[Research on the legal regulation of experimental medicine in China].

The increasing number of clinical trials of new drugs in China has brought huge benefits to the society, but also implied huge risks. This is particularly evident in experimental medicine. Germany has achieved good results in regulating experimental medical behaviors through the model of legislative norms. China should learn from Germany's beneficial experience to promote the orderly development of experimental medical behavior in China. Specifically, the crime of illegal human experiment should be added to the criminal law; Adopt special legislation model to regulate experimental medical behavior; Establish a no fault medical liability system to share experimental medical risks;Absorb and learn from the relevant norms of the international community on human experiment.

[Comparison of efficacy between sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and analyze prognostic factors for survival].

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and drug related adverse reactions of sorafenib and sunitinib as first-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) and analyze the clinical prognostic factor for survival. Methods: The data of 271 patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma who had complete clinicopathological data were retrospectively analyzed, including 174 cases in sorafenib group and 97 cases in sunitinib group, to access patients' overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Prognostic values of all characteristics were determined by using univariate and multivariate Cox regression models. Results: The objective response rates (ORR) of the sorafenib and sunitinib groups were 14.9% and 19.6%, respectively, and the disease control rates (DCR) were 85.1% and 88.6%, respectively. No significant difference was found between the sorafenib and sunitinib group in ORR (P=0.325) or DCR (P=0.408). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events in the sorafenib group were hand-foot syndrome (6.7%), diarrhea (2.3%), and rash (2.3%). The most common grade 3 to 4 adverse events in the sunitinib group were neutropenia (6.2%), hand-foot syndrome (6.2%), and thrombocytopenia (4.6%). During the follow-up, 97 cases death occurred and 81 cases disease progression occurred in sorafenib group. The median PFS was 12 months (95% CI: 9-15 months), and the median OS was 25 months (95% CI: 21-29 months) in sorafenib group. While 74 cases death occurred and 40 cases disease progression occurred in sunitinib group, the median PFS was 12 months (95% CI: 10-12 months) and the median OS was 23 months (95% CI: 20-32 months) in sunitinib group. No significant difference was found between the sorafenib and the sunitinib group in PFS (P=0.771) or OS (P=0.548). Multivariate analysis showed Fuhrman grades (HR=1.358, 95%CI: 1.004-1.835), number of metastatic sites (HR=1.550, 95%CI: 1.143-2.101) and MSKCC risk grade (Intermediate risk group: HR=1.621, 95%CI: 1.117-2.232; Poor risk group: HR=2.890, 95%CI: 1.942-4.298) were independent prognostic factors for PFS. Fuhrman grades (HR=2.135, 95%CI: 1.533-2.974), number of metastatic sites (HR=1.774, 95%CI: 1.279-2.461) and MSKCC risk grade (Intermediate risk group: HR=1.415, 95%CI: 1.002-1.998; Poor risk group: HR=3.161, 95%CI: 2.065-4.838) were independent prognostic factors for OS. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that sorafenib and sunitinib are both effective as the first-line TKIs for mRCC patients and sorafenib has comparable efficacy to sunitinib. But they have differences in the incidence of adverse effects. Fuhrman grades, number of metastatic sites and MSKCC risk grade are independent prognostic factors for mRCC patients.

[Value of perineural invasion in prostatectomy specimen in the assessment on tumor progression and prognosis].

OBJECTIVE: To assess perineural invasion in prostatectomy specimen(PNIp)on tumor progression and prognosis after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: Retrospective analysis including 502 prostate cancer patients admitted in Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University from December 2002 to May 2014 was studied.Differences of serum prostate specific antigen(PSA), Gleason score of prostate biopsy, Gleason score of prostatectomy specimen, tumor stage, capsular invasion, positive surgical margin, seminal invasion, pelvic lymph node metastasis, nadir PSA were analyzed in patients with PNIp and without PNIp. Logistic regression analysis, Log-rank test and Cox regression analysis was used to analyzed the data, respectively. RESULTS: There were 91 patients with PNIp(18.1%) and 411 patients without PNIp(81.9%). Differences of serum PSA, Gleason score of prostate biopsy, Gleason score of prostatectomy specimen, tumor stage, capsular invasion, seminal invasion, nadir PSA between the two groups were found(all P<0.05). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, PNIp was independent predictor of Gleason score of prostate biopsy, Gleason score of prostatectomy specimen, tumor stage, capsular invasion(OR=1.515, 1.955, 2.069, 1.859, all P<0.05). One hundred and twenty-one patients with biochemical serum recurrence(26.7%). Serum PSA, Gleason score of prostate biopsy, Gleason score of prostatectomy specimen, tumor stage, PNIp, seminal invasion were related to biochemical serum recurrence(P<0.05). In the multivariable cox regression analysis, serum PSA, Gleason score of prostate biopsy, PNIp, seminal invasion were independent predictors of biochemical serum recurrence(HR=1.021, 1.441, 1.663, 3.257, all P<0.05). CONCLUSION: PNIp is the important predictor of the tumor progression and prognosis of prostate cancer.

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium Guidelines for HLA-B Genotype and Abacavir Dosing: 2014 update.

The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines for HLA-B Genotype and Abacavir Dosing were originally published in April 2012. We reviewed recent literature and concluded that none of the evidence would change the therapeutic recommendations in the original guideline; therefore, the original publication remains clinically current. However, we have updated the Supplementary Material online and included additional resources for applying CPIC guidelines to the electronic health record. Up-to-date information can be found at PharmGKB (http://www.pharmgkb.org).

Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guidelines for HLA-B genotype and abacavir dosing.

Human leukocyte antigen B (HLA-B) is responsible for presenting peptides to immune cells and plays a critical role in normal immune recognition of pathogens. A variant allele, HLA-B*57:01, is associated with increased risk of a hypersensitivity reaction to the anti-HIV drug abacavir. In the absence of genetic prescreening, hypersensitivity affects ~6% of patients and can be life-threatening with repeated dosing. We provide recommendations (updated periodically at http://www.pharmkgb.org) for the use of abacavir based on HLA-B genotype.

Efavirenz DuPont Pharmaceuticals Co.

Efavirenz is the lead compound of a series of benzoxazinones originally developed by DuPont Merck. It is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) under development for the potential treatment of viral infections, including HIV. In June 1998, the company submitted an NDA to the US FDA for the use of efavirenz (as Sustiva) for the treatment of HIV infection [289361]. In July 1998, DuPont purchased Merck's interest in DuPont Merck and the company's name changed to DuPont Pharmaceuticals. The two companies decided to continue to share marketing rights to Sustiva (to be marketed by Merck as Stocrin outside the US, Canada, and certain European countries) [291738]. As of October 1997, triple combination studies of efavirenz were ongoing, or planned, with nelfinavir, indinavir or ritonavir, or other retroviral inhibitors, for the treatment of opportunistic and pediatric viral infections [265945]. Efavirenz is also being evaluated as monotherapy and in combination with zidovudine (Retrovir, AZT) and lamivudine (Epivir, 3TC) (qv). Results of a study in eight HIV-infected patients, reported at the 12th World AIDS Conference in July 1998, showed that efavirenz administration, in dual and triple combinations, achieved HIV-RNA levels in plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) below the level of detection (fewer than 400 copies/ml) [290881,293994]. In March 1998, Merck signed a letter of intent with Trimeris to conduct a trial of efavirenz in combination with Trimeris's HIV fusion inhibitor, T-20, (qv). The trial will enroll up to 48 HIV-infected individuals at three sites in the US. All enrolled patients will be those who have begun to fail their existing triple combination therapy. Prior exposure to NNRTIs and protease inhibitors, other than indinavir, will be among the exclusion criteria for the study. The first 10 days of the study were planned as a dose-optimization period to assess the safety, pharmacokinetics and antiviral activity of multiple ascending doses of T-20. After completion of this period, subjects will be eligible to participate in an extension period of at least six months, during which T-20 will be administered in combination with efavirenz and two protease inhibitors [281696]. A 137-patient phase III study showed that efavirenz, in combination with zidovudine and lamivudine, caused significant reduction in viral levels and increased CD4 cell levels. The results were presented at the Sixth European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV Infection (Hamburg, Germany, October 1997) [265945]. At the Fourth Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, in January 1997, data were presented from a clinical trial of efavirenz in combination with indinavir, which showed that, in 82% of the patients, viral load was reduced to undetectable levels, as measured by the Amplicor assay [231410]. Further retrospective analysis showed that the viral load was a significant predictor of long-term (over 52 weeks) viral suppression [265945]. A double-blind, phase II pilot study of efavirenz showed significant activity in HIV-RNA suppression and CD4 cell recovery when evaluated for two weeks alone, and even better results when used in combination with indinavir (Crixivan, qv); 80% of patients achieved HIV-RNA below level of quantification and CD4 cell count elevation averaging 140 cells/mm3. The study evaluated 16 patients for 12 weeks and is ongoing [219671,227966]. A total of 21 patients received indinavir (800 mg, eight hourly) for two weeks, followed by combination therapy with efavirenz (200 mg, once daily). Another group of nine patients received indinavir alone for 26 weeks, followed by the addition of stavudine (Zerit) and efavirenz. In combination use, indinavir dosing was 1.0 g every eight hours. At 26 weeks, approximately 40% of the patients receiving indinavir alonehad plasma levels below 400 copies/ml of HIV-RNA. After stavudine and efavirenz were added, and following 16 weeks of the triple combination, 83% of the patients had plasma levels below 400 copies/ml [247754].

A 5-year retrospective review of adverse drug reactions and their risk factors in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients who were receiving intravenous pentamidine therapy for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.

The incidence and severity of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in human immunodeficiency virus-infected persons receiving intravenous pentamidine for Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia during a 5-year period were reviewed retrospectively. Predisposing risk factors for ADRs were identified. ADRs were included if they occurred during or within 1 week following the discontinuation of pentamidine treatment. Nephrotoxicity, dysglycemia, hepatotoxicity, hyperkalemia, and hyperamylasemia accounted for 80% of ADRs (n = 174) that occurred in 76 (71.7%) of 106 patients during 84 treatment courses of pentamidine. A significant relationship between hypoglycemia and nephrotoxicity was observed (P = .002). Four factors were significantly associated with occurrence of an ADR: number of concomitant medications (odds ratio [OR] = 1.36, P = .005), nonwhite ethnicity (OR = 5.00, P = .017), cumulative dosage of pentamidine (OR = 1.03, P = .030), and concurrent use of other nephrotoxic drugs (OR = 2.34, P = .047). Two factors, daily dosage and history of intravenous drug use, approached significance. Knowledge of and avoidance of potential risk factors might allow safer use of pentamidine and reduce the prevalence of ADRs.

Bioequivalence of generic and brand-name levothyroxine products in the treatment of hypothyroidism.

OBJECTIVE: To compare relative bioavailability of Synthroid, Levoxine (Levoxine has been renamed Levoxyl), and 2 generic levothyroxine sodium preparations. DESIGN: Single-blind (primary investigators blinded), randomized, 4-way crossover trial. SETTING: Ambulatory care. PATIENTS: Twenty-two women with hypothyroidism who were clinically and chemically euthyroid and were receiving levothyroxine sodium, 0.1 or 0.15 mg. INTERVENTIONS: All patients received each of the 4 levothyroxine products for 6-week periods in the same dosage as their prestudy regimen with no washout period. The order of the drug sequences was randomly determined before study initiation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Area under the curve, time to peak serum concentrations, and peak serum concentrations of thyroxine, triiodothyronine, and free thyroxine index for all 4 products. RESULTS: All data analyses were completed prior to unblinding of the product codes. No significant differences between the 4 products were found in area under the curve or peak serum concentrations of total thyroxine, total triiodothyronine, or free thyroxine index. Although Synthroid produced a more rapid rise in total serum triiodothyronine concentration and a higher total peak serum triiodothyronine concentration than the other products, these differences were not statistically significant (P=.08). The Food and Drug Administration criterion for relative bioequivalence within 90% confidence intervals (0.8-1.25) was demonstrated (P<.05) for all pairs of products. Relative bioequivalence of 0.95 to 1.07 was demonstrated, tighter than the current bioequivalence criterion for oral formulations. CONCLUSIONS: The 4 generic and brand-name levothyroxine preparations studied are different but are bioequivalent by current Food and Drug Administration criteria and are interchangeable in the majority of patients receiving thyroxine replacement therapy. Further investigation is required to determine whether our results are equally applicable to all existing levothyroxine preparations.