目的 报道临床药师参与抗结核药物致结核性胸膜炎待诊患者多形红斑型药疹的临床药学实践的经验。 方法 1例结核性胸膜炎待诊患者在2011年11月3日出现皮疹后，临床药师根据患者的用药情况及病情变化，提供咨询意见，与临床医师共同制定不良反应的临床处理措施。 结果 推断为链霉素所致的多形红斑型药疹，积极处理后患者病情好转。 结论 临床药师参与药学监护，有利于处理药物不良反应。
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of iguratimod compared with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, VIP, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy and safety of iguratimod compared with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis from inception to June 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 970 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: there was no statistical difference between iguratimod and methotrexate in ACR20 (RR=1.06, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.23, P=0.49), ACR50 (RR=0.93, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.19, P=0.55), ACR70 (RR=0.92, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.39, P=0.70), morning stiffness time (MD=0.45, 95%CI –0.26 to 1.16, P=0.22), tender joint count (MD=0.07, 95%CI –2.31 to 2.45, P=0.95), swollen joint count (MD=–0.30, 95%CI –1.44 to 0.84, P=0.61), health assessment questionnaire (MD=0.01, 95%CI –0.05 to 0.07, P=0.73) and the rate of adverse effects (RR=0.66, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.07, P=0.09). Meta-analysis of 2 RCTs using double-blind method showed that, iguratimod was superior to methotrexat in the patient (MD=4.11, 95%CI 0.11 to 8.10, P=0.04) and physician (MD=4.81, 95%CI 0.93 to 8.69, P=0.01) global assessment of disease activities.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the efficacy and safety of iguratimod in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis are similar to methotrexate. And iguratimod is superior in global assessment of disease activities by patients and doctors. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and model building process of heparin treatment for animal model with smoke inhalation injury. Methods Databases including PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data were searched to collect animal experiments about the treatment of heparin for animal model with smoke inhalation injury from inception to November 2016. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of nine studies involving 11 animal experiments were included. The results showed that building animal model with smoke inhalation injury were through burning of cotton towels or pine sawdust by sheep or rats below 40℃. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in mortality rate between two groups (heparin group vs. control group: RR=0.38, 95%CI 0.14 to 1.05, P=0.06; heparin plus DMSO group vs. DMSO group: RR=0.10, 95%CI 0.01 to 1.51, P=0.10). In addition, the pulmonary artery pressure (MD=–3.31, 95%CI –4.51 to –2.11, P<0.000 01), wet to dry weight ratio (MD=–0.90, 95%CI –1.19 to –0.61, P<0.000 01), and lung water content (MD=–1.18, 95%CI –1.67 to –0.70, P<0.000 01) of the experimental group were lower than those in the control group. PaO2/FiO2 after 12 hours (MD=131.00, 95%CI 59.54 to 202.46, P=0.000 3), PaO2/FiO2 after 24 hours (MD=114.00, 95%CI 60.56 to 167.44, P<0.000 1), PaO2/FiO2 after 48 hours (MD=46.00, 95%CI 20.62 to 71.38, P=0.000 4) were higher than those in the control group. However, there was no significant difference in coagulation function between both groups. Conclusion The current evidence shows that the establishment of animal model of smoke inhalation injury is still lack of standard method. Heparin can decrease pulmonary artery pressure and lung water content in animal models with smoke inhalation injury. Due to the limited quality and quantity of included studies, the above conclusions are still needed to be verified by more high quality studies.
目的 评价酚妥拉明治疗小儿毛细支气管炎的疗效和安全性。 方法 计算机检索Cochrane图书馆，Medline（1950年－2013年），Embase（1980年－2013年），中国生物医学文献数据库（1978年－2013年）、中国知网（1979年－2013年）、万方（1986年－2013年）、维普（1989年－2013年），收集酚妥拉明联合常规方法对比仅用常规方法治疗小儿毛细支气管炎的随机对照试验（RCT），由两名研究者根据纳入与排除标准筛选文献、提取资料并评价质量后，采用RevMan 5.1软件进行Meta分析。 结果 共纳入13个RCT，1 186例患儿。Meta分析结果显示：在常规治疗基础上加用酚妥拉明，其总有效率[RR=1.30，95%CI（1.15，1.46），P＜0.000 1]、平均住院时间[MD=?2.15 d，95%CI（?2.78，?1.53） d，P＜0.000 01]、啰音消失的平均时间[MD=?1.62 d，95%CI（?2.02，?1.23） d，P＜0.000 01]，憋喘消失的平均时间[MD=?2.39 d，95%CI（?4.64，?0.13）d，P=0.04]差异有统计学意义，而气促消失的平均时间差异无统计学意义[MD=?0.62 d，95%CI（?1.31，0.07）d，P=0.08]。 结论 在常规治疗基础上加用酚妥拉明治疗小儿毛细支气管炎时，其疗效疗效优于仅采用常规治疗，在缓解啰音、憋喘等临床症状上起效更快。而在安全性方面证据不足，需要进一步的研究。