ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of aspirin versus other anticoagulants in the prevention of thromboembolism after orthopedic surgery. METHODS Retrieved from PubMed， Embase， the Cochrane Library， CNKI， Wanfang data and VIP， randomized controlled trials （RCTs） and cohort studies about aspirin （trial group） versus other anticoagulants （control group） were collected during the inception and June 1st， 2023. After literature screening， data extraction and quality evaluation， the meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.4 software. RESULTS A total of 22 studies were included， involving 9 RCTs and 13 cohort studies. RCT results showed that the incidences of deep vein thrombosis （DVT） [RR＝1.81， 95%CI（1.36， 2.40）， P＜0.000 1] and postoperative pulmonary embolism （PE） [RR＝1.55， 95%CI（1.01， 2.40）， P＝0.05] in trial group were significantly higher than control group. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidences of postoperative massive bleeding， postoperative surgical site infection， all-cause death， or any bleeding after surgery between 2 groups. In the cohort study， the incidence of any bleeding in trial group was significantly lower than control group [RR＝0.71，95%CI （0.64， 0.79）， P＜0.000 1]， while the differences in other indicators were not statistically significant （P＞0.05）. The results of subgroup analysis based on different anticoagulants showed that in RCT， the incidences of DVT and PE after surgery in patients using low-molecular-weight heparin （LMWH） were significantly lower than using aspirin （P＜0.05）； in the cohort study， the incidences of DVT and PE after surgery were significantly lower in patients using direct oral anticoagulants （DOAC） than using aspirin （P＜0.05）. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding between patients using aspirin and using DOAC and LWMH （P＞0.05） in both RCT and cohort study. CONCLUSIONS Aspirin is equally safe as other anticoagulants for the prevention of thromboembolism after orthopedic surgery， but its efficacy may not be as good as other anticoagulants. After orthopedic surgery， other anticoagulants should be preferred to prevent venous thromboembolism， and aspirin should be carefully considered.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE To compare the anticoagulant effectiveness and safety of new oral anticoagulants （NOACs）and warfarin after heart valve replacement ，and to provide evidence-based reference for clinical drug use. METHODS Retrieved from PubMed，Cochrane Library ，Embase，Web of Science ，CNKI，Wanfang database and VIP ，clinical studies about the use of NOACs versus warfarin after heart valve replacement were collected during the inception to July 2021. After literature screening and data extrac tion，the quality of included randomized controlled trials （RCTs）were evaluat ed by bias risk assessment tool recommended by Cochrane system evaluator manual 5.2.0. After the quality of the included cohort studies was evaluated by Newcastle-Ottawa scale （NOS），RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS A E-mail：carolmeng_0813@163.com total of 9 studies involving 4 962 patients were included ，of which 7 were RCTs and 2 were cohort studie s. Results of meta-analysis showed that after biological valve replacement/repair ，the incidence of stroke and systemic embolism （SSE）[OR＝0.71，95％CI（0.52，0.97），P＝0.03]，major bleeding [OR ＝0.40，95％CI （0.30，0.54），P＜0.000 01] and intracranial hemorrhage [OR ＝0.20，95％CI（0.04，0.95），P＝0.04] in trial group were significantly lower than warfarin group ；there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between 2 groups [OR ＝1.25，95％CI（0.88， 1.79），P＝0.22]. After mechanical valve replacement/repair ，there were no significant difference in the incidence of SSE [OR ＝1.52， 95％CI（0.04，60.29），P＝0.82] or all-cause mortality [OR ＝0.26，95％CI（0.04，1.84），P＝0.18] between 2 groups. The results of subgroup analysis according to the follow-up time showed that after biological valve replacement/repair ，the incidence of SSE in trial group was significantly lower than that in control group when the follow-up time was ≤3 months [OR ＝0.20，95％CI（0.06， 0.74），P＝0.03]；but there was no significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding between 2 groups [OR ＝0.67，95％CI （0.19，2.38），P＝0.53]；when the follow-up time was longer than 3 months，there was no statistical significance in the incidence of SSE between 2 groups [OR ＝0.74，95％CI（0.54，1.02），P＝0.07]，while the incidence of major bleeding in trial group was significantly lower than control group [OR ＝0.39，95％CI（0.29，0.52），P＜0.001]. Subgroup analysis by study type showed that after biological valve replacement/repair ，the incidence of SSE in the RCT in trial group was significantly lower than that in control group [OR ＝0.51，95％CI（0.29，0.92），P＝0.03]，but there was no significant difference in the incidence of major bleeding between 2 groups[OR＝0.58，95％CI（0.33，1.03），P＝0.06]. In cohort study ，there was no significant difference in the incidence of SSE between 2 groups [OR ＝1.03，95％CI（0.40，2.66），P＝0.95]，while the incidence of major bleeding in trial group was significantly lower than control group [OR ＝0.20，95％CI（0.06，0.74），P＜0.001]. Sensitivity analysis results showed that the results of the above-mentioned meta-analysis were relatively robust. CONCLUSIONS For the patients underwent biological valve replacement/repair，the effectiveness and safety of NOACs are better than or similar to those of warfarin ；for the patients underwent mechanical valve replacement/repair ，there is no significant difference in the effectiveness and safety between NOACs and warfarin.
ABSTRACT
Tacrolimus exhibits varied individual pharmacokinetic and a narrow therapeutic window, resulting in difficulties in personalized medication.In order to improve the safety of tacrolimus in clinical application and its efficiency and rationality in clinical practice, many countries and regions in the world have issued a number of guidelines for tacrolimus application.However, these guidelines generally aim at particular disease and race, and have certain limitation.In this article, the guidelines were explicated and analyzed in detail.Moreover, an individual tacrolimus medication recommendation for Chinese population was summarized based on the latest research of tacrolimus pharmacogenomics and therapeutic drug monitoring so as to provide assistance for the rational use of tacrolimus.
ABSTRACT
Luteolin is a flavone in medicinal plants as well as some vegetables and spices. It is a natural anti-oxidant with less pro-oxidant potential but apparently with a better safety profile. The purpose of this study was to investigate the molecular mechanism of luteolin-mediated apoptosis of MG-63 human osteosarcoma cells. MTT assay kit was employed to evaluate the effects of luteolin on MG-63 cells proliferation. Then, we performed Annexin V-FITC/PI to analyze the apoptotic rate of the cells. Furthermore, the inhibitory effects of luteolin on the expressions of BCL-2, BAX, Caspase-3 and Survivin were detected by Western blotting. As expected, luteolin [0.5, 2.5, 12.5 [microg/mL] inhibited the growth of MG-63 cells by inhibiting cell proliferation and inducing cell apoptosis. Western blotting demonstrated that luteolin [0.5, 2.5, 12.5 [microg/mL] inhibited the expressions of BCL-2, Caspase-3 and Survivin, and promoted the expression of BAX in MG-63 cells with a concentration dependent way. Luteolin can inhibit osteosarcoma cell proliferation and induce apoptosis effectively in a dose dependent manner through down-regulating the expression of BCL-2, Caspase-3 and Survivin proteins levels and up-regulating the expression of BAX protein level. These findings indicated that luteolin may be used as a novel herbal medicine for the treatment of osteosarcoma