Knightself2506

There is considerable scope for strengthening gender mainstreaming within UN Agencies by reviewing and learning from UN system successes. In addition to learning from practice, the way forward lies in making visible and developing strategies to challenge embedded patriarchal organisational norms and systems.

In the absence of head-to-head comparisons, the objective of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis (NMA) to indirectly compare the relative efficacy and safety of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan for the acute treatment of migraine.

A systematic literature review was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rimegepant, ubrogepant, and lasmiditan in adults with acute migraine. Outcomes included sustained pain freedom and -relief 2-48hours post-dose, and adverse events. Androgen Receptor signaling pathway Antagonists No RCTs were identified that directly compared these interventions. Therefore, a fixed-effects Bayesian NMA was conducted by identifying a connected (via comparison to placebo) network of RCTs.

Five RCTs were identified as follows rimegepant study 303 (n=1,466), ubrogepant ACHIEVE I and II (n=1,672 and n =1,686, respectively), and lasmiditan SAMURAI and SPARTAN (n=2,231 and n =3,005, respectively). Efficacy outcomes (pain freedom and relief at 2, 24, 48hours) tended to be highest for lasmiditan 200 mg and rimegepant followed lower doses of lasmiditan and all doses of ubrogepant. However, lasmiditan 200 mg was also associated with higher rates of adverse events, particularly somnolence and dizziness.

Lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant all performed significantly better than placebo with respect to pain freedom and pain relief. Efficacy results were similar for rimegepant and lasmiditan with rimegepant having higher rates of pain freedom and relief than lower doses of lasmiditan, while somnolence and dizziness outcomes were lower for rimegepant than higher doses of lasmiditan.

Lasmiditan, rimegepant, and ubrogepant all performed significantly better than placebo with respect to pain freedom and pain relief. Efficacy results were similar for rimegepant and lasmiditan with rimegepant having higher rates of pain freedom and relief than lower doses of lasmiditan, while somnolence and dizziness outcomes were lower for rimegepant than higher doses of lasmiditan.

Local thermal ablation, a minimally invasive technique, has been widely used in clinical treatment of lung cancer. This study aimed to discuss the clinical efficacy of systemic chemotherapy combined with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) versus systemic chemotherapy combined with microwave ablation (MWA) in treating lung cancer.

A retrospective analysis involving 124 lung cancer patients, who received RFA (

 = 68) and MWA (

 = 56) combined with systemic chemotherapy in Cangzhou People's Hospital from August 2017 to December 2019, was conducted. Before comparative analysis for therapeutic efficacy, the two groups of patients were matched with propensity score matching method at a ratio of 11. Indicators including progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), short-term efficacy, tumor marker level, local tumor control rate, and postoperative complications were comparatively analyzed.

There was no statistical difference in disease control rate and objective response rate (90.6% and 78.1% vs 93.8% and 84.4%) between RFA group and MWA group. The incidence of complications was 12.5% in RFA group and 18.8% in MWA group with no statistically significant difference. In addition, the local tumor control rate in MWA group (90.6%) was significantly higher than that in RFA group (78.1%). Regarding survival, a statistically significant difference was observed in median PFS of RFA and MWA groups (9.2 months vs 10.4 months,

 < 0.05), while OS in two groups slightly varied.

MWA was superior to RFA over local tumor control rate and PFS and showed great potential in lung cancer ablation treatment.

MWA was superior to RFA over local tumor control rate and PFS and showed great potential in lung cancer ablation treatment.

To investigate the relationship between preoperative proteinuria and postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI).

We performed a search on databases included PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, from December 2009 to September 2020. Data extracted from eligible studies were synthesized to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). A fixed or random effects model was applied to calculate the pooled OR based on heterogeneity through the included studies.

This meta-analysis of 11 observational studies included 203,987 participants, of whom 21,621 patients suffered from postoperative AKI and 182,366 patients did not suffer from postoperative AKI. The combined results demonstrated that preoperative proteinuria is an independent risk factor for postoperative AKI (adjusted OR = 1.65, 95%CI1.44-1.89,

 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that both preoperative mild proteinuria (adjusted OR = 1.30, 95%CI1.24-1.36,

 < 0.001) and preoperative heavy proteinuria (adjusted OR = 1.93, 95%CI1.65-2.27,

 < 0.001) were independent risk factors for postoperative AKI. The heterogeneity was combined because its values were lower. Further subgroup analysis found that preoperative proteinuria measured using dipstick was an independent risk factor for postoperative AKI (adjusted OR = 1.48, 95%CI1.37-1.60,

 0.001). Finally, preoperative proteinuria was an independent risk factor for postoperative AKI in the non-cardiac surgery group (adjusted OR = 2.06, 95%CI1.31-3.24,

 = 0.002) and cardiac surgery group (adjusted OR = 1.69, 95%CI1.39-2.06,

 0.001).

Preoperative proteinuria is an independent risk factor for postoperative AKI and in instances when proteinuria is detected using dipsticks.

Preoperative proteinuria is an independent risk factor for postoperative AKI and in instances when proteinuria is detected using dipsticks.Diet is an important contributor to human health and public health bodies are issuing guidelines aimed at favouring healthy food choices. The aim of our paper is to discuss the aspects underlying the concept of nutrient profiles, that is, defining levels of energy, some macronutrients, or salt which should not be exceeded in individual foods, according to the available evidence, to help in understanding to what extent such approach may actually be useful for improving nutrition and quality of life of European consumers. We list several pitfalls and oversimplifications of the current approaches to nutrient profiling and of the dichotomic classification of foods into "healthy" and "unhealthy" products. In view of the current "Facilitating healthier food choices - establishing nutrient profiles" EU initiative, we believe that further debate among all stakeholders is warranted and must consider all the limitations outlined in this paper.