Evaluation on difference of therapeutic efficacy of Jiawei Xiaoyao Granules and Pills in treatment of emotional disorder during perimenopause based on Greene Climacteric Scale

目的:在前期加味逍遥丸治疗围绝经期情绪障碍具有比较优势的基础上,基于grEEnE量表探讨其颗粒剂和丸剂不同剂型间疗效差异。方法:经筛选后患有情绪障碍的围绝经期女性75例随机等分为A、b、C3组,分别对应采用帕罗西汀、加味逍遥丸和加味逍遥颗粒剂治疗8周。所有患者在治疗前后各进行1次grEEnE及其子因子评定,并在观察期结束时进行TESS评定。结果:grEEnE总分差及其焦虑、抑郁因子分差:3种治疗方法均能改善,且相互间无显著差异;grEEnE性因子和血管因子分差:后二组均优于A组(P<0.01);TESS评分:与A组比较,b、C组均有统计学意义(P<0.01),评分均小于A组,且后二组间无显著差异。结论:加味逍遥的2种剂型间疗效无显著差异,考虑到帕罗西汀的不良反应,治疗该病加味逍遥的2种剂型都值得推荐。Objective: To investigate the difference in therapeutic efficacy between Jiawei Xiaoyao Granules and pills based on the preliminary research of treating emotional disorder during perimenopause with Jiawei Xiaoyao Pills and Greene Climacteric Scale.Methods: 75 female patients with emotional disorder during perimenopause were slected and randomly divided into 3 groups as group A, B and C.Patients in the 3 groups were treated with paroxetine, Jiawei Xiaoyao Pills and Jiawei Xiaoyao Granules respectively for 8 weeks.Greene and Greene factors assessment were carried out in all the patients before and after treatment, and the TESS assessment was carried out at the end of the observation period.Results: The three therapies all could improve the gap in total score of Greene and its factors as anxiety and depressed, and the difference among these three groups was no significant.The factors of Greene and gap in score of vascular factors of group B and C was better than that of group A(P<0.01).The difference in TESS score between group A and group B and C was significant(P<0.01), while the difference between group B and group C was not significant.Conclusion: The difference in curative effect between the two formulations was not significant.Because of the adverse reactions of paroxetine, in the treatment of emotional disorder during perimenopause, the two formulations of Jiawei Xiaoyao Powder were worth to be recommended.国家自然科学青年基金项目(No.81302960)~

一种高效选择性去除铅离子的磷酸盐材料及其应用

本发明公开了一种用于溶液中高效选择性去除铅离子的磷酸盐材料，所述材料含有可与铅离子进行交换的锶或(和)钡离子，交换后生成更稳定的磷酸铅类物质，从而达到固定铅离子的效果。该材料在溶液中对铅离子的饱和吸附量显著高于现有报道，且在有干扰离子如锌离子、铜离子、砷离子、铬离子、铁离子、镉离子的存在下，即使是去除非常低浓度的铅离子也是有选择性的。另外，其去除铅的性能受温度和溶液pH的影响不大，操作方便，实用性强，是一种新颖的、优良的选择性去除铅离子的材料

Cumulative Ecological Risk and Postpartum Depression:The Mediating Role of Internal Working Model of Insecurity Attachment

目的:考察累积生态风险对产后抑郁(postpartum depression, PPD)的影响及不安全依恋在其中的中介作用。方法:采用问卷调查的方式,从2017年3月至2017年6月,使用基本信息表、爱丁堡产后抑郁量表、儿童期创伤经历问卷和成人依恋经历调查问卷,对北京市三家妇幼保健医院754例平均年龄(标准差)为32.0(3.4)岁的产妇进行调查研究。采用结构方程模型检验累积生态风险对产妇PPD的直接作用以及不安全依恋的中介作用。结果:66.4%的产妇为初次生产,产妇的爱丁堡产后抑郁量表平均分(标准差)为7.3(4.4),产妇儿童期不安全依恋得分为2.2(0.8)。产妇的年龄、住房情况、主客观社会经济地位和儿童期创伤经历与其产后抑郁存在相关性;产妇抑郁平均水平尚未达到临床诊断标准,累积生态风险和不安全依恋对产后抑郁具有正向预测作用;累积生态风险可部分通过产妇的不安全依恋预测产后抑郁。结论:累积生态风险对产后抑郁具有重要的影响,且这种影响可能通过产妇内部的依恋工作模式来实现。研究结果提示,从干预的角度减少产妇产后抑郁的生态风险时,应该考虑家庭和个体心理等不同领域的风险和累积风险。</p

Aripiprazole versus other atypical antipsychotics for schizophrenia

BACKGROUND: In most western industrialised countries, second generation (atypical) antipsychotics are recommended as first line drug treatments for people with schizophrenia. In this review we specifically examine how the efficacy and tolerability of one such agent - aripiprazole - differs from that of other comparable second generation antipsychotics. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of aripiprazole compared with other atypical antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group Trials Register (November 2011), inspected references of all identified studies for further trials, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies, drug approval agencies and authors of trials for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing aripiprazole (oral) with oral and parenteral forms of amisulpride, clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, sertindole, ziprasidone or zotepine for people with schizophrenia or schizophrenia-like psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data independently. For dichotomous data we calculated risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) on an intention-to-treat basis based on a random-effects model. Where possible, we calculated illustrative comparative risks for primary outcomes. For continuous data, we calculated mean differences (MD), again based on a random-effects model. We assessed risk of bias for each included study. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 trials involving 6389 patients. Aripiprazole was compared to olanzapine, risperidone and ziprasidone. All trials were sponsored by an interested drug manufacturer. The overall number of participants leaving studies early was 30% to 40%, limiting validity (no differences between groups).When compared with olanzapine no differences were apparent for global state (no clinically important change: n = 703, 1 RCT, RR short-term 1.00 95% CI 0.81 to 1.22; n = 317, 1 RCT, RR medium-term 1.08 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22) but mental state tended to favour olanzapine (n = 1360, 3 RCTs, MD total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) 4.68 95% CI 2.21 to 7.16). There was no significant difference in extrapyramidal symptoms (n = 529, 2 RCTs, RR 0.99 95% CI 0.62 to 1.59) but fewer in the aripiprazole group had increased cholesterol levels (n = 223, 1 RCT, RR 0.32 95% CI 0.19 to 0.54) or weight gain of 7% or more of total body weight (n = 1095, 3 RCTs, RR 0.39 95% CI 0.28 to 0.54).When compared with risperidone, aripiprazole showed no advantage in terms of global state (n = 384, 2 RCTs, RR no important improvement 1.14 95% CI 0.81 to 1.60) or mental state (n = 372, 2 RCTs, MD total PANSS 1.50 95% CI -2.96 to 5.96).One study compared aripiprazole with ziprasidone (n = 247) and both the groups reported similar change in the global state (n = 247, 1 RCT, MD average change in Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) score -0.03 95% CI -0.28 to 0.22) and mental state (n = 247, 1 RCT, MD change PANSS -3.00 95% CI -7.29 to 1.29).When compared with any one of several new generation antipsychotic drugs the aripiprazole group showed improvement in global state in energy (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.69 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84), mood (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.77 95% CI 0.65 to 0.92), negative symptoms (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.82 95% CI 0.68 to 0.99), somnolence (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.80 95% CI 0.69 to 0.93) and weight gain (n = 523, 1 RCT, RR 0.84 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94). Significantly more people given aripiprazole reported symptoms of nausea (n = 2881, 3 RCTs, RR 3.13 95% CI 2.12 to 4.61) but weight gain (7% or more of total body weight) was less common in people allocated aripiprazole (n = 330, 1 RCT, RR 0.35 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64). Aripiprazole may have value in aggression but data are limited. This will be the focus of another review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Information on all comparisons are of limited quality, are incomplete and problematic to apply clinically. Aripiprazole is an antipsychotic drug with a variant but not absent adverse effect profile. Long-term data are sparse and there is considerable scope for another update of this review as new data emerges from the many Chinese studies as well as from ongoing larger, independent pragmatic trials