Different dose series of human papillomavirus vaccine in young females: a pair-wise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis from randomized controlled trials.

Objective: To investigate the application value of different dose of HPV vaccine in young females. Data sources: The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, SINOMED, and Wanfang Data, from the establishment of the database to August 1st, 2022. Study eligibility criteria: The inclusion criterias were: healthy young women younger than 25 years old as the research object, randomized controlled study as the research type, and the efficacy and safety of single-dose, two-dose or three-dose HPV vaccines as the intervention measures and research endpoints. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Meta-analysis was performed to analyze the protective effects of single-dose, 2-dose and 3-dose HPV vaccine series on young females. Results: A total of eight eligible studies involving 16 publications were included. There is no difference in the immunogenicity between the 2-dose and 3-dose series within 12 months after the last dose of HPV vaccine. However, 3-dose series was better than the 2-dose series, which performed better than the single-dose vaccine, after 12 months. With respect to the prevention of HPV16/18 infection or HPV31/33/45 infection, the single-dose vaccine worked better than 2-dose or 3-dose series. Conclusions: The present study showed that the immunogenicity of low-dose HPV vaccine was significantly less, but it reduced the risk of high-risk HPV infection. The low-dose HPV vaccine series may not offer a preventive effect on cervical lesions, though it needs to be further confirmed by additional studies.

Monotherapy for low-risk gestational trophoblastic neoplasia with score 5-6.

Objective: To investigate the monotherapy for gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) patients with FIGO/WHO prognostic score of 5-6. Methods: The low-risk GTN patients from 2012 to 2019 were enrolled. The study is a retrospective report to analyze the efficacy and safety of single-agent chemotherapy and combination chemotherapy in patients with a high FIGO/WHO prognostic score of 5-6. Results: 75 cases (33.5%) were included. Complete remission was in all patients. Among the 29 cases taking single-agent chemotherapy, 22 cases (75.9%) developed drug resistance. Among the 46 cases taking combination chemotherapy, 7 patients (15.2%) developed drug resistance. There was a statistically significant difference in the drug resistance rate between these two subgroups (P < 0.05), but there was not statistically significant difference in the total number of chemotherapy courses (<2mIU/ml) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Monotherapy showed remarkable advantages in GTN patients with FIGO/WHO prognostic score of 5-6.

Quality Evaluation of Domestic Pharmacoeconomic Literatures Based on PEERs in Recent Years / 中国药房

OBJECTIVE： To investigate current status and quality of domestic pharmacoeconomic literatures， and to provide reference for the standardization of pharmacoeconomic research. METHODS： Retrieved from CNKI， Wanfang， VIP and other database， the pharmacoeconomic literatures published from Jan. 2017 to May 2018 were collected. The qualities of literatures were evaluated with Guidelines for Quality Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomics Evaluation Reports （“PEERs” for short）. RESULTS： Totally 160 domestic pharmacoeconomic research literatures were included. The results of PEERs evaluation showed of which the coincidence rate was 32.5％ （52/160）. The literatureswhich were in full compliance （the report had a certain reference value） accounted for 1.3％ （2/160）， which were in basic compliance （the report had certain reference value after being revised） accounted for 31.3％（50/160），which were in non-conformity （the report did not had reference value） accounted for 67.5％（108/160）. Domestic pharmacoeconomic researches were of high quality in terms of research object， evaluation method and content，research purpose，  research design and design type， etc.； but the researches were of low quality in terms of research angle， incremental cost/incremental output analysis， sensitivity analysis and other aspects， and there was no explanation or unclear elaboration. CONCLUSIONS： The quality of domestic pharmacoeconomic research literatures are uneven， and their research quality needs to be further improved. It is recommended to standardize the evaluation of pharmacoeconomics， making the evaluation of pharmacoeconomics more scientific and objective.