Objective:To compare the efficacy of anrikefon and tegileridine for analgesia in patients with moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal surgery with general anesthesia.Methods:In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial, 101 patients with moderate to severe pain (numeric pain rating scale [NRS] score ≥4 within 4 h after operation) after abdominal surgery with general anesthesia between February 24 and April 1, 2025, aged 18-70 yr, with a body mass index of 18-40 kg/m 2, were assigned to anrikefon group ( n=50) and tegileridine group ( n=51) in a 1∶1 ratio using stratified blocked randomization. Double-dummy design was employed to maintain blinding. Each group received an initial intravenous injection of anrikefon 1 μg/kg or tegileridine 1 mg, followed by connection to a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) pump (the PCIA solution contained normal saline in anrikefon group; the PCIA solution contained tegileridine 5 mg in tegileridine pump) within 10 min. If the patient′s NRS score ≥4 at 8 and 16 h after the initial injection, anrikefon 1 μg/kg was intravenously injected in anrikefon group, and tegileridine group received the equal volume of normal saline. The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over the first 24 h after the initial dose (SPID 0-24h). The secondary efficacy endpoints included the incidence and severity of vomiting and nausea, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV), the proportion of patients who received antiemetic treatment, and total consumption of antiemetics within 0-24 h after the initial dose, NRS score at rest ≤ 1 at 24 h after the initial dose, and NRS score at rest ≤ 3 over the first 24 h after the initial dose. Safety indicators included adverse events, vital signs, physical examination findings, 12-lead ECG and laboratory test indicators, and adverse events of special interest. Results:Compared with tegileridine group, no significant change was found in the SPID 0-24h ( P>0.05), and the incidence of vomiting, PONV, proportion of patients requiring antiemetic medication, and total consumption of antiemetics were significantly decreased within the first 24 h after the initial dose in tegileridine group ( P<0.05). One treatment-emergent adverse event of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher occurred in tegileridine group, while no treatment-emergent adverse events of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher were found in anrikefon group. Among the adverse events of special interest, one case of respiratory depression and one case of cough occurred in tegileridine group, while one case of cough occurred in anrikefon group, with no respiratory depression. Conclusions:Anrikefon and tegileridine provide comparable analgesic efficacy for moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal surgery with general anesthesia. However, anrikefon exhibits an advantage in reducing the risk of PONV, with a superior safety profile.

Objective:To compare the efficacy of anrikefon and tegileridine for analgesia in patients with moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal surgery with general anesthesia.Methods:In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled clinical trial, 101 patients with moderate to severe pain (numeric pain rating scale [NRS] score ≥4 within 4 h after operation) after abdominal surgery with general anesthesia between February 24 and April 1, 2025, aged 18-70 yr, with a body mass index of 18-40 kg/m 2, were assigned to anrikefon group ( n=50) and tegileridine group ( n=51) in a 1∶1 ratio using stratified blocked randomization. Double-dummy design was employed to maintain blinding. Each group received an initial intravenous injection of anrikefon 1 μg/kg or tegileridine 1 mg, followed by connection to a patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) pump (the PCIA solution contained normal saline in anrikefon group; the PCIA solution contained tegileridine 5 mg in tegileridine pump) within 10 min. If the patient′s NRS score ≥4 at 8 and 16 h after the initial injection, anrikefon 1 μg/kg was intravenously injected in anrikefon group, and tegileridine group received the equal volume of normal saline. The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over the first 24 h after the initial dose (SPID 0-24h). The secondary efficacy endpoints included the incidence and severity of vomiting and nausea, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting(PONV), the proportion of patients who received antiemetic treatment, and total consumption of antiemetics within 0-24 h after the initial dose, NRS score at rest ≤ 1 at 24 h after the initial dose, and NRS score at rest ≤ 3 over the first 24 h after the initial dose. Safety indicators included adverse events, vital signs, physical examination findings, 12-lead ECG and laboratory test indicators, and adverse events of special interest. Results:Compared with tegileridine group, no significant change was found in the SPID 0-24h ( P>0.05), and the incidence of vomiting, PONV, proportion of patients requiring antiemetic medication, and total consumption of antiemetics were significantly decreased within the first 24 h after the initial dose in tegileridine group ( P<0.05). One treatment-emergent adverse event of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher occurred in tegileridine group, while no treatment-emergent adverse events of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or higher were found in anrikefon group. Among the adverse events of special interest, one case of respiratory depression and one case of cough occurred in tegileridine group, while one case of cough occurred in anrikefon group, with no respiratory depression. Conclusions:Anrikefon and tegileridine provide comparable analgesic efficacy for moderate-to-severe pain after abdominal surgery with general anesthesia. However, anrikefon exhibits an advantage in reducing the risk of PONV, with a superior safety profile.

Traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leakage commonly presents in traumatic brain injury patients, and it may lead to complications such as meningitis, ventriculitis, brain abscess, subdural hematoma or tension pneumocephalus. When misdiagnosed or inappropriately treated, traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leakage may result in severe complications and may be life-threatening. Some traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leakage has concealed manifestations and is prone to misdiagnosis. Due to different sites and mechanisms of trauma and degree of cerebrospinal fluid leak, treatments for traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leakage varies greatly. Hence, the Craniocerebral Trauma Professional Group of Neurosurgery Branch of Chinese Medical Association and the Neurological Injury Professional Group of Trauma Branch of Chinese Medical Association organized relevant experts to formulate the " Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leakage in adults ( version 2023)" based on existing clinical evidence and experience. The consensus consisted of 16 recommendations, covering the leakage diagnosis, localization, treatments, and intracranial infection prevention, so as to standardize the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic cerebrospinal fluid leakage and improve the overall prognosis of the patients.

Animals ; Genetics, Population ; history ; History, 20th Century ; History, 21st Century ; Human Genetics ; history ; Humans