An increased number of methylated samples were found in CRC respect to adjacent see more healthy tissues, with the exception of APC, which was also frequently methylated in healthy colonic mucosa. Statistically significant associations were found between RASSF1A promoter methylation and tumor stage, and between hMLH1 promoter methylation and tumor location. Increasing age positively correlated with both hMLH1 and MGMT methylation levels in CRC tissues, and with APC methylation levels in the adjacent healthy mucosa. Concerning gender, females showed higher hMLH1 promoter methylation levels with respect to males. In CRC samples, the MTR 2756AG genotype correlated
with higher methylation levels of RASSF1A,
and the TYMS 1494 6bp ins/del polymorphism correlated with the methylation levels of both APC and hMLH1. In adjacent healthy tissues, MTR 2756AG and TYMS 1494 6bp del/del genotypes correlated with APC and MGMT promoter methylation, respectively. Low folate levels were associated with hMLH1 hypermethylation. Present results support the hypothesis that DNA methylation in CRC depends from both physiological and environmental factors, with one-carbon metabolism largely involved in this process.”
“Background: Medication errors involving insulin are common, particularly during the administration stage, and may cause severe harm. Little is known about the prevalence of insulin administration errors in hospitals, especially in resource-restricted settings, Saracatinib cost where the burden of diabetes is growing alarmingly. Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, type, and potential clinical outcome of errors in preparation
selleck products and administration of insulin in resource-restricted setting hospitals. Methods: This study was conducted on six wards in two urban public hospitals in Vietnam using a direct observation method. Details of insulin preparation and administration were collected by pharmacy students 12 hours per day for 7 consecutive days on each ward. Potential clinical outcome was judged by a panel of four experts using a validated scale. Results: The error rate was 28.8% (95% confidence interval [23.1%, 35.2%], n = 66 out of 229 insulin doses)all with potentially moderate/severe outcome. Higher error rates were observed for infusion doses than for subcutaneous ones (80.0% vs. 22.5%, p smaller than .01). Incorrect time, incorrect preparation/administration technique, and omissions were mostly encountered. Discussion: Interventions suitable for resource-restricted settings need to be developed and tested to improve insulin preparation and administration, probably starting with education and providing information, especially infusion doses.