Predicting Severity in Hypertriglyceridemia-Induced Acute Pancreatitis: The Role of Neutrophils, Calcium, and Apolipoproteins.

BACKGROUND Hypertriglyceridemia-induced acute pancreatitis (HTG-AP), representing 10% of all acute pancreatitis cases, is characterized by younger onset age and more severe progression, often leading to higher ICU admission rates. This condition poses a significant challenge due to its rapid progression and the potential for severe complications, including multiple organ failure. HTG-AP is distinct from other forms of pancreatitis, such as those caused by cholelithiasis or alcohol, in terms of clinical presentation and outcomes. It's essential to identify early markers that can predict the severity of HTG-AP to improve patient management and outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS This study divided 127 HTG-AP patients into mild acute pancreatitis (MAP, n=71) and moderate-to-severe acute pancreatitis (MSAP/SAP, n=56) groups. Blood biological indicators within the first 24 hours of admission were analyzed. Risk factors for HTG-AP progression were determined using binary logistic regression and ROC curves. RESULTS Elevated levels of HCT, NLR, TBI, DBI, AST, Cre, and AMS were noted in the MSAP/SAP group, with lower levels of LYM, Na⁺, Ca²âº, ApoA, and ApoB compared to the MAP group (p<0.05). NEUT%, Ca²âº, ApoA, and ApoB were significantly linked with HTG-AP severity. Their combined ROC analysis yielded an area of 0.81, with a sensitivity of 61.8% and specificity of 90%. CONCLUSIONS NEUT%, Ca²âº, ApoA, and ApoB are significant risk factors for progressing to MSAP/SAP in HTG-AP. Their combined assessment provides a reliable predictive measure for early intervention in patients at risk of severe progression.

Use of suboptimal control arms in randomized clinical trials of investigational cancer drugs in China, 2016-2021: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: The use of suboptimal controls in randomized trials of new cancer drugs can produce potentially unreliable clinical efficacy results over the current standard of care and expose patients to substandard therapy. We aim to investigate the proportion of randomized trials of investigational cancer drugs that used a suboptimal control arm and the number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments in China. The association between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding statistical significance on the primary endpoint was also examined. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This observational study included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer drugs that were authorized by specific Chinese institutional review boards between 2016 and 2021, supporting investigational new drug applications of these drugs in China. The proportion of trials that used a suboptimal control arm and the total number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments were calculated. In a randomized trial for a specific condition, a comparator was deemed suboptimal if it was not recommended by clinical guidelines published in priori or if there existed a regimen with a higher level of recommendation for the indication. The final sample included 453 Phase II/III and Phase III randomized oncology trials. Overall, 60 trials (13.2%) adopted a suboptimal control arm. Among them, 58.3% (35/60) used comparators that were not recommended by a prior guideline for the indication. The cumulative number of trial participants at risk of exposure to suboptimal treatments totaled 18,610 by the end of 2021, contributing 15.1% to the total number of enrollees of all sampled RCTs in this study. After adjusting for the year of ethical approval, region of participant recruitment, line of therapy, and cancer site, second-line therapies (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.7, 95%CI [1.2, 5.9]), adjuvant therapies (aOR = 8.9, 95% CI [3.4, 23.1]), maintenance therapies (aOR = 5.2, 95% CI [1.6, 17.0]), and trials recruiting participants in China only (aOR = 4.1, 95% CI [2.1, 8.0]) were more likely to adopt a suboptimal control. For the 105 trials with publicly available results, no statistically significant difference was observed between the use of a suboptimal control and concluding positive on the primary endpoint (100.0% [12/12] versus 83.9% [78/93], p = 0.208). The main limitation of this study is its reliance on clinical guidelines that could vary across cancer types and time in assessing the quality of the control groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, over one-eighth of randomized trials of cancer drugs registered to apply for regulatory approval in China used a suboptimal comparator. Our results highlight the necessity to refine the design of randomized trials to generate optimal clinical evidence for new cancer therapies.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood. METHODS: We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis. RESULTS: We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

Overall survival benefits of cancer drugs in the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 2015-2021.

INTRODUCTION: We examined overall survival (OS) benefits for targeted cancer drugs recommended for List of Essential Medicines (EMLs) since 2015. We assessed consistency of decisions in 2019 and 2021 with more specific criteria: OS benefit >4 months and high scores on European Society for Medical Oncology-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). METHODS: We identified applications for cancer drug in WHO EMLs from 2015 to 2021. We extracted evidence of OS benefit documented in WHO Technical Report Series (TRS) and compared it to evidence from pivotal trial(s) documented in Food and Drug Administration-approved labels. We retrieved published ESMO-MCBS scores. We summarised availability and magnitude of OS benefit and ESMO-MCBS scores and assessed consistency of inclusion decisions against WHO criteria. RESULTS: 22/54 targeted cancer drug indications were recommended. Among them, 68.2% and 31.8% had OS benefit evidence documented in WHO-TRS and pivotal trials, respectively. Among those not recommended, 59.4% and 56.3% had OS benefit evidence documented in WHO-TRS and pivotal trials, respectively. Of 11 cancer drug indications recommended in 2019 and 2021, 54.5% and 9.1% had evidence of OS benefit >4 months in WHO-TRS and pivotal trials, respectively; 45.5% met ESMO-MCBS criteria. Ten targeted cancer drugs had more than one application for the same indications. Five of those were eventually recommended, including three without new evidence of OS benefit. Additional factors, such as reduced cost, and increased treatment options, seemed to be important factors in the selection. CONCLUSION: While WHO has defined approval criteria for cancer drugs EML, we identified areas where adherence of these criteria and communication of the EML approval decision-making processes can be improved.