艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦治疗慢性丙型肝炎患者疗效初步观察

目的 初步探讨应用艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦治疗慢性丙型肝炎(CHC)患者的疗效。方法 2017年3月~2018年3月仙桃市第一人民医院感染病科收治的CHC患者82例,被随机分为对照组41例和观察组41例,分别给予聚乙二醇干扰素-α联合利巴韦林治疗和艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦治疗,两组均连续治疗24周。采用RT- PCR法检测血清 HCV RNA,采用全基因序列测定法行病毒基因分型。比较两组早期病毒学应答(EVR)、治疗结束时病毒学应答(ETVR)和持续病毒学应答(SVR)。结果 在治疗结束时,观察组血清丙氨酸氨基转移酶(ALT)水平为(47.9±19.7)U/L,显著低于对照组【(63.5±21.2)U/L,P<0.05】,天冬氨酸氨基转移酶(AST)水平为(55.5±22.3)U/L,显著低于对照组【(81.3±25.8)U/L,P<0.05】;观察组EVR、ETVR和SVR分别为48.8%、63.4%和70.7%,与对照组的41.5%、53.7%和65.8%比,无统计学差异(P>0.05);18例观察组非HCV Ⅰ型感染者EVR、ETVR和SVR分别为88.9%、94.4%和88.9%,显著高于同组23例HCV Ⅰ型感染者(分别为52.2%、60.9%和52.2%, P<0.05),而与对照组15例非HCV Ⅰ型感染者比,无统计学差异(分别为86.7%、93.3%和73.3%, P>0.05);观察组SVR₁₂为87.8%(36/41),显著高于对照组的73.2%(30/41,P<0.05)。结论 应用直接抗病毒(DAA)药物艾尔巴韦/格拉瑞韦治疗CHC患者近期疗效达到,但远期疗效似优于标准治疗方案, 值得临床进一步验证。     

User experiences with second-generation 32-gauge × 4 mm vs. thinner comparator pen needles: prospective randomized trial

Abstract

Objective

Two similarly designed studies compared user experiences with a second-generation extra-thin-wall, 5-bevel 32?G?×?4?mm pen needle (PN) with redesigned hub versus four thinner commercially available PNs.     

Action research methodology in clinical pharmacy: how to involve and change

Introduction The focus in clinical pharmacy practice is and has for the last 30–35 years been on changing the role of pharmacy staff into service orientation and patient counselling. One way of doing this is by involving staff in change process and as a researcher to take part in the change process by establishing partnerships with staff. On the background of the authors’ widespread action research (AR)-based experiences, recommendations and comments for how to conduct an AR-study is described, and one of their AR-based studies illustrate the methodology and the research methods used. Methodology AR is defined as an approach to research which is based on a problem-solving relationship between researchers and clients, which aims at both solving a problem and at collaboratively generating new knowledge. Research questions relevant in AR-studies are: what was the working process in this change oriented study? What learning and/or changes took place? What challenges/pitfalls had to be overcome? What were the influence/consequences for the involved parts? When to use If you want to implement new services and want to involve staff and others in the process, an AR methodology is very suitable. The basic advantages of doing AR-based studies are grounded in their participatory and democratic basis and their starting point in problems experienced in practice. Limitations Some of the limitations in AR-studies are that neither of the participants in a project steering group are the only ones to decide. Furthermore, the collective process makes the decision-making procedures relatively complex.