ObjectiveThe aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for chronic prostatitis (CP) associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes.MethodsAn electronic search of 13 databases up to May 2016 was screened to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of CHM for the treatment of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes. Studies reporting on effective rates, adverse events, National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) scores, and symptom index of Chinese medicine for chronic prostatitis (SI-CM) scores as outcomes were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed by fixed- or random-effect models using the Review Manager software.ResultsThirteen articles with the modified Jadad score ≥4 were identified. It was found that CHM was superior to placebo in increasing the efficacy (odds ratio: 6.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.78–9.48, P<0.00001) and reducing the SI-CM scores (standardized mean difference: −1.08, 95% CI: −1.35 to −0.81, P<0.00001). Oral CHMs were significantly more effective than placebo at reducing NIH-CPSI scores, with a mean difference of −1.39 (95% CI: −1.87 to −0.92, P<0.00001). Nevertheless, no significant differences were found between Prostant and placebo (standardized mean difference: −0.23, 95% CI: −0.46 to 0.01, P=0.06). The frequency of adverse events associated with oral CHM was similar to that associated with placebo (risk ratio: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.72–2.55, P=0.34) and less than that associated with Prostant (risk ratio: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.14–2.34, P=0.008).ConclusionOur novel analysis demonstrates that CHM ranks highest in terms of improvement of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes. While Prostant showed some efficacy in this disorder, it was associated with a smaller reduction in NIH-CPSI scores. In conclusion, CHM monotherapy is safe and effective for the treatment of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes.
Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have elicited durable antitumor responses in multiple types of cancers. However, ICIs could also induce potential toxicities that involve all organs, including renal system. In this study, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive description of the ICIs-induced renal toxicities and the potential effects of chemotherapy. Methods:We conducted a pharmacovigilance study based on US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database between 01 January 2014 and 30 June 2019. Disproportionality analysis was used to assess the association between ICIs and renal adverse events (AEs), including reporting odds ratio (ROR) and information component (IC). ROR 025 and IC 025 are, respectively, 95% confidence interval lower end of ROR and IC. If the value of ROR 025 exceeding one or IC 025 higher than zero, then a signal was considered statistically significant.Results: A total of 30,602,758 reports were extracted from the database, with 4578 reports for ICIs-associated renal AEs. Renal AEs were more frequently reported in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 versus anti-CTLA-4 monotherapy group (ROR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.52-2.01). Similarly, renal AEs were more commonly reported in ICIs polytherapy other than monotherapy group (ROR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.10-1.27). Notably, ICIs plus chemotherapy strategies reported more renal toxicities compared to sole ICIs regimens (ROR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17-1.45), whereas exhibited lower fatality outcome rates. Importantly, acute kidney injury (1139, 24.88%) and renal failure (464, 10.14%) were the top two most commonly reported ICIs-associated renal AEs, and also observed with the top two highest level of fatality outcome rates. Conclusions:A spectrum of renal AEs was detected in ICIs regimens and could be reinforced by ICIs combination. Compared to sole ICIs regimens, ICIs plus chemotherapy strategy reported more renal toxicities but lower fatality outcome
This study aimed to compare and analyse the differences in smoking prevalence, and knowledge, attitudes, and factors associated with smoking between the rural and urban elderly population in China. In total, 6,966 participants aged 60 and above were included in this study, which assessed their smoking-related knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions toward tobacco control. The Chi-square test and logistic regression model were used for statistical analysis, and the Fairlie model was used for decomposition analysis. The overall prevalence of smoking was 25.6%; the rate was much higher in men than in women (overall: OR = 26.234; urban: OR = 31.260; rural: OR = 23.889). The rate of correct responses to all questions on smoking problems was significantly higher among the urban elderly than the rural elderly. Further, 64.18% of the participants supported printing photos of the health hazards of smoking on the cover of cigarette packs, and the rural elderly were more supportive of this. Moreover, only 36.52% of the participants supported increasing taxation and retail price of cigarettes; the urban elderly showed more support for this. Rules about smoking at home also played an important role, especially for families where smoking was not allowed at home, but with exceptions to the rule; however, this factor was only meaningful in urban families (urban: OR = 0.117). Through the Fairlie decomposition analysis, gender (-1.62%), age (-2.03%), region (13.68%), knowing about e-cigarettes (5.17%), rules about smoking at home (3.95%), and smoking-related knowledge scores (42.85%) were found to be associated with rural-urban disparities. This study focused on the differences in smoking between urban and rural areas in China. Smoking among the urban elderly was significantly less prevalent compared with the rural population. Factors including education, region, and smoking-related knowledge need to be addressed to reduce the gap between urban and rural health hazards in China.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the factors influencing urban–rural differences in depressive symptoms among old people in China and to measure the contribution of relevant influencing factors. Design: A cross-sectional research. The 2018 data from The Chinese Longitudinal Health Longevity Survey (CLHLS). Setting: Twenty-three provinces in China. Participants: From the 8th CLHLS, 11,245 elderly participants were selected who met the requirements of the study. Measurements: We established binary logistic regression models to explore the main influencing factors of their depressive symptoms and used Fairlie models to analyze the influencing factors of the differences in depressive symptoms between the urban and rural elderly and their contribution. Results: The percentage of depressive symptoms among Chinese older adults was 11.72%, and the results showed that rural older adults (12.41%) had higher rates of depressive symptoms than urban (10.13%). The Fairlie decomposition analysis revealed that 73.96% of the difference in depressive symptoms could be explained, which was primarily associated with differences in annual income (31.51%), education level (28.05%), sleep time ( − 25.67%), self-reported health (24.18%), instrumental activities of daily living dysfunction (20.73%), exercise (17.72%), living status ( − 8.31%), age ( − 3.84%), activities of daily living dysfunction ( − 3.29%), and social activity (2.44%). Conclusions: The prevalence of depressive symptoms was higher in rural than in urban older adults, which was primarily associated with differences in socioeconomic status, personal lifestyle, and health status factors between the urban and rural residents. If these factors were addressed, we could make targeted and precise intervention strategies to improve the mental health of high-risk elderly.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.