BACKGROUND: The effect of the interval between previous Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) eradication and rescue treatment on therapeutic outcomes remains unknown. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between eradication rates and treatment interval durations in H. pylori infections. METHODS: This prospective observational study was conducted from December 2021 to February 2023 at six tertiary hospitals in Shandong, China. We recruited patients who were positive for H. pylori infection and required rescue treatment. Demographic information, previous times of eradication therapy, last eradication therapy date, and history of antibiotic use data were collected. The patients were divided into four groups based on the rescue treatment interval length: Group A, ≥4 weeks and ≤3 months; Group B, >3 and ≤6 months; Group C, >6 and ≤12 months; and Group D, >12 months. The primary outcome was the eradication rate of H. pylori . Drug compliance and adverse events (AEs) were also assessed. Pearson's χ2 test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare eradication rates between groups. RESULTS: A total of 670 patients were enrolled in this study. The intention-to-treat (ITT) eradication rates were 88.3% (158/179) in Group A, 89.6% (120/134) in Group B, 89.1% (123/138) in Group C, and 87.7% (192/219) in Group D. The per-protocol (PP) eradication rates were 92.9% (156/168) in Group A, 94.5% (120/127) in Group B, 94.5% (121/128) in Group C, and 93.6% (190/203) in Group D. There was no statistically significant difference in the eradication rates between groups in either the ITT ( P = 0.949) or PP analysis ( P = 0.921). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of AEs ( P = 0.934) or drug compliance ( P = 0.849) between groups. CONCLUSION: The interval duration of rescue treatment had no significant effect on H. pylori eradication rates or the incidence of AEs. REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT05173493.
Humans ; Helicobacter Infections/drug therapy* ; Helicobacter pylori/pathogenicity* ; Male ; Female ; Prospective Studies ; Middle Aged ; Anti-Bacterial Agents/adverse effects* ; Adult ; Aged ; Treatment Outcome ; Proton Pump Inhibitors/therapeutic use*

Objective:To figure out the timing of zeroing and the location of the zero line in the central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring and invasive arterial blood pressure (IBP) monitoring, and to provide scientific and accurate data for patients management.Methods:The liquid vessel models were used to simulate the pressure measurement process of the continuous pressure monitoring system. Based on the theory of fluid mechanics and the knowledge of blood pressure physiology and cardiovascular anatomy, the composition and influencing factors of the pressure in the fluid-filled catheter system during the zeroing and placing the transducer in the zero line of CVP and IBP, were analyzed.Results:The pressure in the liquid-filled catheter system was composed of atmospheric pressure, the pressure of pumping bag, the gravity of the water column (the vertical distance between the liquid level of Murphy's dropper and pressure transducer, ΔH), and the resistance of tube wall. This pressure value is set as a pressure of 0 mmHg (1 mmHg ≈ 0.133 kPa). In the process of pressure measurement, when the pressure transducer was placed at a horizontal position of 10 cm below the highest liquid level of the vessel, the pressure measured at different catheter tip positions was all 10 cmH 2O (1 cmH 2O ≈ 0.098 kPa); When the pressure transducer was placed at the horizontal position of the highest liquid level of the vessel, the measured pressure is 0 mmHg. Conclusion:Zeroing should repeatedly be performed only when one or more conditions (atmospheric pressure, pressure of pumping bag, gravity of ΔH water column and resistance of tube wall) are changed. In the measurement process, the pressure transducer should be placed at the zero line position at any time to eliminate the influence of hydrostatic pressure and to ensure the objective and accurate value.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has occasioned worldwide alarm. Globally, the number of reported confirmed cases has exceeded 84.3 million as of this writing (January 2, 2021). Since there are no targeted therapies for COVID-19, the current focus is the repurposing of drugs approved for other uses. In some clinical trials, antiviral drugs such as remdesivir (Grein et al., 2020), lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) (Cao et al., 2020), chloroquine (Gao et al., 2020), hydroxychloroquine (Gautret et al., 2020), arbidol (Wang et al., 2020), and favipiravir (Cai et al., 2020b) have shown efficacy in COVID-19 patients. LPV/r combined with arbidol, which is the basic regimen in some regional hospitals in China including Zhejiiang Province, has shown antiviral effects in COVID-19 patients (Guo et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2020). A retrospective cohort study also reported that this combination therapy showed better efficacy than LPV/r alone for the treatment of COVID-19 patients (Deng et al., 2020).
Animals ; COVID-19/drug therapy* ; Drug Interactions ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Female ; Indoles/pharmacokinetics* ; Lopinavir/pharmacokinetics* ; Male ; Rats ; Retrospective Studies ; Ritonavir/pharmacokinetics* ; SARS-CoV-2