ObjectiveTo investigate the influencing factors for recompensation in patients with decompensated hepatitis C cirrhosis， and to establish a predictive model. MethodsA total of 217 patients who were diagnosed with decompensated hepatitis C cirrhosis and were admitted to The Third People’s Hospital of Kunming l from January， 2019 to December， 2022 were enrolled， among whom 63 patients who were readmitted within at least 1 year and had no portal hypertension-related complications were enrolled as recompensation group， and 154 patients without recompensation were enrolled as control group. Related clinical data were collected， and univariate and multivariate analyses were performed for the factors that may affect the occurrence of recompensation. The independent-samples t test was used for comparison of normally distributed measurement data between two groups， and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of non-normally distributed measurement data between two groups； the chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. A binary Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the influencing factors for recompensation in patients with decompensated hepatitis C cirrhosis， and the receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve was used to assess the predictive performance of the model. ResultsAmong the 217 patients with decompensated hepatitis C cirrhosis， 63 （29.03%） had recompensation. There were significant differences between the recompensation group and the control group in HIV history （χ²=4.566， P=0.034）， history of partial splenic embolism （χ²=6.687， P=0.014）， Child-Pugh classification （χ²=11.978， P=0.003）， grade of ascites （χ²=14.229， P<0.001）， albumin （t=4.063， P<0.001）， prealbumin （Z=-3.077， P=0.002）， high-density lipoprotein （t=2.854， P=0.011）， high-sensitivity C-reactive protein （Z=-2.447， P=0.014）， prothrombin time （Z=-2.441， P=0.015）， carcinoembryonic antigen （Z=-2.113， P=0.035）， alpha-fetoprotein （AFP） （Z=-2.063， P=0.039）， CA125 （Z=-2.270， P=0.023）， TT3 （Z=-3.304， P<0.001）， TT4 （Z=-2.221， P=0.026）， CD45⁺ （Z=-2.278， P=0.023）， interleukin-5 （Z=-2.845， P=0.004）， tumor necrosis factor-α （Z=-2.176， P=0.030）， and portal vein width （Z=-5.283， P=0.005）. The multivariate analysis showed that history of partial splenic embolism （odds ratio ［OR］=3.064， P=0.049）， HIV history （OR=0.195， P=0.027）， a small amount of ascites （OR=3.390， P=0.017）， AFP （OR=1.003， P=0.004）， and portal vein width （OR=0.600， P<0.001） were independent influencing factors for the occurrence of recompensation in patients with decompensated hepatitis C cirrhosis. The ROC curve analysis showed that HIV history， grade of ascites， history of partial splenic embolism， AFP， portal vein width， and the combined predictive model of these indices had an area under the ROC curve of 0.556， 0.641， 0.560， 0.589， 0.745， and 0.817， respectively. ConclusionFor patients with decompensated hepatitis C cirrhosis， those with a history of partial splenic embolism， a small amount of ascites， and an increase in AFP level are more likely to experience recompensation， while those with a history of HIV and an increase in portal vein width are less likely to experience recompensation.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) quantitative flow ratio (QFR) in patients treated with PCI for chronic total occlusion (CTO) was still undetermined. METHODS: All CTO vessels treated with successful anatomical PCI in patients from PANDA III trial were retrospectively measured for post-PCI QFR. The primary outcome was 2-year vessel-oriented composite endpoints (VOCEs, composite of target vessel-related cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization). Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis was conducted to identify optimal cutoff value of post-PCI QFR for predicting the 2-year VOCEs, and all vessels were stratified by this optimal cutoff value. Cox proportional hazards models were employed to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% CI. RESULTS: Among 428 CTO vessels treated with PCI, 353 vessels (82.5%) were analyzable for post-PCI QFR. 31 VOCEs (8.7%) occurred at 2 years. Mean value of post-PCI QFR was 0.92 ± 0.13. Receiver operator characteristic curve analysis shown the optimal cutoff value of post-PCI QFR for predicting 2-year VOCEs was 0.91. The incidence of 2-year VOCEs in the vessel with post-PCI QFR < 0.91 (n = 91) was significantly higher compared with the vessels with post-PCI QFR ≥ 0.91 (n = 262) (22.0% vs. 4.2%, HR = 4.98, 95% CI: 2.32-10.70). CONCLUSIONS Higher post-PCI QFR values were associated with improved prognosis in the PCI practice for coronary CTO. Achieving functionally optimal PCI results (post-PCI QFR value ≥ 0.91) tends to get better prognosis for patients with CTO lesions.

Objective To observe the efficacy and safety of Morinda officinalis oligosaccharides in the continuation treatment of mild and moderate depression.Methods An open,single-arm,multi-center design was adopted in our study.Adult patients with mild and moderate depression who had received acute treatment of Morinda officinalis oligosaccharides were enrolled and continue to receive Morinda officinalis oligosaccharides capsules for 24 weeks,the dose remained unchanged during continuation treatment.The remission rate,recurrence rate,recurrence time,and the change from baseline to endpoint of Hamilton Depression Scale(HAMD),Hamilton Anxiety Scale(HAMA),Clinical Global Impression-Severity(CGI-S)and Arizona Sexual Experience Scale(ASEX)were evaluated.The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was reported.Results The scores of HAMD-17 at baseline and after treatment were 6.60±1.87 and 5.85±4.18,scores of HAMA were 6.36±3.02 and 4.93±3.09,scores of CGI-S were 1.49±0.56 and 1.29±0.81,scores of ASEX were 15.92±4.72 and 15.57±5.26,with significant difference(P＜0.05).After continuation treatment,the remission rate was 54.59％(202 cases/370 cases),and the recurrence rate was 6.49％(24 cases/370 cases),the recurrence time was(64.67±42.47)days.The incidence of treatment-related adverse events was 15.35％(64 cases/417 cases).Conclusion Morinda officinalis oligosaccharides capsules can be effectively used for the continuation treatment of mild and moderate depression,and are well tolerated and safe.

Objective To study the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the test formulation of compound lidocaine cream and reference formulation of lidocaine and prilocaine cream in Chinese healthy subjects and to evaluate whether there is bioequivalence between the two formulations.Methods A single-center,single-dose,randomized,open-label,two-period,two-sequence,crossover design was used.This study included 40 healthy subjects,and in each period,test formulation or reference formulation 60 g was applied to the skin in front of both thighs(200 cm2 each side,a total of 400 cm2)under fasting conditions,and the drug was left on for at least 5 h after application.The concentrations of lidocaine and prilocaine in plasma were determined using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry(LC-MS/MS)method.Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using WinNonlin 8.0 software to evaluate the bioequivalence of the two formulations.Results After the application of the test formulation compound lidocaine cream and the reference formulation lidocaine and prilocaine cream on both thighs of the subjects,the pharmacokinetic parameters of lidocaine in plasma were as follows:Cmax were(167.27±91.33)and(156.13±66.86)ng·mL-1,AUC0-t were(1 651.78±685.09)and(1 636.69±617.23)ng·mL-1·h,AUC0-∞ were(1 669.85±684.65)and(1 654.37±618.30)ng·mL-1·h,the adjusted geometric mean ratios were 104.49％,101.88％and 101.89％,respectively,with 90％confidence intervals of 98.18％-111.20％,97.80％-106.13％and 97.87％-106.07％,all within the range of 80.00％-125.00％.The pharmacokinetic parameters of prilocaine in plasma were as follows:Cmax were(95.66±48.84)and(87.52±39.16)ng·mL-1,AUC0-t were(790.86±263.99)and(774.14±256.42)ng·mL-1·h,AUC0_m were(807.27±264.67)and(792.84±254.06)ng·mL-1 h,the adjusted geometric mean ratios were 107.34％,103.55％and 102.98％,respectively with 90％confidence intervals of 101.69％-113.31％,99.94％-107.30％and 99.65％-106.43％,all within the range of 80.00％-125.00％.Conclusion The test formulation compound lidocaine cream and the reference formulation lidocaine and prilocaine cream are bioequivalent.