简介：AbstractBackground:Since 2019, a novel coronavirus named 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has emerged worldwide. Apart from fever and respiratory complications, acute kidney injury has been observed in a few patients with coronavirus disease 2019. Furthermore, according to recent findings, the virus has been detected in urine. Angiotensin-converting enzyme II (ACE2) has been proposed to serve as the receptor for the entry of 2019-nCoV, which is the same as that for the severe acute respiratory syndrome. This study aimed to investigate the possible cause of kidney damage and the potential route of 2019-nCoV infection in the urinary system.Methods:We used both published kidney and bladder cell atlas data and new independent kidney single-cell RNA sequencing data generated in-house to evaluate ACE2 gene expression in all cell types in healthy kidneys and bladders. The Pearson correlation coefficients between ACE2 and all other genes were first generated. Then, genes with r values larger than 0.1 and P values smaller than 0.01 were deemed significant co-expression genes with ACE2.Results:Our results showed the enriched expression of ACE2 in all subtypes of proximal tubule (PT) cells of the kidney. ACE2 expression was found in 5.12%, 5.80%, and 14.38% of the proximal convoluted tubule cells, PT cells, and proximal straight tubule cells, respectively, in three published kidney cell atlas datasets. In addition, ACE2 expression was also confirmed in 12.05%, 6.80%, and 10.20% of cells of the proximal convoluted tubule, PT, and proximal straight tubule, respectively, in our own two healthy kidney samples. For the analysis of public data from three bladder samples, ACE2 expression was low but detectable in bladder epithelial cells. Only 0.25% and 1.28% of intermediate cells and umbrella cells, respectively, had ACE2 expression.Conclusion:This study has provided bioinformatics evidence of the potential route of 2019-nCoV infection in the urinary system.

简介：AbstractBackground:Generic drugs are bioequivalent to their brand-name counterparts; however, concerns still exist regarding the effectiveness and safety of generic drugs because of small sample sizes and short follow-up time in most studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term antihypertensive efficacy, cost-effectiveness and cardiovascular outcomes of generic drugs compared with brand-name drugs.Methods:In a multicenter, community-based study including 7955 hypertensive patients who were prospectively followed up for an average of 2.5 years, we used the propensity-score-matching method to match the patients using brand-name drugs to those using generic drugs in a ratio of 1:2, 2176 patients using brand-name drugs and 4352 patients using generic drugs.Results:There were no significant differences between generic drugs and brand-name drugs in blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy, BP control rate, and cardiovascular outcomes including coronary heart disease and stroke. The adjusted mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) of systolic BP (SBP)-lowering was -7.9 mmHg (95% CI, -9.9 to -5.9) in the brand-name drug group and -7.1 mmHg (95% CI, -9.1 to -5.1) in the generic drug group after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, number of antihypertensive drugs and traditionally cardiovascular risk factors. Among patients aged <60 years, brand-name drugs had a higher BP control rate (47% vs. 41%; P = 0.02) and a greater effect in lowering SBP compared with generic drugs, with the between-group difference of 1.5 mmHg (95% CI, 0.2-2.8; P = 0.03). BP control rate was higher in male patients using brand-name drugs compared with those using generic drugs (46% vs. 40%; P = 0.01). Generic drugs treatment yielded an average annual incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $315.4 per patient per mmHg decrease in SBP compared with brand-name drugs treatment.Conclusions:Our data suggested that generic drugs are suitable and cost-effective in improving hypertension management and facilitating public health benefits, especially in low- and middle-income areas.