PPy@α-Al2O3 and PPy@CeO2 nanocomposites were synthesized free of acids by in situ polymerization and characterized by X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy, differential scanning calorimetry and DC electrical conductivity measurements. X-ray diffraction pattern of Polypyrrole revealed a semi crystalline structure. The Le Bail method was performed using the X-ray diffraction pattern of polypyrrole and allowed the proposition of the unit cell parameters (P21/c, a = 9.0173 Å, b = 7.1641 Å, c = 6.4184 Å, α = 90°, β = 117.7°, γ = 90°), which is composed by a dimeric molecule disposed along the [001] direction. A cauliflower-like morphology was observed in polypyrrole, which consists of incomplete spheres forming nanoparticle clusters. Core-shell morphology was verified in the nanocomposites consisting of a thin layer of polymer reinforcement disposed over the metal oxides matrices. Differential scanning calorimetry measurements allowed verifying the hydrophobic behavior of the inorganic phase, promoting the repulsion of the internal water molecules out from the polymer phase. Then the initial decomposition temperature of the nanocomposites has become smaller. The polypyrrole electrical conductivity is lower than the nanocomposites and may be related with the absence of hydration water in nanocomposites and also to the surface conductivity due to the thin polymer layer. PPy@α-Al2O3 and PPy@CeO2 nanocomposites presented DC electrical conductivity 80% higher when compared to the as-synthesized polypyrrole. Thus, the aim of this paper was to characterize structural and morphologically the pure polypyrrole as well as the PPy@α-Al2O3 and PPy@CeO2 nanocomposites and correlate these results with the DC electrical conductivity measurements.

No abstract

A837was tolerability related to the number of withdrawals patients in each study, due to the presence of adverse events or treatment failure. The analyses were performed using software Addis (v.1.16.5) and RevMan (5.1). Results: A total of 979 documents were initially identified and 11 of them met the selection criteria to meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed between the number of withdrawals patients due adverse events in any meta-analysis of control versus intervention. The odds ratio ranged from 0.68 (CI 032-1.45) to placebo versus asenapine, 1.37 (CI 0.29-1.33) to placebo versus iloperidone and 0,71 (CI 0,36-1,41) to placebo versus lurasidone. However, all drugs were superior to their respective controls for the outcome of number of withdrawals by treatment failure, with odds ratio between 1.70 (CI 1.21-2.39) and 2.36 (CI 1.36-4.07). These results suggest that there is a higher effectiveness among patients for the treatment intervention that should be evaluated through clinical responses. Heterogeneity between studies (evaluated by I2 values) were low or moderate, not superior than 39,5% in any meta-analysis. ConClusions: Information and knowledge reunion and confrontation on the tolerability profile of a particular drug allows safer decisions over the therapeutic approach, focused on patient's interest which directly reflects on treatment follow-through and therapy effectiveness. In this study, we report evidence on asenapine, iloperidone and lurasidone greater tolerability profile compared to placebo in schizophrenia treatment.

No abstract