基于网络药理学和实验验证研究柴胡疏肝散治疗慢性萎缩性胃炎的作用机制＊

目的 通过网络药理学的方法进行预测，再深一步进行动物实验验证来研究柴胡疏肝散治疗CAG的作用机制。方法 首先在TCMSP数据库中检索柴胡疏肝散的所有活性成分与药物靶点；通过收集PharmGkb、OMIM、GeneCards和DrugBank数据库中收录的慢性萎缩性胃炎的相关靶点。将药物靶点与疾病靶点进行映射筛选出交集靶点，将得到的交集靶点构建PPI网络与活性成分-共同靶点网络，并对其进行GO和KEGG富集分析。最后利用Vina软件进行分子对接实验验证，并通过免疫印迹法验证柴胡疏肝散对两种受体蛋白EGFR和STAT1的影响。结果 最终筛选得到柴胡疏肝散活性成分104个，潜在靶点238个，与慢性萎缩性胃炎的交集靶点52个；GO与KEGG富集分析分别得到2166条目和148条目，主要涉及到JAK-STAT信号通路、TNF信号通路、HIF-1信号通路等；分子对接结果显示EGFR、STAT1两个靶点能够与核心活性成分能够自发结合成较为稳定的构像；免疫印迹法实验证明柴胡疏肝散能够降低大鼠胃黏膜组织EGFR和STAT1蛋白表达。结论 通过网络药理学和实验验证，发现柴胡疏肝散可能通过调节EGFR和STAT1蛋白表达来共同调控胃黏膜细胞增殖与凋亡，进而发挥着治疗慢性萎缩性胃炎的效果，为深入进行柴胡疏肝散治疗慢性萎缩性胃炎的作用机制研究提供新思路和新方法。     

Effectiveness and Safety of Inhaled Antibiotics in Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. A Multicentre Observational Study

BackgroundWe aimed to describe the effectiveness and safety of inhaled antibiotics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, as well as the patient profile in which they are usually prescribed and the patient groups that can most benefit from this treatment.MethodsMulticentre retrospective observational cohort study in COPD patients who had received ≥1 dose of inhaled antibiotics in the last 5 years. Clinical data from the two years prior to and subsequent to the start of the treatment were compared. Primary outcome: COPD exacerbations. Secondary outcomes: side effects, symptomatology (sputum purulence, dyspnoea), microbiological profile and pathogen eradication.ResultsOf 693 COPD patients analyzed (aged 74.1; 86.3% men; mean FEV₁ = 43.7%), 71.7% had bronchiectasis and 46.6% presented chronic bronchial infection (CBI) by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (PA). After 1 year of treatment with inhaled antibiotics, there was a significant decrease in the number of exacerbations (?33.3%; P < .001), hospital admissions (?33.3%; P < .001) and hospitalization days (?26.2%; P = .003). We found no difference in effectiveness between patients with or without associated bronchiectasis. Positive patient outcomes were more pronounced in PA-eradicated patients. We found a significant reduction in daily expectoration (?33.1%; P = .024), mucopurulent/purulent sputum (?53.9%; P < .001), isolation of any potentially pathogenic microorganisms (PPM) (?16.7%; P < .001), CBI by any PPM (?37.4%; P < .001) and CBI by PA (?49.8%; P < .001). CBI by any PPM and ≥three previous exacerbations were associated with a better treatment response. 25.4% of patients presented non-severe side-effects, the most frequent of these being bronchospasm (10.5%), dyspnoea (8.8%) and cough (1.7%).ConclusionsIn COPD patients with multiple exacerbations and/or CBI by any PPM (especially PA), inhaled antibiotics appear to be an effective and safe treatment, regardless of the presence of bronchiectasis.     

慢性泪囊炎患者应用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术的临床效果及对安全性的影响

目的探讨慢性泪囊炎患者应用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术的临床效果及安全性。方法选取2018年1月至2019年12月因慢性泪囊炎于本院接受治疗的46例患者为研究对象,随机分为研究组与对照组,各23例。对照组接受泪囊鼻腔造口治疗,研究组取鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术治疗,比较两组临床效果、手术指标以及并发症发生情况。结果研究组治疗总有效率高于对照组(P<0.05);研究组术中出血量少于对照组,手术及住院时间均短于对照组(P<0.05);研究组并发症总发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论慢性泪囊炎患者采用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术治疗效果显著,并发症较少,安全性较高,值得临床推广应用。     

COX20基因变异线粒体复合物Ⅳ缺乏症相关的遗传性周围神经病4例病例系列报告及文献复习

背景：原发性线粒体病具有高度的临床和遗传异质性，其中周围神经是线粒体病的常见受累器官之一。 目的：总结COX20基因变异相关周围神经病的临床表型及遗传学特征。 设计：病例系列报告。 方法：回顾性收集2018年5月至2020年5月复旦大学附属儿科医院诊治的COX20基因变异相关周围神经病患儿的临床资料，总结其临床表现、基因检测结果及治疗效果，并以“COX20”、“线粒体复合物Ⅳ缺乏症（Complex Ⅳ deficiency）”为关键词检索中英文数据库。检索时间均为从建库至2021年12月。总结已报道COX20基因变异与临床表型的关系。 主要结局指标：临床表型和COX20基因变异位点。 结果：4例患儿纳入分析，男、女各2例，其中3例自幼运动发育落后。4例均在儿童期起病，均以行走不稳为首发症状。肌电图均提示多发性周围神经损害改变，感觉神经轴索受累为主。4例患儿均携带COX20基因复合杂合变异，包括错义变异2个，无义变异和移码变异各1个，其中移码变异c.262delG(p.E88Kfs*35)尚未见报道。文献复习目前共报道COX基因变异18个家系22例患儿（包括本文病例）,起病中位年龄为5（1.0~17）岁，22例均以行走困难或步态不稳起病，11例（50.0%）有精神运动发育迟滞，病程中14例(63.6%)出现构音障碍，14例(63.6%)出现肌力下降和/或足部畸形，8例（36.4%）出现共济失调，6例(27.3%)出现肌张力障碍，5例（22.7%）存在认知倒退等。21例患儿行神经传导及肌电图检查，19例(90.5%)提示多发性周围神经病变。头颅（18例）及脊髓（10例）MR检查提示，脊髓萎缩4例（40%），小脑萎缩4例（22.2%）。9例患儿已无法独立行走，丧失独立行走能力中位年龄为10（7~21）岁。目前共报道9个变异位点，4种变异类型，其中错义变异5个，剪切变异2个，无义变异和移码变异各1个。 结论：COX20基因变异患者多早期起病，以周围神经系统病变为主要表现，可合并构音障碍、共济失调、肌张力障碍、认知倒退等，病情逐渐进展，致残率高。COX20基因变异类型以错义变异最常见。     

Le traumatisme psychique constitue une blessure du langage par atteinte des réseaux de significations

ObjectivesTrauma appears within the discourse of mentally injured people, materializing what we have recently defined as “post traumatic psycholinguistic syndrome” (SPLIT). Translating unspeakability, revival, and dissociation, this clinical entity associates three significant disturbances : traumatic anomia (missing words, reduction of the elocutionary flow, deictic gestures, etc.); linguistic repetitions (of words and phrases, verbal intrusions, echophrasias, etc.); and phrasal and discursive disorganization (incomplete sentences, tense discordance, dysfluence, lack of logical connectors, etc.). What are the causes of these semiological and psycholinguistic expressions? What are their psychological and/or neuropsychological processes? It is time to come up with a new concept intended to go beyond the previous models in order to better identify people suffering from post-traumatic mental disorders, to better organize and evaluate psychotherapeutic care, and also to help practitioners collaborate more effectively on these first two goals. But how to evoke, affirm, or speak out about the consequences of unspeakability? Nothing is more apparently contradictory than wanting to define the language void. How to account for the fractures of psychic trauma in discourse? Nothing is more uncertain than to try to organize the upheavals, the disorders caused by dissociation in language. Finally, how to specify the reiteration of the trauma using words and sentences without this modeling being dissociative or repetitive? Today, thanks to a psycholinguistic reading, essential dimensions of post-traumatic suffering, hitherto hidden, can be clarified. Why exactly does an event cause trauma in the life of a subject at a given moment in her/his existence? Why is a latency phase structured between the traumatic event and the return of reviviscences under the influence of a re-triggering factor? How to differentiate the notion of dissociation as a normal phenomenon from the so-called traumatic dissociation? How to explain the multiple clinical forms of post-traumatic psychological disorders?MethodsFrom Pierre's clinical history, we chronologically detail the structuring and the consequences of the signified reflection that are constitutive of the psychic trauma: the psycholinguistic tools here help to formulate a new etiopathogenic conception of trauma and its psychological consequences. Then, thanks to Jean's testimony, taking up the retrospective meaning of the clinical analysis from chronic repetition syndrome, we discover the phases of tension regarding signified knowledge, up to the network prior to the traumatic confrontation. Finally, illustrated by Karima's disorder, beyond depersonalization, we explain that the analysis of the disturbances of a singular signified network, and also of an attack on its familial and societal bases, testifies to individual and collective subjectivities.ResultsComing from the real world, and therefore also from the body, the stimuli made up of signals picked up by our senses combine to compose an event that can be objectified by its temporal, spatial, biological, and physico-chemical coordinates. These elements combine into a unit, which is then interpreted by the mind, which attributes meaning to this event, which has become subjective reality. But when the subject is not sufficiently prepared to be confronted with this meaning that appears to be in extreme contradiction with her/his previous cardinal networks of significations, it makes “too much sense:” this irreconcilable hyper-signified (that we call the traumatic signified) results in post-traumatic dissociation. In other words, it is an impossibility of concordance of a signified with certain systems of prior significations that constitutes the pathogenesis of the trauma; and a situation runs a greater risk of being traumatic when it contradicts, or, moreso, endangers some or all of the subject's cardinal meanings. This unbearable signified reflexively blocks the capacities of significations immediately pre- and post-trauma, then dissociates the psychic functions to varying degrees and intensities. The traumatic signified, rejected, becomes unattainable: the stimuli that led to its formation find themselves confined to the state of reviviscences, each replication of which attempts to cross the barrier of inconceivability. Limiting sensory compounds to their raw states without the possibility of representational integration, associative pathways remain blocked. The signifier is referred to a hypo-signifier confined to the infra-linguistic by its confusion with the referent, the “objective and material” components of the traumatic event. Dissociation is therefore only a symptomatic reaction, secondary to the trauma, which it reinforces once again by limiting any possibility of representing the trauma. This dissociation does not involve forgetting the traumatic signified but “protects” the adjacent networks of meanings from it as much as it “keeps” this hypersignified intact, therefore ultimately “protecting” it as well. The traumatic signified persists somewhere, and even ends up being found everywhere: when the networks of meanings turn out to be globally disturbed, the tightest links remain those of the traumatic hypersignified that ultimately governs all the networks of meanings.DiscussionOur insufficient knowledge prevents us from precisely qualifying the architecture of the signified idiosyncratic networks and their evolutionary capacities; we cannot predict, beforehand, the reaction of an individual confronted with a potentially psychotraumatic situation. For most clinical situations, we affirm that the psychological trauma occurs in a psychically healthy subject, that is, not suffering from any psychiatric illness or any obvious psychopathological conflict. Psychotherapy will make it possible to discover the signified, sometimes ancient, origins of a trauma occurring in a singular subject. How was this subjectivity constructed? Beyond individual subjectivity, the intensity of certain confrontations such as serious attacks or macrosocial catastrophes such as genocide, would seem to lead to psychological wounds in any individual, even at the scale of a population. While, throughout existence, each subject produces a system of significations in connection with a unique psychic construction, the latter persists – resulting from, and often remaining overseen by, the community essence of a base of signifying networks, which we call “societal subjectivity.” Here, the psychological trauma can correspond to an individual and “common” injury as a failure of a sharing, or of ancestral beliefs anchored in the collective memory, defining the culture. By the collapse of acquired certainties, the cognitive patterns transmitted by education, language, and everything that establishes one's belonging to a society, trauma shakes the networks of individual and group meanings. Horror has a higher traumatogenic risk, because it defeats the fundamentals of humankind, the foundations of a signified network common to a culture, or even to all cultures, to the human condition. This is the case with murder, rape, torture, wars, genocides. Testifying to an instinct for survival stemming from the biological foundations of every living being, the impossibility of “living death” appears to be anchored in our networks of meanings and is manifested by indescribability, traumatic as such: being deserted by the language collides with the condition of speaking. And yet, it remains possible to say something about it... As a path of progressive desocialization, the occasional loss of the community of language, followed by its lasting traumatic ravages, can be appeased by the reestablishment of a speech link, either within the mind of the subject alone, or promoted by the exchange with others, in a psychotherapeutic setting, for example.ConclusionWhere theoretical discourses have sometimes proved divisive, going beyond the symptoms of indescribability and dissociation, psychodynamic practice today offers to unite. Thanks to psycholinguistic listening, phenomena that have never been explained take on meaning: the singularity of traumatic perception, the chronology of disorders including the latency phase, factors that trigger reviviscences, and the diversity of chronic clinical forms. All these post-traumatic symptoms are consequential to a linguistic wound, a difficulty in accessing meaning, the undermining of two dimensions characterizing and constructing the human being. As much as it integrates extralinguistic determinants, if the traumatic signified is undoubtedly not only speech, language appears the optimal way to identify it as such, while in the same movement appeasing it. The traumatic hypersignified is discovered through clinical analysis and psychotherapy, through deferred action, through the attribution of meaning, through the retrospective reconstruction of an unstable “real,” through a changing narration eternally distancing itself from reviviscences. But what precisely are the mechanisms of effective therapies ? What are the intersubjective links called for in the discussion between patient and practitioner? Could the operations that we call “psychotherapy” be made up of mobilizations of the networks of meanings by speech acts?