Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods:This study was a retrospective cohort study. The subjects were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were hospitalized in 13 3A-level general hospitals in Shandong Province from September 2018 to December 2021. According to the type of basal insulin used, the patients were divided into insulin degludec group and insulin glargine U100 group. The basic information and laboratory test results in patients in the 2 groups were collected, the differences of fasting blood glucose level and incidence of hypoglycemia between the 2 groups were compared. The patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the 2 groups were selected and their blood glucose fluctuations were compared.Results:A total of 1 152 patients were entered in the study, including 552 patients in the insulin degludec group and 600 patients in the insulin glargine U100 group. The difference in the basic conditions in patients in the 2 groups was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). After treatment, the fasting blood glucose levels in patients in the 2 groups were lower than those before treatment, with statistically significant differences [10.2 (8.8, 12.5) mmol/L vs. 7.5 (6.6, 8.7) mmol/L, Z=-19.443, P<0.001; 10.0 (8.6, 11.7) mmol/L vs. 7.8 (6.6, 9.0) mmol/L, Z=-15.449, P<0.001], but the difference in fasting blood glucose levels between the 2 groups after treatment was not statistically significant ( Z=-1.427, P>0.05). The incidence of hypoglycemia in the insulin degludec group was lower than that in the insulin glargine U100 group [1.09% (6/552) vs. 2.83% (17/600), Z=4.481, P=0.032]. The intraday blood glucose standard deviation, maximum blood glucose fluctuation range, postprandial blood glucose fluctuation range, and average blood glucose fluctuation range in patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the insulin degludec group were significantly lower than those in the insulin glargine U100 group [(1.7±0.6) mmol/L vs. (2.4±1.0) mmol/L, (4.5±1.6) mmol/L vs. (6.7±2.9) mmol/L, (1.8±1.0) mmol/L vs. (3.3±1.2) mmol/L, (2.9±1.3) mmol/L vs. (4.6±2.1) mmol/L; all P<0.001]. Conclusion:The efficacy of insulin degludec in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus is equivalent to that of insulin glargine U100, but the risk of hypoglycemia and blood glucose fluctuation is lower.

Objective:To compare the efficacy and safety of insulin degludec and insulin glargine U100 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods:This study was a retrospective cohort study. The subjects were patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who were hospitalized in 13 3A-level general hospitals in Shandong Province from September 2018 to December 2021. According to the type of basal insulin used, the patients were divided into insulin degludec group and insulin glargine U100 group. The basic information and laboratory test results in patients in the 2 groups were collected, the differences of fasting blood glucose level and incidence of hypoglycemia between the 2 groups were compared. The patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the 2 groups were selected and their blood glucose fluctuations were compared.Results:A total of 1 152 patients were entered in the study, including 552 patients in the insulin degludec group and 600 patients in the insulin glargine U100 group. The difference in the basic conditions in patients in the 2 groups was not statistically significant (all P>0.05). After treatment, the fasting blood glucose levels in patients in the 2 groups were lower than those before treatment, with statistically significant differences [10.2 (8.8, 12.5) mmol/L vs. 7.5 (6.6, 8.7) mmol/L, Z=-19.443, P<0.001; 10.0 (8.6, 11.7) mmol/L vs. 7.8 (6.6, 9.0) mmol/L, Z=-15.449, P<0.001], but the difference in fasting blood glucose levels between the 2 groups after treatment was not statistically significant ( Z=-1.427, P>0.05). The incidence of hypoglycemia in the insulin degludec group was lower than that in the insulin glargine U100 group [1.09% (6/552) vs. 2.83% (17/600), Z=4.481, P=0.032]. The intraday blood glucose standard deviation, maximum blood glucose fluctuation range, postprandial blood glucose fluctuation range, and average blood glucose fluctuation range in patients with complete blood glucose monitoring data in the insulin degludec group were significantly lower than those in the insulin glargine U100 group [(1.7±0.6) mmol/L vs. (2.4±1.0) mmol/L, (4.5±1.6) mmol/L vs. (6.7±2.9) mmol/L, (1.8±1.0) mmol/L vs. (3.3±1.2) mmol/L, (2.9±1.3) mmol/L vs. (4.6±2.1) mmol/L; all P<0.001]. Conclusion:The efficacy of insulin degludec in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus is equivalent to that of insulin glargine U100, but the risk of hypoglycemia and blood glucose fluctuation is lower.

The widespread application of next generation sequencing (NGS) in clinical settings has enabled testing, diagnosis, treatment and prevention of genetic diseases. However, many issues have arisen in the meanwhile. One of the most pressing issues is the lack of standards for reporting genetic test results across different service providers. The First Forum on Standards and Specifications for Clinical Genetic Testing was held to address the issue in Shenzhen, China, on October 28, 2017. Participants, including geneticists, clinicians, and representatives of genetic testing service providers, discussed problems of clinical genetic testing services across in China and shared opinions on principles, challenges, and standards for reporting clinical genetic test results. Here we summarize expert opinions presented at the seminar and report the consensus, which will serve as a basis for the development of standards and guidelines for reporting of clinical genetic testing results, in order to promote the standardization and regulation of genetic testing services in China.

Objective:To analyze PD-L2 expression on monocytes of peripheral blood cells in systemic lupus erythematosus ( SLE) and it′s correlation with the degree of disease activity .Methods:Peripheral blood of 26 cases of SLE patiens and 38 cases of healthy controls were collected .Peripheral blood mononuclear cells ( PBMC) were isolated and realtime PCR was carried on to analyze the PD-L2 gene expression.At the same time flow cytometry was performed to analyze the CD 14 and PD-L2 expression.Results:PD-L2 was significantly up-regulated on monocytes in RA patients than in healthy controls and had correlation with the disease activity and the SLEAI score.Conclusion:These findings help to clarify the function of PD-L2,including its potential role as a biomarker for SLE .

ObjectiveTo explore the relationship between the expression of human proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and human MutS honolog2 gene (hMSH2) in breast cancer and its significance. Methods PCNA and hMSH2 expression were detected in 68 cases of breast cancer tissues by immunohistochemistry.ResultsAmong the 68 cases of breast cancer, the expression rate of PCNA and hMSH2 was 44.1％ (30/68) and 54.4％ (37/68) respectively.The expression of PCNA and hMSH2 was positively correlated with lymph nodes metastasis(P ＜0.05).PCNA expression was positively correlated to hMSH2 expression in breast cancer (P ＜0.05).ConclusionInteraction between PCNA and hMSH2 may be related to the carcinogenesis of breast cancer.Effective detection of PCNA and hMSH2 proteins may contribute to the evaluation of malignancy and biological behavior of breast cancer.