Should Nano-Particles be Weighed or Counted? Technical Considerations to In Vitro Testing Originated from Corpuscular Nature of Nano-Particles
AbstractThe abundance of nanoparticles introduced to household products created the great expectations towards the application of nanotechnology in biology and medicine. That calls for cost-effective preliminary assessment of its cytotoxicity and biological activity. There are many attempts for creating proper guidance and standards for performing studies regarding nanoparticles. But still some important aspects crucial for in vitro testing of nanomaterials need more attention. Particulate nature is an obvious and widely unappreciated property of nanoparticles. In the context of in vitro studies, this property is critical, and it should be, but rarely is, considered when designing, performing, describing or interpreting the experiments involving the solid nanoparticles. First, we should be aware of relatively small and limited number of nanoparticles in the experimental setup. Even crude estimation of its number will be useful for proper interpretation of results. Second, we should not presume even distribution of particles in the solution, moreover we should expect that sedimentation and aggregation play an important role in interactions of nanoparticles with cells. In that case, expressing the dose in mass/volume units may lead as astray. Finally, the relation of size, weight, and number of nanoparticles makes comparisons of activity of nanoparticles of different sizes very complex. Estimations of number of nanoparticles in the dose should be an integral part of experiment ...
Prevalences, nuances of presentation, and likely clinical course of myocarditis after use of some vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 are in sharper view after additions to the literature this week.Medscape Medical News
Immune checkpoint inhibitors can be effective in patients with non-small cell lung cancer and mild interstitial lung disease, but with a greater risk.Medscape Medical News
The acquisition adds non-medical, in-home care to Arkansas Hospice's services.
In the article “New treatments for chronic urticaria” by P Kolkhir et al (Ann Allergy Asthma Immunl 2020:124(1): 2-12), the following text has been removed. The article has been corrected online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2019.08.014.
Technology is one of those items with which all clinicians (probably everyone) seem to have a love-hate relationship. The electronic medical record has made documenting and billing patient encounters much easier, yet at the same time, it seems to have erected a barrier between the patient and provider. Along with the growth of the electronic health record has been an explosion in the use of handheld devices and health-related applications (apps). These apps allow for more engagement and involvement with patients, including health monitoring by providers.
We thank the respondents to our article1 for their insightful comments. Although we have matched subjects in both cohorts by age, sex, comorbidities, and index date, Lin et al2 indicate a lack of adjustment for co-medication status, including the use of corticosteroids and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), in the propensity score. We agree that these medications are important confounders on fracture. We therefore had conducted multivariate analysis in t he published article by adjustment for corticosteroids, DMARDs, and phototherapy.
We read with great interest the article by Lin et al1 reporting the association of incidental fractures in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). We appreciate the authors who collected data from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database and conducted a great cohort study. Nevertheless, we highlight some key points.