Cardioprotective effects of sinomenine in myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury in a rat model

BackgroundIschemia reperfusion (I/R) play an imperative role in the expansion of cardiovascular disease. Sinomenine (SM) has been exhibited to possess antioxidant, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, antiviral and anticarcinogenic properties. The aim of the study was scrutinized the cardioprotective effect of SM against I/R injury in rat.MethodsRat were randomly divided into normal control (NC), I/R control and I/R + SM (5, 10 and 20 mg/kg), respectively. Ventricular arrhythmias, body weight and heart weight were estimated. Antioxidant, inflammatory cytokines, inflammatory mediators and plasmin system indicator were accessed.ResultsPre-treated SM group rats exhibited the reduction in the duration and incidence of ventricular fibrillation, ventricular ectopic beat (VEB) and ventricular tachycardia along with suppression of arrhythmia score during the ischemia (30 and 120 min). SM treated rats significantly (P < 0.001) altered the level of antioxidant parameters. SM treatment significantly (P < 0.001) repressed the level of creatine kinase MB (CK-MB), creatine kinase (CK) and troponin I (Tnl). SM treated rats significantly (P < 0.001) repressed the tissue factor (TF), thromboxane B2 (TXB2), plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 (PAI-1) and plasma fibrinogen (Fbg) and inflammatory cytokines and inflammatory mediators.ConclusionOur result clearly indicated that SM plays anti-arrhythmia effect in I/R injury in the rats via alteration of oxidative stress and inflammatory reaction.     

Economic impact of pharmaceutical services on polymedicated patients: A systematic review

BackgroundPolypharmacy is commonly related to poor drug adherence, decreased quality of life and inappropriate prescribing in eldery. Furthermore, this condition also leads to a higher utilization of health services resources, due to the increased risk of adverse drug events, length of stays in hospitals and readmissions rates after discharge.ObjectiveThis Systematic Review aimed to synthesize the current evidence that evaluates pharmaceutical services on polymedicated patients, from an economic perspective.MethodsSystematic searches were conducted in MEDLINE, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library databases to identify studies that were published until January 2021. Experimental and observational studies were included in this review, using strict inclusion/exclusion criteria and were assessed for quality using the following tools: RoB and ROBINS-I. Two independent reviewers selected the articles and extracted the data.Results3,662 articles were retrieved from the databases. After the screening, 18 studies were included: 9 experimental and 9 observational studies. The studies reported that the integration of the pharmacist as a member of the healthcare team provides an optimized use of pharmacotherapy to polymedicated patients and contributes to health promotion, providing reduction of spending on medication, reduction of expenses related to emergency care and hospitalizations and other medical expenses. The ECRs made cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit analysis, and most of the Non Randomized studies had statistically significant cost savings even considering the expenses of pharmaceutical assistance. Experimental studies reported a cost reduction varying between US$ 193 to US$ 4,966 per patient per year. Furthermore, observational studies estimated a cost reduction of varying from US$ 3 to US$ 2,505 per patient per year. The cost savings are related to decrease in emergency visits and hospitalizations, through pharmacist intervention (medication review and pharmacotherapy follow-up).ConclusionsConsidering the set of studies included, pharmaceutical care services directed to polymedicated patients may cooperate to save financial resources. Most of the interventions showed positive economic trends and also contributed to improving clinical parameters and quality of life. However, due to the majority of the studies having exploratory or qualitative methodology, it is essential to carry out more robust studies, based on full economic evaluation.     

藏药细叶亚菊的质量标准研究＊

目的 建立细叶亚菊的质量标准，为其质量控制和合理开发利用提供科学参考。方法 采用性状鉴别、显微鉴别、薄层色谱法（TLC）对细叶亚菊进行定性分析；参照《中国药典》（2020年版）通则方法对细叶亚菊水分、总灰分、酸不溶性灰分、水溶性浸出物进行含量检查；利用高效液相色谱法（HPLC）测定细叶亚菊中绿原酸、异绿原酸A的含量。结果 确定了细叶亚菊的药材性状及显微特征。TLC鉴别显示，供试品（细叶亚菊药材）与对照品（绿原酸、异绿原酸A）在相应位置上均显示相同颜色的荧光斑点。13批细叶亚菊水分、总灰分、酸不溶性灰分、浸出物的含量分别为8.55%-13.07%、6.81%-12.68%、1.11%-3.53%、8.41%-11.64%；绿原酸、异绿原酸A的含量范围分别为0.072%-0.440%、0.283%-1.324%（n=3）。结论 本研究建立的方法准确稳定，可为细叶亚菊的质量控制提供参考。暂规定细叶亚菊水分不得过12.0%，总灰分不得过10.0%，酸不溶性灰分不得过2.5%，水溶性浸出物不得少于8.0%，绿原酸不得少于0.2%，异绿原酸A不得少于0.6%。     

Decreased Incidence of Hirschsprung-Associated Enterocolitis During COVID-19 Across United States Children's Hospitals

BackgroundThe Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic provided a natural experiment to study the effect of social distancing on the risk of developing Hirschsprung's Associated Enterocolitis (HAEC).MethodsUsing the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS), a retrospective cohort study of children (<18 years) with Hirschsprung's Disease (HSCR) across 47 United States children's hospitals was performed. The primary outcome was HAEC admissions per 10,000 patient-days. The exposure (COVID-19) was defined as April 2020–December 2021. The unexposed (historical control) period was April 2018–December 2019. Secondary outcomes included sepsis, bowel perforation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mortality, and length of stay.ResultsOverall, we included 5707 patients with HSCR during the study period. There were 984 and 834 HAEC admissions during the pre-pandemic and pandemic periods, respectively (2.6 vs. 1.9 HAEC admissions per 10,000 patient-days, incident rate ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.74 [0.67, 0.81], p < 0.001). Compared to pre-pandemic, those with HAEC during the pandemic were younger (median [IQR]: 566 [162, 1430] days pandemic vs. 746 [259, 1609] days pre-pandemic, p < 0.001) and more likely to live in the lowest quartile of median household income zip codes (24% pandemic vs. 19% pre-pandemic, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in rates of sepsis (6.1% pandemic vs. 6.1% pre-pandemic, p > 0.9), bowel perforation (1.3% pandemic vs. 1.2% pre-pandemic, p = 0.8), ICU admissions (9.6% pandemic vs. 12% pre-pandemic, p = 0.2), mortality (0.5% pandemic vs. 0.6% pre-pandemic, p = 0.8), or length of stay (median [interquartile range]: 4 [(Pastor et al., 2009; Gosain and Brinkman, 2015) 2,112,11 days pandemic vs. 5 [(Pastor et al., 2009; Tang et al., 2020) 2,102,10 days pre-pandemic, p = 0.4).ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic was associated with significantly decreased incidence of HAEC admissions across US children's hospitals. Possible etiologies such as social distancing should be explored.Level of evidenceII.     

Trends of self-reported non-adherence among type 2 diabetes medication users in the United States across three years using the self-reported Medication Adherence Reasons Scale

Background & aimsTo determine the trends of self-reported non-adherence rates among adults taking Type 2 medicines (T2D) medicines between 2017 and 2019 and to identify the patterns for the frequently reported reasons for non-adherence in the United States.Methods & resultsData from the National Health and Wellness Survey, a self-administered, internet-based cross-sectional survey of US adults from 2017 to 2019 was used. Non-adherence was measured using the self-reported Medication Adherence Reasons Scale (MAR-Scale). Frequencies were used to identify the reasons for non-adherence for insulin and non-insulin therapies for T2D.Data were obtained from 2983 respondents in 2017, 5416 in 2018, and 5268 in 2019. Based on the MAR-Scale, the self-reported medication non-adherence rate was 25% in 2017, 21% in 2018, and 27% in 2019. The most common reason for non-adherence across all the three years was simple forgetfulness, yet patients reported the lowest mean number of days missing medication for that reason. Though less frequently reported, non-adherence lasted longer when patient did not know how to take their medicines, cost was a reason, or had concerns about the long term effects of the medicines.ConclusionsWith no significant improvement in adherence with T2D medicines over time, regardless of better awareness and extensive diabetes education, focus should be on individualized non-adherence reasons-based interventions.