中药治疗哮喘-慢阻肺重叠的Meta分析＊

目的 系统评价中药治疗哮喘-慢阻肺（ACO）的疗效与安全性。方法 全面检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、万方、维普、中国医学文献数据库，纳入有关中医药治疗ACO的随机对照试验（RCT），运用Cochrane手册对纳入研究的方法学质量进行评估，采用Review Manager 5.3进行Meta分析。结果 共纳入32项RCT，包括2688例ACO患者，其中试验组1361例，对照组1327例。Meta分析结果显示，中医药可以显著改善ACO患者的中医证候疗效［RR=1.19，95% CI（1.13，1.25），P<0.00001］、CAT评分［MD=-3.62，95% CI（-4.37，-2.87），P<0.00001］、ACT评分［MD=3.42，95% CI（2.23，4.62），P<0.00001］，、中医证候总积分［MD=-3.61，95% CI（-4.83，-2.39），P<0.00001］、FEV₁［MD=0.59，95% CI（0.08，1.10），P=0.02］、FEV₁%［MD=8.61，95% CI（5.20，12.1），P<0.00001］、FEV₁/FVC［MD=6.52，95% CI（4.24，8.80），P<0.00001］、6 min步行实验［MD=41.18，95% CI（22.15，60.21），P<0.0001］、急性发作次数［MD=-2.46，95% CI（-3.62，-1.13），P<0.0001］。所有研究均未报道严重不良反应。结论 中药治疗ACO，可以显著提高临床疗效，改善患者的肺功能且具有较好安全性，但是需要更高质量、多样本、多中心的随机对照试验进一步确认。     

Repeat resection in recurrent glioblastoma (3rGBM) Trial: A randomized care trial

BackgroundThe prognosis for patients with recurrent glioblastoma (GBM) is dismal, and the question of repeat surgery at time of recurrence is common. Re-operation in the management of these patients remains controversial, as there is no randomized evidence of benefit. An all-inclusive pragmatic care trial is needed to evaluate the role of repeat resection.Methods3rGBM is a multicenter, pragmatic, prospective, parallel-group randomized care trial, with 1:1 allocation to repeat resection or standard care with no repeat resection. To test the hypothesis that repeat resection can improve overall survival by at least 3 months (from 6 to 9 months), 250 adult patients with prior resection of pathology-proven glioblastoma for whom the attending surgeon believes repeat resection may improve quality survival will be enrolled. A surrogate measure of quality of life, the number of days outside of hospital/nursing/palliative care facility, will also be compared. Centers are invited to participate without financial compensation and without contracts. Clinicians may apply to local authorities to approve an investigator-led in-house trial, using a common protocol, web-based randomization platform, and simple standardized case report forms.DiscussionThe 3rGBM trial is a modern transparent care research framework with no additional risks, tests, or visits other than what patients would encounter in normal care. The burden of proof remains on repeat surgical management of recurrent GBM, because this management has yet to be shown beneficial. The trial is designed to help patients and surgeons manage the uncertainty regarding optimal care.Clinical Trial Registrationhttp://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04838782.     

Effects of probiotics on gastrointestinal complications and nutritional status of postoperative patients with esophageal cancer: A protocol of randomized controlled trial

Background:Gastrointestinal complications and malnutrition are common problems that affect postoperative rehabilitation and survival of patients with esophageal cancer. Evidence has shown that probiotics have a positive effect on improving gastrointestinal complications and nutritional status of patients with esophageal cancer after surgery, but there is a lack of prospective studies on this topic. We designed this prospective randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of probiotics on gastrointestinal complications and nutritional status in patients with postoperative esophageal cancer.Methods:This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. It was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of our hospital. 192 patients will be randomly divided into probiotics group and the placebo group in a 1:1 ratio. After operation, probiotics and placebo will be given orally for 8 weeks. The indexes of nutritional status and incidence of digestive tract complications will be recorded and the data will be analyzed by SPSS 18.0 software.Discussion:This study will evaluate the effect of probiotics on gastrointestinal complications and nutritional status of postoperative patients with esophageal cancer. The results of this study will provide clinical basis for the use of probiotics in postoperative treatment of esophageal cancer.Trial registration:OSF Registration number: D DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/QHW86     

Dural puncture epidural versus conventional epidural block for labor analgesia: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

IntroductionDural puncture epidural (DPE) analgesia is a modification of conventional epidural analgesia that involves the intentional puncture of the dura with a spinal needle through the needle placed in the epidural space, without a medication being injected intrathecally. There have been contradictory findings regarding better analgesia and better block quality.MethodsA systematic literature search was done to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing DPE with epidural analgesia. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane tool. Risk ratio and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsFive RCTs including 581 patients were identified. One RCT on caesarean section was excluded. Single studies suggested slightly better analgesia by finding a median time to achieve sufficient analgesia of two minutes less in the DPE group, a higher number of women having a pain score <10/100 at 20 min, a reduction in the number of epidural top-ups and better sacral spread. The studies did not show a difference between DPE and epidural analgesia for catheter replacement or manipulation rates, the incidence of intravascular placement or unilateral block.ConclusionThere is a lack of clear evidence on either the benefits or the risks of the DPE technique, such that a recommendation for or against its routine use is premature. Two of the three studies showing a beneficial effect of DPE came from the same institution and replication of the findings by other groups is warranted.     

Gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography in the clinical outcomes utilizing revascularization and aggressive drug evaluation (COURAGE) trial, Veterans Administration Cooperative study no. 424

Background  Stress gated myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography (gSPECT) is increasingly used before and after intercurrent therapeutic intervention and is the basis for ongoing evaluation in the Department of Veterans Affairs clinical outcomes utilizing revascularization and aggressive drug evaluation (COURAGE) trial. Methods and Results  The COURAGE trial is a North American multicenter randomized clinical trial that enrolled 2287 patients to aggressive medical therapy vs percutaneous coronary intervention plus aggressive medical therapy. Three COURAGE nuclear substudies have been designed. The goals of substudy 0 are to examine the diagnostic accuracy of the extent and severity of inducible ischemia at baseline in COURAGE patients compared with patient symptoms and quantitative coronary angiography and to explore the relationship between inducible ischemia and the benefit from revascularization when added to medical therapy. Substudy 1 will correlate the extent and severity of provocative ischemia with the frequency, quality, and instability of recurrent symptoms in postcatheterization patients. Substudy 2 (n _ 300) will examine the usefulness of sequential gSPECT monitoring 6 to 18 months after therapeutic intervention. Together, these nuclear substudies will evaluate the role of gSPECT to determine the effectiveness of aggressive risk-factor modifications, lifestyle interventions, and anti-ischemic medical therapies with or without revascularization in reducing patients’ ischemic burdens. Conclusions  The unfolding of evidence on the application of gSPECT in trials such as COURAGE defines a new era for nuclear cardiology. We hope the evidence that emerges from the COURAGE trial will further establish the role of nuclear imaging in the evidence-based management of patients with stable coronary disease. The COURAGE trial was supported by the Cooperative Studies Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development in collaboration with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Unrestricted research grants were obtained from Merck & Co; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals; Bristol-Myers Squibb Medical Imaging; Astellas Pharma; Kos Pharmaceuticals; Data Scope; Astra Zeneca Pharmaceuticals; Astra-Zeneca-Canada; Schering-Plough Coorporation, Ltd; Sanofi-Aventis, Inc; First Horizon; and GE Healthcare. All industrial funding for this trial was directed through the Department of Veterans Affairs. Additional funding for this substudy was provided by grants to the Department of Veterans Affairs and Canadian Institutes of Health Research from Astellas Pharma and Bristol-Myers-Squibb Medical Imaging.