Background: Data on the carcinogenic potential of tirzepatide from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are limited. Furthermore, no meta-analysis has included all relevant RCTs to assess the cancer risk associated with tirzepatide. Methods: RCTs involving patients receiving tirzepatide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or any active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the overall risk of any cancer, and secondary outcomes were the risks of specific types of cancer in the tirzepatide versus the control groups. Results: Thirteen RCTs with 13,761 participants were analyzed. Over 26 to 72 weeks, the tirzepatide and pooled control groups had identical risks of any cancer (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 1.16; P=0.22). The two groups had comparable cancer risks in patients with and without diabetes. In subgroup analyses, the risks were also similar in the tirzepatide versus placebo, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist groups. The overall cancer risk was also comparable for different doses of tirzepatide compared to the control groups; only a 10-mg tirzepatide dose had a lower risk of any cancer than placebo. Furthermore, compared to the control groups (pooled or separately), tirzepatide did not increase the risk of any specific cancer types. Despite greater increments in serum calcitonin with 10- and 15-mg tirzepatide doses than with placebo, the included RCTs reported no cases of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Conclusion Tirzepatide use in RCTs over 26 to 72 weeks did not increase overall or specific cancer risk.

Background: In Malaysia, occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is often under-reported. This case report describes a chemical engineer who developed possible ACD, likely due to workplace allergen exposure.Case presentation: He presented with a 4-month history of intensely itchy rashes on both hands, which improved during work breaks. A dermatological examination revealed lichenified, pruritic papules with well-defined borders on the palmar surfaces of both hands. A skin patch test identified reactions to five allergens, including ‘fragrance mix,’ ‘methyldibromo glutaronitrile,’ ‘clioquinol,’ ‘epoxy resin,’ and ‘textile dye mix.’ However, among these, only ‘bisphenol A diglycidyl ether,’ a component of ‘epoxy resin,’ was listed in the safety data sheet as a confirmed occupational exposure. In accordance with local regulations, this case was reported as ‘occupational dermatitis’ to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health. The patient was prescribed symptomatic topical treatments, including emollients and topical corticosteroids. Additionally, he was advised to switch to hypoallergenic products. On follow-up, his chronic inflammatory skin lesions showed improvement. Conclusions Thorough occupational history-taking and patch testing are essential for diagnosing ACD. Personalized health education and regular follow-ups, is crucial in monitoring lesion resolution and evaluating the effectiveness of preventive measures in workplace settings.

Background: Data on the carcinogenic potential of tirzepatide from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are limited. Furthermore, no meta-analysis has included all relevant RCTs to assess the cancer risk associated with tirzepatide. Methods: RCTs involving patients receiving tirzepatide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or any active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the overall risk of any cancer, and secondary outcomes were the risks of specific types of cancer in the tirzepatide versus the control groups. Results: Thirteen RCTs with 13,761 participants were analyzed. Over 26 to 72 weeks, the tirzepatide and pooled control groups had identical risks of any cancer (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 1.16; P=0.22). The two groups had comparable cancer risks in patients with and without diabetes. In subgroup analyses, the risks were also similar in the tirzepatide versus placebo, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist groups. The overall cancer risk was also comparable for different doses of tirzepatide compared to the control groups; only a 10-mg tirzepatide dose had a lower risk of any cancer than placebo. Furthermore, compared to the control groups (pooled or separately), tirzepatide did not increase the risk of any specific cancer types. Despite greater increments in serum calcitonin with 10- and 15-mg tirzepatide doses than with placebo, the included RCTs reported no cases of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Conclusion Tirzepatide use in RCTs over 26 to 72 weeks did not increase overall or specific cancer risk.

Background: In Malaysia, occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is often under-reported. This case report describes a chemical engineer who developed possible ACD, likely due to workplace allergen exposure.Case presentation: He presented with a 4-month history of intensely itchy rashes on both hands, which improved during work breaks. A dermatological examination revealed lichenified, pruritic papules with well-defined borders on the palmar surfaces of both hands. A skin patch test identified reactions to five allergens, including ‘fragrance mix,’ ‘methyldibromo glutaronitrile,’ ‘clioquinol,’ ‘epoxy resin,’ and ‘textile dye mix.’ However, among these, only ‘bisphenol A diglycidyl ether,’ a component of ‘epoxy resin,’ was listed in the safety data sheet as a confirmed occupational exposure. In accordance with local regulations, this case was reported as ‘occupational dermatitis’ to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health. The patient was prescribed symptomatic topical treatments, including emollients and topical corticosteroids. Additionally, he was advised to switch to hypoallergenic products. On follow-up, his chronic inflammatory skin lesions showed improvement. Conclusions Thorough occupational history-taking and patch testing are essential for diagnosing ACD. Personalized health education and regular follow-ups, is crucial in monitoring lesion resolution and evaluating the effectiveness of preventive measures in workplace settings.

Background: Data on the carcinogenic potential of tirzepatide from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are limited. Furthermore, no meta-analysis has included all relevant RCTs to assess the cancer risk associated with tirzepatide. Methods: RCTs involving patients receiving tirzepatide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or any active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the overall risk of any cancer, and secondary outcomes were the risks of specific types of cancer in the tirzepatide versus the control groups. Results: Thirteen RCTs with 13,761 participants were analyzed. Over 26 to 72 weeks, the tirzepatide and pooled control groups had identical risks of any cancer (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 1.16; P=0.22). The two groups had comparable cancer risks in patients with and without diabetes. In subgroup analyses, the risks were also similar in the tirzepatide versus placebo, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist groups. The overall cancer risk was also comparable for different doses of tirzepatide compared to the control groups; only a 10-mg tirzepatide dose had a lower risk of any cancer than placebo. Furthermore, compared to the control groups (pooled or separately), tirzepatide did not increase the risk of any specific cancer types. Despite greater increments in serum calcitonin with 10- and 15-mg tirzepatide doses than with placebo, the included RCTs reported no cases of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Conclusion Tirzepatide use in RCTs over 26 to 72 weeks did not increase overall or specific cancer risk.

Background: In Malaysia, occupational allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) is often under-reported. This case report describes a chemical engineer who developed possible ACD, likely due to workplace allergen exposure.Case presentation: He presented with a 4-month history of intensely itchy rashes on both hands, which improved during work breaks. A dermatological examination revealed lichenified, pruritic papules with well-defined borders on the palmar surfaces of both hands. A skin patch test identified reactions to five allergens, including ‘fragrance mix,’ ‘methyldibromo glutaronitrile,’ ‘clioquinol,’ ‘epoxy resin,’ and ‘textile dye mix.’ However, among these, only ‘bisphenol A diglycidyl ether,’ a component of ‘epoxy resin,’ was listed in the safety data sheet as a confirmed occupational exposure. In accordance with local regulations, this case was reported as ‘occupational dermatitis’ to the Department of Occupational Safety and Health. The patient was prescribed symptomatic topical treatments, including emollients and topical corticosteroids. Additionally, he was advised to switch to hypoallergenic products. On follow-up, his chronic inflammatory skin lesions showed improvement. Conclusions Thorough occupational history-taking and patch testing are essential for diagnosing ACD. Personalized health education and regular follow-ups, is crucial in monitoring lesion resolution and evaluating the effectiveness of preventive measures in workplace settings.

Background: Data on the carcinogenic potential of tirzepatide from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are limited. Furthermore, no meta-analysis has included all relevant RCTs to assess the cancer risk associated with tirzepatide. Methods: RCTs involving patients receiving tirzepatide in the intervention arm and either a placebo or any active comparator in the control arm were searched through electronic databases. The primary outcome was the overall risk of any cancer, and secondary outcomes were the risks of specific types of cancer in the tirzepatide versus the control groups. Results: Thirteen RCTs with 13,761 participants were analyzed. Over 26 to 72 weeks, the tirzepatide and pooled control groups had identical risks of any cancer (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 1.16; P=0.22). The two groups had comparable cancer risks in patients with and without diabetes. In subgroup analyses, the risks were also similar in the tirzepatide versus placebo, insulin, and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist groups. The overall cancer risk was also comparable for different doses of tirzepatide compared to the control groups; only a 10-mg tirzepatide dose had a lower risk of any cancer than placebo. Furthermore, compared to the control groups (pooled or separately), tirzepatide did not increase the risk of any specific cancer types. Despite greater increments in serum calcitonin with 10- and 15-mg tirzepatide doses than with placebo, the included RCTs reported no cases of papillary thyroid carcinoma. Conclusion Tirzepatide use in RCTs over 26 to 72 weeks did not increase overall or specific cancer risk.

Introduction: Early identification of patients at risk for severe multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) is essential for favourable clinical outcomes. This study aims to identify the clinical characteristics, factors and outcomes associated with severe MIS-C. Materials and methods: In this retrospective cohort study involving 14 major hospitals in Malaysia, children <15 years who met the United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention case definition for MIS-C were included. Severe MIS-C was defined as children who required inotropic support, ventilatory support (invasive or non-invasive ventilation), or left ventricular ejection fraction of <55%. The factors investigated for severe MIS-C were demographic characteristics, the presence of comorbidities, clinical characteristics, and laboratory measures. Multivariable logistic regression was used to compute the adjusted odds ratio (aORs) of factors associated with severe MIS-C. Results: Among the 155 patients, 91 (58.7%) presented with severe MIS-C. Severe MIS-C was more likely in patients aged ≥5 years old (aOR 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08-4.21), with dehydration (aOR 3.80, 95% CI 1.53-9.45), lethargy (aOR 2.02, 95% CI 0.97-4.18), tachycardia (aOR 8.33, 95% CI 3.27-21.22), albumin <30g/L (aOR 3.36, 95% CI 1.58-7.13), creatine kinase >200U/L (aOR 3.68, 95% CI 1.57-8.64), D-dimer >3.0µg/mL (aOR 2.11, 95% CI 1.08-4.13), ferritin >500ng/mL (aOR 3.77, 95% CI 1.88-7.55), prothrombin time >12.7 seconds (aOR 3.22, 95% CI 1.61-6.43), and urea >6mmol/L (aOR 5.09, 95% CI 2.04-12.71). Conclusion: Identification of these associated factors of severity in MIS-C could aid in early recognition and prompt escalation of care, leading to better outcomes.

Background: No recent meta-analysis has holistically analyzed and summarized the efficacy and safety of omarigliptin in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We conducted a meta-analysis to address this knowledge gap. Methods: Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included patients with T2DM who received omarigliptin in the intervention arm. The control arm consisted of either a placebo (passive control group [PCG]) or an active comparator (active control group [ACG]). The primary outcome assessed was changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), while secondary outcomes included variations in glucose levels, achievement of glycemic targets, adverse events (AEs), and hypoglycemic events. Results: From 332 initially screened articles, data from 16 RCTs involving 8,804 subjects were analyzed. Omarigliptin demonstrated superiority over placebo in reducing HbA1c levels (mean difference, –0.58%; 95% confidence interval, –0.75 to –0.40; P<0.00001; I2=91%). Additionally, omarigliptin outperformed placebo in lowering fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour postprandial glucose, and in the percentage of participants achieving HbA1c levels below 7.0% and 6.5%. The glycemic efficacy of omarigliptin was similar to that of the ACG across all measures. Although the omarigliptin group experienced a higher incidence of hypoglycemic events compared to the PCG, the overall AEs, serious AEs, hypoglycemia, and severe hypoglycemia were comparable between the omarigliptin and control groups (PCG and ACG). Conclusion Omarigliptin has a favorable glycemic efficacy and safety profile for managing T2DM.

Trace odour is one of the trace material evidence that has significant value in forensic analysis. The recovery of relevant trace odour components from clothing has the potential to be a form of trace evidence that can be used to assess the likelihood of a contact between individuals in sexual and violent cases. They have the same potential as other trace evidence and can narrow down the suspect in the investigation. Studies conducted previously related to trace odour have succeeded in proving that this trace odour is unique, has its signature profile and can distinguish it from other sources such as fingerprints and DNA. This review highlights these trace odours and their persistence after being transferred, which contribute to a complete picture of the dynamics and potential application in the forensic reconstruction process. The literature was sourced from electronic databases such as Scopus, PubMed, Springer Link, Wiley On¬line Library and Science Direct. Keywords such “odour”, “trace odour”, “scent”, “volatile organic compound”, “forensic identification” were utilised. Further studies on various forms of trace odour are needed to strengthen their evidential values and be admissible to the court.