Search

Great deviations in building energy consumption simulation are attributed to the simplified settings of occupants' air conditioning (AC) usage schedules. This study was designed to develop a method to quantify the uncertainty and randomness of AC usage behavior and incorporate the model into simulations, in order to improve the prediction performance of AC energy consumption. Based on long-term onsite monitoring of household thermal environments and AC usage patterns, two stochastic models were built using unsupervised cluster and statistical methods. Based on the Monte Carlo method, the AC operation schedule was generated through AC opening duration, setpoints, and other relevant parameters, and was further incorporated into EnergyPlus. The results show that the ideally deterministic AC operation settings from the standard significantly overestimate the cooling energy consumption, where the value based on the fixed mode was 6.35 times higher. The distribution of daily AC energy consumption based on the stochastic modeling was highly consistent with the actual situation, thanks to the accurate prediction of the randomness and dynamics of residents' AC usage patterns. The total cooling energy consumption based on two stochastic models was found to be much closer to the actual values. The work proposes a method of embedding stochastic AC usage models to EnergyPlus 22.1 benefits for an improvement in building energy consumption simulation and the energy efficiency evaluation regarding occupant behavior in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biological targeted therapy serves as a new alternative treatment for psoriasis due to its minimal side effects. This study is aimed at examining the drug effectiveness and safety of risankizumab and ustekinumab for psoriasis treatment, so as to provide a reference for clinical decision-making. Databases from Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were gathered, starting from inception to March 1, 2022, for randomized controlled trials regarding risankizumab and ustekinumab for psoriasis treatment. All retrieved articles were carefully selected in strict accordance with a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Stata 15.0 and RevMan 5.4 were applied to perform meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment. A total of two trials with three NCTs were selected, with 384 participants in the risankizumab group and 140 participants in ustekinumab. Meta-analysis showed that in the long-term and short-term PASI100, risankizumab was more effective than ustekinumab (RR = 2.27, 95% CI (1.77, 2.90), p < 0.05; RR = 2.33, 95% CI (1.75, 3.08), p < 0.05). In PASI90, RR = 1.77, 95% CI (1.54, 2.03), and p < 0.05 and RR = 1.72, 95% CI (1.48, 2.00), and p < 0.05. In short-term PASI75, RR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.13, 1.34), and p < 0.05. In sPGA of 0, the results at week-16 and week-52 showed that risankizumab was significantly more effective than ustekinumab (RR = 2.24, 95% CI (1.67, 3.01), p < 0.05; RR = 2.30, 95% CI (1.80, 2.95), p < 0.05). Risankizumab was significantly more effective than ustekinumab in improving the quality of life and PSS scores (RR = 1.48, 95% CI (1.26, 1.75), p < 0.05; RR = 2.01, 95% CI (1.41, 2.85), p < 0.05). Nevertheless, risankizumab and ustekinumab did not show significant difference in the incidence of adverse responses (RR = 1.02, 95% CI (0.75, 1.39), p > 0.05). Risankizumab was more effective than ustekinumab for the treatment of psoriasis. The adverse reactions of both risankizumab and ustekinumab were similar and could be tolerated. Risankizumab might be a better alternative option for their treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple treatments of unresectable advanced or metastatic melanoma have been licensed in the adjuvant setting, causing tremendous interest in developing neoadjuvant strategies for melanoma. Eligible studies included those that compared overall survival/progression-free survival/grade 3 or 4 adverse events in patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic melanoma. Seven eligible randomized trials with nine publications were included in this study. Direct and network meta-analysis consistently indicated that nivolumab+ipilimumab, nivolumab, and trametinib could significantly improve overall survival and progression-free survival compared to ipilimumab in advanced melanoma patients. Compared to ipilimumab, nivolumab, dacarbazine, and ipilimumab+gp100 had a reduced risk of grade 3/4 adverse reactions. The nivolumab+ipilimumab combination had the highest risk of adverse events, followed by ipilimumab+dacarbazine and trametinib. Combination therapy was more beneficial to improve overall survival and progression-free survival than monotherapy in advanced melanoma treatment, albeit at the cost of increased toxicity. Regarding the overall survival/progression-free survival, ipilimumab+gp100 ranked below ipilimumab+dacarbazine and nivolumab+ipilimumab, although it had a smaller rate of grade 3 or 4 AEs than other treatments (except nivolumab). Nivolumab is the optimum adjuvant treatment for unresectable advanced or metastatic melanoma with a good risk-benefit profile. In order to choose the best therapy, clinicians must consider the efficacy, adverse events, and physical status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for psoriasis have continuously emerged. Their methods and evidence quality, however, are yet to be evaluated, and whether their conclusions can provide clinicians with reliable evidence is still debatable. Objectives: This overview aims to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of relevant SRs/MAs, as well as the current evidence of CHM for treating psoriasis. Methods: We searched nine electronic databases from their respective time of establishment to January 20, 2021, as well as the reference lists of the included SRs/MAs, protocol registries, and gray literature. Two reviewers independently used the following: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. Results: This review included 14 SRs/MAs involving 45 outcomes, of which 12 (85.71%) SRs/MAs had a very low quality evaluated by AMSTAR 2 and 7 (50.00%) SRs/MAs had a high risk of bias assessed by ROBIS. The protocol and registration and funding statements were the major reporting flaws according to the PRISMA checklist. The evaluation with the GRADE system demonstrated no outcome of high-quality evidence, and inconsistent efficacy evaluations were found in this overview. Only 15 (33.33%) outcomes were moderate-quality evidence, supporting the claim that CHM plus Western medicine (WM) was superior to WM. Generally low quality of evidence showed no difference in the incidence of adverse events between the combined therapy and WM. However, the conclusion that CHM was superior to WM cannot be drawn due to the inconsistent results. Conclusion: Despite that CHM has the potential benefit and safety in the adjuvant treatment of psoriasis, the conclusion should be treated with caution because of the generally low quality of methodology and evidence. In the future, high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should be carried out, and the quality of relevant SRs should also be improved to promote their clinical application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]