HBV-ACLF患者血清miR-122和 HMGB1水平及其与病情、预后的关系

[摘要]　目的　探究HBV相关慢加急性肝衰竭（HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure, HBV-ACLF）患者血清中微小核糖核酸（microRNA, miR）-122和高迁移率族蛋白1（high-mobility group box-B1, HMGB1）水平及其与病情、预后的关系。方法　回顾性分析2016年1月—2018年1月我院收治的120例HBV-ACLF患者的一般及临床资料。根据临床结局，将患者分为存活组（53例）和死亡组（67例）。比较2组患者的一般资料、实验室检查指标及血清miR-122、HMGB1水平。多因素Logistic回归分析影响患者预后的因素。Pearson检验分析miR-122、HMGB1水平分别与TBIL、PA、终末期肝病评分模型（the model of end-stage liver disease score, MELD）评分的相关性。ROC曲线分析miR-122和HMGB1水平对患者的死亡预测价值，获得最佳临界值。根据临界值将患者分为A组、B组和C组，用Kaplan-Meier法绘制生存曲线，比较3组患者在3年随访期间的生存率。结果　存活组和死亡组患者的年龄、身体质量指数、并发症、病情分期、MELD评分、ALB、球蛋白、TBIL、ALT、AST、LDH、PT、PTA、HBV DNA、miR-122、HMGB1相比，差异均具有统计学意义（P均＜0.05）。年龄、并发症、病情分期、MELD评分、TBIL、PT、PTA、miR-122、HMGB1均是影响患者预后的危险因素（P均＜0.05）。miR-122、HMGB1水平分别与TBIL、MELD评分呈显著正相关，与PTA呈显著负相关（P均＜0.05）。miR-122和HMGB1预测患者死亡的最佳临界值分别为31.42和14.56 μg/L。A组患者预后3年内生存率显著高于B组和C组（P均＜0.05）。结论　miR-122和HMGB1水平与HBV-ACLF患者的病情和死亡预后密切相关，可间接反映患者的病情严重程度，在HBV-ACLF的诊断及预后中具有重要价值。     

Group testing in mediation analysis

We consider the scenario where there is an exposure, multiple biologically defined sets of biomarkers, and an outcome. We propose a new two-step procedure that tests if any of the sets of biomarkers mediate the exposure/outcome relationship, while maintaining a prespecified familywise error rate. The first step of the proposed procedure is a screening step that removes all groups that are unlikely to be strongly associated with both the exposure and the outcome. The second step adapts recent advances in postselection inference to test if there are true mediators in each of the remaining candidate sets. We use simulation to show that this simple two-step procedure has higher statistical power to detect true mediating sets when compared with existing procedures. We then use our two-step procedure to identify a set of Lysine-related metabolites that potentially mediate the known relationship between increased body mass index and the increased risk of estrogen-receptor positive breast cancer in postmenopausal women.     

Urodynamic studies in the evaluation of young men presenting with lower urinary tract symptoms

AIM: To evaluate the usefulness of urodynamic study in young men with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 50 men with LUTS aged 50 years and below. Those with neurological diseases, urethral trauma or strictures were excluded. All underwent multichannel urodynamic studies (UDS). The pre- and post-UDS diagnoses and treatment modalities were compared. RESULTS: Mean age was 38.1 years (17-49). The main pre-UDS diagnoses included prostatitis in seven (14%), overactive bladder in seventeen (34%) and benign prostatic hyperplasia in nine (18%). Pre-UDS management ranged from anticholingeric agents for thirteen (26%), alpha-adrenergic antagonists for nine (18%), antibiotics for six (12%). Abnormal UDS were noted in 36 (72%), including detrusor overactivity in 9 (18%), detrusor underactivity/acontractility in 5 (10%) and bladder outlet obstruction in 21 (42%). Fourteen (28%) had primary bladder neck dysfunction and five (10%) had benign prostatic hyperplasia. Post-UDS management included anticholingeric agents for ten (26%), alpha-adrenergic antagonists for seventeen (34%), catheterization for four (10%), behavioral therapy for three (6%), surgery for three (6%). None were prescribed antibiotics. Following UDS, the diagnosis had to be updated in 40 (80%) and concomitant change in management was required in 34 (68%). CONCLUSION: Young men presenting with LUTS have different underlying etiologies. Clinical diagnosis and treatment are often empiric and inaccurate. Urodynamic study is useful in the evaluation of this group of patients as it aids in arriving at an accurate diagnosis and guides treatment therapy.     

群体损伤院前急救转运风险与防范（附547例报告）

目的探讨群体损伤院前急救转运存在的风险与防范对策。方法通过547例群体损伤转运,分析影响安全转运存在的风险,正确评估和判断风险,制定有效的防范措施和对策。结果 547例伤员安全转运入院治疗,入院率100%。结论预见转运存在风险,采取有效防范对策,是确保成功转运的关键因素。     

The clinical encounter as local moral world: Shifts of assumptions and transformation in relational context

In this study we consider the process of the clinical encounter, and present exemplars of how assumptions of both clinicians and their patients can shift or transform in the course of a diagnostic interview. We examine the process as it is recalled, and further elaborated, in post-diagnostic interviews as part of a collaborative inquiry during reflections with clinicians and patients in the northeastern United States. Rather than treating assumptions by patients and providers as a fixed attribute of an individual, we treat them as occurring between people within a particular social context, the diagnostic interview. We explore the diagnostic interview as a landscape in which assumptions occur (and can shift), navigate the features of this landscape, and suggest that our examination can best be achieved by the systematic comparison of views of the multiple actors in an experience-near manner. We describe what might be gained by this shift in assumptions and how it can make visible what is at stake for clinician and patient in their local moral worlds—for patients, acknowledgment of social suffering, for clinicians how assumptions are a barrier to engagement with minority patients. It is crucial for clinicians to develop this capacity for reflection when navigating the interactions with patients from different cultures, to recognize and transform assumptions, to notice ‘surprises’, and to elicit what really matters to patients in their care.     

Guidelines for Trials of Behavioral Treatments for Recurrent Headache, First Edition: American Headache Society Behavioral Clinical Trials Workgroup

Guidelines for design of clinical trials evaluating behavioral headache treatments were developed to facilitate production of quality research evaluating behavioral therapies for management of primary headache disorders. These guidelines were produced by a Workgroup of headache researchers under auspices of the American Headache Society. The guidelines are complementary to and modeled after guidelines for pharmacological trials published by the International Headache Society, but they address methodologic considerations unique to behavioral and other nonpharmacological treatments. Explicit guidelines for evaluating behavioral headache therapies are needed as the optimal methodology for behavioral (and other nonpharmacologic) trials necessarily differs from the preferred methodology for drug trials. In addition, trials comparing and integrating drug and behavioral therapies present methodological challenges not addressed by guidelines for pharmacologic research. These guidelines address patient selection, trial design for behavioral treatments and for comparisons across multiple treatment modalities (eg, behavioral vs pharmacologic), evaluation of results, and research ethics. Although developed specifically for behavioral therapies, the guidelines may apply to the design of clinical trials evaluating many forms of nonpharmacologic therapies for headache.