Objective To investigate the distribution and antimicrobial resistance profiles of clinically isolated Haemophilus influenzae and Moraxella catarrhalis in hospitals across China from 2015 to 2021,and provide evidence for rational use of antimicrobial agents.Methods Data of H.influenzae and M.catarrhalis strains isolated from 2015 to 2021 in CHINET program were collected for analysis,and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was performed by disc diffusion method or automated systems according to the uniform protocol of CHINET.The results were interpreted according to the CLSI breakpoints in 2022.Beta-lactamases was detected by using nitrocefin disk.Results From 2015 to 2021,a total of 43 642 strains of Haemophilus species were isolated,accounting for 2.91％of the total clinical isolates and 4.07％of Gram-negative bacteria in CHINET program.Among the 40 437 strains of H.influenzae,66.89％were isolated from children and 33.11％were isolated from adults.More than 90％of the H.influenzae strains were isolated from respiratory tract specimens.The prevalence of β-lactamase was 53.79％in H.influenzae strains.The H.influenzae strains isolated from children showed higher resistance rate than the strains isolated from adults.Overall,779 strains of H.influenzae did not produce β-lactamase but were resistant to ampicillin(BLNAR).Beta-lactamase-producing strains showed significantly higher resistance rates to these antimicrobial agents than the β-lactamase-nonproducing strains.Of the 16 191 M.catarrhalis strains,80.06％were isolated from children and 19.94％isolated from adults.M.catarrhalis strains were mostly susceptible to both amoxicillin-clavulanic acid and cefuroxime,evidenced by resistance rate lower than 2.0％.Conclusions The emergence of antibiotic-resistant H.influenzae due to β-lactamase production poses a challenge for clinical anti-infective treatment.Therefore,it is very important to implement antibiotic resistance surveillance for H.influenzae and guide rational antibiotic use.All local clinical microbiology laboratories should actively improve antibiotic susceptibility testing and strengthen antibiotic resistance surveillance for H.influenzae.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

Background: Automated insulin delivery (AID) systems studies are upsurging, half of which were published in the last 5 years. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AID systems in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov until August 31, 2023. Randomized clinical trials that compared AID systems with other insulin-based treatments in patients with T1DM were considered eligible. Studies characteristics and glycemic metrics was extracted by three researchers independently. Results: Sixty-five trials (3,623 patients) were included. The percentage of time in range (TIR) was 11.74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9.37 to 14.12; P<0.001) higher with AID systems compared with control treatments. Patients on AID systems had more pronounced improvement of time below range when diabetes duration was more than 20 years (–1.80% vs. –0.86%, P=0.031) and baseline glycosylated hemoglobin lower than 7.5% (–1.93% vs. –0.87%, P=0.033). Dual-hormone full closed-loop systems revealed a greater improvement in TIR compared with hybrid closed-loop systems (–19.64% vs. –10.87%). Notably, glycemia risk index (GRI) (–3.74; 95% CI, –6.34 to –1.14; P<0.01) was also improved with AID therapy. Conclusion AID systems showed significant advantages compared to other insulin-based treatments in improving glucose control represented by TIR and GRI in patients with T1DM, with more favorable effect in euglycemia by dual-hormone full closedloop systems as well as less hypoglycemia for patients who are within target for glycemic control and have longer diabetes duration.

BACKGROUND: The use of inserted sham acupuncture as a placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is controversial, because it may produce specific effects that cause an underestimation of the effect of acupuncture treatment. OBJECTIVE: This systematic survey investigates the magnitude of insert-specific effects of sham acupuncture and whether they affect the estimation of acupuncture treatment effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify acupuncture RCTs from their inception until December 2022. INCLUSION CRITERIA: RCTs that evaluated the effects of acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture and no treatment. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: The total effect measured for an acupuncture treatment group in RCTs were divided into three components, including the natural history and/or regression to the mean effect (controlled for no-treatment group), the placebo effect, and the specific effect of acupuncture. The first two constituted the contextual effect of acupuncture, which is mimicked by a sham acupuncture treatment group. The proportion of acupuncture total effect size was considered to be 1. The proportion of natural history and/or regression to the mean effect (PNE) and proportional contextual effect (PCE) of included RCTs were pooled using meta-analyses with a random-effect model. The proportion of acupuncture placebo effect was the difference between PCE and PNE in RCTs with non-inserted sham acupuncture. The proportion of insert-specific effect of sham acupuncture (PIES) was obtained by subtracting the proportion of acupuncture placebo effect and PNE from PCE in RCTs with inserted sham acupuncture. The impact of PIES on the estimation of acupuncture's treatment effect was evaluated by quantifying the percentage of RCTs that the effect of outcome changed from no statistical difference to statistical difference after removing PIES in the included studies, and the impact of PIES was externally validated in other acupuncture RCTs with an inserted sham acupuncture group that were not used to calculate PIES. RESULTS: This analysis included 32 studies with 5492 patients. The overall PNE was 0.335 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.255-0.415) and the PCE of acupuncture was 0.639 (95% CI, 0.567-0.710) of acupuncture's total effect. The proportional contribution of the placebo effect to acupuncture's total effect was 0.191, and the PIES was 0.189. When we modeled the exclusion of the insert-specific effect of sham acupuncture, the acupuncture treatment effect changed from no difference to a significant difference in 45.45% of the included RCTs, and in 40.91% of the external validated RCTs. CONCLUSION The insert-specific effect of sham acupuncture in RCTs represents 18.90% of acupuncture's total effect and significantly affects the evaluation of the acupuncture treatment effect. More than 40% of RCTs that used inserted sham acupuncture would draw different conclusions if the PIES had been controlled for. Considering the impact of the insert-specific effect of sham acupuncture, caution should be taken when using inserted sham acupuncture placebos in RCTs. Please cite this article as: Luo XC, Liu JL, Yao MH, Chen YM, Fan AY, Liang FR, Zhao JP, Zhao L, Zhou X, Zhong XY, Yang JH, Li B, Zhang Y, Sun X, Li L. Specific effect of inserted sham acupuncture and its impact on the estimation of acupuncture treatment effect in randomized controlled trials: A systematic survey. J Integr Med. 2025; 23(6):630-640.
Acupuncture Therapy/methods* ; Humans ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Placebo Effect ; Placebos ; Treatment Outcome