Traditional therapies are crucial in maintaining and improving human well-being. China’s healthcare policymakers are attempting to use health technology assessment (HTA) as a decision-making supportive tool. The value assessment framework for Chinese patent medicine (CPM) has been developed and is being adopted and validated widely by research institutions. Subsequently, the healthcare decision-makers particularly hanker for the value framework of traditional non-pharmacological therapies.

To construct a practical value framework for traditional non-pharmacological therapies, a scoping review methodology was adopted to identify the evaluation domains and obstacles. A search, screening, and analysis process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Evidence was retrieved from scientific databases and HTA agencies’ websites.

The search strategy identified 5 guidelines records and 17 acupuncture HTA reports. By synthesizing the valuable reports of CPM and acupuncture evaluation in representative countries, this study found that Mainland China was promoting the comprehensive value assessment of CPM, whereas the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, the United States, and Malaysia had carried out the HTA evaluation of acupuncture for various conditions among which chronic pain was the most common. UK and Singapore applied the HTA results to support acupuncture reimbursement decisions. Three domains, including safety, effectiveness, and economy, were commonly adopted. The identified biggest challenge of evaluating traditional non-pharmacological therapies is the scarce high-quality clinical evidence.

This study identified value domains and issues of traditional therapies, and pointed out future research implications, to promote the development value framework of traditional therapies.

Schizophrenia is a complex mental disorder with a chronic course. The atypical antipsychotics represented by lurasidone are commonly used in chronic schizophrenia, and its mechanism of action determines the superiority of efficacy and safety. However so far, there are still some adverse reactions, of which the more significant are lethargy, nausea, and sedentary inability. In view of these situations, we will combine nutrition intervention with the use of lurasidone to eliminate adverse reactions and provide help for the formulation of treatment plans.

The study will be based on whether to add nutrition intervention as a difference set up control experiment, the experimental group using lurasidone combined nutrition intervention, the control group using lurasidone single factor intervention. The patients who received treatment in the psychiatric department of our hospital from March 2021 to March 2022 were selected as the research objects, and the efficacy and adverse reactions of the patients were monitored during the treatment. The efficacy will be judged by the medical scale of symptom severity of patients with schizophrenia (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, PANSS) and the monitoring data will be statistically analyzed by SPSS.

With the treatment, the results of the Experimental group and the control group are shown in Table 1. The PANSS scores of the two groups finally reached a range of 30-40, with a difference of 4. The incidence of nausea, lethargy and sedentary disorder in adverse symptoms was higher in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). It shows that nutritional intervention cannot affect the efficacy of psychosis itself, yet can alleviate the adverse symptoms after medication.Table 1.

Efficacy and adverse reactions of the two groups

The group of schizophrenics is not limited to a certain age. Therefore, adverse symptoms caused by psychotropic drugs need to be considered in the practice. Symptoms in the course of the patient’s disease can be used as a treatment optimization path. Although the nutrition intervention strategy has no direct impact on the indicators of mental illness, the prevention of adverse symptoms during treatment can improve the actual experience of patients. In the future, the nutrition strategy will be adaptively optimized to improve the rehabilitation effect of chronic schizophrenia.

The research is supported by: Key Discipline of Nutrition and Food Hygiene of Changsha Medical university Quality Engineering Construction Project+2016; Study on Intervention Effect of Mindfulness Acceptance Stress Project on Nurses Aid to COVID-19+Outstanding Youth Project of Scientific Research of Hunan Education Department +2020(264)20B070.

The safety and effectiveness of intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) in comparison to intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) for the treatment of ischemic stroke is uncertain. Our study aims to assess and compare IAT to IVT for clinically relevant outcomes in patients with occlusion of the anterior cerebral circulation.

Patients with acute ischemic stroke were enrolled for either treatment; those whose symptoms occurred within 4.5 hrs after stroke were treated with IVT, whereas those who presented <4.5 hrs but had contraindications to IVT or presented between 4.5 and 6 hrs were treated with IAT. Evaluated endpoints included: disability at 90 days as measured by the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), incidence of mortality, and incidence of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage.

78 patients with anterior cerebral circulation occlusion were included in the study (55 in IVT, 23 in IAT). After 90 days, 82.6% patients treated with IAT reached independence in comparison to 56.4% in the IVT group (P=0.028, RR=2.66, 95% CI: 1.10-7.04). The incidence of all intracranial haemorrhages in the IAT and IVT groups respectively were 30.4% and 12.7% (P=0.103, RR=2.391, 95% CI: 0.946-6.047); symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 8.7% and 9.1% of patients (P=1.00, RR= 0.957, 95% CI: 0.200-4.579), and mortality in 8.7% and 16.4% (P=0.492, RR=1.882, 95% CI: 0.440-8.045).

Results suggest that IAT is more effective than IVT in allowing patients to achieve independence. While inconclusive, the safety of IAT within 6 hrs is comparable to IVT within 4.5 hrs.