Direct real-time PCR using vaginal-rectal specimen could be used for detecting GBS in emergent conditions. Molecular serotypes III, Ib and V were most common. MLST analysis frequently presented ST-1, ST-19 and ST-862.
BackgroundApixaban and rivaroxaban are approved for the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and embolic stroke in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The aim of this study was to find appropriate methods of monitoring the anticoagulant effects of are direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and establish on‐therapy ranges using conventional tests.MethodsA total of 184 samples were collected from 91 patients receiving DOACs. Concentrations of apixaban and rivaroxaban in plasma were accessed by an anti‐factor Xa chromogenic assay. PT, APTT, antithrombin, D‐dimer, dRVVT screen/confirm, FDP, and fibrinogen levels were measured. On‐therapy ranges were calculated by substituting previously reported trough plasma concentrations of DOACs.ResultsAnti‐factor Xa chromogenic assay‐based DOACs levels were 26.0‐279.5 (115.9 ± 56.5) ng/mL for apixaban at 2.5 mg BID, 19.9‐565.1 (205.3 ± 162.4) ng/mL for apixaban at 5 mg BID, 2.3‐395.3 (205.3 ± 162.4) ng/mL for rivaroxaban at 15 mg OD, 3.6‐494.8 (119.6 ± 95.1) ng/mL for rivaroxaban at 20 mg OD, and 9.6‐431.4 (140.8 ± 113.6) ng/mL for rivaroxaban at 15 mg BID. PT (%), antithrombin, and dRVVT confirm tests showed good correlation with plasma apixaban levels. Plasma rivaroxaban concentrations were correlated well with PT (sec), PT (%),and dRVVT confirm results. On‐therapy ranges established for dRVVT confirm test by linear regression were as follows: 1.32‐1.52 for apixaban 2.5 mg BID, 1.12‐1.75 for apixaban 5 mg BID, 1.11‐1.78 for rivaroxaban 15 mg OD, 1.09‐1.64 for rivaroxaban 20 mg OD, and 1.22‐1.81 for rivaroxaban 20 mg BID.ConclusionsApixaban concentrations were well correlated with PT (%), antithrombin, and dRVVT confirm test. Rivaroxaban concentrations showed good correlation with PT (sec), PT (%), and dRVVT confirm test.
BackgroundBone marrow (BM) study plays an important role as initial investigation specimen of lymphoma as well as staging lymphoma. This study aimed to investigate the utility of BM studies for classification of lymphoma and evaluate features of BM involvement by lymphoma over a period of 11 years.MethodsA total of 1162 cases of BM studies for lymphoma evaluation were reviewed for the incidence of lymphoma subtypes, the percentage of marrow involvement, the pattern of involvement and discordance with histopathologic diagnoses of lymph nodes and other tissues.ResultsA total of 255 of 1162 cases underwent BM study without pathologic information, and 108 cases show lymphoma involvement. Lymph node biopsy underwent in 66 cases, and 10 cases show discordant result between BM and lymph node biopsy. Seven discordant cases were due to insufficient further studies. Lymphoma was diagnosed only by BM study in 38 cases. Abnormal lymphocytes were found in BM aspiration in 34 cases. Also, abnormal clonal lymphocytes were detected by flow cytometry in 26 cases. Four cases showed disease‐related chromosomal abnormalities. FISH analysis detected abnormal findings in two cases, however, discordant with other additional studies.ConclusionsDiscrepancies between the BM study and lymph node biopsy were due to insufficient further study and discordance of immunohistochemical stain result. BM study can be utilized as initial diagnosis of lymphoma by the combination of morphological feature, involvement pattern, and additional tests such as flow cytometry, chromosomal analysis, and FISH analysis. Thus, BM study with further analysis is an essential choice when lymph node biopsies are unavailable.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.