【摘要】 目的 探討非諾貝特致藥品不良反應（ADRs）的一般規律和特點。 方法 檢索PubMed（1978年-2009年8月）、中國期刊全文數據庫CNKI（1980年-2009年8月）、中國生物醫學文獻數據庫CBMDise（1980年-2009年8月）非諾貝特所致ADRs文獻，進行統計、分析。 結果 非諾貝特致ADRs多發生在gt;40歲年齡段，與性別無顯著關聯；64例ADRs主要涉及骨骼肌肉系統、消化系統、泌尿生殖系統、過敏反應，及時處理者預后良好。 結論 臨床上應重視非諾貝特所致ADRs，及時處理。【Abstract】 Objective To analyse the clinical features, correlation factors, preventions and cures of (adverse drug reactions, ADRs) caused by fenofibrate. Methods The cases of ADRs caused by fenofibrate were collected and analyzed from Pubmed (1978 - August 2009), CNKI (1980 - August 2009) and CBMDise (1980 - August 2009). Results Fenofibrate-induced ADRs were mostly seen in patients over 40 years old, but which was independent for sex. Totally, 64 ADRs were involved in the skeletal musculature system, digestive system, urinogenital system, and allergic response. The prognosis was favorable. Conclusion More attention should be given to patients with fenofibrate and ADRs should be treated as soon as possibile.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab combined with STUPP regimen for newly diagnosed glioblastoma.MethodsPubMed, EMbase, the Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bevacizumab combined with STUPP regimen for newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients from inception to September 2017. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 6 RCTs involving 2 835 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: the bevacizumab combined with STUPP regimen group was superior to the control group on PFS (HR=0.69, 95%CI 0.62 to 0.77, P<0.000 01). But the adverse events rate at the three and above three levels was significantly higher than the control group (P<0.05).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that bevacizumab combined with STUPP regimen for newly diagnosed glioblastoma can significantly prolong the PFS. The treatment group performs not as well as the control group on adverse event rate. Due to the limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.
