Objective To observe the effect of methylprednisolone (MP) pre-intervention on ex-pressions of heat shock protein 27 (HSP27) and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) in cells in rat spinal cord following ischemia-reperfusion injury. Methods One hundred and fifty male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats were randomly divided into 3 equal groups: group A (control) in which the abdominal aorta was exposed without any treatment, group B in which the abdominal aorta was clipped for 30 minutes before reperfusion for 3 bours to establish a model of ischemia- reperfusion injury, and group C in which intravenous MP injection was conducted 30 minutes before the establishment of the ischemia-reperfusion injury model. Three hours later the spinal cords were harvested. Pathological changes of spinal cord cells were observed with HE staining and expressions of HSP27 and TNF-α in spinal cord cells were observed with immunohistochemical staining. The motor function of hind-limbs before was evaluated before sample harvest. The data were analyzed with SPSS software. Results There were significant differences between groups A and B in the expressions of TNF-α and HSP27. Compared with group B, the expression of TNF-α decreased and HSP27 increased in group C, with statistically significant differences between the 2 groups. The motor function score of hind-limbs decreased in group B but improved in group C. Conclusions Since MP can decrease the expression of TNF-α and up-regulate the expression of HSP27, it has a potency of neuro-protection. Spinal cord ischemia-reperfusion injury can be avoided or decreased after MP pre-intervention.

Objective:To explore the differences in clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes between patients with type A and type B alcohol dependence, and to find the independent risk factors of relapse.Methods:Alcohol-dependent male patients attending the Addiction Medicine Center of Beijing Huilongguan Hospital from January 2018 to December 2020 were selected for the study and divided into type A alcohol-dependent group ( n=77) and type B alcohol-dependent group ( n=87). All patients were given acute detoxification treatment and were followed up after treatment on relapse to drinking. Differences in demographic and clinical data were compared between the two groups, and differences in treatment outcomes between the two groups at different time points over 3 months were compared. Patients were divided into relapse group and non-relapse group according to whether they drank again after 3 months. Logistic regression model was established to screen the risk factors of relapse of alcohol-dependent patients by SPSS 25.0 software. Results:There was no significant difference between the two types of patients in years of education, marital status, smoking status and working status(all P>0.05), but the proportion of co-residents( χ2=5.69, P=0.017) and the proportion of positive family history of alcoholism were significant difference between the two type of patients( χ2=13.32, P<0.001). There were statistically significant differences between the two types of patients in the onset time( t=-7.28, P<0.001), the first drinking age( t=-2.36, P=0.020), the proportion of drinking in the morning( χ2=7.83, P=0.005), psychotic symptoms( χ2=4.31, P=0.038), convulsions after withdrawal( χ2=5.30, P=0.021), and alcohol use disorder identification test(AUDIT) score( t=4.30, P<0.001). At the 4th and 8th weekend of the follow-up, there were statistically significant differences in drinking frequency(0(0, 3), 0(0, 0), Z=-4.13, P<0.001; 3(0, 3), 0(0, 3), Z=-4.42, P<0.001) and relapse rate (40(45.98%), 9(11.69%), χ2=22.92, P<0.001; 61(70.11%), 24(31.17%), χ2=24.82, P<0.001) between the two types of alcohol dependence patients after drinking again. After 12-week follow-up, there were statistically significant differences between the two types of alcohol-dependent patients in the interval of first drinking(20(7, 30)d, 88(38, 90)d, Z=-7.83, P<0.001), the cumulative duration of abstinence(4(0, 8)weeks, 12(4, 12)weeks, Z=-5.13, P<0.001), the cumulative rate of abstinence(71(81.60%), 25(32.47%), χ2=40.62, P<0.001), the frequency of drinking after abstinence(3(3, 3), 0(0, 3), Z=-5.54, P<0.001), and the reduction of daily average alcohol consumption( t=3.36, P<0.001). Logistic regression model showed that type B alcohol dependence ( OR=3.121, P=0.03, 95% CI: 1.12-8.72) and AUDIT score ( OR=1.498, P<0.01, 95% CI: 1.29-1.74) were the risk factors for relapse of alcohol-dependent patients. Conclusions:Patients with type A and type B alcohol dependence have obvious differences in clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes, and type B alcohol dependence is independent risk factor for relapse to drinking in alcohol-dependent patients, which validate the rationality and necessity of alcohol dependence subtypes.