Background:Over the past 20 years, the mechanisms of action, duration of benefits and economic costs of newly licenced cancer drugs have changed significantly; however, summary data on these characteristics are limited.Methods:In this study, using historical copies of the British National Formulary and relevant contemporary publications, we have documented for each new cancer drug the year of introduction, therapeutic classification, initial indication, median duration of treatment and the cost of treatment at introduction relative to the then current UK GDP per capita.Results:Before 2000, there were 69 cancer treatment drugs available, of which 50 (72.5%) were classical cytotoxic drugs. In the subsequent 15 years, there have been 63 more new cancer treatment drugs added, including 20 kinase inhibitors and 11 monoclonal antibodies. The average median duration of treatment with a new drug has risen from 181 days in 1995–1999 to 263 days in 2010–2014. The average cost of treatment has also risen from £3036.91 (20.6% of UK per capita GDP) in 1995–1999 to £20 233 (89.0%) in 2005–2009 and now to £35 383 (141.7%) in 2010–2014.Conclusions:The last 5 years has seen 33 new cancer drugs. These drugs deliver significant benefits in patient outcomes and are taken for increasing lengths of time. Alongside these clinical benefits, the direct costs of new treatments have increased significantly over the past decade.

Cancer drug prices are rising substantially, both at their initial marketing price and, in the United States, at postlicensing prices. In the United Kingdom, the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme, an agreement between the government and the pharmaceutical industry, controls health care costs while allowing a return on investment and funds for research. The increasing costs of cancer drugs are approaching the limits of sustainability, and a similar government-industry agreement may allow stability for both health care provision and the pharmaceutical industry in the United States.

Background: Knowledge about a vaccine’s side effects and efficacy is important to improving public vaccine acceptance. This study aimed to detect the safety and efficacy of vaccines among the Egyptian population. Methodology and Results: Data was collected using an online survey from participants who took two doses of the BBIBP-CorV, ChAdOx1, or BNT162 vaccines. Pain at the vaccine injection site, muscle pain, fatigue, dizziness, fever, and headache were the most common side effects after the first and second doses. The number pf side effects was higher in ChAdOx1 than in BNT162 and BBIBP-CorV. Most of the side effects started on the first day after vaccination and persisted for 1–2 days. Vaccinated people with past coronavirus infections before vaccination developed better antibodies than those who were only vaccinated. The side-effect severity was greater after the first dose of BBIBP-CorV and ChAdOx1 than after the second dose, but in contrast, the side-effect severity was greater after the second dose of BNT162 vaccine than after the first dose. ChAdOx1 was more effective than BBIBP-CorV, and one dose of ChAdOx1 produced an immune response similar to that of two doses of BBIBP-CorV. Conclusions: Coronavirus vaccines were well-tolerated, safe, and produced an immune response against the virus in most cases. Most postvaccine side effects were mild to moderate, which indicated the building of immunity by the body for protection.

Daily cow's milk intake of >2 cups, longer breast-feeding duration, and a higher body mass index z score were modifiable risk factors associated with iron deficiency. Eating meat according to recommendations may be a promising additional target for the prevention of iron deficiency in early childhood.

NC was not associated with increased OS in patients suffering from CRLM. Additionally, potentially harmful chemotherapy prior to surgery increases the risk of postoperative complications in these patients.