Pub Date : 2022-06-28DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170404
Olivia Guerra
{"title":"Community Treatment Orders in Canada: A Historical Overview","authors":"Olivia Guerra","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170404","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170404","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74238218","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-28DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170406
Jazmin C. Scott
{"title":"Is Everything Going to Be All Right? My Journey to Healing After Childbirth","authors":"Jazmin C. Scott","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170406","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82421519","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-28DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170401
Janet J. Baek, Earth Hasassri
{"title":"Ketamine for Adolescent Depression: An Overview and Considerations for Future Directions","authors":"Janet J. Baek, Earth Hasassri","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170401","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"349 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79720211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-28DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170402
Andrew G. Pliszka
{"title":"Modafinil: A Review and Its Potential Use in the Treatment of Long COVID Fatigue and Neurocognitive Deficits","authors":"Andrew G. Pliszka","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170402","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2022.170402","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79364900","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.21090876
A. Mosholder, Yong Ma, Sandia Akhtar, G. Podskalny, Yuhui Feng, Hai Lyu, Jiemin Liao, Yuqin Wei, M. Wernecke, Kira Leishear, Lorene M Nelson, T. MaCurdy, J. Kelman, D. Graham
OBJECTIVE Pimavanserin, a serotonin 5-HT2 antagonist, is indicated for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. In premarketing trials in patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis, 11% of patients died during open-label pimavanserin treatment. Antipsychotics, which are used off-label in Parkinson's disease psychosis, increase mortality in dementia patients. The authors compared mortality with pimavanserin and atypical antipsychotics in a large database. METHODS This was a retrospective new-user cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with Parkinson's disease initiating pimavanserin (N=3,227) or atypical antipsychotics (N=18,442) from April 2016 to March 2019. All-cause mortality hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for pimavanserin compared with atypical antipsychotics, using segmented proportional hazards regression over 1-180 and 181+ days of treatment. Potential confounding was addressed through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). RESULTS Pimavanserin users had a mean age of approximately 78 years, and 45% were female. Before IPTW, some comorbidities were more prevalent in atypical antipsychotic users; after IPTW, comorbidities were well balanced between groups. In the first 180 days of treatment, mortality was approximately 35% lower with pimavanserin than with atypical antipsychotics (hazard ratio=0.65, 95% CI=0.53, 0.79), with approximately one excess death per 30 atypical antipsychotic-treated patients; however, during treatment beyond 180 days, there was no additional mortality advantage with pimavanserin (hazard ratio=1.05, 95% CI=0.82, 1.33). Pimavanserin showed no mortality advantage in nursing home patients. CONCLUSIONS Pimavanserin use was associated with lower mortality than atypical antipsychotic use during the first 180 days of treatment, but only in community-dwelling patients, not nursing home residents.
{"title":"Mortality Among Parkinson's Disease Patients Treated With Pimavanserin or Atypical Antipsychotics: An Observational Study in Medicare Beneficiaries.","authors":"A. Mosholder, Yong Ma, Sandia Akhtar, G. Podskalny, Yuhui Feng, Hai Lyu, Jiemin Liao, Yuqin Wei, M. Wernecke, Kira Leishear, Lorene M Nelson, T. MaCurdy, J. Kelman, D. Graham","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp.21090876","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.21090876","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\u0000Pimavanserin, a serotonin 5-HT2 antagonist, is indicated for treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. In premarketing trials in patients with Parkinson's disease psychosis, 11% of patients died during open-label pimavanserin treatment. Antipsychotics, which are used off-label in Parkinson's disease psychosis, increase mortality in dementia patients. The authors compared mortality with pimavanserin and atypical antipsychotics in a large database.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHODS\u0000This was a retrospective new-user cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with Parkinson's disease initiating pimavanserin (N=3,227) or atypical antipsychotics (N=18,442) from April 2016 to March 2019. All-cause mortality hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were estimated for pimavanserin compared with atypical antipsychotics, using segmented proportional hazards regression over 1-180 and 181+ days of treatment. Potential confounding was addressed through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000Pimavanserin users had a mean age of approximately 78 years, and 45% were female. Before IPTW, some comorbidities were more prevalent in atypical antipsychotic users; after IPTW, comorbidities were well balanced between groups. In the first 180 days of treatment, mortality was approximately 35% lower with pimavanserin than with atypical antipsychotics (hazard ratio=0.65, 95% CI=0.53, 0.79), with approximately one excess death per 30 atypical antipsychotic-treated patients; however, during treatment beyond 180 days, there was no additional mortality advantage with pimavanserin (hazard ratio=1.05, 95% CI=0.82, 1.33). Pimavanserin showed no mortality advantage in nursing home patients.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSIONS\u0000Pimavanserin use was associated with lower mortality than atypical antipsychotic use during the first 180 days of treatment, but only in community-dwelling patients, not nursing home residents.","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"169 1","pages":"appiajp21090876"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73053434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.21090964
D. Jutras-Aswad, B. Le Foll, K. Ahamad, Ronald Lim, J. Bruneau, Benedikt Fischer, Jürgen Rehm, T. Wild, Evan Wood, S. Brissette, Lea Gagnon, Jill Fikowski, Omar Ledjiar, Benoît Mâsse, M. Socías
OBJECTIVE Extensive exposure to prescription-type opioids has resulted in major harm worldwide, calling for better-adapted approaches to opioid agonist therapy. The authors aimed to determine whether flexible take-home buprenorphine/naloxone is as effective as supervised methadone in reducing opioid use in prescription-type opioid consumers with opioid use disorder. METHODS This seven-site, pan-Canadian, 24-week, pragmatic, open-label, noninferiority, two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial involved treatment-seeking adults with prescription-type opioid use disorder. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (target dosage, 8 mg/2 mg to 24 mg/6 mg per day; flexible take-home dosing) or oral methadone (≈60-120 mg/day; closely supervised). The primary outcome was the proportion of opioid-free urine drug screens over 24 weeks (noninferiority margin, 15%). All randomized participants were analyzed, excluding one who died shortly after randomization, for the primary analysis (modified intention-to-treat analysis). RESULTS Of 272 participants recruited (mean age, 39 years [SD=11]; 34.2% female), 138 were randomized to buprenorphine/naloxone and 134 to methadone. The mean proportion of opioid-free urine drug screens was 24.0% (SD=34.4) in the buprenorphine/naloxone group and 18.5% (SD=30.5) in the methadone group, with a 5.6% adjusted mean difference (95% CI=-0.3, +∞). Participants in the buprenorphine/naloxone group had 0.47 times the odds (95% CI=0.24, 0.90) of being retained in the assigned treatment compared with those in the methadone group. Overall, 24 drug-related adverse events were reported (12 in the buprenorphine/naloxone group [N=8/138; 5.7%] and 12 in the methadone group [N=12/134; 9.0%]) and mostly included withdrawal, hypogonadism, and overdose. CONCLUSIONS The buprenorphine/naloxone flexible model of care was safe and noninferior to methadone in reducing opioid use among people with prescription-type opioid use disorder. This flexibility could help expand access to opioid agonist therapy and reduce harms in the context of the opioid overdose crisis.
{"title":"Flexible Buprenorphine/Naloxone Model of Care for Reducing Opioid Use in Individuals With Prescription-Type Opioid Use Disorder: An Open-Label, Pragmatic, Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"D. Jutras-Aswad, B. Le Foll, K. Ahamad, Ronald Lim, J. Bruneau, Benedikt Fischer, Jürgen Rehm, T. Wild, Evan Wood, S. Brissette, Lea Gagnon, Jill Fikowski, Omar Ledjiar, Benoît Mâsse, M. Socías","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp.21090964","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.21090964","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\u0000Extensive exposure to prescription-type opioids has resulted in major harm worldwide, calling for better-adapted approaches to opioid agonist therapy. The authors aimed to determine whether flexible take-home buprenorphine/naloxone is as effective as supervised methadone in reducing opioid use in prescription-type opioid consumers with opioid use disorder.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHODS\u0000This seven-site, pan-Canadian, 24-week, pragmatic, open-label, noninferiority, two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial involved treatment-seeking adults with prescription-type opioid use disorder. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (target dosage, 8 mg/2 mg to 24 mg/6 mg per day; flexible take-home dosing) or oral methadone (≈60-120 mg/day; closely supervised). The primary outcome was the proportion of opioid-free urine drug screens over 24 weeks (noninferiority margin, 15%). All randomized participants were analyzed, excluding one who died shortly after randomization, for the primary analysis (modified intention-to-treat analysis).\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000Of 272 participants recruited (mean age, 39 years [SD=11]; 34.2% female), 138 were randomized to buprenorphine/naloxone and 134 to methadone. The mean proportion of opioid-free urine drug screens was 24.0% (SD=34.4) in the buprenorphine/naloxone group and 18.5% (SD=30.5) in the methadone group, with a 5.6% adjusted mean difference (95% CI=-0.3, +∞). Participants in the buprenorphine/naloxone group had 0.47 times the odds (95% CI=0.24, 0.90) of being retained in the assigned treatment compared with those in the methadone group. Overall, 24 drug-related adverse events were reported (12 in the buprenorphine/naloxone group [N=8/138; 5.7%] and 12 in the methadone group [N=12/134; 9.0%]) and mostly included withdrawal, hypogonadism, and overdose.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSIONS\u0000The buprenorphine/naloxone flexible model of care was safe and noninferior to methadone in reducing opioid use among people with prescription-type opioid use disorder. This flexibility could help expand access to opioid agonist therapy and reduce harms in the context of the opioid overdose crisis.","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"appiajp21090964"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80178668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.21070721
D. Hasin, D. Shmulewitz, Malka Stohl, E. Greenstein, E. Aharonovich, K. Petronis, M. Von Korff, S. Datta, N. Sonty, Stephen Ross, C. Inturrisi, Michael L Weinberger, Jennifer Scodes, M. Wall
OBJECTIVE The diagnostic criteria for opioid use disorder, originally developed for heroin, did not anticipate the surge in prescription opioid use and the resulting complexities in diagnosing prescription opioid use disorder (POUD), including differentiation of pain relief (therapeutic intent) from more common drug use motives, such as to get high or to cope with negative affect. The authors examined the validity of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 opioid version, an instrument designed to make this differentiation. METHODS Patients (N=606) from pain clinics and inpatient substance treatment who ever received a ≥30-day opioid prescription for chronic pain were evaluated for DSM-5 POUD (i.e., withdrawal and tolerance were not considered positive if patients used opioids only as prescribed, per DSM-5 guidelines) and pain-adjusted POUD (behavioral/subjective criteria were not considered positive if pain relief [therapeutic intent] was the sole motive). Bivariate correlated-outcome regression models indicated associations of 10 validators with DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD measures, using mean ratios for dimensional measures and odds ratios for binary measures. RESULTS The prevalences of DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD, respectively, were 44.4% and 30.4% at the ≥2-criteria threshold and 29.5% and 25.3% at the ≥4-criteria threshold. Pain adjustment had little effect on prevalence among substance treatment patients but resulted in substantially lower prevalence among pain treatment patients. All validators had significantly stronger associations with pain-adjusted than with DSM-5 dimensional POUD measures (ratios of mean ratios, 1.22-2.31). For most validators, pain-adjusted binary POUD had larger odds ratios than DSM-5 measures. CONCLUSIONS Adapting POUD measures for pain relief (therapeutic intent) improved validity. Studies should investigate the clinical utility of differentiating between therapeutic and nontherapeutic intent in evaluating POUD diagnostic criteria.
{"title":"Diagnosing Prescription Opioid Use Disorder in Patients Using Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Pain.","authors":"D. Hasin, D. Shmulewitz, Malka Stohl, E. Greenstein, E. Aharonovich, K. Petronis, M. Von Korff, S. Datta, N. Sonty, Stephen Ross, C. Inturrisi, Michael L Weinberger, Jennifer Scodes, M. Wall","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp.21070721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.21070721","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE\u0000The diagnostic criteria for opioid use disorder, originally developed for heroin, did not anticipate the surge in prescription opioid use and the resulting complexities in diagnosing prescription opioid use disorder (POUD), including differentiation of pain relief (therapeutic intent) from more common drug use motives, such as to get high or to cope with negative affect. The authors examined the validity of the Psychiatric Research Interview for Substance and Mental Disorders, DSM-5 opioid version, an instrument designed to make this differentiation.\u0000\u0000\u0000METHODS\u0000Patients (N=606) from pain clinics and inpatient substance treatment who ever received a ≥30-day opioid prescription for chronic pain were evaluated for DSM-5 POUD (i.e., withdrawal and tolerance were not considered positive if patients used opioids only as prescribed, per DSM-5 guidelines) and pain-adjusted POUD (behavioral/subjective criteria were not considered positive if pain relief [therapeutic intent] was the sole motive). Bivariate correlated-outcome regression models indicated associations of 10 validators with DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD measures, using mean ratios for dimensional measures and odds ratios for binary measures.\u0000\u0000\u0000RESULTS\u0000The prevalences of DSM-5 and pain-adjusted POUD, respectively, were 44.4% and 30.4% at the ≥2-criteria threshold and 29.5% and 25.3% at the ≥4-criteria threshold. Pain adjustment had little effect on prevalence among substance treatment patients but resulted in substantially lower prevalence among pain treatment patients. All validators had significantly stronger associations with pain-adjusted than with DSM-5 dimensional POUD measures (ratios of mean ratios, 1.22-2.31). For most validators, pain-adjusted binary POUD had larger odds ratios than DSM-5 measures.\u0000\u0000\u0000CONCLUSIONS\u0000Adapting POUD measures for pain relief (therapeutic intent) improved validity. Studies should investigate the clinical utility of differentiating between therapeutic and nontherapeutic intent in evaluating POUD diagnostic criteria.","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"43 1","pages":"appiajp21070721"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73407194","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.21100972
C. Barksdale, E. Pérez-Stable, Joshua A. Gordon
Disparities in mental health have persisted or worsened despite our awareness of their existence, increased understanding of their causes, and efforts at reduction and mitigation. Although much is known, there is still much to be done in mental health research to meaningfully impact disparities. In November 2020, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) co-sponsored a virtual workshop to explore the complexities of mental health disparities, which revealed several gaps and opportunities for the field to pursue to advance mental health disparities research. This article, the introduction to a Special Issue on Mental Health Disparities, provides a frame for four articles that stem from and are inspired by the virtual NIMH/NIMHD workshop, all of which illustrate innovative research on understanding the complex mechanisms of disparities and how this knowledge can be translated into effective intervention development that advances mental health equity.
{"title":"Innovative Directions to Advance Mental Health Disparities Research.","authors":"C. Barksdale, E. Pérez-Stable, Joshua A. Gordon","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp.21100972","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.21100972","url":null,"abstract":"Disparities in mental health have persisted or worsened despite our awareness of their existence, increased understanding of their causes, and efforts at reduction and mitigation. Although much is known, there is still much to be done in mental health research to meaningfully impact disparities. In November 2020, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and the National Institute of Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) co-sponsored a virtual workshop to explore the complexities of mental health disparities, which revealed several gaps and opportunities for the field to pursue to advance mental health disparities research. This article, the introduction to a Special Issue on Mental Health Disparities, provides a frame for four articles that stem from and are inspired by the virtual NIMH/NIMHD workshop, all of which illustrate innovative research on understanding the complex mechanisms of disparities and how this knowledge can be translated into effective intervention development that advances mental health equity.","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"2011 1","pages":"397-401"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73947203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-01DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.20220291
C. Barksdale
{"title":"Mental Health Disparities Research: An Introduction to New Directions.","authors":"C. Barksdale","doi":"10.1176/appi.ajp.20220291","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.20220291","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":74938,"journal":{"name":"The American journal of psychiatry residents' journal","volume":"43 1","pages":"396"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74436215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：