Objective To study the relationship between genetic polymorphisms of CYP2E1 and the susceptibility of the acute leukemia in Gansu population. Methods The C609T polymorphism of CYP2E1 gene was detected by polymerase chain reaction-ligase detection reaction (PCR-LDR) and 1∶1 matched casecontrol method in 100 healthy persons (control group) and 100 patients with acute leukemia (AL group).Results The C2 allele genotype and C1C2/C2C2 genotype of CYP2E1 gene occurred more frequently in AL group (13.5 % and 22 %, respectively) than those in control group (10.5 % and 19 %, respectively), however,both differences showed no statistical significant. Further stratified analysis, the C1C2/C2C2 genotype of CYP2E1 gene occurred more frequently in AML group (27%) than that in control group (19 %), but difference had no statistical significant, too. The occurrence frequency of the C2 allele genotype and C1C2/C2C2 genotype of CYP2E1 gene showed no significant difference in ALL group and control group (x2=0.446, P =0.504>0.05). Conclusion Genetic polymorphisms of CYP2E1 don't correlated to susceptibility of acute leukemia(AML and ALL) in Gansu population.

ObjectiveTo review the efficacy and safety in secondary prevention of ischemic stroke with cilostazol or aspirin.Methodswe searched Cochrane Library(the 4th issue, 2009 ), PubMed(1980.1～2009.11), EMBASE(1980.1～2009.11), CBM(1978.1～2009.11), CNKI(1979.1～2009.11) and some other databases, then collected all of the studies describing the outcomes in curing the ischemic stroke after taking cilostazol or aspirin. According to the strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently selected trials, extracted datas, made cross-checking and methodological quality assessment of the homogeneity studies by using the Cochrane systematic review methods, then made Meta analysis using RevMan 5.0 software.ResultsThis systematic review study included two randomized controlled trials and a cross-over trial, which contained a total of 838 participants. The evidence quality of one of the randomized controlled trials was high, however, the evidence quality of another randomized controlled trial and the cross-over trial was poor. Meta analysis results suggested that the effectiveness of cilostazol and aspirin in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke performed no significantly statistical difference: primary endpoint(30 d［RR=3.00, 95%CI(0.31,28.70)］; 90 d［RR=1.67, 95%CI(0.40,6.92)］; 180 d［RR=1.25, 95%CI(0.50, 3.13)］; 360 d［RR=0.65, 95%CI(0.33, 1.29)］; 540 d［RR=0.80,95%CI(0.54, 1.18)］); combined endpoint(30 d［RR=4.00, 95%CI(0.45,35.61)］; 90 d ［RR=1.75,95%CI(0.52,5.93)］; 180 d［RR=1.00, 95%CI(0.48, 2.07)］; 360 d ［RR=0.77, 95%CI(0.45, 1.29)］; 540 d［RR=0.66,95%CI(0.40,1.09)］); the recurrence of ischemic stroke: cilostazol group: RR=0.64, 95%CI(0.31,1.30)，aspirin group: RR=0.21, 95%CI(0.04,1.06); PDMP［RR=1.00, 95%CI(0.39, 2.58)］. But in terms of the probability of intracranial hemorrhage (［RR=7.14, 95%CI(0.7,58.33)］) and other safety standards, taking cilostazol performed lower than taking aspirin.ConclusionThe side effects of cilostazol and aspirin in the treatment for ischemic stroke were similar to each other, but in terms of the probability of dizziness, headache, tachycardia and palpitation, taking cilostazol performed higher than taking aspirin, however, taking cilostazol performed lower in the probability of intracranial hemorrhage and other organ hemorrhage than taking aspirin. Since this study included a small amount of studies, in which the evidence quality of one of the randomized controlled trials and the cross-over study was poor, therefore, it would be necessary to make a further validation with lots of high-quality clinical trials.