Lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol have been previously used to treat acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) replication in clinical practice; nevertheless, their effectiveness remains controversial. In this study, we evaluated the antiviral effects and safety of lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol in patients with the 2019-nCoV disease . Fifty patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 were divided into two groups: including lopinavir/ritonavir group (34 cases) and arbidol group (16 cases). Lopinavir/ritonavir group received 400 mg/100mg of Lopinavir/ritonavir, twice a day for a week, while the arbidol group was given 0.2 g arbidol, three times a day. Data from these patients were retrospectively analyzed. The cycle threshold values of open reading frame 1ab and nucleocapsid genes by RT-PCR assay were monitored during antiviral therapy. None of the patients developed severe pneumonia or ARDS. There was no difference in fever duration between the two groups ( P = 0.61). On day 14 after the admission, no viral load was detected in arbidol group, but the viral load was found in 15(44.1%) patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir. Patients in the arbidol group had a shorter duration of positive RNA test compared to those in the lopinavir/ritonavir group ( P < 0.01). Moreover, no apparent side effects were found in both groups. In conclusion, our data indicate that arbidol monotherapy may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in treating COVID-19.

No abstract

The aim of this study was to assess if the entire mediastinum (M), the bilateral supraclavicular area (S), and the left gastric area (L) should be all included in the irradiation volume. The clinical data of 204 patients with thoracic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who had undergone prophylactic postoperative radiotherapy after radical surgery were retrospectively reviewed. They were classified into four groups: group A, 26 patients with irradiated M alone; group B, 139 patients with irradiated M + S; group C, 10 patients with irradiated M + L; and group D, 29 patients with irradiated M + S + L. The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 36% in group A, 31% in group B, 40% in group C and 44% in group D (chi2=3.05, P =0.39), respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that the irradiated extent was not a significant influential factor (hazard ratio=0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.03, P =0.10). None of 43 patients without the L irradiated and with disease in the upper and middle upper thirds (defined in middle third but with upper third invaded), and one of 83 patients without the L irradiated and with disease in the middle third only thoracic esophagus were shown to have abdominal lymph node metastasis. Supraclavicular lymph node metastasis in patients in the lower and middle lower thirds (defined in middle third but with lower third invaded) were, respectively, 1/43 and 1/18 whether the S was irradiated or not. It seems unnecessary that the L be irradiated when the primary site is in the upper, middle, and middle upper thirds of the thoracic esophagus after radical surgery. Similarly, S may be unnecessarily irradiated in the lower and middle lower thirds.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) is a potent nucleotide analogue with high barrier to resistance, which is recommended for multi-drug resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. However, nephrotoxicity has been reported during TDF treatment, and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), which has comparable efficacy to TDF and improves bone and renal safety, can be used as a replacement strategy. Herein, we describe a clinical case concerning a 60-year-old individual suffering liver cirrhosis and renal dysfunction, and being infected with multidrug-resistant HBV. When failing treatment with TDF, he received TAF as a rescue therapy. TAF effectively inhibited HBV replication without worsening renal function or serum phosphorus abnormality. Furthermore, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) occurred during TAF treatment despite controlling the viral load. The risk of HCC could not be eliminated and should be monitored during TAF treatment.

To evaluate the efficacy of salvage radiochemotherapy (SRC) in patients with recurrent lymph node after radical surgery in esophageal cancer.This study enrolled 58 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma who underwent SRC for lymph node recurrence after radical surgery from August 2011 to November 2015 at our hospital. Survival rates were calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method with the log-rank test. Multivariate analysis was conducted using the Cox model.The overall 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates after radical surgery were 94.8%, 53.0%, and 29.6%, respectively. The 1- and 3-year survival rates after SRC were 68.7% and 26.9%, respectively. The major acute toxicities were esophagitis and neutropenia, while most toxicities were grade 1 or 2. There was no unexpected increase in serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths. The results of multivariate analysis showed that time to recurrence (odds ratio [OR]: 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11–0.53, P = .0004), T stage (OR: 2.75, 95%CI: 1.16–6.49, P = .021), and prophylactic radiotherapy/chemotherapy (PRC, OR: 0.39, 95%CI: 0.16–0.98, P = .045) were determinants of postoperative overall survival, and PRC was the only factor affecting the outcome of SRC (OR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.12–0.70, P = .006).SRC is an effective treatment for recurrent lymph node after radical surgery of esophageal cancer.