Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness and Safety of Intravenous Thrombolysis in Patients with Acute Cerebral Infarction.

In this paper, a meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with acute cerebral infarction was carried out, the original literature inclusion criteria and retrieval strategies were developed, and the collection deadline was about new oral anticoagulants and other methods for the antithrombotic intravenous thrombolytic treatment of patients with acute cerebral infarction for the relevant literature on the safety and effectiveness comparison. First, the quality of the literature is evaluated according to whether the included studies are randomized controlled trials, whether there is randomized concealment, whether blinding is used, and whether they are withdrawn or lost to follow-up, and the RevMan 5.2 software is used for meta-analysis. At the same time, grey literature databases such as dissertations were experimentally searched, and all randomized controlled studies (RCT), nonrandomized controlled studies, case-controlled studies, cohort studies, case series reports, etc. of Wingspan in the treatment of intracranial atherosclerotic stenosis were collected. In the prevention of myocardial infarction in patients with acute cerebral infarction, the difference between the two was not statistically significant (RR = 0.82, 95% CI (0.57, 1.17), P = 0.27). Compared with other methods, it can significantly reduce the all-cause mortality of patients with nonvalvular venous thrombolysis, and the difference is statistically significant (RR = 0.90, 95% CI (0.85, 0.96), P = 0.001). Experimental results show that in terms of safety, the new oral anticoagulant is better than other methods in reducing minor bleeding in patients with acute cerebral infarction, and the difference is statistically significant (RR = 0.87, 95% CI (0.76, 0 99), P = 0.03); the effect is better than other methods in reducing the incidence of serious bleeding events, and the difference is statistically significant (RR = 0.79, 95% CI (0.74, 0.85), P < 0.00001).

Expert consensus on protocol of rehabilitation for COVID-19 patients using framework and approaches of WHO International Family Classifications.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has widely spread all over the world and the numbers of patients and deaths are increasing. According to the epidemiology, virology, and clinical practice, there are varying degrees of changes in patients, involving the human body structure and function and the activity and participation. Based on the World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and its biopsychosocial model of functioning, we use the WHO Family of International Classifications (WHO-FICs) framework to form an expert consensus on the COVID-19 rehabilitation program, focusing on the diagnosis and evaluation of disease and functioning, and service delivery of rehabilitation, and to establish a standard rehabilitation framework, terminology system, and evaluation and intervention systems based the WHO-FICs.

Plasma antibodies to Abeta40 and Abeta42 in patients with Alzheimer's disease and normal controls.

Antibodies to amyloid beta protein (Abeta) are present naturally or after Abeta vaccine therapy in human plasma. To clarify their clinical role, we examined plasma samples from 113 patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and 205 normal controls using the tissue amyloid plaque immunoreactivity (TAPIR) assay. A high positive rate of TAPIR was revealed in AD (45.1%) and age-matched controls (41.2%), however, no significance was observed. No significant difference was observed in the MMS score or disease duration between TAPIR-positive and negative samples. TAPIR-positive plasma reacted with the Abeta40 monomer and dimer, and the Abeta42 monomer weakly, but not with the Abeta42 dimer. TAPIR was even detected in samples from young normal subjects and young Tg2576 transgenic mice. Although the Abeta40 level and Abeta40/42 ratio increased, and Abeta42 was significantly decreased in plasma from AD groups when compared to controls, no significant correlations were revealed between plasma Abeta levels and TAPIR grading. Thus an immune response to Abeta40 and immune tolerance to Abeta42 occurred naturally in humans without a close relationship to the Abeta burden in the brain. Clarification of the mechanism of the immune response to Abeta42 is necessary for realization of an immunotherapy for AD.