Neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease (AD), and Parkinson’s disease (PD) have no disease-modifying treatments, resulting in a global dementia crisis that affects more than 50 million people. Amyloid-beta (Aβ), tau, and alpha-synuclein (α-Syn) are three crucial proteins that are involved in the pathogenesis of these age-related neurodegenerative diseases. Only a few approved AD medications have been used in the clinic up to this point, and their results are only partial symptomatic alleviation for AD patients and cannot stop the progression of AD. Immunotherapies have attracted considerable interest as they target certain protein strains and conformations as well as promote clearance. Immunotherapies also have the potential to be neuroprotective: as they limit synaptic damage and spread of neuroinflammation by neutralizing extracellular protein aggregates. Lately, disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) that can alter the pathophysiology that underlies AD with anti-Aβ monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) (e.g., aducanumab, lecanemab, gantenerumab, donanemab, solanezumab, crenezumab, tilavonemab). Similarly, in Parkinson's disease (PD), DMTs utilizing anti-αSyn (MAbs) (e.g., prasinezumab, cinpanemab,) are progressively being developed and evaluated in clinical trials. These therapies are based on the hypothesis that both AD and PD may involve systemic impairments in cell-dependent clearance mechanisms of amyloid-beta (Aβ) and alpha-synuclein (αSyn), respectively, meaning the body's overall inability to effectively remove Aβ and αSyn due to malfunctioning cellular mechanisms. In this review we will provide possible evidence behind the use of immunotherapy with MAbs in AD and PD and highlight the recent clinical development landscape of anti-Aβ (MAbs) and anti-αSyn (MAbs) from these clinical trials in order to better investigate the therapeutic possibilities and adverse effects of these anti-Aβ and anti-αSyn MAbs on AD and PD.

Background: As the global prevalence of diabetes mellitus increases, the incidence of non-healing wounds in diabetic patients is expected to rise significantly, according to the International Diabetes Federation (IDF), around 537 million adults currently suffer from diabetes mellitus worldwide and 20% to 30% of individuals with diabetes are hospitalized due to diabetic foot ulcers. Conventional treatments such as traditional dressings often fall short in ensuring satisfactory wound healing, this Meta-analysis investigates the therapeutic potential of Adipose-derived Stem Cells (ADSCs) as a promising strategy for addressing this challenge. Aims: To Assess the Therapeutic Potential of Adipose-Derived Stem Cells for Managing Diabetic Foot Ulcers compared to conventional lines of treatments. Methods: The PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. databases were searched from January 2000 and December 2023, articles were primarily evaluated regarding their titles and abstracts, then full-text screening was assessed against the inclusion and exclusion criteria by utilizing Rayyan software. The Cochrane risk of bias (RoB 2) assessment tool was used to identify the risk of bias in our included studies. A statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5 software. Dichotomous data was subjected to risk ratio analysis, while continuous data underwent Mean Difference (MD) evaluation, all was reported with 95% confidence intervals, P value is considered statistically significant if less than 0.05. Results: Regarding the total healing state, five studies reported that more participants healed completely at the end of the follow-up period in the ADSCs group (Risk ratio = 1.56, 95% CI [1.32, 1.86], P < 0.00001), for the healing rate the overall effect estimate favors the ADSCs group (pooled effect estimate = 1.84, 95% CI [1.51, 2.89], P < 0.00001), and regarding the healing time the pooled mean difference of the studies demonstrated that the ADSCs group required fewer days to heal than the standard care group. (pooled mean difference = −19.33, 95% CI [−37.36, −1.29], P = 0.04). Conclusion: ADSCs provide favorable healing results and safety compared to standard care for diabetic foot ulcers.

Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a widespread incurable chronic inflammation of the colon mucosa. Currently, oral small-molecule medications targeting Janus kinase or sphingosine-1-phosphate and monoclonal antibodies to TNF-α,α4β7 integrins and Ustekinumab are the lines of treatment for UC. Up to 50% of patients either do not react to initial treatment or lose response over time, emphasizing the need for innovative treatment. Mirikizumab, a humanized IgG4-variant monoclonal antibody, binds to subunit p19 of interleukin-23. This systematic review aims to evaluate Mirikizumab compared to placebo in treating moderate-to-severe active UC. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design (PICOS) model for inclusion and exclusion criteria, we systematically reviewed the literature. Our inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials assessing Mirikizumab efficacy in treating UC across demographics. We employed the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB1) to investigate bias within included studies across its seven domains. The statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager Version 5 software. Four studies were included, comparing patients treated with mirikizumab to placebo groups. All doses of mirikizumab administered intravenously demonstrated clinical remission, specifically, the 200 mg and 300 mg doses showed significant efficacy, with risk ratios of 4.74 (95% CI [1.43, 15.69]) and 1.82 (95% CI [1.33, 2.50]), respectively. During the maintenance phase of extension trials, symptoms subsided with a subcutaneous 200 mg dose (RR = 1.46, 95% CI [0.47, 4.51], P = 0.51). To conclude, mirikizumab demonstrates significant efficacy in treating UC, substaintially improving clinical, endoscopic, and histological outcomes.

Background and Aims: Spinal-induced hypotension in parturients with pre-eclampsia (PE) can lead to adverse perinatal outcomes, making effective prophylaxis and treatment crucial. We aim to compare the prophylactic and therapeutic roles of phenylephrine, ephedrine, and norepinephrine (NE) in treating post-spinal hypotension in PE patients. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of various databases up to June 2024, focusing on randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were used for continuous outcomes, while odds ratios (ORs) were employed for binary outcomes. Analyses were performed using R with both fixed-effect and random-effects models. Results: Nine RCTs (804 patients) were included in the analysis. Therapeutic comparisons revealed no differences in mean arterial pressure between NE and ephedrine (SMD = 0.51, 95% CI: −0.49, 1.53) or phenylephrine and ephedrine (SMD = 0.90, 95% CI: −0.01, 1.82). Phenylephrine was associated with a significantly higher risk of bradycardia compared to ephedrine (OR = 14.34, 95% CI: 1.8, 113.64, P = 0.018), whereas NE showed an insignificant difference (OR = 2.54, 95% CI: 0.27, 23.94). NE significantly improved the umbilical artery pH compared to ephedrine (SMD = 0.32, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.62, P = 0.036). No significant differences were identified in nausea or vomiting. Prophylactic comparisons revealed no significant differences between phenylephrine and NE for hypotension (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.22, 4.26). For bradycardia, no difference was observed between NE and ephedrine (OR = 0.08, 95% CI: 0.002, 3.33) or phenylephrine and ephedrine (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.006, 74). Conclusions: Phenylephrine, ephedrine, and NE exhibit comparable haemodynamic effects and maternal side effects, although phenylephrine increases the risk of bradycardia. NE improves umbilical artery pH.

Brain metastasis (BM) from colon cancer is associated with a poor prognosis and restricted treatment alternatives, largely due to issues related to blood-brain barrier (BBB) permeability and the negative effects of standard chemotherapy. Nanotechnology improves treatment efficacy by enabling targeted and controlled drug delivery. This review article evaluates the potential of nanotechnology-based therapies for treating colon cancer BM, emphasizing their capacity to cross the BBB, diminish metastatic growth, and enhance overall survival rates. A review of multiple studies evaluated nanoparticles (NPs) as carriers for chemotherapy, focusing on parameters including particle size, surface charge, and drug-loading capacity. The study also reviewed studies that examined BBB penetration, in vitro tumor accumulation, and in vivo tumor growth inhibition. In vitro findings indicated that NPs accumulate more efficiently in BM tissue than in healthy brain tissue and show significant BBB penetration. In vivo, nanotherapy markedly inhibited tumor growth and prolonged survival relative to conventional chemotherapy or control treatments while also exhibiting reduced side effects. Recent studies demonstrated that plant extracts can effectively and safely synthesize nanomaterials, positioning them as a viable and environmentally friendly precursor for nanomaterial production. Nanotechnology-based therapies demonstrate significant potential in the treatment of colon cancer BM by minimizing systemic toxicity, enhancing therapeutic efficacy, and facilitating more targeted drug delivery. Further research is required to confirm these findings and implement them in clinical practice.

Purpose: Lynch syndrome patients are at a high risk for developing colorectal cancer; thus, optimal surveillance strategies are required. Although colonoscopic imaging methods differ in diagnostic performance, direct comparisons in this population are not very common. We aimed to evaluate and compare the detection capabilities of white-light endoscopy (WLE), chromoendoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy (NBI: narrow band imaging, LCI: linked color imaging, I-SCAN), and AI-assisted colonoscopy in detecting neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions in individuals diagnosed with Lynch syndrome. Methods: Up until March 2025, PubMed, WOS, and Scopus were searched. Relevant studies included observational or interventional designs that contrasted various forms of colonoscopy in adults with Lynch syndrome. The primary outcomes were the lesion detection rate and number of lesions per colonoscopy. Secondary outcomes included total procedure time and withdrawal time. Credibility of the evidence was assessed employing CINeMA. Results: Nine studies were included. LCI and chromoendoscopy demonstrated a significantly higher neoplastic lesion detection rate compared to WLE (RD 0.11, 95% CI [0.01, 0.21], P = 0.03) and (RD 0.07, 95% CI [0.01, 0.14], P = 0.03), respectively, and LCI significantly detected more lesions per procedure (MD = 0.23, 95% CI 0.01–0.45, P = 0.04). Chromoendoscopy was better at marking the non-neoplastic lesions (RD 0.16, 95% CI [0.05, 0.27], P = 0.005) but had the longest procedure and withdrawal times. AI-assisted, as well as virtual ones, were better than WLE but were not as effective as LCI or chromoendoscopy. Conclusion: In terms of efficiency, LCI and chromoendoscopy improved WLE in detecting neoplastic lesions in Lynch syndrome. Chromoendoscopy remains valuable for non-neoplastic detection, but procedural time is a major drawback. AI-assisted technologies are promising, which require additional investigation.