Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi ; 55(12): 1410-1418, 2021 Dec 06.
Artigo em Chinês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34963237

RESUMO

Objective: To explore the distribution characteristics of pathogens in adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and to provide basis for the diagnosis, treatment, prevention of CAP. Methods: 1 446 inpatients with CAP were prospectively enrolled in a third-class hospital in Beijing in recent 5 years (from January 2015 to December 2019). Respiratory tract samples were collected for smear, culture, nucleic acid, antigen and antibody detection to identify the pathogen of CAP. Mann-Whitney U test was used for continuous variables and χ2 test or Fisher's exact test was used for categorical data for statistical analysis. Results: Among the 1 446 patients, 822 (56.85%) patients were infected with a single pathogen, 231 (15.98%) patients were infected with multiple pathogens, and 393 (27.18%) patients were not clear about the pathogen. Influenza virus is the first pathogen of CAP (20.95%, 303/1 446), mainly H1N1 (8.51%, 123/1 446), followed by mycoplasma pneumoniae (7.19%, 104/1 446), Mycobacterium tuberculosis (5.33%, 77/1 446) and Streptococcus pneumoniae (5.05%, 73/1 446). The outbreak of H1N1 occurred from December 2018 to February 2019, and the epidemic of mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia was monitored from August to November 2019. Patients under 65 years old had high detection rates of Mycoplasma pneumoniae (14.41% vs. 2.41%, χ²=74.712,P<0.001), Streptococcus pneumoniae (8.16% vs. 2.99%, χ²=18.156, P<0.001), rhinovirus (6.08% vs. 3.56%, χ²=5.025, P<0.025), Chlamydia pneumoniae (5.90% vs. 1.15%, χ²=26.542, P<0.001) and adenovirus (3.13% vs. 0.92%, χ²=9.547, P=0.002). The severe disease rate of CAP was 14.66% (212/1 446), and the average mortality rate was 3.66% (53/1 446). The severe illness rate and mortality rate of bacterial-viral co-infection were 28.97% (31/107) and 19.63% (21/107), respectively. Conclusions: Influenza virus is the primary pathogen of adult CAP. Outbreaks of Mycoplasma pneumoniae and H1N1 were detected in 2018 and 2019, respectively. The remission rate and mortality rate of virus-bacteria co-infection were significantly higher than those of single pathogen infection. Accurate etiological basis not only plays a role in clinical diagnosis and treatment, but also provides important data support for prevention and early warning.


Assuntos
Chlamydophila pneumoniae , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas , Vírus da Influenza A Subtipo H1N1 , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma , Adulto , Idoso , Infecções Comunitárias Adquiridas/prevenção & controle , Hospitais , Humanos , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma/epidemiologia , Pneumonia por Mycoplasma/prevenção & controle
2.
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi ; 43(7): 1030-1037, 2022 Jul 10.
Artigo em Chinês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35856195

RESUMO

Objective: To understand the research progresses of economic evaluation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) both at home and abroad, and provide reference for economic evaluation of NPIs using real-world data in China. Methods: The literature retrieval was conducted by searching Chinese and English databases to indude papers about economic evaluation of NPIs and integrated NPIs published from January, 2020 to December, 2021, and the results were analyzed comprehensively. Results: A total of 30 Chinese and English literatures about economic evaluation of NPIs for COVID-19 prevention and control were included; including 7 papers about nucleic acid and testing and screening, 6 papers about individual prevention and protection measures, 12 papers about integrated implementation of individual prevention and protection, social distancing, nucleic acid or antigen testing, community screening and symptom screening, as well as close contact tracing and isolation/quarantine, and 5 papers about contain strategies, such as lockdown. This study found that personal protection, social distancing, and testing-tracing-isolation measures were cost-effective; however, different combinations of NPIs might lead to different results. Moreover, the cost of lockdown was high, which might cause huge economic burden. Conclusions: Most NPIs are cost-effective except lockdown, while the cost-effectiveness of the integrations of NPIs at different levels and in different scenarios needs to be further evaluated. It is necessary to carry out economic evaluation of integrated NPIs and the combination of NPIs with other interventions, such as vaccination and medication, based on real-world settings in China.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Ácidos Nucleicos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis/métodos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , SARS-CoV-2
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA