ObjectiveTo investigate the influence of entecavir （ETV） versus tenofovir alafenamide fumarate （TAF） on renal function in previously untreated patients with chronic hepatitis B （CHB）. MethodsA retrospective analysis was performed for the clinical data of 167 previously untreated CHB patients who received ETV or TAF treatment for at least 48 weeks at the outpatient service of Department of Infectious Diseases in The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from September 2019 to November 2023， and according to the antiviral drug used， they were divided into ETV group with 117 patients and TAF group with 50 patients. In order to balance baseline clinical data， propensity score matching （PSM） was used for matching and analysis at a ratio of 2∶1， and the two groups were compared in terms of estimated glomerular filtration rate （eGFR） and the incidence rate of abnormal renal function at week 48. According to eGFR at week 48， the patients were divided into normal renal function group and abnormal renal function group. The independent-samples t test or the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of continuous data between two groups， and the chi-square test or the Fisher’s exact test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. The multivariate Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the influencing factors for abnormal renal function， and the receiver operating characteristic （ROC） curve was used to assess the performance of each indicator in predicting abnormal renal function. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to analyze the cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function， and the log-rank test was used for comparison. The analysis of variance with repeated measures was used to compare the dynamic changes of eGFR during antiviral therapy in CHB patients. ResultsAfter PSM matching， there were 100 patients in the ETV group and 50 patients in the TAF group. There were no significant differences in baseline clinical data between the ETV group and the TAF group （all P>0.05）， with an eGFR level of 112.29±9.92 mL/min/1.73 m² in the ETV group and 114.72±12.15 mL/min/1.73 m² in the TAF group. There was a reduction in eGFR from baseline to week 48 in both groups， and compared with the TAF group at week 48， the ETV group had a significantly lower eGFR （106.42±14.12 mL/min/1.73 m² vs 112.25±13.44 mL/min/1.73 m²， t=-2.422， P=0.017） and a significantly higher incidence rate of abnormal renal function （17.00% vs 4.00%， χ²=5.092， P=0.024）. After the patients were divided into normal renal function group with 131 patients and abnormal renal function group with 19 patients， the univariate analysis showed that there were significant differences between the two groups in age （Z=-2.039， P=0.041）， treatment drug （ETV/TAF） （χ²=5.092， P=0.024）， and baseline eGFR level （t=4.023， P<0.001）， and the multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that baseline eGFR （odds ratio ［OR］=0.896， 95% confidence interval ［CI］： 0.841 — 0.955， P<0.001） and treatment drug （OR=5.589， 95%CI： 1.136 — 27.492， P=0.034） were independent influencing factors for abnormal renal function. Baseline eGFR had an area under the ROC curve of 0.781 in predicting abnormal renal function in CHB patients， with a cut-off value of 105.24 mL/min/1.73 m²， a sensitivity of 73.68%， and a specificity of 82.44%. The Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed that the patients with baseline eGFR≤105.24 mL/min/1.73 m² had a significantly higher cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function than those with baseline eGFR>105.24 mL/min/1.73 m² （χ²=22.330， P<0.001）， and the ETV group had a significantly higher cumulative incidence rate of abnormal renal function than the TAF group （χ²=4.961， P=0.026）. With the initiation of antiviral therapy， both the ETV group and the TAF group had a significant reduction in eGFR （F=5.259， P<0.001）， but the ETV group only had a significant lower level of eGFR than the TAF group at week 48 （t=-2.422， P=0.017）； both the baseline eGFR≤105.24 mL/min/1.73 m² group and the baseline eGFR>105.24 mL/min/1.73 m² group had a significant reduction in eGFR （F=5.712， P<0.001）， and there was a significant difference in eGFR between the two groups at baseline and weeks 12， 24， 36， and 48 （t=-13.927， -9.780， -8.835， -9.489， and -8.953， all P<0.001）. ConclusionFor CHB patients initially treated with ETV or TAF， ETV antiviral therapy has a higher risk of renal injury than TAF therapy at week 48.

The CyberKnife, an acronym for the stereotactic radiosurgery platform, represents an image-guided stereotactic radiotherapy technique. This technology precisely delivers ionizing radiation to tissues, effectively damaging tumor cells, and is suitable for radiotherapy of both intracranial and extracranial tumors. This article reports the first performance of CyberKnife by radiotherapy at Peking Union Medical College Hospital, including a patient with uncontrolled pituitary adenoma after surgery and radiotherapy, and another patient with vertebral metastasis following targeted therapy for lung adenocarcinoma. The application of CyberKnife technology in radiotherapy has achieved highly accurate dose delivery, enabling targeted irradiation of tumor lesions while minimizing damage to surrounding normal tissues, thereby yielding relatively ideal clinical outcomes.

Sepsis-associated acute kidney injury (SA-AKI) is defined as the presence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the context of sepsis. In the setting of genetic susceptibility, sepsis can lead to SA-AKI through various mechanisms. Based on differences in pathophysiological mechanisms, SA-AKI is categorized into different "endotypes" and manifests as distinct "subtypes". The combination of biomarkers and predictive models has the potential to early identify high-risk AKI patients and elucidate SA-AKI "endotypes". Volume resuscitation and blood purification are optimized strategies for SA-AKI treatment. Furthermore, clinical research on SA-AKI in children is promising.

Background Diurnal temperature range (DTR) is closely associated with cardiovascular health in the elderly, but there is a lack of research on the relationship between DTR and ischemic heart disease (IHD) in the elderly. Objective To investigate the effect of DTR on daily hospital admissions for IHD in people 65 years and older in Wuhan. Methods The study obtained data on elderly inpatients with IHD from all secondary and tertiary hospitals in Wuhan between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018, along with synchronous meteorological and air pollution data. Daily DTR was calculated as the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures in a day. We employed distributed lag nonlinear models based on quasi-Poisson distribution to analyze the association between DTR and hospitalization risk in individuals aged 60 years and above. We assessed the extreme effects of DTR by selected DTR percentiles (the 1st percentile, P₁: 1.8 ℃; the 5th percentile, P₅: 2.9 ℃; the 95th percentile, P₉₅: 14.3 ℃; and the 99th percentile, P₉₉: 16.2 ℃) on hospitalization for IHD in the elderly population. Additionally, we conducted stratified analyses by gender, age (60-74 years and ≥75 years) and different subtypes (acute IHD and chronic IHD) to investigate the effects of DTR on hospitalizations for IHD across different genders, ages, and subtypes. Results This study included a total of 64212 first-time IHD hospitalizations among individuals aged 65 years and above in Wuhan from 2017 to 2018. The results showed a "J"-shaped exposure-response relationship between DTR and the cumulative risk of IHD hospitalization with a lag of 7 d; the optimal DTR was 5.0 ℃, and as DTR increased or the lag time lengthened, the risk of hospitalization for IHD in the elderly population increased. Extremely high DTR (P₉₉: 16.2 ℃) had a significant impact on the day of exposure (lag 0), with a cumulative RR of 1.58 (95%CI: 1.25, 1.99) at a lag of 7 d. The overall effects of DTR on IHD for different genders, ages, and subtypes of IHD exhibited similar patterns to the effects for overall population. High DTR had a significantly higher impact on hospitalization for chronic IHD (RR=1.46, 95%CI: 1.20, 1.79), compared to acute IHD (RR=1.29, 95%CI: 1.04, 1.61). At a cumulative lag of 7 d, elderly individuals aged 60-74 (RR=1.78, 95% CI: 1.30, 2.42) were more affected by high DTR in terms of IHD hospitalizations compared to those aged ≥75 (RR=1.35, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.70). Conclusion High DTR significantly increases the risk of hospitalization for IHD among elderly individuals. The effect of high DTR is particularly pronounced in patients with chronic IHD and elderly individuals aged 60–74 years.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.