OBJECTIVE:To investigate penetrative effects of a penetration enhancer and multiple penetration enhancers combi-nation with different proportions on Euodia rutaecarpa superfines cataplasm,so as to optimize enhancer and their concentrations. METHODS:Modified Franz diffusion cell was employed with isolated mice abdominal skin as barrier. HPLC method was adopted to detect the effects of a penetration enhancer (propanediol, azone, oleic acid), multiple penetration enhancers (propanedi-ol-azone,propanediol-oleic acid,propanediol-azone-oleic acid),their proportion and amount on accumulative permeation quantity (Qn) of evodiamine and rutaecarpin in Euodia rutaecarpa superfines cataplasm. RESULTS:The penetrative effect of a penetration enhancer propanediol was significantly better than that of other one penetration enhancers and multiple penetration enhancers;the higher proportion of propanediol in multiple penetration enhancer system was,the better penetrative effects of evodiamine and rutae-carpin had. Using 3%,5 % and 7 % propanediol as enhancer,Q36 h of evodiamine were 11.290,14.332 and 13.537 μg/cm2,and those of rutaecarpin were 11.965,14.856 and 13.901 μg/cm2. CONCLUSIONS:The penetrative effect of 5% propanediol is the best,and can be used as enhancer for E. rutaecarpa superfines cataplasm.

OBJECTIVE:To establish a method for the simultaneous determination of chlorogenic acid,evodiamine,rutecar-pine in different places of Evodia rutaecarpa. METHODS:UPLC was performed on the column of ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 with mobile phase of acetonitrile-0.1% Phosphoric acid aqueous solution(gradient elution)at a flow rate of 0.40 ml/min,the detection wavelength was 326 nm and 220 nm,column temperature was 30 ℃,and the volume injection was 2 μl. RESULTS:The linear range was 7.67-76.67 μg/ml for chlorogenic acid(r=0.999 2),13.33-133.33 μg/ml for evodiamine(r=0.999 7)and 13.33-133.33μg/ml for rutecarpine(r=0.999 8);the limits of quantitation were 0.11 ng,0.05 ng and 0.05 ng,the limits of detection were 0.03 ng,0.01 ng and 0.01 ng,respectively;RSDs of precision,stability and reproducibility tests were lower than 3%;recoveries were 96.19%-101.90%(RSD=2.19%,n=6),95.35%-101.16%(RSD=2.27%,n=6)and 95.92%-98.98%(RSD=1.33%,n=6),re-spectively. CONCLUSIONS:The method is rapid and accurate,and suitable for the simultaneous determination of chlorogenic ac-id,evodiamine,rutecarpine in different places of E. rutaecarpa.

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of qualitative and quantitative fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in identifying colorectal cancer, so as to provide insights into perfecting screening strategies for colorectal cancer. Methods: Participants in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program for Key Populations in Zhejiang Province from May 2020 to December 2021 were recruited, and their demographic information, lifestyle and disease history were collected through a questionnaire survey. Qualitative or quantitative FIT along with a questionnaire-based risk assessment were employed as the initial screening tests. Individuals who were positive in any FIT or had high-risk assessment results were required to attend a subsequent colonoscopy examination. The positive rate, detection rate of colorectal cancer, positive predictive value and number of colonoscopies required were compared between qualitative and quantitative FITs, and stratified analyses by gender and age were conducted. Results: Totally 4 099 769 participants were included. The qualitative FIT group included 3 574 917 individuals, yielding a positive rate of 11.35%, a detection rate of 1.19%, a positive predictive value of 0.48% and 83.84 colonoscopies required to detect one cancer case. The quantitative FIT group involved 524 852 individuals, yielding a positive rate of 6.70%, a detection rate of 2.31%, a positive predictive value of 1.01% and 43.23 colonoscopies required to detect one cancer case. The quantitative FIT group showed significantly higher detection rate of colorectal cancer, higher positive predictive value and less number of colonoscopies required compared to the qualitative FIT group (all P<0.05). The same results were obtained after stratification by gender and age. Conclusion Compared to qualitative FIT, quantitative FIT improves the detection of colorectal cancer and reduces the workload of colonoscopy examinations, making it more suitable for colorectal cancer screening in large-scale populations.