加巴喷丁治疗癫痫的疗效及安全性研究

目的：加巴喷丁抗癫痫作用的有效性与安全性。方法：随机双盲，添加治疗安慰剂对照临床试验。整个试验历时6个月，入选者随机分入试验组或对照组，于试验前、入组后第1、4、8、12、16、20、24周末随访。结果：均衡性：加巴喷丁治疗癫痫在随访中均衡性较好，各指标间无明显差别。疗效评价：加巴喷丁添加治疗组结果显示较安慰剂组发作次数明显减少，两组间有统计学差别；对各类型癫痫总的治疗有效率及MMSE评分等方面无统计学差异，未显示出疗效；但对全身性强直阵挛发作类型具有明显疗效，具有统计学意义。安全性评价：加巴喷丁组和安慰剂组都有不良事件发生，加巴喷丁组居多，但差别无统计学意义。结论：加巴喷丁对全身性强直阵挛发作类型有效，对其它类型疗效不佳，是一种安全性较好的药物。     

恢复后期脑卒中综合康复治疗与单纯药物治疗的对比研究

目的 :研究综合康复治疗对恢复后期脑卒中患者运动功能及日常生活能力 (ADL)的影响。方法 :将 92例恢复后期脑卒中患者 ,随机分为康复组 5 0例 ,对照组 4 2例 ,两组一般治疗相同 ,康复组同时配合康复护理、运动疗法、作业疗法和电疗等综合康复治疗 8周。结果 :采用Fugl-Meyer运动功能评分 (FMA)和修订的Barthel指数 (MBI)评分 ,康复组各项指标评分明显优于对照组 (P <0 .0 5 )。结论 :综合康复治疗对于恢复后期脑卒中患者运动功能的恢复有明显效果 ,提高了ADL水平。     

Comparison of the APACHE III, APACHE II and Glasgow Coma Scale in acute head injury for prediction of mortality and functional outcome

Objectives: This study examines the efficacy of the predicting power for hospital mortality and functional outcome of three different scoring systems for head injury in a neurosurgical intensive care unit (NICU). Design: On the day of admission, data were collected from each patient to compute the Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and III, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores. Hospital mortality was defined as the deaths of patients before discharge from hospital. Early mortality was defined as death before the 14th day after admission. Late mortality was defined as death after the 15th day from admission. Functional outcome was evaluated by Index of Independence in Activities of Daily Living (Index of ADL). Setting: An 8-bed NICU in a 1270-bed medical center in Taichung Veterans General Hospital. Patients and participants: Two hundred non-selected patients with acute head injury were included in our study in a consecutive period of 2 years. Patients less than 14 years old were not included. Interventions: None. Measurements and results: Sensitivity, specificity and correct prediction outcome were measured by the chi-square method in three scoring systems. The Youden index was also obtained. The best cut-off point in each scoring system was determined by the Youden index. The difference in Youden index was calculated by Z score. A difference was also considered if the probability value was less than 0.05. The area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was computed. Then the area under ROC of each scoring system was compared by Z score. There was statistical significance if p was less than 0.05. For prediction of hospital mortality, the best cut-off points are 55 for APACHE III, 17 for APACHE II and 5 for GCS. The correct prediction outcome is 82.4% in APACHE III, 78.4% in APACHE II and 81.9% in the GCS. The Youden index has best cut-off points at 0.68 for APACHE III, 0.59 for APACHE II, and 0.56 for GCS. The area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve is 0.90 in the APACHE III, 0.84 in the APACHE II and 0.86 in the GCS. There are no statistical differences among APACHE III and II, and GCS in terms of correct prediction outcome, Youden Index and the area under the ROC curve. Other physiological variables excluding GCS in APACHE III and II (AP III-GCS, AP II-GCS) have less statistical value in the determination of mortality for acute head injury. For the prediction of late mortality, APACHE III and II yield significantly better results in the area under the ROC curve, correct prediction and Youden index than those of GCS. Other physiological variables (AP III-GCS and AP II-GCS) play an important role in the prediction of late mortality in APACHE scores. For prediction of the functional outcome of surviving patients with acute head injury, the APACHE III yields the best results of correct prediction outcome, Youden index and the area under the ROC curve. Conclusion: The APACHE III and II may not replace the role of GCS in cases of acute head injury for hospital or early mortality assessment. But for prediction of the late mortality, the APACHE III and II have better accuracy than GCS. Other physiological variables excluding GCS in the APACHE system play a crucial contribution for late mortality. GCS is simple, less time-consuming and economical for patients with acute head injury for the prediction of hospital and early mortality. The APACHE III provides better prediction for severe morbidity than GCS and APACHE II. Therefore, the APACHE III provides a good assessment not only for hospital and late mortality, but also for functional outcome. Received: 22 May 1995 Accepted: 2 September 1996     

Abnormal behavior of elderly people residing in institutions of medical and social welfare systems

Abstract We investigated factors correlated with abnormal behavior in the elderly residing in a special nursing home (group A) and a psychiatric hospital (group B) using the dementia behavior disturbance scale, the mini mental state examination, the Japanese version of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center morale scale, and the ADL assessment scale. The cognitive function of group B was decreased compared with that of group A, but most activities of daily living (ADL) in the latter group were disrupted compared with those in the former. Only a few categories of ADL correlated with abnormal behavior in group A, whereas cognitive function, quality of life, and most categories of ADL correlated with abnormal behavior in group B. These results suggest that factors correlated with abnormal behavior in the elderly differ within institutions of medical and social welfare systems.     

MMSE、HIS、ADL在阿尔茨海默病筛查中的应用

目的评价简易智能量表(MMSE)、Hachinski缺血指数量表(HIS)、日常生活功能量表(ADL)3种量表在阿尔茨海默病(Alzheimer's disease,AD)早期筛查中的应用价值.方法对56例50岁以上AD高风险人群进行MMSE、HIS、ADL测试,比较3种量表在AD筛查中的有效性及优缺点.结果在AD组和非AD组之间,MMSE和ADL得分有显著性差异,HIS得分无差异性.MMSE、HIS、ADL 3组量表敏感性分别为92.86%、100%、89.28%,特异性分别为85.71%、42.86%、60.71%,准确性分别为89.28%、71.43%、75.00%.结论3组量表中MMSE敏感性、特异性和准确性均较好,HIS敏感性最高但特异性最低,ADL敏感性接近于MMSE但特异性稍低.MMSE适合于老年高风险人群的AD筛查,HIS和ADL必须考虑到筛查对象的具体流行病学特点配合MMSE进行AD筛查.     

上海市某社区老年慢性病人对日常生活功能综合影响分析

目的 研究上海市某社区老年人慢性病对日常生活功能（ＡＤＬ和ＩＡＤＬ）的影响。方法 问卷询问和体格检查相结合,对上海市某社区９６６名≥６０岁的老年人进行慢性病和日常生活功能调查。运用非条件Ｌｏｇｉｓｔｉｃ回归分析慢性病对老年人日常生活功能损害作用的大小。结果 慢性病患病率为５７．８％,ＡＤＬ损害率为９．４％,ＩＡＤＬ损害率为２３．２％。对ＡＤＬ损害影响显著的疾病依次为脑血管疾病、白内障和慢性阻塞性肺部疾患;对ＩＡＤＬ损害影响显著的疾病依次为脑血管疾病、冠心病和慢性阻塞性肺部疾患。结论 慢性病患病率高低与老年人日常生活功能损害率无对应关系,而受疾病性质、严重程度和躯体活动能力影响较大;对老年人日常生活功能损害作用显著的疾病的分布有一定地区性。     

Problem solving,sense of coherence and instrumental ADL of elderly people with depression and normal control group

The purpose of this study was first, to explore the separate contribution and interaction between verbal and performance based problem solving and sense of coherence; and second, to examine the association of these variables with Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) function among elderly people with depression living in the commuinity and a normal control group. The participants included elders receiving ambulatory care for depression (n=31; mean age=73, SD=9.3); and normal elders (n=30; mean age=78, SD=5.8). Screening for general cognitive ability and level of depression was done using the Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). All participants underwent evaluation using the Large Allen Cognitive Level Test (LACL) (a measure of performance based problem solving); the Problem Solving Verbal Reaction to everyday problematic situations (PSVR); the Sense of Coherence questionnaire (SOC) and the Routine Task Inventory (RTI) (a measure of IADL from the cognitive perspective). Wilcoxon statistical analysis indicated highly significant differences between the two groups for all of the study variables. In the depressive group, significant correlations were found between the components of problem solving (LACL and PSVR) and IADL (r=0.70 and r=0.53), while the SOC did not correlate with IADL in either group. Results of ANCOVA controlling for LACL showed that it has a significant effect (F=13.63, p=0.001); however, beyond it verbal problem solving still has a significant effect on IADL (F=4.77, p=0.02), and SOC in interaction with verbal problem solving was significant (F=3.97, p=0.035). The findings suggest that depression in elderly people is associated with lower functioning in problem solving and IADL function, and lower sense of coherence; hence, attention to these factors should be integral to intervention with elderly people. However, it is recommended that further study be made of the relationships of variables found in this study with the current instruments, and also with additional tools because of confounding effects, in order to further support and validate the findings. As the sample size was small compared with the number of measures, it is important to replicate the study with larger groups to have more power. Copyright © 1999 Whurr Publishers Ltd.     

前列地尔治疗急性中重型脑梗死的疗效观察

目的观察前列地尔注射液对超过治疗时间窗的急性中重型脑梗死的疗效和安全性。方法采用随机对照方法,将发病2～7d的30例大脑中动脉区中重型脑梗死按1∶2比例分配,对照组10例应用对症治疗的中性疗法,治疗组20例则加用前列地尔注射液治疗。均治疗14d。结果治疗组神经功能缺损减分率、ADL评分、治疗有效率均优于对照组,有显著性差异(P<0.025,P<0.0005,P<0.005);在治疗中未发现明显不良反应。结论前列地尔注射液对急性中重型脑梗死有明显疗效,药物安全性能良好,有一定临床推广应用价值。     

美金刚与多奈哌齐合用对帕金森痴呆患者MoCA、ADL与血清CRP、PARK7的影响

【摘要】 目的 研究分析美金刚与多奈哌齐合用对帕金森痴呆患者MoCA、ADL与血清CRP、PARK7的影响。方法 选取本院收治的89例行帕金森痴呆患者进行研究,将所选患者按照治疗方法的不同随机分为研究组49例与对照组40例。对照组患者给予多奈哌齐进行治疗,研究组在对照组基础上联合美金刚进行治疗。回顾性分析两组患者的临床资料,对比分析两组患者临床疗效、认知功能以及日常生活能力的具体情况,并记录治疗期间不良反应发生情况。结果 对照组总有效率为7750%,研究组总有效率为9592%,研究组总有效率高于对照组（P＜005）;治疗12周后,两组患者UPDRS总评分、MMSE评分、MoCA评分、ADL评分均较前明显改善。研究组UPDRS总评分低于对照组,MMSE评分、MoCA评分、ADL评分高于对照组,两组对比存在明显差异（P＜005）;治疗12周后,两组患者血清CRP、PARK7、NT 3水平均较前明显改善。研究组血清CRP、PARK7水平低于对照组,NT 3水平高于对照组,两组对比存在明显差异（P＜005）;对照组患者治疗后的不良反应发生率（1250%）高于研究组患者（1224%）,但两组比较无明显差异（P＞005）。结论 美金刚与多奈哌齐合用对帕金森痴呆患者具有良好的临床疗效,可以有效改善帕金森痴呆患者行为功能以及认知功能,并明显降低患者血清CRP、PARK7水平,提高了NT 3水平,且安全性较高,可作为帕金森痴呆患者首选的治疗方案。     

Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Older Adults

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is extremely common in older adults and the potential benefits of secondary prevention are perhaps greater in this population than in younger patients. While there is good evidence that secondary prevention efforts are justified in patients up to 80 years of age, limited data are available on secondary prevention in octogenarians and there is no evidence to guide treatment in patients ≥ 90 years of age. Further, the value of secondary prevention may be confounded by prevalent comorbidities, polypharmacy, and limited life expectancy. It is therefore essential that all management decisions be made in relation to individual preferences and goals of care, with understanding by patients that benefits as well as risks may increase with age. Furthermore, research is needed to refine markers to better delineate which older adults are most likely to benefit from preventive therapies.