (23–24, n = 2). Testes irregular in shape, 83 ± 18.6 (65–107, n = 4) in number; 95 ± 9.1 (83–109, n = 10) wide. Vas deferens sinuous, surrounded by small gland cells along the majority of its length (Fig. 5 B). Presence of vas deferens loop proximal to entrance into cirrus (Fig. 5 B) obscured in some specimens. Unarmed muscular cirrus total length 410 ± 29.6 (374–447, n = 4); maximum width 38 ± 4.0(34–44, n = 4); distal bulb length 67 ± 2.6 (65–70, n = 4), and distal bulb width 62 ± 3.0(58–66, n = 4). Area of ventral tegument surrounding distal portion of cirrus, weakly indented (Fig. 5 B). Ovary (dextral = 2, sinistral = 2) 1422 ± 141.9 (1265–1530, n = 4) long, anteriorly lobate, coiled posteriorly, ascending to oviduct, branching to sac-like, reduced seminal receptacle (Fig. 5 C). Ootype smooth, leading to uterus, dorsal to ovary, ventral to vas deferens (Fig. 5 C). Ovate eggs connected by tendrils at each pole (Fig. 5 B). Eggs (in uterus) 154 ± 5.2 (146–165, n = 13) long, 67 ± 7.5 (57–83, n = 13) wide. Parallel vaginal ducts with glandulo-muscular distal portion and thin-walled proximal portion (Fig. 5 B). Ventral vaginal pores muscular, lateral to proximal portion of cirrus (Fig. 5 B). Follicular vitellarium originates posterior to vaginal pores. Excretory pores marginal and anterior to vaginal pores (Fig. 5 B). Remarks. A discrepancy exists in the total length measurements between all sucker sclerites of Suriano & Incorvaia (1982), those of Boeger et al. (1989) and the present study. It is unclear how the total length measurements of the sucker sclerites were measured in Suriano & Incorvaia (1982). However, it is likely these measurements are erroneous as they are more than twice the length of those for Boeger et al. (1989) who reviewed the holotype, and nearly twice the length of those measured in the present study. The scale bar given for sucker sclerites of C. marplatensis by Suriano & Incorvaia is 0.05mm (50 µm). The scale bar is drawn to equate to sucker complex sclerite length but is inaccurate. It is likely that the sucker complex sclerite measurements of Suriano & Incorvaia (1982) were miscalculated. Boeger et al. (1989) redescribed C. marplatensis adding additional voucher material collected off Uruguay and Argentina from the type host Callorhinchus callorhynchus. They amended the original description of Suriano & Incorvaia (1982) to include the presence of a “weak genital sucker” and the lack of papillae in both the oral and haptoral suckers. Beverley-Burton & Chisholm (1990) disputed the existence of this genital sucker after examination of the same voucher material used for the present redescription (USNPC 080279.00) adding that since it was lacking this feature was questionable as a diagnostic character. In the present study, examination of voucher M 1496 - 10 revealed the presence of the “weak genital sucker” of Boeger et al. (1989). However, its function as a true sucker is questionable. The structure surrounds the position of the distal portion of the cirrus and is likely a weak indentation of the ventral tegument in this region (Fig. 5 A, B). Suriano & Incorvaia (1982) indicated the presence of many small cuticular tubercles (papillae) on the inner surface of the oral sucker in the original description of C. marplatensis. Boeger et al. (1989) redescribed C. marplatensis with a non-papillate oral sucker which is confirmed in the voucher specimens examined for the present study. Callorhynchocotyle marplatensis can be distinguished from all of the other species of Callorhynchocotyle by the lack of papillae in the haptoral suckers and oral sucker and is found exclusively on the host Callorhinchus callorhynchus. Boeger et al. (1989) in their redescription of C. marplatensis included the synonyms C. callorhynchi and C. callorhyncy. Both synonyms were discussed in error in the original description of Suriano & Incorvaia (1989).Published as part of Vaughan, David & Christison, Kevin, 2012, Towards addressing the current state of confusion within the Hexabothriidae Price, 1942 (1908): Callorhynchocotyle Suriano & Incorvaia, 1982 (Monogenea: Hexabothriidae) re-visited, with the preliminary evaluation of novel parameters for measuring haptoral armature of hexabothriids, pp. 1-34 in Zootaxa 3229 on pages 15-18, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.28032
S-Adenosylmethionine supplementation may reduce cancer-related fatigue. A prospective evaluation using the FACIT-F questionnaire in colon cancer patients undergoing oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy regimens
No full textBackground: Fatigue is a common distressing symptom for patients living with chronic or acute diseases, including liver disorders and cancer (Cancer-Related Fatigue, CRF). Its etiology is multifactorial, and some hypotheses regarding the pathogenesis are summarized, with possible shared mechanisms both in cancer and in chronic liver diseases. A deal of work has investigated the role of a multifunctional molecule in improving symptoms and outcomes in different liver dysfunctions and associated symptoms, including chronic fatigue: S-adenosylmethionine (SAM; AdoMet). The aim of this work is actually to consider its role also in oncologic settings. Patients and Methods: Between January 2006 and December 2009, at the University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, 145 patients affected by colorectal cancer in adjuvant (n = 91) or metastatic (n = 54; n = 40 with liver metastases) setting and treated with oxaliplatin-based regimen (FOLFOX for adjuvant and bevacizumab + XELOX for metastatic ones), 76 of which with the supplementation of S-adenosylmethionine (AdoMet; 400 mg b.i.d.) (57% of adjuvant patients and 44% of metastatic ones) and 69 without AdoMet supplementation, were evaluated for fatigue prevalence using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illnesses Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) questionnaire, at 3 and 6 months after the beginning of oncologic treatment. Notably, the number of patients with liver metastases was well balanced between the group of patients treated with AdoMet and those who were not. Results: Among patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, both in adjuvant and in metastatic settings, after just 3 months from the beginning of chemotherapy, mean scores from questionnaire domains like FACIT-F subscale (7.9 vs. 3.1, p = 0.006), FACIT physical (6.25 vs. 3.32, p = 0.020), FACIT emotional (4.65 vs. 2.19, p = 0.045), and FACIT-F total score (16.5 vs. 8.27, p = 0.021) were higher in those receiving supplementation of AdoMet, resulting in reduced fatigue; a significant difference was maintained even after 6 months of treatment. Discussion and Conclusions: Mechanisms and strategies for managing CRF are not fully understood. This work aimed at investigating the possible role of S-adenosylmethionine supplementation in improving fatigue scores in a specific setting of cancer patients, using a FACIT-F questionnaire, a well-validated quality of life instrument widely used for the assessment of CRF in clinical trials
About the effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on lung function in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
No full textAbstractDetecting an improvement of lung function in a patient with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) following pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) may appear unexpected, but actually recent studies showed that is not so rare. In fact, in a prospective study comparing a group of 190 COPD patients undergoing PR to a group of 67 patients treated only with drugs a mean improvement of FEV1 from 1240 mL to 1252.4 mL was found in the former, while the values changed from 1367 mL to 1150 mL in the latter (p < 0.001). Such improvement was detected also in a study in patients with very severe COPD, as assessed by a FEV1 increasing from 970 mL at baseline to 1080 mL after a 3-week PR inpatient program (p < 0.001). These observations suggest that improvement of lung function in COPD patients undergoing PR should be included among the expected outcomes and routinely assessed as an index of clinical success during the treatment
The molecular tumor board: a tool for the governance of precision oncology in the real world
No full textClinical oncology is going through a period of profound change. Targeted therapy, and more recently immunotherapy, have revolutionized the natural history and outcomes of many solid tumors. Clinical oncology is now indissoluble from molecular oncology, a rapidly evolving field. This profound transformation is the rationale for molecular tumor board (MTB) implementation. MTBs represent a resource for the development of precision oncology and clinical practice implementation is a complex and important challenge for the future of clinical and molecular oncology. Economic sustainability of genomic tests, access to drugs or clinical trials according to the MTB recommendation, and expanded use of existing anticancer drugs are required for MTBs to become a useful tool for the governance of precision oncology in the real world. This is an ongoing process, with establishment of MTBs the first step. Continuing to work in collaboration with scientific societies, MTBs are poised to become a homogeneous and well-structured reality that can make the care pathway of the patient with cancer more efficient, with the ultimate goal to offer personalized therapy based on the most advanced scientific knowledge
Kroeyerina sudamericana Irigoitia, Cantatore, Incorvaia & Timi, 2016, sp. nov.
No full textKroeyerina sudamericana sp. nov. (Figs. 1–47) Type host. Spotback skate Atlantoraja castelnaui (Rajiformes: Arhynchobatidae). Other hosts. Smallnose fanskate Sympterygia bonapartii, bignose fanskate Sympterygia acuta and zipper sand skate Psammobatis extenta (Rajiformes: Arhynchobatidae). Attachment site. Olfactory sacs. Type locality. Waters off Buenos Aires province, Argentina (34°–41°S; 53°–62°W). Material examined. 17 females and six males from A. castelnaui (collected November 2011 and November 2013), 14 females and two males from S. bonapartii (collected from 2010 to 2013), 12 females and eight males from S. acuta (Collected November 2014) and one female from P. ex t en t a (collected November 2014). Type material. Holotype MLP-Cr 26.980 (female), host: A. castelnaui. Allotype MLP-Cr 26.981 (male), host: A. castelnaui. Paratypes MLP-Cr 26.982 (five females and two males from A. castelnaui). Voucher specimens (two females and two males from S. bonapartii MLP-Cr 26.983; two females and two males from S. acuta MLP-Cr 26.984). All specimens are deposited in the Carcinological Collection of the Museo de La Plata (CCMLP), La Plata, Argentina. Prevalence. Atlantoraja castelnaui = 28.6% (CL = 13.3–50.6), Sympterygia bonapartii = 7.5% (CL = 3.9– 12.8), S. acuta 18.2% (CL = 3.3–50). Mean intensity (range). Atlantoraja castelnaui = 4.8 ± 5.6 (1–15), Sympterygia bonapartii = 1.7 ± 1.2 (1–5), S. acuta = 10 ± 11.3 (2–18). Etymology. The specific name refers to the subcontinent where the parasites were found, alluding to the first record of the genus Kroeyerina for South America. Description of female. (Figs. 1–15, 32–39; measurements based on 15 specimens). Overall length in dorsal view 3797 ± 568 µm (2500–4,420 µm). Cephalothorax 583 ± 50 µm (490–650 µm) long and 612 ± 85 µm (420– 700 µm) wide. Cephalothoracic sutures (Fig. 1) arising anterolaterally, uniting posteromedially. Three free thoracic somites with overlapping terga, decreasing in width posteriorly. Genital complex cylindrical (Figs. 1, 2), 1915 ± 391 µm (1020–2420 µm) long, 531 ± 120 µm (380–750 µm) wide, comprising approximately 50% of total body length, with lateral rows of spinules along entire length. Fifth leg (Figs. 4, 35) located near posterior third of genital complex. Abdomen (Figs. 1, 2) 477 ± 61 µm (320–540 µm) long, indistinctly 3-segmented, first somite with pair of ventral setules, third somite with membranes on ventral distal margin, all somites with patches of spinules on ventral surface. Caudal ramus (Figs. 3, 33, 34) about three times as long as wide, 195 ± 55 µm (90–250 µm) long, fringed with setules on medial margin and bearing membranes on distal margin of ventral side and six setae as follows: three distal setae, lateral one naked, short and curved, others long and pinnate; two ventral pinnate distolateral setae and one dorsal pinnate distomedial seta. Antennule (Fig. 5) 7-segmented, armature (base to apex) as follows: 11, 5, 2, 3, 1, 1, 12 + 1 aesthetasc. Ventral surface between bases of antennules bearing two small rostral lobes (Figs. 6, 36) with lateral setule; an additional pair of setules located on dorsal shield near bases of the antennules. Antenna (Fig. 7) robust, chelate, 4-segmented; third segment expanded distally into narrow arm with terminal receptacle to receive tip of fourth segment; fourth segment forming thickset claw. Postantennary process papilliform, lateral to bases of mouthparts. Mouth tube (Fig. 37) siphonostomatoid; labrum with two setules, slightly anterior to curved transverse fringe of spinules; two lateral patches of spinules separated by scattered smaller spinules and patch of setules; apical border fringed; labium with two lateral rows of setules and fringing apical border. Mandible (Fig. 8) siphonostomatoid, with eight equal teeth on blade. Maxillule (Figs. 9, 37) biramous, composed of broad base and two lobes; outer lobe with two short setae, inner lobe ending in two longer pinnate setae. Maxilla (Figs. 10, 38) brachiform, lacertus robust, distal half of brachium with depression on medial border, distomedial patch of spinules and two distodorsal rows of setules (not easily visible on ventral view), distal process bearing recurved spine. Calamus scoop-like, bearing two medial and two dorsal serrated membranes. Maxilliped (Figs. 11, 39) subchelate, four-segmented, corpus unarmed and subchela with small spine. Legs 1–4 (Figs. 12–15), coxa 1 fringed with two distal membranes on ventral side, coxae 2–3 fringed with distolateral membrane. Basis 1 with lateral pinnate setae, two medial setae, larger pinnate and smaller naked and two distal membranes. Basis 2 with lateral pinnate setae and two distal membranes. Basis 3 with lateral pinnate setae and medial membrane. Basis 4 with lateral naked seta and medial membrane. All exopodal segments of legs 1–4 with lateral membrane. All endopodal segments of legs 1–4 with lateral membrane and dorsolateral row of setules. Armature formula of legs 1–4 as follows (spines in Roman numerals; setae in Arabic numerals): exopod endopod Larger spines on third exopodal segment with lateral membranes in all legs, those of legs 2–3 also hemipinnate. Leg 5 vestigial, each ramus with pair of setae. Description of male. (Figs. 16–31, 40–47; measurements based on six specimens). Overall length in dorsal view 2467 ± 178 µm (2160–2660 µm). Cephalothorax 447 ± 28 µm (400–480 µm) long and 447 ± 43 µm (380–500 µm) wide. Cephalothoracic sutures (Fig. 16) arising anterolaterally, uniting posteromedially. Three free thoracic somites with overlapping terga, decreasing in width posteriorly. Genital complex (Figs. 16, 17) cylindrical, 670 ± 113 µm (500–800 µm) long, 258 ± 16 µm (240–280 µm) wide, comprising approximately 27% of total body length, with lateral rows of spinules (Fig. 43) along entire length. Fifth leg (Fig. 19) located laterally at middle of genital complex, with four spiniform setae. Sixth leg (Fig. 20) vestigial, consisting of protuberance with two spiniform setae, located laterally near posterior margin of genital complex. Abdomen (Figs. 16, 17, 40) 588 ± 73 µm (460– 660 µm) long, 3-segmented, first two somites with slight constriction at anterior third, third somite with membranes near junction with caudal rami with patches of spinules on ventral surface. Caudal ramus (Figs. 18, 41, 42) as in female, but four times as long as wide, 217 ± 48 µm (140–260 µm) long and with all setae pinnate. Antennule (Fig. 21) 7-segmented, armature (base to apex) as follows: 11, 5, 2, 5, 2, 1, 12 + 1 aesthetasc. Rostral lobes (Figs. 22, 44), rest of cephalic appendages (Figs. 23–26, 45, 46), maxilliped (Figs. 27, 47) and general morphology of legs 1–4 (Figs. 28–31) as in female. Remarks. In his phylogenetic analysis of Kroeyerina, Deets (1987) identified two clades presenting differences in the morphology of the rostral lobes (Benz et al. 2001). One clade, with upturned rostral processes, infects sharks and the other composed of only three species, with reduced lobes, is parasitic on rays. More recently Benz et al. (2001) described a new species, Kroeyerina deetsorum Benz, Smith & Bullard, 2001, parasitic on the shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae (Richardson, 1837) from the Mississippi Delta (Texas, USA). This parasite of sharks, however, does not possess rostral lobes or upturned projections. This characteristic was considered as a possible secondary loss due to the diminutive size (body length 1.2 mm) of K. deetsorum (Benz et al. 2001); these both features clearly differentiate it from the new species. In the possession of reduced rostral lobes, the new species is similar to congeners forming the second clade proposed by Deets (1987), namely Kroeyerina nasuta Wilson, 1932, a parasite of Dasybatus marinus Garman, 1913 (= Dasyatis centroura (Mitchill, 1815)) from the western North Atlantic (Woods Hole, USA) (Wilson 1932), Kroeyerina deborahae Deets, 1987 parasitic on Rhinobatos productus Ayres, 1854 from the eastern North Pacific (Palos Verdes, California) and Kroeyerina mobulae Deets, 1987, a parasite of Mobula lucasana Beebe & Tee-Van, 1938 (= Mobula thurstoni (Lloyd, 1908)) and Mobula japanica (Müller & Henle, 1841) from the eastern North Pacific (Sea of Cortez) (Deets 1987). Both males and females of the new species are readily distinguished from K. mobulae, which possesses a maxilliped with a more robust subchela and has extremely reduced setae on the caudal rami. Kroeyerina deborahae differs from the new species in having a caudal ramus with all setae naked; an almost straight subchela on the maxilliped, a smaller number of elements on the antennule and a proportionally shorter genital complex (45% of total body length). Kroeyerina nasuta has a caudal ramus similar to the new species, but can be distinguished from it by possessing a different armature of the antennule and a proportionally larger genital complex (57% of total body length). Additionally, in both K. deborahae and K. nasuta, the chela of the antenna which, when closed, leaves no gap between the corpus and the claw. The claw bears stout spines (Deets 1987). The males of K. deborahae and K. nasuta are unknown. Based on these differences a new species, Kroeyerina sudamericana sp. nov., is proposed. This new species represents the first record of Kroeyerina parasitizing members of the Arhynchobatidae (Rajiformes). It is noteworthy that the hosts of K. nasuta and K. mobulae belong to the order Myliobatiformes, and although the host of K. deborahae belongs to the Rajiformes, it is a guitarfish of the family Rhynobatidae.Published as part of Irigoitia, Manuel M., Cantatore, Delfina M. P., Incorvaia, Inés S. & Timi, Juan T., 2016, Parasitic copepods infesting the olfactory sacs of skates from the southwestern Atlantic with the description of a new species of Kroeyerina Wilson, 1932, pp. 137-152 in Zootaxa 4174 (1) on pages 139-147, DOI: 10.11646/zootaxa.4174.1.10, http://zenodo.org/record/16003
First record of Unibarra paranoplatensis Suriano & Incorvaia, 1995 (Dactylogyridae: Monogenea) on Sorubim lima (Siluriformes: Pimelodidae) from Brazil.
No full textThe aim of this study was to report the first occurrence of Unibarra paranoplatensis Suriano & Incorvaia, 1995 on Sorubim lima Bloch & Schneider, 1801 from Brazil. On the gills of S. lima, U. paranoplatensis presented similar morphological and morphometric features to those described for conspecifics infesting Zungaro zungaro Humboldt, 1921 except the length, which was higher in the present study, as well as ventral bar shape that was V-shaped open, and with the upper and lower end of the rod relatively sinuous. This study expands the geographic distribution of U.paranoplatensis to Brazil, a parasite that has a wide occurrence across South America.Short Communications
New scientific synergies to manage patients with severe rhinitis: allergy diagnosis and treatment for ENT specialists
No full textAllergic rhinitis (AR) is a global health problem because of its steadily increasing incidence and prevalence that currently concerns about 30% of the worlds population. Although AR is not a disease that reduces the life expectancy, it is a disorder with a major impact on the quality of life of patients, resulting from an impaired social life, school performance and work productivity. Furthermore, AR produces significant costs for its treatment
- …
