ObjectiveTo explore the mechanism of Xianfang Huomingyin （XFHMY） in the treatment of type Ⅲ prostatitis （CP/CPPS） through network pharmacology， molecular docking， and animal experiments. MethodsThe traditional Chinese Medicine Systems Pharmacology Database and Analysis Platform （TCMSP） and the Swiss Target Prediction database were used to screen and sort out the active ingredients and corresponding targets of XFHMY. The potential therapeutic targets of CP/CPPS were collected from online databases， such as the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man （OMIM）， GeneCards， and DisGeNET. The potential core targets of XFHMY for treating CP/CPPS were further screened by constructing a protein-protein interaction （PPI） network and performing topological analysis. Meanwhile， the DAVID database was chosen to perform enrichment analysis on the intersection targets. On this basis， the AutoDock software was used for molecular docking， and the data was subsequently imported into the GraphPad Prism 8 software to generate a heat map. SD rats were divided into seven groups： A blank group， a sham operation group， a model group， low-， medium-， and high-dose XFHMY groups （3.645， 7.29， 14.58 g·kg^-1）， and a tamsulosin hydrochloride group （0.018 mg·kg^-1）. Hematoxylin-eosin （HE） staining was used to evaluate the pathological changes in prostate tissue. The inflammatory factor indicators of rats in each group were detected via enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay （ELISA）. Real-time fluorescence quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction （Real-time PCR） and Western blot were used to evaluate the mRNA and protein expression levels of phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase （PI3K）， protein kinase B （Akt）， and nuclear transcription factor-κB （NF-κB） p65 in prostate tissue. ResultsThe HE staining showed no significant signs of inflammatory cell infiltration in the prostate of the sham operation group compared to the blank group， while the model group had significantly inflammatory cell infiltration. The ELISA results showed that compared to the blank group， TNF-α， IL-1β， and COX-2 in the sham operation group had no significant differences. However， they were significantly higher in the model group （P<0.01）， indicating successful CP/CPPS modeling in rats. Compared with the model group， the low-，medium-and high-dose XFHMY group and the tamsulosin hydrochloride group showed significant decreases in TNF-α， IL-1β， and COX-2 （P<0.05，P<0.01）. The Real-time PCR analysis revealed that compared to the model group， the low-dose XFHMY group had reduced Akt and NF-κB p65 mRNA expression（P<0.05，P<0.01）. In the medium-and high-dose XFHMY group and tamsulosin hydrochloride group， PI3K， Akt， and NF-κB p65 mRNA levels decreased significantly（P<0.05，P<0.01）. Western blot analysis showed that compared to the model group， the low-dose XFHMY group had lower p-NF-κB p65/NF-κB p65 （P<0.05）. The medium- and high-dose XFHMY group and the tamsulosin hydrochloride group showed significant decreases in p-PI3K/PI3K， p-Akt-ser473/Akt， p-Akt-thr308/Akt， and p-NF-κB p65/NF-κB p65 （P<0.01）. ConclusionXFHMY may exert therapeutic efficacy on CP/CPPS by inhibiting the PI3K/Akt/NF-κB signaling pathway and reducing inflammatory responses. Additionally， NF-κB activation may be related to the activation of ser473 and thr308 sites.

One of its primary surgical treatments of tricuspid regurgitation is tricuspid valve biological valve replacement. Catheter tricuspid valve-in-valve implantation is a novel interventional alternative for biological valve failure. The non-invasive lung fluid measuring device remote dielectric sensing (ReDSTM) has been increasingly incorporated into clinical practice as a means of monitoring chronic heart failure in recent years. This report describes the process and outcomes of the first instance of perioperative lung fluid volume evaluation following transcatheter tricuspid valve implantation utilizing ReDSTM technology. The patient has a short-term, substantial increase in postoperative lung fluid volume as compared to baseline.

Objective To explore the relationship between pain and recurrent falls in the elderly with self-care ability. Methods Based on data from the 4th (2018) and 5th (2020) of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), a binary logistic regression model was used to analyze the association between pain and recurrent falls in the elderly. Results Among the 1219 elderly people, the average age was (69.6 ± 7.0) years old, with 407 males (33.39%) and 812 females (66.61%). 2) The risk of falling again with mild, moderate, and severe pain was 32.83%, 43.98% and 41.63%, respectively; The risk of falling again was 28.25%, 38.48% and 45.99% for pain sites ≤2, 3-5 and ≥6, respectively. 3) Regression analysis showed that the risk of falling again in the elderly with moderate pain was 1.38 times higher than that with mild pain (OR: 1.38, 95%CI: 1.05-1.81). Compared with those with less than 2 pain sites, the risk of falling again was increased by 50% (OR: 1.50, 95%CI: 1.07-2.09) and 76% (OR: 1.76, 95%CI: 1.28-2.42) in those with 3 to 5 pain sites and ≥6 pain sites, respectively. In women, the risk of falling again was 1.99 times higher in those with ≥6 pain sites than in those with ≤2 pain sites (OR: 1.99, 95%CI: 1.32-3.00). Conclusion The pain level and the risk of falling again in the elderly are in an inverted U-shaped distribution, and the number of pain sites is positively correlated with the risk of falling again in the elderly. Headache, shoulder pain, back pain, leg pain and ankle pain are all related to the risk of falling again in the elderly. It is recommended to manage pain reasonably to reduce the risk of recurrent falling in the elderly.

Objective:The objective of this study is to sequence whole genome of the rabies virus in the saliva specimen of a suspected rabies case with onset of rabies from a wildlife (hog badger) bite wound in Sichuan province, where the genetic variation characteristics of the virus was analyzed at the molecular level, so as to understand the prevalence and mutation of wildlife rabies virus in Sichuan province.Methods:Total viral RNA was extracted from the saliva specimen of the suspected rabies case. Then, rabies virus sequences were amplified using PCR with specific primers; the gene fragments obtained were sequenced, and the sequences obtained were spliced using biological software to obtain the whole genome sequence of the rabies virus strain. The genetic variation characteristics of the whole genome were analyzed.Results:The whole genome nucleotide sequence of a strain of rabies virus of hog badger origin (hereinafter referred to as SCR23-052) was obtained by sequencing, and NCBI online BLAST and comparison with several reference sequences showed that the composition and structure of the whole genome sequence of SCR23-052 conformed to the characteristics of the Lyssavirus under the Rhabdoviridae; the highest similarity in nucleotide and amino acid sequences in various gene regions was observed between SCR23-052 and the strains of Ningxia (J) and Chongqing (CQ92, 02050CHI). The sequence variability of SCR23-052 genome was significantly lower at the amino acid level than that at the nucleotide level, which indicated that most of the nucleotide variants in the protein-coding genes belonged to synonymous mutations. Phylogenetic analysis showed that SCR23-052 belonged to genotype V, which did not show any obvious mutation in the major antigenic site of the glycoprotein, underwent amino acid glycosylation at positions 56 and 338 by the online site prediction, and showed the least amino acid difference compared with the signal peptide sequence of the vaccine strain CTN181. The virus in this study has an A→T mutation at position 332 in the nucleoprotein major antigenic site with all reference vaccine strains, and an L→V mutation at position 379 in the B-cell epitope with the CTN181 vaccine strain. SCR23-052 was consistent with both genotype V reference strains at the nucleoprotein study site.Conclusions:The whole genome sequence of a wildlife strain of genotype V rabies virus of hog badger origin was obtained, which was different from that of the genotype I strain of rabies virus of dog origin that previously reported to be prevalent in Sichuan. The genome sequence of SCR23-052 differed from that of the reference vaccine strains to a varying degree, but the main virulence characteristics remained unaltered.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.