不同时期COPD患者血清DcR3、Survivin表达水平及临床意义

目的 探讨不同时期慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者血清诱饵受体3(DcR3)、凋亡抑制蛋白(Survivin)表达水平及临床意义。方法 选取2018年9月—2019年12月本院收治的92名COPD患者为研究对象,其中稳定型COPD 50例,急性加重期COPD 42例;同期本院健康体检者88例为对照组。测定各组研究对象血清DcR3、Survivin水平及肺功能指标。 与对照组[DcR3(106.54±48.35)pg/mL,Survivin(98.85±26.59)pg/mL]比较,稳定期组和急性加重期组血清DcR3[(395.23±123.85)pg/mL,(1 248.81±213.59)pg/mL]、Survivin [(267.54±84.69)pg/mL,(1 233.95±307.26)pg/mL]水平升高;与稳定期组比较,急性加重期组血清DcR3、Survivin水平升高。与对照组比较,稳定期组和急性加重期组FEV1%、FEV1 /FVC、DLCO%水平降低(P<0.001);与稳定期组比较,急性加重期组FEV1%、FEV1 /FVC、DLCO%水平降低(P<0.001)。随着低氧血症严重程度的增加,COPD患者血清DcR3、Survivin水平逐渐增加(P<0.001)。多因素logistics回归分析显示,高水平DcR3、Survivin、IL-12、hs-CRP为COPD病情的危险因素(P<0.001)。DcR3、Survivin与FEV、FEV1 /FVC呈负相关,与IL-12、TNF-α、hs-CRP呈正相关(P<0.001)。 COPD稳定期、急性加重期患者血清DcR3、Survivin表达水平升高,且DcR3、Survivin与COPD病情严重程度呈正相关。     

特发性肺纤维化急性加重期证候与血清生物标志物的相关性研究＊

目的 通过分析特发性肺纤维化急性加重期（AE-IPF）患者证候与血清生物标志物的关系，为中医辨证治疗提供参考。方法 采用观察性研究设计，收集2019年3月至2019年11月三个中心的AE-IPF患者76例，其中痰热壅肺证26例、痰浊阻肺证50例，并纳入健康志愿者10例作为对照。采用ELISA测定患者血清CCL18、HMGB1、KL-6、MMP-7、SP-A和SP-D水平，分析与中医证候的相关性。结果 AE-IPF患者血清CCL18、HMGB1、KL-6、MMP-7、SP-A和SP-D水平均显著高于健康对照组。血清CCL18、HMGB1、KL-6、MMP-7和SP-D水平在痰热壅肺证和痰浊阻肺证患者间无显著性差异（P＞0.05），而血清SP-A水平存在显著性差异（P＜0.05）。结论 血清SP-A与AE-IPF证候存在一定的相关性，血清SP-A的浓度升高，与痰热壅肺证关系越密切，反之，血清SP-A浓度降低，则与痰浊阻肺证关系越密切。AE-IPF痰热壅肺证患者的预后可能较痰浊阻肺证患者更差。     

中医药治疗特发性肺纤维化的系统评价再评价＊

目的 对中医药治疗特发性肺纤维化（idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis， IPF）的系统评价（SRs）进行再评价。方法 检索知网、中国生物医学数据库、维普、万方、The Cochrane Library、Web of Science、PubMed和EMbase数据库，纳入中医药治疗IPF的SRs，截止2021年5月。使用AMSTAR 2量表进行方法学质量评价，GRADE系统工具进行结局指标证据质量分级。结果 共纳入28篇文献，试验组除辨证论治外，治疗方法集中在活血化瘀、补肺益气等方面，基本符合治疗法则。结果显示中医药治疗IPF可以提高有效率、增加肺功能、提高PaO₂、增加6WMD、缓解临床症状、提高患者的生活质量等。AMSTAR 2量表评价，所纳入SRs均有多项关键条目不达标，整体方法学质量等级不高。采用GRADE工具进行质量分级，一共234个结局指标，无高等证据质量，整体证据等级不高。结论 中医药对比西医治疗IPF有效且不良反应不明显，但RCT研究和系统评价研究方法质量尚有缺陷，完全按照西医评价指标可能会低估真实结果，未来需要更规范的研究及适合中医的评价指标，对中医药研究的安全性方面关注还有待提高。     

Comparison between standard Vs. Escalated dose venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19: A two centers,observational study

IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the “standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under ”escalated VTE prophylaxis dose“. The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52–2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16–3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08–10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79–1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76–1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.     

Gynecologic Malignancy-Associated Venous Thromboembolism and Predictive Tool at Thammasat University Hospital

Objectives: Aims were to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in gynecologic malignancy cases. Value of screening tool (Caprini) for prediction of VTE was also assessed. Study design: A retrospective study of gynecologic malignancy subjects who underwent major gynecological operation via exploratory laparotomy at Thammasat University Hospital, Pathum Thani, Thailand from January 2015 to December 2020. Participants were categorized into VTE and non-VTE groups. Caprini score, associated laboratory and clinical factors of both groups were evaluated. Results: A total of 392 subjects were recruited into the study. Prevalence of VTE was 7.4 (29/392) percent. VTE was diagnosed in subjects with endometrial, ovarian and cervical cancer at percentage of 7.8 (15/192), 7.9 (11/138) and 5.7 (3/53), respectively. Demographic characters of both groups were comparable. VTE group had significant more Caprini score, platelets count and platelet lymphocyte ratio (PLR) than non-VTE group. Modified Caprini score (2 multiply Caprini score plus 1 multiply PLR) was generated for better VTE prediction. Sensitivity and specificity of Caprini (≥5.5) and modified Caprini scores (≥22.8) were 72.4 vs 39.4, and 79.3 vs 52.1 percent, respectively. Conclusion: Prevalence of VTE among gynecologic malignancy cases was 7.4 percent. The modified Caprini score was an alternative VTE predictive tool. Cut-off point of modified Caprini score at equal or more than 22.8 was proposed.     

Utilization of and Outcomes Associated with Intravascular Ultrasound during Deep Venous Stent Placement among Medicare Beneficiaries

PurposeTo evaluate temporal trends, practice variation, and associated outcomes with the use of intravascular ultrasound (US) during deep venous stent placement among Medicare beneficiaries.Materials and MethodsAll lower extremity deep venous stent placement procedures performed between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019 among Medicare beneficiaries were included. Temporal trends in intravascular US use were stratified by procedural setting and physician specialty. The primary outcome was a composite of 12-month all-cause mortality, all-cause hospitalization, or repeat target vessel intervention. The secondary outcome was a composite of 12-month stent thrombosis, embolization, or restenosis.ResultsAmong the 20,984 deep venous interventions performed during the study period, 15,184 (72.4%) utilized intravascular US. Moderate growth in intravascular US use was observed during the study period in all clinical settings. There was a variation in the use of intravascular US among all operators (median, 77.3% of cases; interquartile range, 20.0%–99.2%). In weighted analyses, intravascular US use during deep venous stent placement was associated with a lower risk of both the primary (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.76; P < .001) and secondary (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.27–0.39; P < .001) composite end points.ConclusionsIntravascular US is frequently used during deep venous stent placement among Medicare beneficiaries, with further increase in use from 2017 to 2019. The utilization of intravascular US as part of a procedural strategy was associated with a lower cumulative incidence of adverse outcomes after the procedure, including venous stent thrombosis and embolization.     

Good clinical research practice (GCRP) in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents III: The 2023 Geneva revision

The set of guidelines for good clinical research practice in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents was developed following an international consensus conference in Copenhagen in 1996 (Viby-Mogensen et al., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996, 40 , 59–74); the guidelines were later revised and updated following the second consensus conference in Stockholm in 2005 (Fuchs-Buder et al., Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2007, 51 , 789–808). In view of new devices and further development of monitoring technologies that emerged since then, (e.g., electromyography, three-dimensional acceleromyography, kinemyography) as well as novel compounds (e.g., sugammadex) a review and update of these recommendations became necessary. The intent of these revised guidelines is to continue to help clinical researchers to conduct high-quality work and advance the field by enhancing the standards, consistency, and comparability of clinical studies. There is growing awareness of the importance of consensus-based reporting standards in clinical trials and observational studies. Such global initiatives are necessary in order to minimize heterogeneous and inadequate data reporting and to improve clarity and comparability between different studies and study cohorts. Variations in definitions of endpoints or outcome variables can introduce confusion and difficulties in interpretation of data, but more importantly, it may preclude building of an adequate body of evidence to achieve reliable conclusions and recommendations. Clinical research in neuromuscular pharmacology and physiology is no exception.