吉林辽宁两省18年来的目标设置对突发公共卫生事件应急工作落实情况的关联研究

目的本研究立足于项目组前期研究的成果上，积极探索吉林辽宁两省目标设置水平的差异，并进一步探究受目标设置影响下的工作落实结果情况，探讨产生差异的原因。 方法以系统穷尽的方式收集吉林辽宁两省2000至2017年有关目标与工作落实情况的指标，利用Spearman相关和线性回归分析吉林辽宁两省目标设置对于突发应急工作落实情况的影响。 结果吉林辽宁两省突发应急领域的目标设置水平与工作落实情况总体均呈现上升趋势，截至2017年，吉林目标设置水平与工作落实情况分别为46%与60%，辽宁为60%与53.3%，且目标设置水平与工作落实呈正相关。 结论有公众需要为依据且定量可考的目标设置对于工作落实、推进、完善具有积极的正反馈作用，建立科学量化的突发应急目标设置评价体系是适宜可行的。     

酪氨酸激酶受体RON与E-cadherin在子宫内膜异位症上的表达及意义

目的探讨酪氨酸激酶受体RON及上皮型钙粘蛋白(E-cadherin)在子宫内膜异位症(endometriosis,EMs)上的表达及意义。方法选择2017年7~12月深圳市龙岗区人民医院收治的42例EMs患者,术中分别留取新鲜异位内膜组织和在位内膜组织,随机选取子宫切除或诊断性刮宫治疗的非EMs患者42例,术中留取其正常子宫内膜组织。采用逆转录聚合酶链反应(RT-PCR)检测子宫内膜组织中RON mRNA的表达,采用免疫组织化学方法检测对应42例石蜡组织中RON蛋白和E-cadherin的表达,并分析RON蛋白和E-cadherin的相关性。结果EMs异位内膜组织RON mRNA及RON蛋白阳性表达率显著高于在位内膜组织及正常子宫内膜组织(P<0.001),在位内膜组织及正常内膜组织中E-cadherin阳性表达率显著高于异位内膜组织(P<0.001),且异位内膜组织中RON mRNA及RON蛋白的表达与临床分期有关(P<0.001)。在同一标本中RON蛋白和E-cadherin表达呈负相关关系(r=-0.497,P<0.05)。结论RON的过度表达与EMs的发生发展密切相关,联合检测RON和E-cadherin的异常对判断EMs的发生发展有一定的参考价值,RON可能成为诊断治疗EMs的新靶点。     

层级质量控制在外科ICU护理管理中的应用

目的探讨在外科ICU护理管理中实施层级质量控制的效果。方法选择2016年1-12月为实施前,2018年1-12月为实施后,实施前后均选取50例外科ICU患者及护理人员为研究对象,对实施前后外科ICU护理管理质量进行观察。结果实施后外科护理人员在工作人员素质、环境管理、护理质量管理及质量总分上均显著高于实施前(P<0.05);实施后ICU患者对护理管理的总满意率为98.00%,明显高于实施前总满意率86.00%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论在外科ICU护理管理中,实施层级质量控制的护理管理模式,可显著提高ICU病房护理治疗,提高患者的满意率,值得推广。     

不同介入模式在肝癌治疗中的应用分析

目的探讨不同介入模式在肝癌治疗中的应用分析。方法选取我院肝癌患者130例,将其分为三组,其中,一组患者采用经肝动脉化疗栓塞术(TACE)治疗,二组患者采用肝门静脉化疗栓塞术(PVCE)治疗,三组患者在前两组患者治疗的基础上进行经皮肝穿刺乙醇消融(PEI)治疗,对比分析三组患者的治疗效果。结果一组治疗总有效率为27.5%,二组治疗总有效率为35%,三组治疗总有效率为92%,三组相对于一、二组来说治疗效果更佳,差异具有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论肝动脉化疗栓塞术、肝门静脉化疗栓塞术和经皮肝穿刺乙醇消融治疗相结合治疗肝癌患者,能够有效提高患者治疗效果,稳定患者病情。     

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials: Efficacy and Safety of UDCA-Based Therapies in Primary Biliary Cirrhosis

Major ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA)-based therapies for primary biliary cirrhosis (PBC) include UDCA only, or combined with either methotrexate (MTX), corticosteroids (COT), colchicine (COC), or bezafibrate (BEF). As the optimum treatment regimen is unclear and warrants exploration, we aimed to compare these therapies in terms of patient mortality or liver transplantation (MOLT) and adverse events (AE).PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials up to August 31, 2014. We estimated the hazard ratios (HRs) for MOLT and odds ratios (ORs) for AE. A sensitivity analysis based on the dose of UDCA was also executed.Thirty-one eligible articles were included. Compared with COT plus UDCA, UDCA (HR 0.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09–1.39), BEF plus UDCA (HR 0.29, 95% CI 0.02–4.83), COC plus UDCA (HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.07–2.25), MTX plus UDCA (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.05–1.63), or OBS (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.11–2.01) all provided an increased risk of MOLT. With respect to drug AE profile, although not differing appreciably, BEF plus UDCA was associated with more AEs compared with UDCA (OR 3.16, 95% CI 0.59–20.67), COT plus UDCA (OR 2.27, 95% CI 0.15–33.36), COC plus UDCA (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.09–12.16), MTX plus UDCA (OR 2.03, 95% CI 0.23–17.82), or OBS (OR 3.00, 95% CI 0.53–20.75). The results of sensitivity analyses were highly consistent with previous analyses.COT plus UDCA was the optimal UDCA-based regimen for both MOLT and AEs. BEF plus UDCA was most likely to cause AEs, whereas monotherapy with UDCA and coadministriation of COT plus UDCA appeared to be associated with the fewest AEs for PBC treatment.     

Brand-Name Antidepressants Outperform Their Generic Counterparts in Preventing Hospitalization for Depression: The Real-World Evidence from Taiwan

BackgroundGeneric antidepressants are approved on the market based on evidence of bioequivalence to their brand-name versions. We aimed to assess whether generic antidepressants exert equal effectiveness as their brand-name counterparts for treating patients with depressive disorders.MethodsIn a nationwide, population-based cohort in Taiwan from 1997 through 2013, patients with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder aged between 18 and 65 years who were new users of antidepressant drugs were classified into either the brand-name group or the generic group. All patients were followed up until medication discontinuation or the end of the study period. We assessed the risk for hospitalization as a primary outcome and augmentation therapy, daily dose, medication discontinuation, or switching to another antidepressant as secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 651 brand-name users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.2 years) and 270 583 generic users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.0 years) were divided into 10 different antidepressant groups (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, moclobemide, imipramine, and bupropion). We found that patients treated with the generic form of sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion demonstrated significantly higher risks of psychiatric hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.20–2.34), compared to their brand-name counterparts. The differences between brand-name antidepressants and their generic counterparts in secondary outcomes varied across different drugs.ConclusionsCompared to most generic antidepressants, brand-name drugs exhibited more protective effects on psychiatric hospitalization for depressive patients. These findings could serve as an important reference for clinicians when encountering patients with depressive disorder.