Objective To establish the HPLC fingerprint of Yangyin Shengji Enteric Capsules;To determine the contents of gentiopicrin,albiflorin,paeoniflorin,liquiritin,berberine hydrochloride,evodiamine and rutecarpine;To provide a reference for the quality control.Methods The formula medicine was hydrolyzed and ethanol precipitated according to the preparation process.The capsule contents were dissolved in 70%methanol for sample preparation and analyzed on an Agilent 5 HC-C18(2)chromatographic column(250 mm×4.6 mm,5 μm);the mobile phase was acetonitrile-0.1%aqueous phosphoric acid,with gradient elution;the flow rate was 1.0 mL/min;the column temperature was 30℃;and the detection wavelength was 230 nm.The results were analyzed by clustering analysis,similarity evaluation and principal component analysis(PCA)using OriginPro 2021,Chinese Medicine Chromatographic Fingerprint Similarity Evaluation System(2012 edition),SIMCA 14.1 software and SPSS 25.0 statistical software.Results The HPLC fingerprints of Yangyin Shengji Enteric Capsules and the method of simultaneous determination of 7 active components were established.The fingerprints of 13 batches of samples were calibrated with 25 common peaks with good similarity(r≥0.994);Clustering analysis and PCA classified the 13 batches of samples into 2 categories.The 7 ingredients had good linear relationships in their respective ranges(r≥0.999 1);the recoveries ranged from 95.77%to 103.80%with the RSD values of 1.0%to 2.5%.Conclusion The established HPLC fingerprinting and content determination analytical methods are simple,reliable and reproducible,which can provide a basis for comprehensive and effective control of the quality of Yangyin Shengji Enteric Capsules.

Objective:To compare the efficacy of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and modified-endoscopic mucosal resection (M-EMR) for G1 rectal neuroendocrine tumors (RNETs) .Methods:Data of 121 patients with pathologically confirmed G1 RNETs treated with ESD ( n=105) or M-EMR ( n=16) in Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital from January 2017 to September 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. The complete resection rate, complication incidence, hospital stay, treatment cost and other indicators of the two groups were compared by using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results:There were significant differences in tumor number ( χ2=8.76, P=0.003), tumor invasion depth ( χ2=6.96, P=0.008), utilization of metal clips [82.9% (87/105) VS 93.8% (15/16), χ2=8.78, P=0.003], number of metal clips ( χ2=8.41, P=0.016), hemostasis using hot clamp [78.1% (82/105) VS 18.7% (3/16), χ2=20.64, P<0.001], traction procedure [2.9% (3/105) VS 18.7% (3/16), χ2=4.45, P=0.035] and treatment cost (17 568.6 ± 8 911.0 yuan VS 8 120.8±1 528.2 yuan, t=3.65, P<0.001) between the ESD group and the M-EMR group. After verifying the stability of the results using IPTW sensitivity analysis, there was still significant difference in the treatment cost ( t=2.07, P<0.001). Conclusion:Both ESD and M-EMR demonstrate comparable efficacy in treating G1 RNETs; however, M-EMR exhibites lower treatment costs.