Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Local delivery of drugs directly into the bladder by way of a urethral catheter is a clever approach to optimize drug delivery to the disease site while reducing systemic bioavailability. Pharmacotherapy by this route is referred to as intravesical delivery. In recent years, intravesical delivery has been used in combination with and oral regimen of drugs or as second-line treatment for neurogenic bladder and detrusor overactivity. Negligible absorption of instilled drugs into the systemic circulation explains the near-minimal adverse toxicity reported with this form of therapy. The authors discuss shortcomings of the current options available for intravesical delivery and provide a broad overview of the latest advances through technology innovation to overcome these drawbacks.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2006.06.012 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!