Objective:To compare minimally invasive surgery with traditional open surgery, analyze the current application status of health economic evaluations in the treatment of digestive tract cancers, such as esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer by minimally invasive surgery and provide evidence for the rational selection of clinical treatment, alleviation of disease-related economic burdens, and rational allocation of healthcare resources.Methods:By using five databases, i.e. China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang data, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, and Embase, a database was established to retrieve all the papers about health economic studies of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer published until December 31, 2023. Literature was analyzed by using software NoteExpress 3.8, and data were processed using Excel 2021. The quality of included papers was evaluated using the CHEERS 2022 checklist, and Meta-analysis was conducted by using software Stata 17.0.Results:A total of 10 919 relevant papers were retrieved, and 59 studies were included. Only 14 studies (23.7%) used standard health economic evaluation methods. Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in direct medical expenditure and total expenditure between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery. However, the expenditure for minimally invasive surgery exhibited a significant increase [mean difference ( MD)=5 973.12 yuan, P<0.001], while hospital stay and indirect expenditure significantly decreased ( MD: -4.85 days and -733.79 yuan, P<0.001). In China, for gastric cancer, the direct medical expenditure of endoscopic surgery was lower than that of open surgery ( MD=-33 000.00 yuan) with no significant difference ( P<0.001). In colorectal cancer cases, the direct medical and surgical expenditures for laparoscopic surgery were higher than those for open surgery ( MD: 4 277.94 yuan and 4 267.80 yuan, P<0.001), while the indirect and total medical expenditures decreased ( MD: -768.34 yuan and -159.10 yuan). Hospital stays in patients who had minimally invasive surgery for all three types of cancer were shorter than those who had open surgery ( P<0.001). Conclusions:In the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer, compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery shows higher expenditure, but has advantages, such as shorter hospital stay and lower indirect expenditure, and there were no significant differences in direct medical and total expenditures between the two approaches. When conducting health economic evaluation, factors such as postoperative complications, hospital stay, and patient's economic status should be considered for their impact on total medical expenditure. It is necessary to pay attention to the application of health economic evaluations in healthcare decision-making.

Objective:To compare minimally invasive surgery with traditional open surgery, analyze the current application status of health economic evaluations in the treatment of digestive tract cancers, such as esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer by minimally invasive surgery and provide evidence for the rational selection of clinical treatment, alleviation of disease-related economic burdens, and rational allocation of healthcare resources.Methods:By using five databases, i.e. China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang data, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, and Embase, a database was established to retrieve all the papers about health economic studies of minimally invasive surgery for esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, and colorectal cancer published until December 31, 2023. Literature was analyzed by using software NoteExpress 3.8, and data were processed using Excel 2021. The quality of included papers was evaluated using the CHEERS 2022 checklist, and Meta-analysis was conducted by using software Stata 17.0.Results:A total of 10 919 relevant papers were retrieved, and 59 studies were included. Only 14 studies (23.7%) used standard health economic evaluation methods. Meta-analysis results revealed no significant differences in direct medical expenditure and total expenditure between minimally invasive surgery and open surgery. However, the expenditure for minimally invasive surgery exhibited a significant increase [mean difference ( MD)=5 973.12 yuan, P<0.001], while hospital stay and indirect expenditure significantly decreased ( MD: -4.85 days and -733.79 yuan, P<0.001). In China, for gastric cancer, the direct medical expenditure of endoscopic surgery was lower than that of open surgery ( MD=-33 000.00 yuan) with no significant difference ( P<0.001). In colorectal cancer cases, the direct medical and surgical expenditures for laparoscopic surgery were higher than those for open surgery ( MD: 4 277.94 yuan and 4 267.80 yuan, P<0.001), while the indirect and total medical expenditures decreased ( MD: -768.34 yuan and -159.10 yuan). Hospital stays in patients who had minimally invasive surgery for all three types of cancer were shorter than those who had open surgery ( P<0.001). Conclusions:In the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer, compared with open surgery, minimally invasive surgery shows higher expenditure, but has advantages, such as shorter hospital stay and lower indirect expenditure, and there were no significant differences in direct medical and total expenditures between the two approaches. When conducting health economic evaluation, factors such as postoperative complications, hospital stay, and patient's economic status should be considered for their impact on total medical expenditure. It is necessary to pay attention to the application of health economic evaluations in healthcare decision-making.

Objective:To investigate the role of immune and inflammatory responses in the pathogenesis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).Methods:Fifteen patients with GERD who underwent biopsy and histopathology during painless gastroscopy in the digestive endoscopy center of the General Hospital of the PLA from December 2018 to September 2019 were analyzed retrospectively. They were divided into three groups: 6 cases of non erosive reflux disease (NERD), 8 cases of reflux esophagitis (RE) and 1 case of RE with high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia (RE-HIN). HE staining was used to analyze the inflammatory reaction of each group. The expression of cyclooxygenase-2(COX-2), inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), interleukin (IL)-1β, myeloperoxidase (MPO), IL-4, nuclear factor kappa-B(NF-κB), IL-8, reactive oxygen species (ROS-1) were monitored by immunohistochemistry. Chi square test was used to analyze the positive rate of immune and inflammatory indexes in each group.Results:The three groups showed mild and moderate inflammatory cell infiltration, mostly lymphocyte infiltration, and basal cell hyperplasia in 3 cases. There was no significant difference between inflammatory cell infiltration, basal hyperplasia and inflammatory grade in NERD and RE( P>0.05). Immune and inflammatory factors COX-2(positive rate:NERD 4/6, RE4/8, RE-HIN 1/1), iNOS(positive rate:NERD 4/6, RE 3/8, RE-HIN 0), IL-1β(positive rate:NERD 6/6, RE 7/8, RE-HIN 1/1), MPO(positive rate:NERD 4/6, RE 7/8, RE-HIN 1/1), IL-4(positive rate:NERD 3/6, RE 4/8, RE-HIN 0), IL-8(positive rate:NERD 2/6, RE 6/8, RE-HIN 1/1), ROS-1(positive rate:NERD 3/6, RE 1/8, RE-HIN 0) and signal pathway NF- κ B (positive rate:NERD 4/6, RE 8/8, RE-HIN 1/1) were positive in three groups. The expressions of IL-1β, MPO and NF-κB were statistically significant among the three groups ( P<0.05). Conclusions:There is an inflammatory cascade mediated by immune inflammatory factors and mediators in GERD patients, and NF-κB signaling pathway is involved. It provides a basis for finding targets to block immune and inflammatory responses in the later stage to treat GERD.

Objective:To investigate the clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Omicron variant infected cases.Methods:A total of 987 coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) adult imported cases admitted to Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center, Fudan University from July 1, 2021 to January 6, 2022 were recruited. The cases were divided into Omicron group (193 cases) and non-Omicron group (794 cases) according to the genotype of the virus. The clinical data, imaging examination and laboratory results of two groups were collected and compared. Chi-square test and Mann-Whitney U test were used as statistical methods. Multiple linear regression analysis was used for multiple linear regression analysis. Results:The majority of patients in Omicron group were 18 to 30 years old, accounting for 51.3%(99/193), which was higher than 31.4%(249/794) in non-Omicron group. The difference was statistically significant ( χ2=52.75, P<0.001). The proportion of mild cases in Omicron group was 88.6%(171/193), which was higher than 81.6%(648/794) in non-Omicron group. The difference was statistically significant ( χ2=5.37, P=0.021). Cases with symptoms were more common in Omicron group than those in non-Omicron group (60.1%(116/193) vs 29.1%(231/794)), and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=65.49, P<0.001), with the main clinical manifestations of sore/itchy throat, fever and cough/expectoration. The proportion of cases with pulmonary computed tomography (CT) imaging manifestations at admission in Omicron group was 13.0%(25/193), which was lower than that in non-Omicron group (215/794, 27.1%). The difference was statistically significant ( χ2=16.83, P<0.001). The proportion of cases with 2019-nCoV IgG positive at admission was 47.7%(92/193) in Omicron group, which was lower than 61.1%(485/794) in non-Omicron group, and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=11.51, P<0.001). The hospitalization time of Omicron group was 20.0 (16.0, 23.0) d, which was longer than that of non-Omicron group (14.0 (10.0, 22.0) d), and the difference was statistically significant ( Z=-7.42, P<0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that the time of hospitalization of cases with 2019-nCoV IgG positive at admission was shorter, while that of the cases with fever in Omicron group was longer (both P<0.050). Conclusions:The main clinical characteristics of cases with Omicron variant are fever and upper respiratory symptoms. Their pulmonary CT imaging manifestations are less, and the time of hospitalization is slightly longer. The time of hospitalization and the virus clearance time in Omicron variant infected cases with 2019-nCoV IgG positive at admission and not presented with fever are both shorter.

Administration, Intravenous ; Ascorbic Acid/therapeutic use* ; COVID-19 ; Humans ; Pneumonia ; SARS-CoV-2

Objective To analyze the clinical features of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Shanghai and to investigate the risk factors for disease progression to severe cases. Methods The clinical data of 292 adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center from January 20, 2020 to February 10, 2020 were retrospectively analyzed, including 21 severe patients and 271 mild patients. The demographic characteristics, epidemiological history, history of underlying diseases and laboratory examinations were compared between the two groups. Measurement data were compared using t test or Mann-Whitney U test. The count data were compared using hi-square test. The binary logistic regression equation was used to analyze the risk factors for the progression of patients to severe cases. Results Among the 292 patients, 21 were severe cases with the rate of 7.2% (21/292). One patient died, and the mortality rate was 4.8% in severe patients. The severe patients aged (65.0±15.7) years old, 19 (90.5%) were male, 11 (52.4%) had underlying diseases, 7 (33.3%) had close relatives diagnosed with COVID-19. The mild patients aged (48.7±15.7) years old, 135 (49.8%) were male, 74 (27.3%) had underlying diseases, 36 (13.3%) had close relatives diagnosed with COVID-19. The differences between two groups were all significant statistically ( t =-4.730, χ 2 =12.930, 5.938 and 4.744, respectively, all P <0.05). Compared with the mild patients, the levels of absolute numbers of neutrophils, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, creatinine, serum cystatin C, C reactive protein (CRP), procalcitonin , D -dimer, pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (proBNP), serum myoglobin, creatine kinase (CK), creatine kinase isoenzyme (CK-MB), serum troponin I (cTnI) in severe patients were all significantly higher ( U =2 091.5, 1 928.0, 1 215.5, 729.0, 1 580.5, 1 375.5, 917.5, 789.5, 1 209.0, 1 434.0, 638.0, 964.5, 1 258.0 and 1 747.5, respectively, all P <0.05), while the levels of lymphocyte count, albumin, transferrin, CD3 + T lymphocyte count, CD8 + T lymphocyte count and CD4 + T lymphocyte count in severe patients were all significantly lower ( U =1 263.5, t =4.716, U =1 214.0, 962.0, 1 167.5 and 988.0, respectively, all P <0.05). Further logistic regression analysis showed that the albumin (odds ratio ( OR )=0.806, 95% CI 0.675-0.961), CRP ( OR =1.016, 95% CI 1.000-1.032), serum myoglobin ( OR =1.010, 95% CI 1.004-1.016), CD3 + T lymphocyte count ( OR =0.996, 95% CI 0.991-1.000) and CD8 + T lymphocyte count ( OR =1.006, 95% CI 1.001-1.010) at admission were independent risk factors for the progression of COVID-19 patients to severe illness (all P <0.05). Conclusions Severe cases of patients with COVID-19 in Shanghai are predominantly elderly men with underlying diseases. Albumin, CRP, serum myoglobin, CD3 + T lymphocyte count and CD8 + T lymphocyte count could be used as early warning indicators for severe cases, which deserve more clinical attention.