Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oliceridine for treatment of moderate to severe pain after surgery with general anesthesia in patients.Methods:The patients with moderate to severe pain (numeric pain rating scale ≥4) after abdominal surgery with general anesthesia from 14 hospitals between July 6, 2021 and November 9, 2021 were included in this study. The patients were assigned to either experiment group or control group using a random number table method. Experiment group received oliceridine, while control group received morphine, and both groups were treated with a loading dose plus patient-controlled analgesia and supplemental doses for 24 h. The primary efficacy endpoint was the drug response rate within 24 h after giving the loading dose. Secondary efficacy endpoints included early (within 1 h after giving the loading dose) drug response rates and use of rescue medication. Safety endpoints encompassed the development of respiratory depression and other adverse reactions during treatment.Results:After randomization, both the full analysis set and safety analysis set comprised 180 cases, with 92 in experiment group and 88 in control group. The per-protocol set included 170 cases, with 86 in experiment group and 84 in control group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in 24-h drug response rates, rescue analgesia rates, respiratory depression, and incidence of other adverse reactions ( P>0.05). The analysis of full analysis set showed that the experiment group had a higher drug response rate at 5-30 min after giving the loading dose compared to control group ( P<0.05). The per-protocol set analysis indicated that experiment group had a higher drug response rate at 5-15 min after giving the loading dose than control group ( P<0.05). Conclusions:When used for treatment of moderate to severe pain after surgery with general anesthesia in patients, oliceridine provides comparable analgesic efficacy to morphine, with a faster onset.

Objective:To learn about physicians’ concepts and commonly employed method in hyaluronic acid injection and provide reference data for the standardization of pain management.Methods:This study was a cross-sectional study. Convenient sampling method was used to distribute questionnaires to cosmetic injectors and patients experienced with hyaluronic acid injections to collect data on their views of pain associated with hyaluronic acid injections. The physician portion was collected offline from June 15 to July 20, 2022, and the patient portion was collected from November 14, 2022, to December 6, 2022, via the Questionnaire Star platform. The physician questionnaire consisted of 17 questions, question types included single choice, multiple choice and essay questions. The patient questionnaire consisted of 6 questions, question types included single choice and multiple choice. Relevant data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 software for descriptive statistics, and data were presented in the form of cases and percentages (%).Results:Sixty-two physician questionnaires and 123 patient questionnaires were collected. 42 (67.74%) physicians observed from their daily practice that more than 50% of their patients were very concerned about pain during injection; 101 (82.11%) patients scored ≥5 out of 10 for concern about impending pain prior to hyaluronic acid filler injection. At the time of treatment, 48 (77.42%) physicians advised patients to choose a lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid filler for reasons including a significant reduction in injection pain (53 cases, 85.48%) and patient comfort with the treatment experience (59 cases, 95.16%). 60 (48.78%) patients were willing to choose an anesthesia-containing product at the time of injection, but the price of the anesthesia-containing product influenced the patient’ s choice (55 cases 44.72%) .Conclusions:Pain from cosmetic injectable treatments is an important issue to both physicians and patients. Lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid is recognized by physicians and patients for its analgesic effect and high safety profile. There is no perfect solution for pain in cosmetic injection treatment, and multidisciplinary collaboration may be needed to solve the problem.

Objective:To learn about physicians’ concepts and commonly employed method in hyaluronic acid injection and provide reference data for the standardization of pain management.Methods:This study was a cross-sectional study. Convenient sampling method was used to distribute questionnaires to cosmetic injectors and patients experienced with hyaluronic acid injections to collect data on their views of pain associated with hyaluronic acid injections. The physician portion was collected offline from June 15 to July 20, 2022, and the patient portion was collected from November 14, 2022, to December 6, 2022, via the Questionnaire Star platform. The physician questionnaire consisted of 17 questions, question types included single choice, multiple choice and essay questions. The patient questionnaire consisted of 6 questions, question types included single choice and multiple choice. Relevant data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 software for descriptive statistics, and data were presented in the form of cases and percentages (%).Results:Sixty-two physician questionnaires and 123 patient questionnaires were collected. 42 (67.74%) physicians observed from their daily practice that more than 50% of their patients were very concerned about pain during injection; 101 (82.11%) patients scored ≥5 out of 10 for concern about impending pain prior to hyaluronic acid filler injection. At the time of treatment, 48 (77.42%) physicians advised patients to choose a lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid filler for reasons including a significant reduction in injection pain (53 cases, 85.48%) and patient comfort with the treatment experience (59 cases, 95.16%). 60 (48.78%) patients were willing to choose an anesthesia-containing product at the time of injection, but the price of the anesthesia-containing product influenced the patient’ s choice (55 cases 44.72%) .Conclusions:Pain from cosmetic injectable treatments is an important issue to both physicians and patients. Lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid is recognized by physicians and patients for its analgesic effect and high safety profile. There is no perfect solution for pain in cosmetic injection treatment, and multidisciplinary collaboration may be needed to solve the problem.

Objective:To learn about physicians’ concepts and commonly employed method in hyaluronic acid injection and provide reference data for the standardization of pain management.Methods:This study was a cross-sectional study. Convenient sampling method was used to distribute questionnaires to cosmetic injectors from plastic surgery department of public hospitals or medical beauty institutions and patients experienced with hyaluronic acid injections to collect data on their views of pain associated with hyaluronic acid injections. The physician portion was collected offline from June 15 to July 20, 2022, and the patient portion was collected from November 14 to December 6, 2022, via the Questionnaire Star platform. The physician questionnaire consisted of 17 questions, question types included single choice, multiple choice and essay questions. The patient questionnaire consisted of 6 questions, question types included single choice and multiple choice. Relevant data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 software for descriptive statistics, and data were presented in the form of cases(%).Results:Sixty-two physician questionnaires and 123 patient questionnaires were collected. 42 (67.74%) physicians observed from their daily practice that more than 50% of their patients were very concerned about pain during injection; 101 (82.11%) patients scored ≥5 out of 10 for concern about impending pain prior to hyaluronic acid filler injection. At the time of treatment, 48 (77.42%) physicians advised patients to choose a lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid filler for reasons including a significant reduction in injection pain (53 cases, 85.48%) and patient comfort with the treatment experience (59 cases, 95.16%). 60 (48.78%) patients were willing to choose an anesthesia-containing product at the time of injection, but the price of the anesthesia-containing product influenced the patient’s choice (55 cases, 44.72%).Conclusion:Pain from cosmetic injectable treatments is an important issue to both physicians and patients. Lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid is recognized by physicians and patients for its analgesic effect and high safety profile. There is no perfect solution for pain in cosmetic injection treatment, and multidisciplinary collaboration may be needed to solve the problem.

Objective:To learn about physicians’ concepts and commonly employed method in hyaluronic acid injection and provide reference data for the standardization of pain management.Methods:This study was a cross-sectional study. Convenient sampling method was used to distribute questionnaires to cosmetic injectors from plastic surgery department of public hospitals or medical beauty institutions and patients experienced with hyaluronic acid injections to collect data on their views of pain associated with hyaluronic acid injections. The physician portion was collected offline from June 15 to July 20, 2022, and the patient portion was collected from November 14 to December 6, 2022, via the Questionnaire Star platform. The physician questionnaire consisted of 17 questions, question types included single choice, multiple choice and essay questions. The patient questionnaire consisted of 6 questions, question types included single choice and multiple choice. Relevant data were analyzed using SPSS 22.0 software for descriptive statistics, and data were presented in the form of cases(%).Results:Sixty-two physician questionnaires and 123 patient questionnaires were collected. 42 (67.74%) physicians observed from their daily practice that more than 50% of their patients were very concerned about pain during injection; 101 (82.11%) patients scored ≥5 out of 10 for concern about impending pain prior to hyaluronic acid filler injection. At the time of treatment, 48 (77.42%) physicians advised patients to choose a lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid filler for reasons including a significant reduction in injection pain (53 cases, 85.48%) and patient comfort with the treatment experience (59 cases, 95.16%). 60 (48.78%) patients were willing to choose an anesthesia-containing product at the time of injection, but the price of the anesthesia-containing product influenced the patient’s choice (55 cases, 44.72%).Conclusion:Pain from cosmetic injectable treatments is an important issue to both physicians and patients. Lidocaine-containing hyaluronic acid is recognized by physicians and patients for its analgesic effect and high safety profile. There is no perfect solution for pain in cosmetic injection treatment, and multidisciplinary collaboration may be needed to solve the problem.

Objective:In chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with previous 96-week treatment with tenofovir amibufenamide (TMF) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), we investigated the efficacy of sequential TMF treatment from 96 to 144 weeks.Methods:Enrolled subjects who were previously assigned (2:1) to receive either 25 mg TMF or 300 mg TDF with matching placebo for 96 weeks received extended or switched TMF treatment for 48 weeks. Efficacy was evaluated based on virological, serological, biological parameters, and fibrosis staging. Statistical analysis was performed using the McNemar test, t-test, or Log-Rank test according to the data. Results:593 subjects from the initial TMF group and 287 subjects from the TDF group were included at week 144, with the proportions of HBV DNA<20 IU/ml at week 144 being 86.2% and 83.3%, respectively, and 78.1% and 73.8% in patients with baseline HBV DNA levels ≥8 log10 IU/ml. Resistance to tenofovir was not detected in both groups. For HBeAg loss and seroconversion rates, both groups showed a further increase from week 96 to 144 and the 3-year cumulative rates of HBeAg loss were about 35% in each group. However, HBsAg levels were less affected during 96 to 144 weeks. For patients switched from TDF to TMF, a substantial further increase in the alanine aminotransferase (ALT) normalization rate was observed (11.4%), along with improved FIB-4 scores.Conclusion:After 144 weeks of TMF treatment, CHB patients achieved high rates of virological, serological, and biochemical responses, as well as improved liver fibrosis outcomes. Also, switching to TMF resulted in significant benefits in ALT normalization rates (NCT03903796).

Objective:In chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients with previous 96-week treatment with tenofovir amibufenamide (TMF) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), we investigated the safety profile of sequential TMF treatment from 96 to 144 weeks.Methods:Enrolled subjects that previously assigned (2:1) to receive either 25 mg TMF or 300 mg TDF with matching placebo for 96 weeks received extending or switching TMF treatment for 48 weeks. Safety profiles of kidney, bone, metabolism, body weight, and others were evaluated.Results:666 subjects from the initial TMF group and 336 subjects from TDF group with at least one dose of assigned treatment were included at week 144. The overall safety profile was favorable in each group and generally similar between extended or switched TMF treatments from week 96 to 144. In subjects switching from TDF to TMF, the non-indexed estimated glomerular filtration rate (by non-indexed CKD-EPI formula) and creatinine clearance (by Cockcroft-Gault formula) were both increased, which were (2.31±8.33) ml/min and (4.24±13.94) ml/min, respectively. These changes were also higher than those in subjects with extending TMF treatment [(0.91±8.06) ml/min and (1.30±13.94) ml/min]. Meanwhile, switching to TMF also led to an increase of the bone mineral density (BMD) by 0.75% in hip and 1.41% in spine. On the other side, a slight change in TC/HDL ratio by 0.16 (IQR: 0.00, 0.43) and an increase in body mass index (BMI) by (0.54±0.98) kg/m 2 were oberved with patients switched to TMF, which were significantly higher than that in TMF group. Conclusion:CHB patients receiving 144 weeks of TMF treatment showed favorable safety profile. After switching to TMF, the bone and renal safety was significantly improved in TDF group, though experienceing change in metabolic parameters and weight gain (NCT03903796).

Objective To analyze levels of pan-immune-inflammation value(PIV),interleukin-6(IL-6),heparin-binding protein(HBP)and prealbumin(PAB)in patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia(CAP),and their values in evaluating the therapeutic effect at 72 h after admission.Methods According to the initial(72 h)treatment outcome,120 patients with severe CAP(the severe group)were divided into the effective group(n=87)and the failed group(n=33).Meanwhile,120 patients with non-severe CAP admitted in the same period were selected as the non-severe group.PIV,IL-6,HBP and PAB levels on the day after admission were compared between the severe group,the non-severe group,the failed group and the effective group.The value of above indicators in evaluating the condition of CAP and the therapeutic effect at 72 h after admission separately and in combination were analyzed using receiver operating characteristic(ROC)curves.Results Compared with the non-severe group,there were higher PIV,IL-6 and HBP levels,and lower PAB levels in the servere grouop(P＜0.05).ROC curves indicated that for evaluating severe CAP using a single indicator,the area under the curve(AUC)of PIV was the highest[0.830(95%CI:0.780-0.881)].The AUC of PIV combined with IL-6,HBP and PAB for evaluating severe CAP was 0.929(95%CI:0.892-0.967),which was higher than that of evaluation using a single indicator(P＜0.05).Compared with the effective group,there were higher PIV,IL-6 and HBP levels,and lower PAB level in the failed group(P＜0.05).ROC curves indicated that for evaluating the therapeutic effect on severe CAP at 72 h after admission using a single indicator the AUC of PIV was the highest[0.777(95%CI:0.692-0.862)].The AUC of PIV combined with IL-6,HBP and PAB for evaluating the therapeutic effect on severe CAP at 72 h after admission was 0.916(95%CI:0.846-0.986),which was higher than that of evaluation using a single indicator(P＜0.05).Conclusion Detection of PIV combined with IL-6,HBP and PAB has a good value in evaluating the condition of patients with CAP and the therapeutic effect on severe CAP at 72 h after admission.

Epigenomic imbalance drives abnormal transcriptional processes,promoting the onset and progression of cancer.Although defective gene regulation generally affects carcinogenesis and tumor suppression networks,tumor immunogenicity and immune cells involved in antitumor responses may also be affected by epigenomic changes,which may have significant implications for the development and application of epigenetic therapy,cancer immunotherapy,and their combinations.Herein,we focus on the impact of epigenetic regulation on tumor immune cell function and the role of key abnormal epigenetic processes,DNA methylation,histone post-translational modification,and chromatin structure in tumor immunogenicity,and introduce these epigenetic research methods.We emphasize the value of small-molecule inhibitors of epigenetic modulators in enhancing antitumor immune responses and discuss the challenges of developing treatment plans that combine epigenetic therapy and immuno-therapy through the complex interaction between cancer epigenetics and cancer immunology.

Objective To investigate, analyze, and evaluate the risk data associated with the clinical use of absorbable sutures by retrieving and summarizing information from the databases of the US FDA and CNKI, as well as the adverse event reports related to absorbable sutures from January 2019 to October 2022 within Zhejiang province. The adverse event reports are obtained from both incident locations and monitoring organizations affiliated with the registrant. The aim is to identify the main risk factors associated with the clinical use of absorbable sutures. The key risk factors are potential product quality defects, product design and material selection, clinical selection and application, and postoperative recovery care including patient's self-care. Risk control strategies are further proposed to reduce or minimize the risk of adverse events caused by this product.
Humans ; Sutures/adverse effects* ; Risk Assessment ; Risk Factors