Background: Previous studies have shown that intraoperative hypothermia was associated with higher risks of clinical adverse events, but we found otherwise from recent evidences. This study aims to synthesize the existing evidence evaluating safety of intraoperative hypothermia.Methods: Articles, reviews, ongoing trials and grey literatures were retrieved from PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Clinical Trails and CNKI (a Chinese national database) till February 2nd, 2019. Both randomized controlled trials and observational studies compared incidences of all sorts of intra- and post-operative consequences between hypothermia and normothermia were included. Researches comparing different warming systems were excluded. We also examined risks of hypothermia using lowered standards (35.5 °C and 35 °C) from a Chinese trial (ChiCTR-IPR-17011099).Results: A total of 9 RCT studies and 11 observational studies were included. RCT-synthesized results showed that intraoperative hypothermia was associated with higher risks of bleeding (MD = 131.90, 95%CI: 117.42, 146.38), surgical site infection (RD = 0.14, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.21) and shivering (RD = 0.32, 95%CI: 0.06, 0.58) but with no significant differences in duration of surgery, hospital stay or mortality. Observational study-synthesized evidences showed that intraoperative hypothermia did not result in higher risks in any of these adverse events. Results didn’t change even if the standard of hypothermia was lowered by 0.5–1.0 °C.Conclusions: The study indicates that the synthesized risks resulted by intra-operative hypothermia might be overestimated and the eligibility of 36 °C to define hypothermia is not sensitive enough. Given body-temperature protection has not been popularized in China, it is still critical to normalize the hypothermia prevention at this stage.

Background: Eravacycline is a novel, fully synthetic fluorocycline antibiotic for the treatment of adults with complicated intra-abdominal infections (cIAIs). However, the efficacy and safety of eravacycline compared with current clinically common antibiotics remain unknown.Objective: This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of eravacycline and other clinically common antibiotics in China, including tigecycline, meropenem, ertapenem, ceftazidime/avibactam+metronidazole, piperacillin/tazobactam, imipenem/cilastatin, and ceftriaxone+metronidazole, for the treatment of adults with cIAIs and to provide a reference for clinical choice.Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were electronically searched to collect clinical randomized controlled studies (RCTs) comparing different antibiotics in the treatment of patients with cIAIs from inception to June 1, 2021. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies.Results: A total of 4050 articles were initially retrieved, and 25 RCTs were included after screening, involving eight treatment therapies and 9372 patients. The results of network meta-analysis showed that in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the clinically evaluable (CE) population, and the microbiologically evaluable (ME) population, the clinical response rate of eravacycline was not significantly different from that of the other 7 therapies (P > 0.05). In terms of microbiological response rate, eravacycline was significantly better than tigecycline [tigecycline vs. eravacycline: RR = 0.82, 95%CI (0.65,0.99)], and there was no significant difference between the other 6 regimens and eravacycline (P > 0.05). In terms of safety, the incidence of serious adverse events, discontinuation rate, and all-cause mortality of eravacycline were not significantly different from those of the other 7 treatment therapies (P > 0.05).Conclusion: Based on the evidence generated by the current noninferiority clinical trial design, the efficacy and safety of eravacycline for the treatment of adults with cIAIs are not significantly different from those of the other 7 commonly used clinical antibiotics in China. In terms of microbiological response rate, eravacycline was significantly better than tigecycline. In view of the severe multidrug-resistant situation in China, existing drugs have difficulty meeting the needs of clinical treatment, and the new antibacterial drug eravacycline may be one of the preferred options for the treatment of cIAIs in adults.

The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of fruquintinib compared to regorafenib as third-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in China.A three-stat...

Our objective is to compare the cost-utility of icotinib and gefitinib for the second-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Model technology was applied to assess the data of randomized clinical trials and the direct medical costs from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Five-year quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSA) were performed. Our model suggested that the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.2 months in the icotinib group and 3.5 months in the gefitinib group while they were 4.6 months and 3.4 months, respectively, in the trials. The 5-year QALYs was 0.279 in the icotinib group and 0.269 in the gefitinib group, and the according medical costs were $10662.82 and $13127.57. The ICUR/QALY of icotinib versus gefitinib presented negative in this study. The most sensitive parameter to the ICUR was utility of PFS, ranging from $-1,259,991.25 to $-182,296.61; accordingly the icotinib treatment consistently represented a dominant cost-utility strategy. The icotinib strategy, as a second-line therapy for advanced NSCLC patients in China, is the preferred strategy relative to gefitinib because of the dominant cost-utility. In addition, icotinib shows a good curative effect and safety, resulting in a strong demand for the Chinese market.

Purpose: Historically, studies suggested that intraoperative hypothermia (IH) could result in significant resource consumption, but more recent studies have found the opposite. The purpose of this study is to estimate the value of active warming devices for IH prevention based on synthesized evidence. Methods: A cost-benefit analysis was conducted using the effect of active warming versus passive warming devices for intraoperative hypothermia from a meta-analysis. The item-based aggregated treatment cost approach was adopted to estimate the cost of each adverse event, which was then weighted to calculate the total cost of IH. Results: IH was associated with higher risks of bleeding, surgical site infection, and shivering compared with normothermia. The cost of one case of IH was $363.80, and the use of active warming devices might save $152.80. Extra investment in active warming (e.g., $291.00) might only be cost-beneficial when the minimum willingness-to-pay is $150.00. Conclusions: Synthesized evidence showed that the cost of IH might be overestimated. Furthermore, the value of using active warming devices remains uncertain because the willingness to pay may vary between decision-makers. As not enough awareness of hypothermia prevention in some countries, further research into the clinical use of active warming devices during major surgeries is warranted.