RESUMO
OBJECTIVE To analyze the difference between the payment limitations of anti-cancer drugs and application scope of drug instructions， so as to better implement the payment policy of medical insurance drugs. METHODS The differences between the payment limitations of anti-cancer drugs and application scope of drug instructions in the National Catalogue of Drugs for Basic Medical Insurance， Industrial Injury Insurance and Maternity Insurance （2022） were compared and analyzed； the evidence-based basis of the difference was discussed， and the scope of limited payment was interpreted. RESULTS Totally 118 drugs had payment limitations； limitations scope mainly included limited evidence of gene detection results， limited indications， limited second-line and above treatment， limited payment duration， limited specialist prescription， limited medical institution grade， etc. Among them， 43 drugs had differences between the payment limitations and drug instructions， and the indications of 31 drugs were greater than payment limitations； for seven drugs， the drug indications beyond the payment limitations were recommended by the guidelines. The payment limitations of 75 drugs were consistent with drug instructions. The second-line and multi-line treatment was ineffective or intolerable with first-line drugs. There was a certain relationship between locally advanced， advanced or metastatic tumor and tumor stage， but different tumors had different criteria. Systemic treatment mainly referred to systemic treatment with drug. The results of limited genetic test required that the result was positive or negative. In addition， six kinds of TCM injections were limited to the level of medical institutions； the payment of two drugs did not exceed 12 months； when lenalidomide was combined with isazomide citrate， the medical insurance only paid for one of the drugs. CONCLUSIONS The payment limitations of some anti- cancer drugs are inconsistent with the drug indications. The drug payment limitations should be expanded according to the actual situation of clinical medication and the recommendations of guidelines. At the same time， the payment limitations should be formulated accurately and in detail， thus clinical and medical insurance staff can understand it and fully protect the interests of patients.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE： To evaluate the effectiveness of trolamine for preventing and treating radiation dermatitis （RD） and evidence quality， and to provide reference for clinical use. METHODS： Retrieved from PubMed， Cochrane library， Embase， CNKI， Wanfang and VIP database， randomized controlled trials （RCTs） about trolamine （trial group） versus usual care （control group） for preventing and treating RD were collected. After data extraction， Cochrane bias risk assessment tool 5.0.2 was used to assess the bias risk， and Rev Man 5.3 statistical software was used to perform the Meta-analysis. GRADE evidence quality grading system was used to evaluate the evidence quality of outcome indexes. RESULTS： Seven RCTs were included， involving 782 patients. Results of Meta-analysis showed that there was no statistical significance in total incidence of RD [OR＝0.50， 95％CI （0.23， 1.11）， P＝0.09]， and the incidence of grade Ⅰ RD [OR＝1.32， 95％CI（0.96，1.81）， P＝0.09]， grade Ⅱ RD [OR＝1.07， 95％CI（0.80，1.42）， P＝0.66]， grade Ⅲ RD [OR＝0.69， 95％CI（0.45，1.04）， P＝0.07] or grade Ⅳ RD [OR＝0.43， 95％CI（0.17，1.05）， P＝0.07] between 2 groups. Results of Grade evidence quality evaluation showed that total incidence of RD， and the incidence of grade Ⅱ RD and grade Ⅳ RD were recommended by moderate-level evidence in 2 groups， while the incidence of grade Ⅰ and grade Ⅲ RD were recommended by low-level evidence. CONCLUSIONS： Trolamine is not effective in preventing and treating RD， and can not reduce the incidence of RD.
RESUMO
Objective To sum up and analyze the clinical and pathological characteristics in patients with both IgA nephropathy (IgAN) and diabetes mellitus. Methods A total of 500 patients were recruited, including 25 patients with both IgAN and diabetes mellitus, and 475 patients with IgAN only, who were diagnosed by renal-biopsy during Jan 2015 to Jan 2017 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. The clinical and pathological data were collected and analyzed using SPSS 22.0. Propensity Score Matching was used to match and select the patients in the both groups, and thereafter the depth of the basement membrane from the matched patients were compared using electron microscopy. The data of the patients whose follow - up time was ≥3 months were retrospectively collected, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the difference of the prognosis. Results Compared to the patients with IgAN only, patients with both IgAN and diabetes mellitus were older [(46.36±13.49) years vs (34.00±13.80) years, P<0.001], had higher level of serum triglyceride [2.06(1.52, 3.11) mmol/L vs 1.51(1.01, 2.25) mmol/L, P=0.012] and thicker basement membrane [(384.33 ± 61.20) nm vs (346.72 ± 52.65) nm, P=0.044]. The patients with both IgAN and diabetes mellitus were more prone to reach the composite endpoint [4/7(57.14％) vs 25/265(9.33％), P<0.001] and had worse prognosis (Log-Rank test, P=0.004). Conclusions IgAN patients with diabetes mellitus have different clinical, pathological characteristics and prognosis from patients with IgAN alone. These patients need to be closely monitored and actively treated.