Objective： To evaluate the efficacy of oral Chinese medicine （CM） in comparison with donepezil, a cholinesterase inhibitor （ChEI）, for the treatment of Alzheimer＇s disease （AD）. Methods： Randomized controlled...Objective： To evaluate the efficacy of oral Chinese medicine （CM） in comparison with donepezil, a cholinesterase inhibitor （ChEI）, for the treatment of Alzheimer＇s disease （AD）. Methods： Randomized controlled trials （RCTs） have been searched, and the effect of CM compared with donepezil in AD has been investigated. An electronic search of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database （EMBASE）, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biological Medicine Database （CBMdisc）, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure （CNKI） to identify articles in English and Chinese from the inception of the database until October 18, 2015. A modified Jadad score （7-points） to judge the methodological quality of studies, comprehensive meta-analysis was performed with Cochrane Collaboration Revman 5.3. Dichotomous data were analyzed by relative risk （RR） with a 95% confidence interval （CI）, while continuous variables were analyzed by using mean differences （MD） with 95% CI for effect size. Results： Six studies involving 596 AD patients through Jadad assessment with low bias were included in the meta-analysis. No significant difference was observed in cognitive improvement and daily abilities of patients using the Mini Mental State Examination （MMSE） （MD： 0.69, 95% CI： -0.17 to 1.56） and Activities of Daily Living （ADL） scale （MD： 0.94, 95% CI： -1.54 to 3.43）. There were no significant differences in status of illness or MD for mUd-moderate AD patients at 24 weeks （MD： 0.62, 95% CI： -2.99 to 4.23） and 48 weeks （MD： -0.73, 95% CI： -5.02 to 3.56）. Severe AD patients were also assessed at 24 weeks （MD： 3.13, 95% CI： -6.92 to 13.18） and 48 weeks （MD： 4.23, 95% CI： -6.38 to 14.84）. Furthermore, compared with donepezil, Xin （Heart）-regulating CM and Shen （Kidney）-tonifying groups were observed （MD： -1.50, 95% CI： -3.08 to 0.08; MD： -1.92, 95% CI： -3.50 to -0.33; respectively）. CM had fewer side effects in AD patients. Conclusion： Compared with donepezil, oral CM showed no significant difference in effectiveness in AD patients, and more evidence is needed to verify the findings.展开更多
目的了解河南省市售食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的污染水平,并对食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的暴露量进行风险评估。方法利用2019年河南省各个地市生产及流通环节食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的检测数据,结合2019年河南省居民食用植物油消费数据计算居...目的了解河南省市售食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的污染水平,并对食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的暴露量进行风险评估。方法利用2019年河南省各个地市生产及流通环节食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的检测数据,结合2019年河南省居民食用植物油消费数据计算居民膳食暴露量,并运用暴露限值(margin of exposure,MOE)法进行膳食风险评估。结果采集的1062份食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的检出率为76.84%,不合格率为0.28%,含量均值为1.35μg/kg,样品品种之间的检出率和含量差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。河南省城市居民2019年每日经食用植物油摄入的苯并(a)芘的暴露量为0.51 ng/(kg·BW),农村居民的暴露量为0.49 ng/(kg·BW),其MOE值均>10000。结论河南省食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的暴露量对居民造成的健康风险较低,处于可接受水平,但监管部门仍需加强监管力度。展开更多
基金Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China,Youth Found Project(No.81503450)
文摘Objective： To evaluate the efficacy of oral Chinese medicine （CM） in comparison with donepezil, a cholinesterase inhibitor （ChEI）, for the treatment of Alzheimer＇s disease （AD）. Methods： Randomized controlled trials （RCTs） have been searched, and the effect of CM compared with donepezil in AD has been investigated. An electronic search of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database （EMBASE）, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biological Medicine Database （CBMdisc）, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure （CNKI） to identify articles in English and Chinese from the inception of the database until October 18, 2015. A modified Jadad score （7-points） to judge the methodological quality of studies, comprehensive meta-analysis was performed with Cochrane Collaboration Revman 5.3. Dichotomous data were analyzed by relative risk （RR） with a 95% confidence interval （CI）, while continuous variables were analyzed by using mean differences （MD） with 95% CI for effect size. Results： Six studies involving 596 AD patients through Jadad assessment with low bias were included in the meta-analysis. No significant difference was observed in cognitive improvement and daily abilities of patients using the Mini Mental State Examination （MMSE） （MD： 0.69, 95% CI： -0.17 to 1.56） and Activities of Daily Living （ADL） scale （MD： 0.94, 95% CI： -1.54 to 3.43）. There were no significant differences in status of illness or MD for mUd-moderate AD patients at 24 weeks （MD： 0.62, 95% CI： -2.99 to 4.23） and 48 weeks （MD： -0.73, 95% CI： -5.02 to 3.56）. Severe AD patients were also assessed at 24 weeks （MD： 3.13, 95% CI： -6.92 to 13.18） and 48 weeks （MD： 4.23, 95% CI： -6.38 to 14.84）. Furthermore, compared with donepezil, Xin （Heart）-regulating CM and Shen （Kidney）-tonifying groups were observed （MD： -1.50, 95% CI： -3.08 to 0.08; MD： -1.92, 95% CI： -3.50 to -0.33; respectively）. CM had fewer side effects in AD patients. Conclusion： Compared with donepezil, oral CM showed no significant difference in effectiveness in AD patients, and more evidence is needed to verify the findings.
文摘目的了解河南省市售食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的污染水平,并对食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的暴露量进行风险评估。方法利用2019年河南省各个地市生产及流通环节食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的检测数据,结合2019年河南省居民食用植物油消费数据计算居民膳食暴露量,并运用暴露限值(margin of exposure,MOE)法进行膳食风险评估。结果采集的1062份食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的检出率为76.84%,不合格率为0.28%,含量均值为1.35μg/kg,样品品种之间的检出率和含量差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。河南省城市居民2019年每日经食用植物油摄入的苯并(a)芘的暴露量为0.51 ng/(kg·BW),农村居民的暴露量为0.49 ng/(kg·BW),其MOE值均>10000。结论河南省食用植物油中苯并(a)芘的暴露量对居民造成的健康风险较低,处于可接受水平,但监管部门仍需加强监管力度。
