目的 报道临床药师参与抗结核药物致结核性胸膜炎待诊患者多形红斑型药疹的临床药学实践的经验。 方法 1例结核性胸膜炎待诊患者在2011年11月3日出现皮疹后，临床药师根据患者的用药情况及病情变化，提供咨询意见，与临床医师共同制定不良反应的临床处理措施。 结果 推断为链霉素所致的多形红斑型药疹，积极处理后患者病情好转。 结论 临床药师参与药学监护，有利于处理药物不良反应。
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of iguratimod compared with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, VIP, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the efficacy and safety of iguratimod compared with methotrexate in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis from inception to June 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 970 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: there was no statistical difference between iguratimod and methotrexate in ACR20 (RR=1.06, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.23, P=0.49), ACR50 (RR=0.93, 95%CI 0.73 to 1.19, P=0.55), ACR70 (RR=0.92, 95%CI 0.62 to 1.39, P=0.70), morning stiffness time (MD=0.45, 95%CI –0.26 to 1.16, P=0.22), tender joint count (MD=0.07, 95%CI –2.31 to 2.45, P=0.95), swollen joint count (MD=–0.30, 95%CI –1.44 to 0.84, P=0.61), health assessment questionnaire (MD=0.01, 95%CI –0.05 to 0.07, P=0.73) and the rate of adverse effects (RR=0.66, 95%CI 0.41 to 1.07, P=0.09). Meta-analysis of 2 RCTs using double-blind method showed that, iguratimod was superior to methotrexat in the patient (MD=4.11, 95%CI 0.11 to 8.10, P=0.04) and physician (MD=4.81, 95%CI 0.93 to 8.69, P=0.01) global assessment of disease activities.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that the efficacy and safety of iguratimod in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis are similar to methotrexate. And iguratimod is superior in global assessment of disease activities by patients and doctors. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
Objectives To systematically review the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy for severe pneumonia. Methods We searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (www.chictr.org.cn) to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of de-escalation therapy for patients with severe pneumonia from inception to June, 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 13 RCTs involving 1 860 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: the de-escalation therapy group was superior to the control group on clinical cure rate (RR=1.28, 95%CI 1.20 to 1.35, P<0.000 01), the total hospitalization time (MD=–6.86, 95%CI –9.12 to –4.59,P<0.000 01), remission time of complications (MD=–6.26, 95%CI –8.43 to –4.10,P<0.000 01) and mortality (RR=0.48, 95%CI 0.28 to 0.82,P=0.001). Reported cases of adverse reactions were rare, in which the degree of reactions ranged from mild to moderate. The safety was fairly satisfactory. Conclusions Current evidence shows that de-escalation therapy for patients with severe pneumonia has improved efficacy compared with conventional treatments, and can significantly shorten the total hospitalization time and reduce mortality. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.