金水宝片联合依诺肝素对维持性血液透析患者血脂代谢的影响

目的：探究金水宝片联合依诺肝素对维持性血液透析患者血脂代谢的影响。方法：选取2018年12月至2019年3月马鞍山十七冶医院血液净化中心进行透析的患者154例作为研究对象，根据用药不同分为对照组和观察组,每组77例。对照组常规应用依诺肝素抗凝，观察组在对照组抗凝基础上加用金水宝片，各组均干预3个月，比较2组患者血脂变化及持续血液透析并发症发生情况。结果：治疗后，观察组患者三酰甘油、总胆固醇及低密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平下降，高密度脂蛋白胆固醇升高，与治疗前比较差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05），与对照组治疗后比较，差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；观察组总并发症发生率明显低于对照组，2组比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）；2组患者维持性血液透析不良反应发生率均较低，组间比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：金水宝片联合依诺肝素有助于改善维持性血液透析患者血脂代谢水平，降低维持性血液透析相关并发症，值得临床推广应用。     

急性冠状动脉综合征介入治疗前应用依诺肝素有效性和安全性研究

目的　前瞻性的评价无ST段抬高的急性冠状动脉 (冠脉 )综合征患者接受冠脉介入治疗前应用依诺肝素的安全性和有效性。方法　急性冠脉综合征患者入院后给予依诺肝素 1mg/kg ,皮下 ,1 /1 2h ,至少 48h ,在最后一次注射后 8h内行介入检查或治疗。术中 /术后不再追加肝素或低分子肝素。部分病人术后集中测定抗Xa因子活性。结果　 50 7例患者完成了本研究。 1 76例 (93 .2 % )的患者抗Xa因子活性 >0 .5IU/ml。30d内的随访中 ,急性心肌梗死 1 6例 (3 .2 % ) ,再发不稳定性心绞痛 34例 (6 .7% ) ,1例 (0 .2 % )进行了血运重建 ,1例死亡 (十二指肠穿孔 )。轻微出血 2 4例 ,占 4 7%。30d后的随访有 1例发生非Q波心肌梗死 ,1例再发不稳定性心绞痛。结论　高危急性冠脉综合征病人皮下注射依诺肝素至少 48h ,最后一次注射 8h内行介入检查或治疗 ,不再给抗凝制剂 ,对病人安全有效     

丹红注射液联合依诺肝素钠治疗急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死的临床研究

目的探讨丹红注射液联合依诺肝素钠注射液治疗急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死的临床疗效。方法选取2015年6月—2016年6月天津中医药大学第一附属医院收治的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者96例为研究对象,所有患者随机分为对照组和治疗组,每组各48例。对照组于溶栓后12 h肌内注射依诺肝素钠注射液,7 500 IU/次,1次/d。治疗组在对照组的基础上静脉滴注丹红注射液,30 m L加入到5%葡萄糖注射液250 m L中,1次/d。两组均连续治疗7 d。观察两组的临床疗效,比较两组的血清学指标和心血管事件发生情况。结果治疗后,对照组和治疗组的总有效率分别为72.9%、91.7%,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。治疗后,两组血清高敏C-反应蛋白(hs-CRP)、肌酸激酶(CK)、肌酸激酶同工酶(CK-MB)、肌钙蛋白T(c Tn T)水平均显著降低,同组治疗前后比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05);且治疗组这些血清学指标明显低于对照组,两组比较差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。对照组和治疗组院内心血管事件发生率分别为8.4%、4.2%,院外心血管事件发生率分别为10.4%、4.2%,两组比较差异无统计学意义。结论丹红注射液联合依诺肝素钠注射液治疗急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死具有较好的临床疗效,能降低血清hs-CRP、CK、CK-MB、c Tn T水平,安全性较好,具有一定的临床推广应用价值。     

Current status of COVID-19 treatment: An opinion review

The pandemic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has garnered the attention of scientists worldwide in the search for an effective treatment while also focusing on vaccine development. Several drugs have been used for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which has affected many hospitals and health centers worldwide. Statistically significant results are lacking on the effectiveness of the experimented drugs in reducing COVID-19 morbidity or mortality, as there are very few published randomized clinical trials. Despite this, the literature offers some material for study and reflection. This opinion review attempts to address three burning questions on COVID-19 treatment options. (1) What kind of studies are currently published or ongoing in the treatment of patients with COVID-19? (2) What drugs are currently described in the literature as options of treatment for patients affected by the infection? And (3) Are there specific clinical manifestations related to COVID-19 that can be treated with a customized and targeted therapy? By answering these questions, we wish to create a summary of current COVID-19 treatments and the anti-COVID-19 treatments proposed in the recent clinical trials developed in the last 3 mo, and to describe examples of clinical manifestations of the SARS-CoV-2 infection with a cause-related treatment.     

Comparative subcutaneous repeated toxicity study of enoxaparin products in rats

Enoxaparin is a low-molecular-weight heparin widely used for the prevention and treatment of thromboembolism. With the development of several enoxaparin biosimilars, real medical concerns about their safety and efficacy have been raised. This repeated dose toxicity study consists of preclinical toxicological evaluation of a biosimilar biological version of enoxaparin, the drug product “Enoxa”, compared to the enoxaparin reference drug product, “Lovenox”. Eighty white Wistar rats were treated with “Enoxa” versus the reference product, using subcutaneous therapeutic and toxic doses, varying from 3.5 to 100 mg/kg/day. Dose levels were adjusted and ultimately fixed at 3.5 and 20 mg/kg/day as therapeutic and toxic doses, respectively. A sodium chloride solution (0.9%) was used as the control, and the comparative study was conducted over periods of 14 and 28 days. Comparable effects were observed with few adverse effects at the administration dose of 20 mg/kg/day, for both enoxaparin biosimilar and reference products. Interestingly, mortality started only at high doses of 40 mg/kg/day and reached 25% at 100 mg/kg/day for both products. These results, as part of the recommended biosimilarity monitoring, demonstrated comparable toxicity profiles of “Enoxa” and “Lovenox” products in rats. Continuing investigation of biosimilarity on humans to confirm safety and efficacy is suggested.     

An open-label, comparative study of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dose of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal lower limb deep-vein thrombosis

BACKGROUND: Treatment of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) with a once-daily regimen of enoxaparin, rather than a continuous infusion of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is more convenient and allows for home care in some patients. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two regimens for the treatment of patients with proximal lower limb DVT. METHODS: 201 patients with proximal lower limb DVT from 13 centers in Brazil were randomized in an open manner to receive either enoxaparin [1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous (s.c.) OD] or intravenous (i.v.) UFH (adjusted to aPTT 1.5-2.5 times control) for 5-10 days. All patients also received warfarin (INR 2-3) for at least 3 months. The primary efficacy endpoint was recurrent DVT (confirmed by venography or ultrasonography), and safety endpoints included bleeding and serious adverse events. The rate of pulmonary embolism (PE) was also collected. Hospitalization was at the physician's discretion. RESULTS: Baseline patient characteristics were comparable between groups. The duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter with enoxaparin than with UFH (3 versus 7 days). In addition, 36% of patients receiving enoxaparin did not need to be hospitalized, whereas all of the patients receiving UFH were hospitalized. The treatment duration was slightly longer with enoxaparin (8 versus 7 days). There was a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in the rate of recurrent DVT with enoxaparin versus UFH, and similar safety. CONCLUSIONS: A once-daily regimen of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous is at least as effective and safe as conventional treatment with a continuous intravenous infusion of UFH. However, the once daily enoxaparin regimen is easier to administer (subcutaneous versus intravenous), does not require aPTT monitoring, and leads to both a reduced number of hospital admissions and an average 4-day-shorter hospital stay.     

磺达肝癸钠治疗老年急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死的有效性和安全性临床研究

目的 比较磺达肝癸钠和依诺肝素治疗ST段抬高型心肌梗死(STEMI)患者的疗效和安全性.方法 入选65岁以上老年STEMI患者169例,所有患者均于住院期间行经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI),术后完全随机分为观察组(n=85)和对照组(n=84).48 h普通肝素抗凝后,观察组患者给予磺达肝癸钠2.5 mg,1次/d,对照组患者给予依诺肝素钠100 AxaIU/kg,每12小时1次.2组患者均连用7d.从PCI术后即刻开始随访至出院后1个月,记录血常规、尿常规、血生化、超声心动图检查结果及主要不良心血管事件和不良反应的发生情况.结果 2组均无心源性死亡、非致死性心肌梗死发生,观察组5例(5.9％)发生反复不稳定型心绞痛(UAP),对照组4例(4.8％)发生反复UAP,2组反复UAP发生率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).2组抗凝疗效相似.抗凝治疗前后,2组血常规、尿常规、血生化、超声心动图指标比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).2组均无大出血及皮疹发生,对照组总的小出血发生率[7.1％(6/84)]略高于观察组[3.5％(3/85)],但差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 对于65岁以上STEMI患者,应用磺达肝癸钠抗凝治疗有效、安全,与依诺肝素相比,磺达肝癸钠的小出血事件较少,在减少出血风险方面具有潜在优势.     

Does Low Molecular Weight Heparin Impair Anastomotic Wound Healing?

Background  Enoxaparin is an important molecule which had been using in prophylaxis and treatment of deep venous thrombosis. Also, it is showed that it prevents postsurgical peritoneal adhesions in rats. It is aimed to evaluate its effects on gastrointestinal wound healing. Methods  Thirty Wistar albino rats were divided into three groups as control, subcutan, and intraperitoneal enoxaparin groups. Left colon anastomoses were performed. On postoperative seventh day, anastomotic healing was evaluated by measuring anastomotic bursting pressure, tissue hydroxyproline levels, and histopathological examination. Results  The anastomotic bursting pressure was highest in subcutan enoxaparin group (p < 0.001), intraperitoneal enoxaparin group (p < 0.01) came the second, and the control group has the worst value. The hydroxyproline results were found nearly similar to the bursting pressure values (subcutan (p < 0.001) > intraperitoneal (p < 0.05) > control). Neovascularization in subcutan group (p < 0.001) has a statistically significant difference to other groups. Conclusion  Enoxaparin did not interfere with colonic anastomotic resistance but improved the intestinal wound healing.