Simeprevir added to peginterferon and ribavirin lessens time with fatigue,depressive symptoms and functional limitations in patients with chronic hepatitis C compared with peginterferon and ribavirin: results from 1161 patients in the QUEST‐1, QUEST‐2 and PROMISE studies

The value of adding simeprevir (SMV) vs placebo (PBO) to peginterferon and ribavirin (PR) for treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection was examined using patient‐reported outcomes (PROs); further, concordance of PROs with virology endpoints and adverse events (AEs) was explored. Patients (n = 768 SMV/PR, n = 393 PBO/PR) rated fatigue (FSS), depressive symptoms (CES‐D) and functional impairment (WPAI: Hepatitis C Productivity, Daily Activity and Absenteeism) at baseline and throughout treatment in three randomised, double‐blind trials comparing the addition of SMV or PBO during initial 12 weeks of PR. PR was administered for 48 weeks (PBO group) and 24/48 weeks (SMV group) using a response‐guided therapy (RGT) approach. Mean PRO scores (except Absenteeism) worsened from baseline to Week 4 to the same extent in both groups but reverted after Week 24 for SMV/PR and only after Week 48 for PBO/PR. Accordingly, there was a significantly lower area under the curve (baseline–Week 60, AUC₆₀) and fewer weeks with clinically important worsening of scores in the SMV/PR group at any time point. Incidences of patients with fatigue and anaemia AEs were similar in both groups, but FSS scores showed that clinically important increases in fatigue lasted a mean of 6.9 weeks longer with PBO/PR (P < 0.001). PRO score subgroup analysis indicated better outcomes for patients who met the criteria for RGT or achieved sustained virological response 12 weeks post‐treatment (SVR12); differences in mean PRO scores associated with fibrosis level were only observed with PBO/PR. Greater efficacy of SMV/PR enabled reduced treatment duration and reduced time with PR‐related AEs without adding to AE severity.     

吉林辽宁两省18年来的目标设置对突发公共卫生事件应急工作落实情况的关联研究

目的本研究立足于项目组前期研究的成果上，积极探索吉林辽宁两省目标设置水平的差异，并进一步探究受目标设置影响下的工作落实结果情况，探讨产生差异的原因。 方法以系统穷尽的方式收集吉林辽宁两省2000至2017年有关目标与工作落实情况的指标，利用Spearman相关和线性回归分析吉林辽宁两省目标设置对于突发应急工作落实情况的影响。 结果吉林辽宁两省突发应急领域的目标设置水平与工作落实情况总体均呈现上升趋势，截至2017年，吉林目标设置水平与工作落实情况分别为46%与60%，辽宁为60%与53.3%，且目标设置水平与工作落实呈正相关。 结论有公众需要为依据且定量可考的目标设置对于工作落实、推进、完善具有积极的正反馈作用，建立科学量化的突发应急目标设置评价体系是适宜可行的。