老年退行性心脏瓣膜病与多器官疾病发生的调查分析

目的：分析老年退行性心脏瓣膜病（SDHVD）与多器官疾病的发生状况。方法老年人3896例,男2884例,女1012例,年龄60～103（78±13）岁。所有研究对象均进行心脏彩超、体检、相关辅助检查,并对多器官疾病进行分析。结果3896例患者中,SDHVD1225例（31.4%）,无SDHVD2671例（68.6%）,SDHVD组与对照组多器官疾病的发病率分别为高血压病49.3%vs 28.4%,冠心病38.5%vs23.8%,心力衰竭36.2%vs 17.3%,肺心病6.3%vs 3.1%,脑卒中21.6%vs 9.6%,肾功能不全6.9%vs 3.2%,胃食管反流病21.3%vs 10.3%,两组比较差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）,而糖尿病为11.2%vs 12.1%,两组比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 SDHVD组多器官疾病显著增高,可能由于SDHVD心脏重构改变,血流动力学异常,促发了多器官疾病的发生。     

A framework to start the debate on neonatal screening policies in the EU: an Expert Opinion Document

The European Union (EU) Council Recommendation on rare diseases urged the member states to implement national and EU collaborative actions to improve the health care of rare disease patients. Following this recommendation, the European Commission launched a tender on newborn screening (NBS) to report on current practices of laboratory testing, form a network of experts and provide guidance on how to further implement NBS screening in a responsible way, the latter of which was provided in an Expert Opinion document. After consultation of experts from EU member states, (potential) candidate member states and European Free Trade Association countries, in a consensus meeting in June 2011, 70 expert opinions were finalized. They included the need to develop case definitions for all disorders screened for to facilitate assessment and international outcome studies. Decision whether a screening program should be performed can be based on screening criteria updated from the traditional Wilson and Jungner (1968) criteria, relating to disease, treatment, test and cost. The interest of the child should be central in the assessment of pros and cons. A European NBS body should assess evidence on (new) screening candidate disorders. For rare conditions, best level evidence should be used. The health system should ensure treatment to cases diagnosed by screening, controlled and revised by follow-up outcome studies. Screening methodology should aim to avoid unintended findings, such as mild forms and carrier status information, as much as possible. Activities to improve NBS in Europe, such as training and scientific evaluation, could benefit from collaboration at EU level and beyond.The European Union (EU) Council Recommendation¹ on Rare Diseases (9 June 2009)² identified rare diseases (ie, a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition affecting not more than five in 10 000 persons in the community) as a public health concern and highlighted the need for public health actions, promoting the development of research on rare disorders and the improvement of the health care of rare disease patients. Following this recommendation, the European Commission launched a tender on neonatal screening (=newborn screening, NBS) in July 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/eahc/health/tenders_H09C2.html) in order to (1) report on the practices of neonatal screening for rare disorders implemented in all the member states, including number of centers, estimate the number of infants screened and the number of disorders included in the NBS, as well as reasons for the selection of these disorders, (2) to identify types of medical management and follow-up implemented in the member states, (3) to establish a network of experts analyzing the information and formulating a final opinion containing recommendations on best practices, and recommending a core panel of NBS conditions that could be included in all MS practices, and (4) to develop a decision-making matrix that could be used by member states'' programs to systematically expand (or contract) screening mandates.The focus of the tender activities was on NBS by using laboratory testing techniques (blood spot screening). All reports are available on the internet (http://www.iss.it/cnmr/prog/cont.php?id=1621&lang=1&tipo=64).To get some insight into the current practices (points 1 and 2 above), an online survey was compiled and filled out by EU member states, (potential) member states and European Free Trade Association countries – in total 40 countries. Apart from the final report, available on the internet, the current practices are summarized in two journal articles: the first publication addresses the steps in screening programmes from blood spot to screening result³ and the second publication addresses the steps from screening laboratory results to treatment, follow-up and quality assurance.⁴As a third part of the activity and work methodology requested by the tender specifications, a European Union Network of Experts on Newborn Screening (EUNENBS) had to be constituted. Criteria for the inclusion of experts in EUNENBS (http://www.iss.it/cnmr/prog/cont.php?id=1621&lang=1&tipo=64) include that all member states'' authorities should be represented in the network. Each countries'' competent authorities were invited to identify their experts to represent the country at the workshops in 2010 and 2011. Further experts represent European professional and scientific organizations involved in NBS, the representative of the US Secretary''s Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children, additional fields of expertise (eg, ethics) and patient organizations. The list of EUNENBS members is available as Appendix 1 of the Expert Opinion document (http://www.iss.it/cnmr/prog/cont.php?id=1621&lang=1&tipo=64). Most EUNENBS members have a background in health policy making, health technology assessment (HTA) and/or coordinating screening programs, many are involved in the service delivery of NBS in pediatrics, laboratory medicine and genetics. The task of EUNENBS was to supervise the work of the tender and participate in the revision of the tender deliverables, including the Expert Opinion document. The EUNENBS members have provided informally their input and advice without implying any obligation or commitment of their national authorities or organizations. Working documents were prepared reviewing most relevant scientific literature on the development of NBS policy and submitted to EUNENBS to stimulate the discussion during its meeting held on 6–7 December 2010, where the future of NBS was discussed in a workshop. Conclusions were integrated in a draft of the Expert Opinion document that was circulated by e-mail on 9 March 2011 to the membership of EUNENBS and to European Union Committee of Experts on Rare Diseases members from the Candidate and European Economic Area/European Free Trade Association countries inviting comments. This consultation ended on 6 April 2011. The preparation of the second draft, integrating the suggestions received, took place until 6 May 2011. Before the consensus meeting on 20 and 21 June 2011 in Luxembourg, the document was circulated for a second consultation, which took place from 11 to 27 May 2011, and amended considering the comments received. The Expert Opinion document was endorsed by the Boards of the International Society for Neonatal Screening and the European Society of Human Genetics in August and October 2011.Experiences from other countries have served as useful sources, although their applicability may need to be checked against information from EU countries and agreement needs to be sought with EUNENBS. This article presents the 70 Expert Opinions, resulting from the debate among the EUNENBS members with respect to the elements that are part of a system to evaluate the quality and ethical aspects of neonatal screening in the light of available literature, as well as the proposal for a decision matrix. We furthermore provide a brief discussion.     

Association between phase angle,anthropometric measurements,and lipid profile in HCV-infected patients

OBJECTIVE:

The objective of this study was to investigate the associations between phase angle, anthropometric measurements, and lipid profile in patients chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus.

METHODS:

A total of 160 consecutive patients chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus and who received treatment at the hepatitis C outpatient unit of our hospital from April 2010 to May 2011 were prospectively evaluated. Bioelectrical impedance analysis, anthropometric measurements, and serum lipid profile analysis were performed.

RESULTS:

Twenty-five patients were excluded. A total of 135 patients with a mean age of 49.8±11.4 years were studied. Among these patients, 60% were male. The phase angle and BMI means were 6.5±0.8° and 26.5±4.8 kg/m², respectively. Regarding anthropometric variables, mid-arm circumference, mid-arm muscle circumference, and arm muscle area had a positive correlation with phase angle. In contrast, when analyzing the lipid profile, only HDL was inversely correlated with phase angle. However, in multiple regression models adjusted for age and gender, only mid-arm circumference (p = 0.005), mid-arm muscle circumference (p = 0.003), and arm muscle circumference (p = 0.001) were associated with phase angle in hepatitis C virus-infected patients.

CONCLUSIONS:

In conclusion, phase angle is positively correlated with anthropometric measures in our study. However, there is no association between phase angle and lipid profile in these patients. Our results suggest that phase angle is related to lean body mass in patients chronically infected with hepatitis C virus.