The objective of this study was to evaluate the analytical performance of two new low-cost handheld NIR spectrometers for the determination of umbu fruit (Spondias tuberosa Arruda) quality. A third handheld spectrometer, representing a proven good performance for fruit quality analysis, was used as reference instrument. Multivariate calibration models were built using Partial Least Squares regression to determine dry matter (DM), soluble solids (SS), flesh firmness (FF) and skin color (SC). No significant statistical difference was found among the analytical performances of all three spectrometers. The average of the relative root mean square error of prediction (RMSEPr) obtained with the three spectrometers were 5.2 ± 0.9% for DM, 8.4 ± 1.5% for SS, 27.6 ± 2.0% for FF and 8.0 ± 0.6% for SC. According to these results, the new low-cost handheld NIR spectrometers can be used to monitor umbu fruit quality during ripening with suitable accuracy. Inflammasomes are a family of pro-inflammatory signaling complexes that orchestrate inflammatory responses in many tissues. The NLRP3 inflammasome has been implicated in several diseases associated with chronic inflammation. In this paper, we present an Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) for NLRP3-induced chronic inflammatory diseases that demonstrates how NLRP3 can cause a transition from acute to chronic inflammation, and ultimately the onset of disease. We present a simple graphical description of the main features of internal dose time courses that are important when pharmacodynamics are governed by an activation threshold. Similar considerations hold for other AOPs that are rate-limited by processes with activation thresholds. The risk analysis implications of AOPs with threshold or threshold-like pharmacodynamic responses include the need to consider how cumulative dose per unit time is distributed over time and the possibility that safe, or virtually safe, exposure concentrations can be defined for such processes. OBJECTIVES Perioperative Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is generally considered preventable. While non-vascular surgery literature is rich in providing data about impact of VTE prophylaxis on VTE outcomes, vascular surgery data is relatively sparse on this topic. This study sought to evaluate the evidence for VTE prophylaxis, specifically for the vascular surgery patient population. METHODS A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane and Embase databases in December of 2018. Included were studies reporting primary and secondary outcomes for common vascular surgery procedures (open aortic operations, endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (EVAR), peripheral arterial bypasses, amputations, venous reflux operations). A meta-analysis was performed comparing the population of patients who did not received VTE prophylaxis and developed VTE complications to patients who developed VTE despite getting prophylaxis. RESULTS From 3,757 uniquely identified articles, 42 publications met the criteria for in of literature exploring the utility of VTE prophylaxis, however the evidence is conflicting, with some studies demonstrating a benefit while others show no reduction of VTE with prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS Overall, there is a paucity of literature that addresses the effectiveness of VTE prophylaxis specifically in the vascular surgery patient populations. Our meta analysis of the literature does not demonstrate a statistically significant benefit of VTE prophylaxis among the vascular surgery patient populations evaluated, however it does suggest a low incidence of VTE among patients who receive VTE prophylaxis. Clinicians should identify the patients at high risk for development of postoperative VTE as the risk/benefit ratio may favor VTE prophylaxis in selected group of patients. Clinicians should use their judgment and established VTE risk prediction models to assess VTE risk for patients. Vascular surgeons should consider reporting VTE incidence as a secondary outcome in publications. STUDY OBJECTIVE To compare effectiveness of misoprostol and dinoprostone tablets administered vaginally three hours before copper intrauterine device (IUD) insertion versus placebo in reducing pain and increasing ease of insertion among nulliparous women. DESIGN Randomized controlled trial. SETTING Tertiary referral hospital. (L)-Dehydroascorbic nmr PARTICIPANTS 129 nulliparous women requesting a copper T380A IUD insertion INTERVENTIONS women were randomized to receive 200 mcg misoprostol or 3mg dinoprostone or placebo three hours before IUD insertion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S) Primary outcome was patient-reported pain during IUD insertion using a 10 cm visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes include provider ease of insertion, women satisfaction level, and side effects. RESULTS Participants’ baseline characteristics were comparable between the study groups. Mean pain score during IUD insertion was lower with misoprostol than placebo(3.1 ± 2.3 vs 4.4 ± 2.2; p=0.02) and dinoprostone compared to placebo(2.4 ± 1.8 vs 4.4 ± 2.2; p less then 0.001). Clinicians reported easier IUD insertion with misoprostol than placebo(2.4 ± 1.7 vs 4.0 ± 2.4; p=0.001) and dinoprostone compared to placebo(2.0 ± 1.5 vs 4.0 ± 2.4; p less then 0.001). Women’s satisfaction levels were higher with both misoprostol and dinoprostone than placebo(p less then 0.001). Side effects did not differ between the three study groups. CONCLUSIONS Premedication with vaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone effectively lowered pain during copper IUD insertion. However, the reduction in pain scores was only clinically significant in women who received dinoprostone. In both misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, clinicians found the procedure easier, and women were more satisfied with IUD insertion. Side effects and complications were similar in all groups. In the United States, drug costs account for approximately 10% of health care expenditures and are expected to grow over the next decade1. Due to a combination of rising drug prices, increased out-of-pocket costs, and increased use of specialty drugs, a growing number of Americans cannot afford their medications. This issue is particularly relevant for the treatment of skin diseases, where retail prices of selected brand name dermatologic medications increased an average of 363% in real terms between 2009 and 2015, while the general and average pharmaceutical inflation rose only 11% and 23%, respectively2,3. In this article – part of a health policy series reviewing a wide-range of policy topics impacting clinical dermatology4- we provide an overview of how drug prices are set, with an emphasis on microeconomic factors that drive their complexity in the US, as well as discuss trends in drug pricing that are relevant to both the present and future delivery of dermatologic care.