2016—2020年甘肃省食源性疾病暴发事件流行病学调查报告质量评价

目的:评价甘肃省食源性疾病暴发事件流行病学调查报告质量,发现基层流行病学调查过程中存在的问题并提出指导意见。方法:收集2016—2020年甘肃省食源性疾病暴发事件监测系统中,发病人数≥10例的食源性疾病暴发事件的流行病学调查报告,按照相应标准对流行病学调查报告中各项指标进行评价。结果:共收集68起食源性疾病暴发事件的流行病学调查报告。报告普遍存在条理性差、层次混乱不清,虽然书写了相应的指标但内容过于简单且不够规范的问题;报告还存在描述性流行病学调查不够全面、深入,分析流行病学欠缺,食品卫生学调查不充分等问题;仅有50.00%(34/68)的调查查明了致病因子和污染食物,39.71%(27/68)的调查查明了污染原因,14.71%(10/68)的调查找出了完整证据链。结论:甘肃省基层工作人员食源性疾病暴发事件流行病学调查不够深入、细致,病因调查和推断较少,几乎未开展分析流行病学调查,调查报告得出的结论依据不够充分;流行病学调查和调查报告书写质量均需要加强和提高;相关部门应基层流行病学调查队伍建设,对技术人员进行中长期的理论与实践相结合的培训。     

癫痫患者匹兹堡睡眠质量指数量表评分 与多导睡眠监测参数、脑功能状态指标相关性分析

摘 要：目的：评价甘肃省食源性疾病暴发事件流行病学调查报告质量,发现基层流行病学调查过程中存在的问题并提 出指导意见。方法：收集2016—2020年甘肃省食源性疾病暴发事件监测系统中,发病人数≥10例的食源性疾病暴发事件的 流行病学调查报告,按照相应标准对流行病学调查报告中各项指标进行评价。结果：共收集 68起食源性疾病暴发事件的流 行病学调查报告。报告普遍存在条理性差、层次混乱不清,虽然书写了相应的指标但内容过于简单且不够规范的问题;报告 还存在描述性流行病学调查不够全面、深入,分析流行病学欠缺,食品卫生学调查不充分等问题;仅有50.00% （34/68） 的 调查查明了致病因子和污染食物,39.71% （27/68） 的调查查明了污染原因,14.71% （10/68） 的调查找出了完整证据链。结 论：甘肃省基层工作人员食源性疾病暴发事件流行病学调查不够深入、细致,病因调查和推断较少,几乎未开展分析流行病 学调查,调查报告得出的结论依据不够充分;流行病学调查和调查报告书写质量均需要加强和提高;相关部门应基层流行病 学调查队伍建设,对技术人员进行中长期的理论与实践相结合的培训。     

Accounting for Intergenerational Cascade Testing in Economic Evaluations of Clinical Genomics: A Scoping Review

ObjectivesClinical genomics is emerging as a diagnostic tool in the identification of blood relatives at risk of developing heritable diseases. Our objective was to identify how genetic cascade screening has been incorporated into health economic evaluations.MethodsA scoping review was conducted to identify how multiple generations of a family were included in economic evaluations of clinical genomic sequencing, how many and which relatives were included, and uptake rates. Databases were searched for full economic evaluations of genetic interventions that screened multiple generations of families and were in English language, and no restrictions were made for disease or publication type. Data were synthesized using a narrative approach.ResultsTwenty-five studies were included covering a range of diseases in various countries. Markov cohort models were mostly used with hypothetical populations and unsupported by clinical evidence. Cascade testing was either the primary intervention or secondary to the index cases. The number and type of relatives were based on assumptions or identified through population or family records, clinical registry data, or clinical literature. Studies included only immediate family members and the uptake of testing ranged between 20% and 100%. All interventions were reported as cost-effective, and a higher number of relatives was a key driver.ConclusionsSeveral economic evaluations have considered the impacts of cascade testing interventions within clinical genomics. Ideally, models supported with high-quality clinical data are needed and, in their absence, transparent and justifiable assumptions of uptake rates and choices about including relatives. Consideration of more appropriate modeling types is required.     

Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force

Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces the previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, and the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as healthcare, public health, education, and social care). This Explanation and Elaboration Report presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist with recommendations and explanation and examples for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals and the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. Nevertheless, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, given that there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.     

Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: A Living Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

ObjectivesAs healthcare systems continue to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-effectiveness evidence will be needed to identify which tests and treatments for COVID-19 offer value for money. We sought to review economic evaluations of diagnostic tests and treatments for COVID-19, critically appraising the methodological approaches used and reporting cost-effectiveness estimates, using a “living” systematic review approach.MethodsKey databases (including MEDLINE, EconLit, Embase) were last searched on July 12, 2021. Gray literature and model repositories were also searched. Only full economic evaluations published in English were included. Studies were quality assessed and data were extracted into standard tables. Results were narratively summarized. The review was completed by 2 reviewers independently, with disagreements resolved through discussion with a senior reviewer.ResultsOverall, 3540 records were identified, with 13 meeting the inclusion criteria. After quality assessment, 6 were excluded because of very severe limitations. Of the 7 studies included, 5 were cost-utility analyses and 2 were cost-effectiveness analyses. All were model-based analyses. A total of 5 evaluated treatments (dexamethasone, remdesivir, hypothetical) and 2 evaluated hypothetical testing strategies. Cost-effectiveness estimates were sensitive to the treatment effect on survival and hospitalization, testing speed and accuracy, disease severity, and price.ConclusionsPresently, there are few economic evaluations for COVID-19 tests and treatments. They suggest treatments that confer a survival benefit and fast diagnostic tests may be cost effective. Nevertheless, studies are subject to major evidence gaps and take inconsistent analytical approaches. The evidence may improve for planned updates of this “living” review.     

Another Step Toward Hepatitis C Elimination: An Economic Evaluation of an Irish National Birth Cohort Testing Program

ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of offering once-off birth cohort testing for hepatitis C virus (HCV) to people in Ireland born between 1965 and 1985, the cohort with the highest reported prevalence of undiagnosed chronic HCV infection.MethodsSystematic and opportunistic HCV birth cohort testing programs, implemented over a 4-year timeframe, were compared with the current practice of population risk-based testing only in a closed-cohort decision tree and Markov model hybrid over a lifetime time horizon. Outcomes were expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were presented from the health system’s perspective in 2020 euro (€). Uncertainty was assessed via deterministic, probabilistic, scenario, and threshold analyses.ResultsIn the base case, systematic testing yielded the largest cost and health benefits, followed by opportunistic testing and risk-based testing. Compared with risk-based testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for opportunistic testing was €14 586 (95% confidence interval €4185-€33 527) per QALY gained. Compared with opportunistic testing, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for systematic testing was €16 827 (95% confidence interval €5106-€38 843) per QALY gained. These findings were robust across a range of sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsBoth systematic and opportunistic birth cohort testing would be considered an efficient use of resources, but systematic testing was the optimal strategy at willingness-to-pay threshold values typically used in Ireland. Although cost-effective, any decision to introduce birth cohort testing for HCV (in Ireland or elsewhere) must be balanced with considerations regarding the feasibility and budget impact of implementing a national testing program given high initial costs and resource use.     

经典名方中藿香类药材的本草考证

通过查阅古代相关本草、医籍、经史及近现代文献资料,笔者对藿香类药材的名称、基原、产地、品质评价、栽培、采收加工及炮制方法等进行了系统梳理与考证,可为含藿香类药材的经典名方开发利用提供依据。通过本草考证分析可知,历代本草多以“藿香”为正名,所用主流基原均为Pogostemon cablin,为区别于明代以来我国民间习用的同科另一种植物土藿香Agastache rugosa及推崇道地产区而有“广藿香”之名;广藿香原产于越南等东南亚国家,早期因作香料经广东等地传入我国,宋代以来便已在我国南方引种成功;药用部位多为其干燥地上部分,亦有将其叶、梗分开单独使用;历代推崇的道地产区为广东,现广东广州、肇庆、湛江和海南省多有栽培,以石牌所产最为知名;广藿香主要为扦插繁殖,二月生苗,六月采收;产地加工方法主要为闷晒法,放置阳光下反复闷晒至有芳香气味、颜色转黄;炮制方法多以净选后生品入药。基于考证结果,建议养胃汤中所用藿香以P. cablin为基原,取叶片生品入药,而藿朴夏苓汤则建议选择土藿香A. rugosa除去根及老茎的生品入药。     

经典名方中石决明的本草考证

通过查阅历代本草、医籍、方书及现代文献资料,笔者对经典名方中所用石决明药材进行系统本草考证,涉及名称、基原、产地、品质评价、采收加工及炮制等方面内容,以期为含石决明的经典名方开发提供依据。经考证可知,历代皆以石决明为正名,亦有以其功效、性状及近音字而命名的“千里光”“九孔螺”“珍珠母”等异名。唐代以前石决明药材动物基原因形态描述过于简练,仅能考订为鲍科鲍属动物;宋元明清时期主流基原为杂色鲍Haliotis diversicolor与皱纹盘鲍H. discus hannai;民国时期开始将鲍属多种动物作为石决明基原使用,品种繁杂并延续至今。古今我国国内主要产区为海南、广东及山东地区,国外产地主要为日本及越南。古籍中对石决明品质评价大致以呼水孔的开孔数量为准,以七孔和九孔的鲍壳为佳;近现代则以性状个大整齐、无破碎、内外洁净并有光彩、壳厚者为佳。基于考证结果,结合石决明散的记载年代,建议开发该经典名方时石决明药材使用杂色鲍H. diversicolor或皱纹盘鲍H. discus hannai的贝壳,且以生品入药。     

长效可逆避孕措施在人工流产后即刻实施的效果评价

目的探究长效可逆避孕措施在人工流产后即刻实施的效果。方法从2017年7月-2018年7月,抽选在广州市增城区妇幼保健院行人工流产女性1200例,按照随机数字表法分为常规组(612例)和强化干预组(588例)。常规组给予常规流产后关爱(PAC)服务,强化干预组在常规PAC服务的基础上采用长效可逆避孕措施。对比两组长效可逆避孕措施使用情况、重复人工流产率以及避孕措施的持续时间情况。结果强化干预组的高效避孕措施使用率比常规组更高,同时重复人工流产率比常规组低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);强化干预组长效可逆避孕措施LARC(IUS/IUD)避孕术后6个月、1年使用率明显高于常规组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);复方口服避孕药优思悦(COC)避孕术后3个月、6个月、1年的使用率比常规组高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论人工流产后即刻实施长效可逆避孕措施,可提升高效避孕措施的使用率,减少意外妊娠及再次人工流产的几率,值得推广。     

Three-Year Follow-Up of the POIBA Intervention on Childhood Obesity: A Quasi-Experimental Study

Childhood obesity has increased worldwide over the past four decades. This quasi-experimental study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a multicomponent and multilevel school-based intervention (POIBA) at 3 years of follow-up. The nutrition intervention focused on food groups, food pyramid, nutrients, portions, and balanced menus. In total, 3624 children participated in the study. Anthropometric measurements and information on food frequency and behavior, physical activity, and daily screen use were collected in the intervention (IG) and comparison group (CG). Positive unadjusted changes toward adherence to recommendations were found for water, meat, sweets, and fried potato consumption, proper breakfast, not having dinner in front of the TV, out-of-school physical activity, and daily screen use. Three scores were used to calculate the proportion of children making more than one change to improve healthy habits regarding physical activity (global Activity score), nutrition (global Nutrition score), and both (global score). Students exposed to the intervention had a significantly better global Activity score (16.2% IG vs. 11.9% CG; p = 0.012) and Global score (63.9% IG vs. 58.5% CG; p = 0.025). Intervention effects on obesity incidence at 3-year follow-up lost significance but maintained the positive trend. In conclusion, school-based interventions including a family component could be useful to address the childhood obesity problem.