Soy isoflavones sensitize prostate cancer cells to radiation therapy by inhibiting cell survival pathways activated by radiation. At the same time, soy isoflavones have significant antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity, which may help prevent the side effects of radiation. Therefore, we hypothesized that soy isoflavones could be useful when given in conjunction with curative radiation therapy in patients with localized prostate cancer. In addition to enhancing the efficacy of radiation therapy, soy isoflavones could prevent the adverse effects of radiation. We conducted a pilot study to investigate the effects of soy isoflavone supplementation on acute and subacute toxicity (≤6 mo) of external beam radiation therapy in patients with localized prostate cancer. Forty-two patients with prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg soy isoflavone (Group 1) or placebo (Group 2) daily for 6 mo beginning with the first day of radiation therapy, which was administered in 1.8 to 2.5 Gy fractions for a total of 73.8 to 77.5 Gy. Adverse effects of radiation therapy on bladder, bowel, and sexual function were assessed by a self-administered quality of life questionnaire at 3 and 6 mo. Only 26 and 27 patients returned completed questionnaires at 3 and 6 mo, respectively. At each time point, urinary, bowel, and sexual adverse symptoms induced by radiation therapy were decreased in the soy isoflavone group compared to placebo group. At 3 mo, soy-treated patients had less urinary incontinence, less urgency, and better erectile function as compared to the placebo group. At 6 mo, the symptoms in soy-treated patients were further improved as compared to the placebo group. These patients had less dripping/leakage of urine (7.7% in Group 1 vs. 28.4% in Group 2), less rectal cramping/diarrhea (7.7% vs. 21.4%), and less pain with bowel movements (0% vs. 14.8%) than placebo-treated patients. There was also a higher overall ability to have erections (77% vs. 57.1%). The results suggest that soy isoflavones taken in conjunction with radiation therapy could reduce the urinary, intestinal, and sexual adverse effects in patients with prostate cancer.

Introduction Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a leading cause of mortality and an increasing health burden with a prevalence of 8.3% globally and 9.1% in India (IDF). Prevention of complications and improving quality of life are the principle goals in its management. DPP-4 inhibitors have a potential vasoprotective effect mediated by stromal cell derived factor-1a. Teneligliptin a novel, highly selective, more potent agent compared to Sitagliptin provides sustained glycaemic control, decreases cardiovascular complications, has additional beneficial pleiotropic metabolic effects and also safe in renal impairment. Objective To evaluate the glycaemic and non-glycaemic effects of Teneligliptin vs Sitagliptin as add on therapy to metformin. Materials and methods 60 subjects with T2DM who failed to achieve glycaemic control with metformin (500mg TID) alone for 3 months were randomized in 1:1 ratio to receive Teneligliptin 20mg OD and Sitagliptin 100mg OD as add on therapy. Patients were followed up at 4, 8 and 12 weeks for glycaemic and non-glycaemic effects. Adverse drug reactions (ADRs), if any were recorded and graded according to severity. Results There was a statistically significant decrease in FBS (p<0.05, p<0.001) and PPBS (p<0.01, p<0.001) in patients treated with Teneligliptin on week 8 & week 12 from baseline compared to those treated with Sitagliptin. The reduction in HbA1c (p<0.0001), LDL-CH (p<0.0001) & TC (p<0.001) on week 12 from baseline was also significantly more in the Teneligliptin group. Conclusion Teneligliptin may be an effective and safe treatment option in reducing both glycaemic and non-glycaemic parameters as an add-on therapy in Type 2 DM with good patient tolerability.

Background :Prokinetic drugs are widely used for treatment of non-ulcer dyspepsia (NUD). Aims and Objectives : To assess the efficacy and tolerability of a new prokinetic agent, itopride hydrochloride in patients of NUD and compare it with domperidone. Methods : Fifty-six patients who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Patients underwent upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to rule out organic pathology as a cause for their symptoms. The patient’s symptoms were graded on a 4-point scale (0 to 3) at the beginning of treatment and at the end of Week-one and Week-two Patients were randomly allocated to receive either one tablet of itopride hydrochloride 50mg three times daily or one tablet of domperidone 10mg three times daily for two weeks. Pre-treatment and post-treatment hemogram, liver function and renal function tests, prolactin level and ECG were done in all patients. The response to therapy was evaluated by assessing the relief of symptoms at the end of two weeks on a 5 -point scale. Statistical analysis was done using two-tailed paired t-test; Wilcoxon matched pairs ranks sum test, Mann-Whitney-U test and chi-square test as applicable. Results : Of the fifty-five patients enrolled in the study (age range of 18-60 yrs, median age of 35yrs), 26 were males and twenty nine were females. They had a median duration of symptoms for 4 weeks. Twenty-seven patients received itopride and 28 received domperidone. One patient did not follow up in the domperidone group, thus 54 patients were evaluable for analysis. Moderate to complete symptomatic relief was observed in 22 (81%) patients in the itopride group and 19 patients (70%) in the domperidone group (p > 0.05, NS). Both the drugs were well tolerated and neither caused prolongation of QT interval nor any abnormality in any serum biochemistry values. Conclusion : Therapy with itopride resulted in good symptomatic relief, was safe, well tolerated and comparable in efficacy to domperidone in relieving the symptoms of NUD. By virtue of its efficacy and tolerability, it could be an ideal choice for providing symptomatic relief to patients suffering from non-ulcer dyspepsia.

No abstract