46例患者万古霉素临床用药合理性的分析

目的：了解南京医科大学附属苏州医院临床使用万古霉素的情况,并分析其临床用药的合理性。方法：参照万古霉素药品说明书及《万古霉素临床应用中国专家共识》（2011版）要求,采用回顾性分析方法,对46例临床使用万古霉素的住院患者的病历进行统计分析。结果：46例临床使用万古霉素的患者中,监测血药浓度者为7例,其临床治疗的有效率为71.74%,合理用药者为42例（91.30%）,不合理用药者为4例（8.70%）。结论：该院万古霉素的临床使用是基本合理的,但对特殊人群的使用,应重视万古霉素血药浓度的监测,加大病原学的检测力度,使临床使用更加安全、合理、有效。     

头孢哌酮-舒巴坦对老年患者下呼吸道感染的疗效与安全性评价

目的：评价头孢哌酮-舒巴坦用于治疗老年患者下呼吸道感染的临床疗效及其安全性。方法：选取下呼吸道感染的老年患者 100 例,根据分组原则将其分为 A 组与 B 组,其中 A 组患者给予头孢哌酮-舒巴坦治疗,B 组给予头孢他啶治疗,并对比 A、B 两组患者经治疗后细菌清除率及总有效率等指标。结果：经治疗后对各种细菌分离及清除数量比较,其结果显示治疗后 A 组清除率（92.31%）高于 B 组（57.69%）（P＜0.05）;A 组总有效率（100%）显著高于 B 组（88.0%）（P＜0.05）。结论：临床使用头孢哌酮-舒巴坦治疗老年患者下呼吸道感染的疗效高且不易产生耐药性。     

替格瑞洛在中国急性冠脉综合征患者中的早期疗效及安全性观察

目的 探讨替格瑞洛在中国急性冠脉综合征（ACS）患者中的早期疗效及总结治疗经验。方法 2012年9月～2013年7月入我院心内科诊断为ACS的患者199例,其中服用替格瑞洛患者96例,服用氯吡格雷患者103例。替格瑞洛组给予180 mg负荷剂量口服,后90 mg每日2次维持。氯吡格雷组给予300/600 mg口服,后服用氯吡格雷维持剂量75 mg每日1次,所有患者均给予阿司匹林。比较两组的基础临床资料,观察两组服药10天、30天、90天的不良事件,并对两组90天的心血管事件和出血情况进行比较。结果 两组间基础临床资料无统计学差异（P〉0.05）。替格瑞洛组心血管死亡（1%：1.9%）、心肌梗死（0%：1%）、卒中（0%：1.9%）、支架内血栓（0%：1%）、再发心绞痛（2.1%：4.9%）少于氯吡格雷组,呼吸困难（2.1%：0%）、次要出血（3.1%：1.0%）和轻微出血（5.2%：2.9%）多于氯吡格雷组,但均无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。替格瑞洛组主要心血管不良事件总和低于氯吡格雷组（3.1%：10.7%）,差异有统计学意义（P=0.037）。两组均无主要出血。替格瑞洛组次要出血和轻微出血总和高于氯吡格雷组（8.3%：3.9%）,但差异无统计学意义（P=0.188）。结论 替格瑞洛在中国患者中的早期疗效与PLATO（血小板抑制和患者预后研究）研究结果 基本一致,临床疗效确切,具有良好的安全性和耐受性。     

Burn management in sub-Saharan Africa: Opportunities for implementation of dedicated training and development of specialty centers

Background

In low- and middle-income countries burn injuries remain responsible for a large burden of death and disability. Given an annual worldwide incidence of almost 11 million new individuals affected per year, major burn injuries have a higher annual incidence than HIV and tuberculosis combined.

Methods

A survey instrument was adapted for use as an international assessment tool and then used to measure the availability of personnel, materials, equipment, medicines, and facility resources in nine Rwandan hospitals, including three referral centers.

Results

Forty-four percent of surveyed hospitals had a dedicated acute-care burn ward, while two-thirds had intensive care options. Relevant wound-care supplies were widely available, but gaps in the availability of critical pieces of equipment such as monitors, ventilators, infusion pumps, electrocautery, and dermatomes were discovered in many of the surveyed institutions, including referral hospitals. Early excision and grafting were not performed in any of the hospitals and there were no physicians with specialty training in burn care.

Conclusions

Whereas all surveyed hospitals were theoretically equipped to handle the initial resuscitation of burn patients, none of the hospitals were capable of delivering comprehensive care due to gaps in equipment, personnel, protocols, and training. Accordingly, steps to improve capacity to care for those with thermal injury should include training of physicians specialized in critical care and trauma surgery, as well as plastic and reconstructive surgery. Consideration should be given to creation of national referral centers specializing in burn care.     

抗抑郁剂疗效的预测因素分析

目的:探索影响抑郁症患者抗抑郁剂疗效的预测因素。方法:241例抑郁症患者给予抗抑郁药治疗6周,治疗前后进行汉密顿抑郁量表17项(HAMD)评分,采用减分率评定疗效。分析人口学因素、基线HAMD、明尼苏达多项人格测定(MMPI-2)、认知功能评分及脑源性神经营养因子(BDNF)、5-羟色胺转运体(5-HTTLPR)和糖皮质激素受体(GR)3种基因多态对疗效的预测。结果:基线HAMD评分(β=0.771,P0.001)、MMPI-2中偏执(Pa)分(β=-0.322,P=0.032,R2=0.451)、连线测验B评分(TMT-B)(β=-0.045,P=0.013)、汉诺塔总分(β=-0.067,P=0.026)、数字广度(倒序)分(β=-0.974,P=0.025)及GR BclI基因G-等位基因携带者(P=0.05)与抗抑郁剂HAMD减分率有关。整合模型回归分析显示,结合基线HAMD评分(β=0.894,P0.001)、MMPI-2-Pa分(β=-0.155,P=0.036)和TMT-B分(β=-0.038,P=0.034)3个预测因子可解释57.1%的变异。结论:基线HAMD评分、MMPI-2-Pa分和TMT-B分可预测抗抑郁剂的疗效。     

Nationwide survey of Arima syndrome: Revised diagnostic criteria from epidemiological analysis

Aim: We have never known any epidemiological study of Arima syndrome since it was first described in 1971. To investigate the number of Arima syndrome patients and clarify the clinical differences between Arima syndrome and Joubert syndrome, we performed the first nationwide survey of Arima syndrome, and herein report its results. Furthermore, we revised the diagnostic criteria for Arima syndrome. Methods: As a primary survey, we sent out self-administered questionnaires to most of the Japanese hospitals with a pediatric clinic, and facilities for persons with severe motor and intellectual disabilities, inquiring as to the number of patients having symptoms of Arima syndrome, including severe psychomotor delay, agenesis or hypoplasia of cerebellar vermis, renal dysfunction, visual dysfunction and with or without ptosis-like appearance. Next, as the second survey, we sent out detailed clinical questionnaires to the institutes having patients with two or more typical symptoms. Results: The response rate of the primary survey was 72.7% of hospitals with pediatric clinic, 63.5% of national hospitals and 66.7% of municipal and private facilities. The number of patients with 5 typical symptoms was 13 and that with 2–4 symptoms was 32. The response rate of the secondary survey was 52% (23 patients). After reviewing clinical features of 23 patients, we identified 7 Arima syndrome patients and 16 Joubert syndrome patients. Progressive renal dysfunction was noticed in all Arima syndrome patients, but in 33% of those with Joubert syndrome. Conclusion: It is sometimes difficult to distinguish Arima syndrome from Joubert syndrome. Some clinicians described a patient with Joubert syndrome and its complications of visual dysfunction and renal dysfunction, whose current diagnosis was Arima syndrome. Thus, the diagnosis of the two syndromes may be confused. Here, we revised the diagnostic criteria for Arima syndrome.