智力和发展性残疾儿童青少年身体活动效益：基于ICF的系统综述

目的 基于《国际功能、残疾和健康分类》(ICF)构建智力和发展性残疾儿童青少年身体活动效益系统综述的范畴和PICO架构，探讨智力和发展性残疾儿童和青少年参加身体活动的健康效益。     

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。     

物理治疗翻转课堂教学应用效果的系统综述

目的 系统评价翻转课堂教学模式在物理治疗学教学中的应用效果。方法 计算机检索CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL Plus、Academic Search Premier、Teacher Reference Center、ERIC以及Education Research,纳入翻转课堂教学模式应用于物理治疗学教学的原始研究。检索时限为建库至2021年6月。由2名研究人员独立完成文献筛选、数据提取、质量评价,对翻转课堂教学模式对比传统教学模式在物理治疗学教学中的效果进行综述。结果与结论 共检索文献1 307篇,最终纳入7篇,包括至少770名学生。发表时间集中在2013年至2019年,研究对象为物理治疗学专业学生,主要结局指标为考试成绩。翻转课堂教学模式总体说来可提高学生的笔试成绩,增强高阶思维能力,得到了学生和教师的积极评价。     

The Cost-Effectiveness of Intermediate-Acting,Long-Acting,Ultralong-Acting,and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

ObjectivesThe incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus is increasing every year requiring substantial expenditure on treatment and complications. A systematic review was conducted on the cost-effectiveness of insulin formulations, including ultralong-, long-, or intermediate-acting insulin, and their biosimilar insulin equivalents.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, HTA, and NHS EED were searched from inception to June 11, 2021. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were included if insulin formulations in adults (≥ 16 years) with type 1 diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles, extracted study data, and appraised their quality using the Drummond 10-item checklist. Costs were converted to 2020 US dollars adjusting for inflation and purchasing power parity across currencies.ResultsA total of 27 studies were included. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged widely across the studies. All pairwise comparisons (11 of 11, 100%) found that ultralong-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with other long-acting insulins, including a long-acting biosimilar. Most pairwise comparisons (24 of 27, 89%) concluded that long-acting insulin was cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Few studies compared long-acting insulins with one another.ConclusionsLong-acting insulin may be cost-effective compared with intermediate-acting insulin. Future studies should directly compare biosimilar options and long-acting insulin options and evaluate the long-term consequences of ultralong-acting insulins.     

Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.