No abstract

No abstract

B-cell acute lymphoblastic lymphoma (B-ALL) is a disease found mainly in children and in young adults. BALL is characterized by the rapid proliferation of poorly differentiated lymphoid progenitor cells inside the bone marrow. In the United States, ~4,000 of these patients are diagnosed each year, accounting for ~30% of childhood cancer types. The tumorigenesis of the disease involves a number of abnormal gene expressions (including TEL-AML1, BCR-ABL-1, RAS and PI3K) leading to dysregulated cell cycle. Risk factors of BALL are the history of parvovirus B 19 infection, high birth weight and exposure to environmental toxins. These risk factors can induce abnormal DNA methylation and DNA damages. Treatment procedures are divided into three phases: Induction, consolidation and maintenance. The goal of treatment is complete remission without relapses. Apart from traditional treatments, newly developed approaches include gene targeting therapy, with the aim of wiping out leukemic cells through the inhibition of mitogen-activated protein kinases and via c-Myb inhibition enhancing sensitivity to chemotherapy. To evaluate the efficacy of ongoing treatments, several indicators are currently used. The indicators include the expression levels of microRNAs (miRs) miR-146a, miR-155, miR-181a and miR-195, and soluble interleukin 2 receptor. Multiple drug resistance and levels of glutathione reductase can affect treatment efficacy through the increased efflux of anti-cancer drugs and weakening the effect of chemotherapy through the reduction of intracellular reactive oxygen species. The present review appraised recent studies on BALL regarding its pathogenesis, risk factors, treatments, treatment evaluation and causes of disease relapse. Understanding the mechanisms of BALL initiation and causes of treatment failure can help physicians improve disease management and reduce relapses.

No abstract

We aimed to explore the efficacy of hypertonic saline nasal irritation (HSNI) for improving nasal symptoms and quality of life, and for decreasing oral antihistamine consumption in children with allergic rhinitis (AR). We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Chinese Electronic Periodicals Service, and Cochrane Library of Controlled Trials databases for prospective randomized, controlled trials assessing HSNI effects in children with AR and published before December 2017. Two authors independently assessed each trial’s quality and extracted data for a meta-analysis. We included four trails comprising 351 patients. HSNI improved patients’ nasal symptom scores (mean difference 1.82 points after treatment; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.35–3.30; I2 = 64%; p = 0.02) and a significantly lower rescue antihistamine use rate (risk ratio (RR), 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48–0.95; I2 = 28%; p = 0.02). Analyses comparing HSNI with isotonic saline nasal irrigation (ISNI) showed better nasal symptom scores (mean difference, 1.22 points; 95% CI, 1.01–1.44; I2 = 0%; p < 0.001) in patients in the HSNI group, although the antihistamine use (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.64–1.10; I2 = 0%; p = 0.2) and adverse effect rates were similar between groups. Compared with ISNI, HSNI may be a reasonable adjunctive treatment for children with AR.