补充与替代疗法治疗肠易激综合征的研究进展

肠易激综合征是临床常见的功能性胃肠病之一。由于多数患者的症状经过一线药物治疗后仍不能得到较好改善，许多患者为获得更好的治疗效果，转向选择补充与替代疗法进行治疗。然而，由于研究质量和数量的限制，大部分治疗肠易激综合征的补充与替代疗法并未被相关共识和指南所推荐。本文从补充与替代疗法的分类入手，从天然产品、身心治疗、传统医药3个方面就目前国内外常用的补充与替代疗法治疗肠易激综合征的研究进行概述，以期为临床工作者和患者更好地了解和应用提供帮助。     

慢性泪囊炎患者应用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术的临床效果及对安全性的影响

目的探讨慢性泪囊炎患者应用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术的临床效果及安全性。方法选取2018年1月至2019年12月因慢性泪囊炎于本院接受治疗的46例患者为研究对象,随机分为研究组与对照组,各23例。对照组接受泪囊鼻腔造口治疗,研究组取鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术治疗,比较两组临床效果、手术指标以及并发症发生情况。结果研究组治疗总有效率高于对照组(P<0.05);研究组术中出血量少于对照组,手术及住院时间均短于对照组(P<0.05);研究组并发症总发生率低于对照组(P<0.05)。结论慢性泪囊炎患者采用鼻内镜下鼻腔泪囊造口术治疗效果显著,并发症较少,安全性较高,值得临床推广应用。     

右美托咪定联合综合体温保护对腔镜手术治疗老年恶性肿瘤患者苏醒期质量及免疫功能的影响

目的 探讨右美托咪定联合综合体温保护对腔镜手术治疗老年恶性肿瘤患者苏醒期质量及免疫功能的影响。方法 选择择期行腔镜手术治疗的老年恶性肿瘤患者90例，随机均分为3组：对照组（C组）、体温保护组（T组）和体温保护联合右美托咪定组（T-D组），每组30例。C组常规体温保护，T组和T-D组综合体温保护；T-D组麻醉诱导前10 min泵注右美托咪定0.5 μg/kg。记录3组患者麻醉诱导开始时（T₀）、手术开始30 min（T₁）、60 min（T₂）、90 min（T₃）、120 min（T₄）以及手术结束时（T₅）的鼻咽温度；于T₀、术后2 h（T₆）、24 h（T₇）和48 h（T₈）时抽取静脉血标本，测定T淋巴细胞亚群（CD3⁺、CD4⁺和CD8⁺）和自然杀伤细胞（NK cell）水平；记录患者术中麻醉药物用量及苏醒期质量指标。结果 与T₀比较，C组T₂～T₅时点鼻咽温度均明显降低（P < 0.05）；与C组比较，T组和T-D组T₂～T₅时点鼻咽温度明显升高（P < 0.05）。与T₀时点比较，C组、T组和T-D组T₆、T₇和T₈时点CD3⁺和NK cell活性均明显降低（P < 0.05）；C组在T₆、T₇和T₈时点，T组和T-D组在T₆和T₇时点，CD4⁺活性均明显降低（P < 0.05）。与C组比较，T组和T-D组T₆和T₇时点CD3⁺细胞活性均明显升高（P < 0.05）；T组在T₇时点，T-D组在T₆和T₇时点，CD4⁺细胞活性均明显升高（P < 0.05）；T组在T₇时点，T-D组在T₆、T₇和T₈时点，NK cell活性均明显升高（P < 0.05）。结论 采用体温保护措施联合右美托咪定能够维持老年恶性肿瘤患者的体温稳定，减少围手术期意外低体温（IPH）的发生，并有效提高患者苏醒期质量，减轻免疫抑制程度，加速患者早期恢复。     

Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of SCB01A,a Microtubule Inhibitor with Vascular Disrupting Activity,in Patients with Advanced Solid Tumors

Lessons Learned

• SCB01A is a novel microtubule inhibitor with vascular disrupting activity.
• This first‐in‐human study demonstrated SCB01A safety, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary antitumor activity.
• SCB01A is safe and well tolerated in patients with advanced solid malignancies with manageable neurotoxicity.

BackgroundSCB01A, a novel microtubule inhibitor, has vascular disrupting activity.MethodsIn this phase I dose‐escalation and extension study, patients with advanced solid tumors were administered intravenous SCB01A infusions for 3 hours once every 21 days. Rapid titration and a 3 + 3 design escalated the dose from 2 mg/m² to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) based on dose‐limiting toxicity (DLT). SCB01A‐induced cellular neurotoxicity was evaluated in dorsal root ganglion cells. The primary endpoint was MTD. Safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and tumor response were secondary endpoints.ResultsTreatment‐related adverse events included anemia, nausea, vomiting, fatigue, fever, and peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy. DLTs included grade 4 elevated creatine phosphokinase (CPK) in the 4 mg/m² cohort; grade 3 gastric hemorrhage in the 6.5 mg/m² cohort; grade 2 thromboembolic event in the 24 mg/m² cohort; and grade 3 peripheral sensorimotor neuropathy, grade 3 elevated aspartate aminotransferase, and grade 3 hypertension in the 32 mg/m² cohort. The MTD was 24 mg/m², and average half‐life was ~2.5 hours. The area under the curve‐dose response relationship was linear. Nineteen subjects were stable after two cycles. The longest treatment lasted 24 cycles. SCB01A‐induced neurotoxicity was reversible in vitro.ConclusionThe MTD of SCB01A was 24 mg/m² every 21 days; it is safe and tolerable in patients with solid tumors.     

基于标准化患者法评价四川农村基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性及其影响因素

目的 运用标准化患者法评估四川农村地区基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病两种慢性病诊断准确性现状,探讨基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性的主要影响因素,为提升基层医生两种慢性病诊断准确性提供科学依据。方法 采用多阶段随机整群抽样方法,抽取四川省自贡市5个区/县50个乡镇100个村为研究现场,以调查当日在岗的全科及内科医生作为研究对象。共进行两轮数据采集,第1轮采集样本乡镇卫生院和村卫生室医生的基本信息;第1轮调查完成1个月后,运用标准化患者法开展第2轮调查,收集农村基层医生对不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断结果信息。运用Logistic回归分析农村基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断准确性的影响因素。结果 共纳入172名农村基层医生,完成186次标准化患者访问,正确诊断率为48.39%。其中不稳定型心绞痛的正确诊断率为18.68%(17/91),2型糖尿病的正确诊断率为76.84%(73/95)。Logistic回归分析显示,具有执业医师资质的农村基层医生更有可能做出正确诊断(OR=4.857,95%CI=1.076~21.933,P=0.040)。农村基层医生在诊断过程中涉及的必要问诊和检查条目越多,做出正确诊断的概率越高(OR=1.627,95%CI=1.065~2.485,P=0.024)。与不稳定型心绞痛相比,农村基层医生对2型糖尿病做出正确诊断的可能性更高(OR=6.306,95%CI=3.611~11.013,P<0.001)。结论 四川农村基层医生不稳定型心绞痛和2型糖尿病诊断准确性整体较差,建议以基层医生慢性病诊断过程质量改善为突破口,提升基层医生执业水平,进而提高慢性病诊断准确性。     

慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医与家庭动力学的相关性研究

目的研究慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医与家庭动力学的相关性,希望能够为慢阻肺急性加重期患者拟定护理措施提供科学依据。方法选取2017年1月-2019年12月我院240例诊断为慢阻肺急性加重期的患者为研究对象。根据患者入院就医的时间进行分组,时间≥24h的延迟就医的患者为观察组,时间<24h的及时就医患者为对照组。结果两组患者在文化水平、家庭年收入、在职状态、医疗保险和婚姻状况和APACHEⅡ评分比较(P<0.05)。观察组患者疾病观念、个性化、系统逻辑和家庭氛围得分比对照组高(P<0.05)。Pearman的相关性分析结果显示:慢阻肺急性加重期患者延迟就医时间与各个层面分数以及家庭动力总分呈现负相关性(P<0.05)。应变量为延迟就医为应变量,患者的一般资料为自变量,经Logistic回归分析结果表明:延迟就医的影响因素为文化水平、家庭动力评分、职业状态、家庭收入、婚姻状况和APACHEⅡ评分。结论慢阻肺急性加重期患者家庭动力总分与疾病观念、个性化、系统逻辑和家庭氛围得分与延迟就医时间呈现负相关性,患者延迟就医的影响因素是家庭动力学评分。     

Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.