The increase in bacterial resistance against antibiotics is thought to be another type of pandemic after COVID-19. Emergency treatment based on antibiotics is a major influence in increasing this resistance. Bacteria, such as Klebsiella pneumoniae, are the most affected by the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, since they are resistant to most antibiotics currently available on the market.This review aimed to evaluate patents of new drugs and formulations, for the treatment of infections caused by Klebsiella pneumoniae.The present patent review was carried out through a specialized search database Espacenet. The selection was based on the criteria of patents published from 2010 to May 2021, in any language, and containing the keywords in title or abstract. Also, a research was performed on the PubMed database, using the inclusion criteria.Twenty-two patents were selected for the analysis according to the aim of the study. The advance of new patents has been mostly observed in the World Intellectual Property Organization, China, and United States. The results showed that the main approach was the drug association, followed by drug carriers, new isolated products, and vaccines.It has been observed that few studies use new drug alternatives for the treatment, probably due to the higher cost of the development and lack of investments. The effectiveness and safety of these therapies depend on the acceptance, the correct prescription, and rational use of medicines. Therefore, this review can further develop new treatments as alternatives against Klebsiella pneumoniae and pneumonia caused by it.
Osteoarthritis is considered a degenerative joint disease that is characterised by inflammation, chronic pain, and functional limitation. The increasing development of nanotechnology in drug delivery systems has provided new ideas and methods for osteoarthritis therapy. This review aimed to evaluate patents that have developed innovations, therapeutic strategies, and alternatives using nanotechnology in osteoarthritis treatment. The results show patents deposited from 2015 to November 2021 in the online databases European Patent Office and World Intellectual Property Organisation. A total of 651 patents were identified for preliminary assessment and 16 were selected for full reading and discussion. The evaluated patents are focused on the intraarticular route, oral route, and topical route for osteoarthritis treatment. The intraarticular route presented a higher patent number, followed by the oral and topical routes, respectively. The development of new technologies allows us to envision a promising and positive future in osteoarthritis treatment.
Introduction Osteoarthritis is a musculoskeletal disease that can lead to the loss and inability of those affected to perform normal daily functions, which leads to a decrease in quality of life. The main symptoms of osteoarthritis are tenderness, joint pain, stiffness, crepitus, limited movement, and local inflammation.
JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: As correntes diadinâmicas são correntes alternadas retificadas em ondas completas ou semiondas e foram desenvolvidas por Pierre Bernard. Essas correntes são utilizadas na prática clínica para analgesia e reparação de lesões de tecidos moles; entretanto, sem evidências científicas. O objetivo deste estudo foi investigar o efeito hipoalgésico das correntes diadinâmicas de Bernard em indivíduos saudáveis e o desconforto sensorial de cada corrente. MÉTODO: Foram recrutados 75 voluntários saudáveis, sendo 35 homens e 40 mulheres na faixa etária de 18 a 60 anos. Os voluntários foram distribuídos aleatoriamente em cinco grupos de estudo (15 participantes por grupo), a saber: difásica fixa (DF), monofásica fixa (MF), curtos períodos (CP), longos períodos (LP) e grupo controle (GC). As correntes diadinâmicas foram aplicadas durante 15 minutos no antebraço não dominante e medidas de limiar de dor por pressão foram realizadas na mão e no antebraço antes, durante e 15 minutos após a aplicação das correntes. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre os grupos no limiar de dor por pressão na mão no 5° minuto (p = 0,490), 10° minuto (p = 0,590), 15° minuto (p = 0,996) e 30° minuto (p = 0,489). No antebraço também não foram encontradas diferenças significantes entre os grupos no 5° minuto (p = 0,767), 10° minuto (p = 0,439), 15° minuto (p = 0,395) e no 30° minuto (p = 0,915). Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante no desconforto avaliado no 5° minuto (p = 0,087) e 10° minuto (p = 0,055). No entanto, no 15° minuto a corrente CP apresentou menor índice de desconforto quando comparado à corrente MF (p = 0,021). CONCLUSÃO: Não houve diferença no limiar de dor por pressão entre os grupos de estudo.