ObjectiveTo investigate whether microRNAs (miRs) can serve as novel biomarkers for in-stent restenosis (ISR).MethodsThis retrospective, observational single-centre study was conducted at the cardiovascular department of a tertiary hospital centre in the north of China. Follow-up coronary angiography at 6 to 12 months was performed in 181 consecutive patients implanted with drug-eluting stents. Fifty-two healthy volunteers served as the control group. The plasma miRs levels were analyzed by quantitative real-time PCR. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was performed to investigate the characters of these miRs as potential biomarkers of ISR.ResultsMiR-21 levels in ISR patients were significantly higher than those in non-ISR patients and healthy controls (P<0.05), while miR-100 (P<0.05), miR-143 (P<0.001) and miR-145 (P<0.0001) levels were significantly decreased in ISR patients. Further analysis showed that miR-21 levels were remarkably increased (P = 0.045), while miR-100 (P = 0.041), miR-143 (P = 0.029) and miR-145 (P<0.01) levels were dramatically decreased in patients with diffuse ISR compared to those with focal ISR. ROC analysis demonstrated that the area under curve of miR-145, miR-143, miR-100 and miR-21 were 0.880 (95% confidence interval; CI = 0.791–0.987, P<0.001), 0.818 (95% confidence interval; CI = 0.755–0.963, P<0.001), 0.608 (95% confidence interval; CI = 0.372–0.757, P<0.05) and 0.568 (95% confidence interval; CI = 0.372–0.757, P<0.05), with specificity of 83.1%, 80.1%, 68.9% and 68.6%, and sensitivity of 88.7%, 82.1%, 60.2% and 50.1%, respectively.ConclusionsCirculating miR-143 and miR-145 levels are associated with the occurrence of ISR and can serve as novel noninvasive biomarkers for ISR.

No abstract

No abstract

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been implicated in antiviral activity in vitro against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). However, there is still controversy about whether HCQ should be used for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients due to the conflicting results in different clinical trials. To systematically assess the benefits and harms of HCQ for the treatment of COVID-19. Data sources were systematically searched from Pubmed, Biorxiv, ChiCTR, Clinicalrials. gov, and the Cochrane library of RCTs for studies published from inception to June 1, 2020, to obtain any possible inclusion. This meta-analysis of inclusion criteria was directed on the basis of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Pooled studies by the title and abstract were screened and removed in the light of metaanalysis by two reviewers. Seven studies involving 851 participants with COVID-19 were eligible for analysis. There was no significant difference in RT-PCR negative conversion between HCQ group and standard treatment (ST) group (RR = 1.11, 95% CI = 0.77-1.59, P = 0.591). The rate of exacerbated pneumonia on chest CT in HCQ group was lower than that in ST group (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.20-0.94, P = 0.035). There was no statistical difference in progressed illness between the HCQ group and the ST group (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.18-2.43, P = 0.530). Death (RR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.26-2.93, P = 0.003) was distinctly different in HCQ group compared with ST group in the treatment of COVID-19. Our meta-analysis demonstrated that there was no robust evidence to support prescribing HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19.

No abstract