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。     

CTA诊断右下肺叶基底段异常体动脉供血1例

患者男,22岁,无明显诱因咳嗽、痰中带血1周,起初干咳,后咳痰并痰中带血,偶咯出少量暗红色血液;无发热、盗汗、乏力,无胸闷、胸痛及呼吸困难,平素体健,无家族病史。查体:双肺呼吸音稍粗,右肺下叶闻及细湿啰音。胸部增强CT:右肺下叶基底段见片状磨玻璃影,内见直径约8mm粗大供血动脉自腹腔干发出;支气管树分支及肺发育正常,未见隔离肺(图1A^1C)。肺动脉CTA示右下肺基底段动脉部分缺如(图1D),考虑为右下肺异常体动脉供血并周围肺组织肺泡出血可能。     

外周血miR-150-5p、SOCS1 mRNA对类风湿关节炎“病”“证”诊断意义的初步探讨＊

目的 探讨类风湿关节炎患者外周血miR-150-5p、细胞因子信号抑制因子1（suppressor of cytokine signaling 1，SOCS1）mRNA的表达及对类风湿关节炎（Rheumatoid Arthritis，RA）疾病诊断、中医证型判断的意义。方法 纳入符合诊断标准的RA患者57例及健康对照组19例，根据《22个专业95个病种中医诊疗方案》有关RA的中医证候诊断标准，判断RA的中医证型。qPCR检测RA患者及健康对照组miR-150-5p、SOCS1mRNA的相对表达水平，同时检测血常规、肝功能、肾功能等常规指标。双荧光素酶分析方法判断两者是否存在靶向关系。统计分析miR-150-5p、SOCS1 mRNA对RA疾病的诊断意义及其与中医证型的相关性。结果 RA患者外周血miR-150-5p的相对表达水平下调，低于正常人群（t = -19.019，P < 0.05）；其表达水平随疾病活动度升高，有下降趋势；患者外周血SOCS1 mRNA的相对表达水平上调，低于正常人群（t = 5.333，P < 0.05）；其表达水平随疾病活动度升高，有上升趋势。MiR-150-5p与SOCS1 mRNA有靶向结合关系（P < 0.05）。通过AUC曲线比较，miR-150-5p的相对表达水平区分RA的敏感性及特异性分别为98.1%、92.1%（AUC = 0.972，P < 0.05）；SOCS1 mRNA的相对表达水平无法区分RA（AUC = 0.472，P > 0.05）。RA患者中miR-150-5p的相对表达水平低于3.06，RA患者风湿痹阻证、寒湿痹阻证的相对风险分别为8.33、250.00（P < 0.05）。结论 miR-150-5p、SOCS1 mRNA在RA患者中有差异性表达，且有靶向结合关系。miR-150-5p可能是RA的疾病诊断及中医风湿痹阻证、寒湿痹阻证证型诊断的潜在生物标志物。     

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.