社区“5+1”糖尿病分阶段达标管理对2型糖尿病患者生存质量干预效果分析

目的 分析社区"5+1"糖尿病分阶段达标管理对2型糖尿病患者生存质量的干预效果及其影响因素，为提高患者生存质量提供依据。方法 采用分层整群抽样的方法在山西省、江苏省和宁夏回族自治区选择12个社区卫生服务中心，分别作为干预组（管理方式：社区"5+1"糖尿病分阶段达标管理）、对照组[管理方式：依据《国家基本公共卫生服务规范（2011年版）》的相关要求]，进行为期2年的随访观察。采用面对面问卷调查的方式，收集患者的人口学信息等基本信息；采用健康调查简表（SF-36）对患者在干预前后测量生存质量。采用SAS 9.4软件进行双重差分法以及多重线性回归模型分析。结果 基线时共纳入2 467名研究对象，终末时共1 924人接受了为期2年完整的随访管理。干预后，干预组、对照组患者生理健康维度（PCS）、心理健康维度（MCS）评分变化净差值分别为13.6分、29.8分。多重线性回归分析结果显示，影响患者PCS得分的主要因素有年龄、医保类型、基线PCS得分以及所在地区，影响患者MCS得分的主要因素有年龄、医保类型、基线MCS得分、是否合并高血压以及所在地区。结论 社区"5+1"糖尿病分阶段达标管理对2型糖尿病患者生存质量的干预效果较好。     

In Vivo Kinematics of Functional Ankle Instability Patients and Lateral Ankle Sprain Copers During Stair Descent

Patients with mechanic ankle instability experience increased tibiotalar and subtalar joint laxity. However, in vivo joint kinematics in functional ankle instability (FAI) patients and lateral ankle sprain (LAS) copers, especially during dynamic activities, are poorly understood. Ten FAI patients, 10 LAS copers, and 10 healthy controls were included in this study. A dual fluoroscopic imaging system was used to analyze the tibiotalar and subtalar joint kinematics during stair descent. Five key poses of stair descent were analyzed. Kinematic data from six degrees of freedom were calculated utilizing a solid modeling software. The range of motion and joint positions in each degree of freedom were compared among the three groups. The tibiotalar joints of FAI patients and LAS copers were significantly more inverted than those of healthy controls during the foot strike (p = 0.016, = 0.264). The subtalar joints of FAI patients were significantly more anteriorly translated (pose 2, p = 0.003, = 0.352; pose 3, p < 0.001, = 0.454; pose 4, p = 0.004, = 0.334), inverted (pose 4, p = 0.027, = 0.234; pose 5,p = 0.034, = 0.221), and externally rotated (pose 4, p = 0.037, = 0.217; pose 5; p = 0.004, = 0.331) than those of healthy controls during the mid‐stance and the heel off. The FAI patients showed excessive tibiotalar inversion and subtalar joint hypermobility during stair descent. Meanwhile, the LAS copers maintained subtalar joint stability, and only showed excessive tibiotalar inversion in foot strike. These data provide insight into the mechanisms behind the development of FAI after initial LAS. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:1860–1867, 2019     

Comparison between a new platelet count drop method PL-11, light transmission aggregometry,VerifyNow aspirin system and thromboelastography for monitoring short-term aspirin effects in healthy individuals

Platelet function has been described by many laboratory assays, and PL-11 is a new point-of-care platelet function analyzer based on platelet count drop method, which counts platelet before and after the addition of agonists in the citrated whole blood samples. The present study sought to compare PL-11 with other three major more established assays, light transmission aggregometry (LTA), VerifyNow? aspirin system and thromboelastography (TEG), for monitoring the short-term aspirin responses in healthy individuals. Ten healthy young men took 100?mg/d aspirin for 3-day treatment. Platelet function was measured via PL-11, LTA, VerifyNow and TEG, respectively. The blood samples were collected at baseline, 2 hour, 1 day during the aspirin treatment and 1 day, 5?±?1 days, 8?±?1 days after the aspirin withdrawal. Moreover, 90 additional healthy subjects were recruited to establish a reference range for PL-11. Platelet function of healthy subjects decreased significantly 2 hours after 100?mg/d aspirin intake and began to recover during 4–6 days after the aspirin withdrawal. Correlations between methods were PL-11 vs. LTA (r?=?0.614, p?<?0.01); PL-11 vs. VerifyNow (r?=?0.829, p?<?0.01); PL-11 vs. TEG (r?=?0.697, p?<?0.001). There was no significant bias between PL-11 and LTA at baseline (bias?=?1.94%, p?=?0.804) using Bland-Altman analysis, while the data of PL-11 were significantly higher than LTA (bias?=?24.02%, p?<?0.001) during the aspirin therapy. The reference range for PL-11 in healthy young individuals was from 66.8 to 90.5% (95%CI). When aspirin low-responsiveness was defined as LTA?>?20%, the cut-off values for each method were, respectively: PL-11?>?50%, VerifyNow?>?533 ARU, TEG?>?60.2%. The results of different platelet function assays were uninterchangeable for monitoring aspirin response and correlations among them were also varied. Correlations among PL-11 and other three major assays suggested the ability of PL-11 to assess the treatment effects of aspirin. But a large cohort study is needed to confirm the cut-off value of aspirin response detected by PL-11.