Objective To explore the clinical efficacy of Qingyi decoction (a preparation of Chinese herbal medicine) combined with DAR (combined use of dexamethasone,anisodamine and rhubarb) for the treatment of acute pancreatitis.Methods A total of 387 eligible patients met the criteria of acute pancreatitis were enrolled from January 2005 to April 2012 for prospective study.All patients,mild acute pancreatitis (MAP) or severe acute pancreatitis (SAP),were divided (random niumber) into four groups,namely conventional therapy (T),DAR therapy (DAR),Qingyi decoction therapy (Q) and Qingyi decoction combined with DAR therapy (Q + DAR).Outcome,fasting time,serum amylase,abdominal pain relief time,pancreatic or peri-pancreatic complications and average hospital-stay were analvzed with SPSS 13.0 statistic software.P ＜ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results None of MAP patients died.Of SAP patients,there was no difference in mortality among different groups (P ＞ 0.05).length of fasting time,tine elapsed for abdominal pain relief,time required for normalized serum amylase level and length of hospital stay in MAP patients were significantly shorter than those in SAP patients regardless of different therapies (P ＜ 0.05).Either patients of SAP or MAP treated with Q + DAR or DAR suffered shorter length of time than those treated with T or Q in respect of fasting,abdominal paiu relief,serum amylase level normalization and hospital stay (P ＜ 0.05).For SAP or MAP patients,there was no difference in abdominal pain relief time between receiving DAR and Q + DAR treatment (P ＞ 0.05),but the fasting time in Q + DAR was shorter than that in DAR (P ＜ 0.05).Patients with SAP were more likely to suffer pancreatic or per-pancreatic complications than those with MAP,but there was no difference for SAP or MAP with different treatments.Conclusions DAR or Q + DAR was an alternative to conventional treatment for MAP or SAP,and they were both superior to conventional treatment.And Q + DAR was more advantageous than DAR when fasting time,hospital-stay time and cost were considered.

Objective:To compare the clinical effects of the two methods in surgical treatment of gynecomastia.Methods:The clinical data of 46 patients with gynecomastia were retrospectively analyzed, who received total removal of the glands through mastoscopic assistance (mastoscopic group) or traditional areola incision (traditional group) from Mar. 2017 to Mar. 2018. The two groups were compared in terms of blood loss, the mean operation duration, extubation time, the average hospitalization time, postoperative complications, the total cost and patients’ satisfaction at 6 month after operation. Chi-square test was used to compare the count data between groups, paired t test was used to compare the measurement data between groups, and SPSS18.0 statistical software was used for statistical analysis.Results:The operation was completed in both groups. There were no differences between the two group in age (0.473) , BMI (0.353) , lesion location (0.198) , Simon classification (0.683) , the mean blood loss ( P=0.999) , mean operation duration ( P=0.596) , extubation time ( P=0.755) , the average hospitalization time ( P=0.676) , postoperative complications and ( P=0.370) or the total cost ( P=0.486) . The difference of patients’ satisfaction at 6 month after operation had statistical significance ( P=0.012) . conclusion:Compared with traditional open surgery, mastoscopic surgery for gynecomastia is minimally invasive, beautiful and safe, which can be widely used in clinical practice.

Peptide-drug conjugates (PDCs) are the next generation of targeted therapeutics drug after antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), with the core benefits of enhanced cellular permeability and improved drug selectivity. Two drugs are now approved for market by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in the last two years, the pharmaceutical companies have been developing PDCs as targeted therapeutic candidates for cancer, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), metabolic diseases, and so on. The therapeutic benefits of PDCs are significant, but poor stability, low bioactivity, long research and development time, and slow clinical development process as therapeutic agents of PDC, how can we design PDCs more effectively and what is the future direction of PDCs? This review summarises the components and functions of PDCs for therapeutic, from drug target screening and PDC design improvement strategies to clinical applications to improve the permeability, targeting, and stability of the various components of PDCs. This holds great promise for the future of PDCs, such as bicyclic peptide‒toxin coupling or supramolecular nanostructures for peptide-conjugated drugs. The mode of drug delivery is determined according to the PDC design and current clinical trials are summarised. The way is shown for future PDC development.