The risk factors for Group B Streptococcus colonization during pregnancy and influences of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis on maternal and neonatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Group B Streptococcus (GBS), also referred as Streptococcus agalactiae, is one of the leading causes of life-threatening invasive diseases such as bacteremia, meningitis, pneumonia and urinary tract infection in pregnant women and neonates. Rates of GBS colonization vary by regions, but large-sample studies on maternal GBS status are limited in southern China. As a result, the prevalence of GBS among pregnant women and its associated risk factors and the efficacy of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis (IAP) intervention in preventing adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes remain poorly understood in southern China. METHODS: To fill this gap, we retrospectively analyzed demographic and obstetrical data of pregnant women who have undergone GBS screening and delivered between 2016 and 2018 in Xiamen, China. A total of 43,822 pregnant women were enrolled and only a few GBS-positive women did not receive IAP administration. Possible risk factors for GBS colonization were assayed by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Generalized linear regression model was applicated to analyze whether IAP is one of the impact factors of the hospital length of stay of the target women. RESULTS: The overall GBS colonization rate was 13.47% (5902/43,822). Although women > 35 years old (P = 0.0363) and women with diabetes mellitus (DM, P = 0.001) had a higher prevalence of GBS colonization, the interaction between ages and GBS colonization was not statistically significant in Logistic Regression analysis (adjusted OR = 1.0014; 95% CI, 0.9950, 1.0077). The rate of multiple births was significantly dropped in GBS-positive group than that of GBS-negative group (P = 0.0145), with no significant difference in the rate of fetal reduction (P = 0.3304). Additionally, the modes of delivery and the incidences of abortion, premature delivery, premature rupture of membranes, abnormal amniotic fluid and puerperal infection were not significantly different between the two groups. The hospitalization stays of the subjects were not influenced by GBS infection. As for neonatal outcomes, the cases of fetal death in maternal GBS-positive group did not statistically differ from that in maternal GBS-negative group. CONCLUSION: Our data identified that pregnant women with DM are at high risk of GBS infection and IAP is highly effective in prevention of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. This stressed the necessity of universal screening of maternal GBS status and IAP administration to the target population in China, and women with DM should be considered as priorities.

Comparison of neoadjuvant treatments followed by radical surgery or chemoradiation on quality of life in patients with stage IB2-IIA cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare quality of life (Qol) of patients with stage IB2-IIA cervical cancer treated by neoadjuvant treatments followed by radical surgery (NTS) or standard chemoradiation (CRT). METHODS: Patients with stage IB2-IIA cervical cancer during 2006-2012 were treated with NTS or CRT and were invited to participate. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix (FACT-Cx) Questionnaire was used to assess patient Qol. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with Qol. RESULTS: In total, 90 (78.3%) out of 115 eligible patients completed the questionnaires. No significant differences were found in Qol between treatment groups, except that patients after NTS reported higher scores in the social/family well-being (e.g. satisfaction with sexual life, close relationships with partner or friends, and support from friends) than those after CRT, in particular, during 2-3 years after treatment. Results of multivariate analysis indicated that NTS was associated with better social/family functioning, while advanced stage of cervical cancer, lower family income and lower education were associated with impaired Qol in different domains. CONCLUSIONS: Although self-reported Qol after treatment were not significantly different, NTS treated patients reported better social/family functioning than CRT treated patients, such as satisfaction with their sexual life and close relationships with partner or friends, during 2-3 years post treatment. These results were helpful for physicians to make treatment decisions while considering treatment-related Qol, and moreover, for rehabilitation and supportive care of patients after treatment. Further validation of our findings in randomized, controlled clinical trials is warranted.

A Five-Dimensional Network Meta-Analysis of Chinese Herbal Injections for Treating Acute Tonsillitis Combined With Western Medicine.

Background: Acute tonsillitis has high morbidity. Chinese herbal injections (CHIs) were reported to be useful in treating acute tonsillitis and might reduce the probability of antibiotic resistance. Nevertheless, the optimal strategy for combining CHIs with western medicine (WM) to treat acute tonsillitis remains unclear. Methods: We retrieved data from the following databases with retrieval time from inception to 11 January 2022: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Weipu Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2) was used for evaluating the quality of the included studies. R 4.1.2, STATA 14.0, and Python 3.10.4 were employed for network meta-analysis, with 5-dimensional K-means cluster analysis, meta-regression analyses, sensitivity analyses, and subgroup analyses. Results: A total of 110 randomized controlled trials including 12,152 patients were included. All the studies were rated as "high risk" and "some concerns". In terms of improving clinical effectiveness rate, Qingkailing injection + WM ranked ahead of other interventions (89.51%). Regarding reducing antipyretic time, Reduning injection + WM had the highest-ranking probability (68.48%). As for shortening sore throat relief time, Shuanghuanglian injection + WM ranked first (76.82%). Concerning shortening red and swollen tonsils relief time, Yanhuning injection + WM possessed the highest-ranking probability (89.17%). In terms of reducing tonsillar exudate relief time, Xuebijing injection + WM ranked ahead of the other interventions (94.82%). Additionally, the results of the cluster analysis suggested that Xuebijing injection + WM, Reduning injection + WM, and Yanhuning injection + WM were probably the best interventions. Furthermore, adverse drug reactions rate of Xuebijing injection + WM, Reduning injection + WM, Yanhuning injection + WM, Qingkailing injection + WM, and Shuanghuanglian injection + WM were individually 0.00%, 3.11%, 3.08%, 4.29%, and 4.62%. Conclusions: CHIs + WM have a better impact on patients with acute tonsillitis than WM alone. Xuebijing injection, Reduning injection, and Yanhuning injection might have potential advantages in treating the disease. Concerning adverse drug reactions, Xuebijing injection is presumably the optimal CHI. More high-quality studies are needed to further confirm our findings. Systematic Review Registration: CRD42022303243; URL= https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=303243.

The comparative effects of oral Chinese patent medicines combined with western medicine in stable angina: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of 179 trials.

Background: Stable angina is a common condition with high morbidity and mortality rates. It has been reported that combining oral Chinese patent medicines (OCPMs) and Western medicine (WM) could potentially achieve a better effect than WM alone. However, the optimal OCPMs for stable angina remain controversial and merit further empirical research. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Ovid-Medline, Clinical Trials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, Weipu Journal Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were all searched from inception to 13 March 2022. We employed Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB2) to assess the overall quality of the selected studies. We also used R 4.1.2 and STATA 14.0 software applications to perform network meta-analysis, followed by sensitivity and subgroup analysis. Results: A total of 179 randomized controlled trials with 16,789 patients were included. The selected trials were all assessed as some concerns. OCPMs combined with WM had a better treatment effect than WM alone. In terms of the effective clinical rate, a significant increase was detected for Qishen Yiqi dripping pill (QSYQ)+WM as compared with Shensong Yangxin capsule (SSYX)+WM, Shexiang Baoxin pill (SXBX)+WM, Tongxinluo capsule (TXL)+WM, Xuefu Zhuyu capsule (XFZY)+WM, Qiliqiangxin capsule (QLQX)+WM, Naoxintong capsule (NXT)+WM, Fufang Danshen dripping pill (FFDS)+WM, and Danlou tablet (DL)+WM. QSYQ + WM had the highest-ranking probability (98.12%). Regarding the effective rate in ECG, QSYQ + WM was superior to SXBX + WM, TXL + WM, DL + WM, FFDS + WM, and NXT + WM. QSYQ + WM ranked first (94.21%). In terms of weekly frequency of angina, QLQX + WM obtained a better effect than FFDS + WM, Kuanxiong aerosol (KXQW)+WM, NXT + WM, QLQX + WM, SSYX + WM, SXBX + WM, and TXL + WM. QLQX + WM ranked first (100.00%). Regarding the duration of an angina attack, KXQW + WM was superior to SSYX + WM; KXQW + WM ranked first (95.71%). Adverting to weekly nitroglycerin usage, TXL + WM had the highest-ranking probability (82.12%). Referring to cardiovascular event rate, DL + WM had the highest effect (73.94%). Additionally, SSYX + WM had the lowest rate of adverse drug reactions (1.14%). Conclusion: OCPMs combined with WM had a higher efficacy. QSYQ + WM, QLQX + WM, KXQW + WM, TXL + WM, DL + WM, SSYX + WM, and SXBX + WM merit further investigation. SXBX + WM is presumably the optimal treatment prescription for both clinically effective and cardiovascular event rates. Further high-quality empirical research is needed to confirm the current results. Systematic Review Registration: URL = https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=316534, CRD 42022316534.