Brand-Name Antidepressants Outperform Their Generic Counterparts in Preventing Hospitalization for Depression: The Real-World Evidence from Taiwan

BackgroundGeneric antidepressants are approved on the market based on evidence of bioequivalence to their brand-name versions. We aimed to assess whether generic antidepressants exert equal effectiveness as their brand-name counterparts for treating patients with depressive disorders.MethodsIn a nationwide, population-based cohort in Taiwan from 1997 through 2013, patients with a diagnosis of a depressive disorder aged between 18 and 65 years who were new users of antidepressant drugs were classified into either the brand-name group or the generic group. All patients were followed up until medication discontinuation or the end of the study period. We assessed the risk for hospitalization as a primary outcome and augmentation therapy, daily dose, medication discontinuation, or switching to another antidepressant as secondary outcomes.ResultsA total of 277 651 brand-name users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.2 years) and 270 583 generic users (35.8% male; mean age: 41.0 years) were divided into 10 different antidepressant groups (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, moclobemide, imipramine, and bupropion). We found that patients treated with the generic form of sertraline, paroxetine, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and bupropion demonstrated significantly higher risks of psychiatric hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratios ranged from 1.20–2.34), compared to their brand-name counterparts. The differences between brand-name antidepressants and their generic counterparts in secondary outcomes varied across different drugs.ConclusionsCompared to most generic antidepressants, brand-name drugs exhibited more protective effects on psychiatric hospitalization for depressive patients. These findings could serve as an important reference for clinicians when encountering patients with depressive disorder.     

A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

Coronary Artery Lumen Segmentation Using Location–Adaptive Threshold in Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: A Proof-of-Concept

ObjectiveTo compare the lumen parameters measured by the location-adaptive threshold method (LATM), in which the inter- and intra-scan attenuation variabilities of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) were corrected, and the scan-adaptive threshold method (SATM), in which only the inter-scan variability was corrected, with the reference standard measurement by intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS).Materials and MethodsThe Hounsfield unit (HU) values of whole voxels and the centerline in each of the cross-sections of the 22 target coronary artery segments were obtained from 15 patients between March 2009 and June 2010, in addition to the corresponding voxel size. Lumen volume was calculated mathematically as the voxel volume multiplied by the number of voxels with HU within a given range, defined as the lumen for each method, and compared with the IVUS-derived reference standard. Subgroup analysis of the lumen area was performed to investigate the effect of lumen size on the studied methods. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between the measurements.ResultsLumen volumes measured by SATM was significantly smaller than that measured by IVUS (mean difference, 14.6 mm³; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9–24.3 mm³); the lumen volumes measured by LATM and IVUS were not significantly different (mean difference, −0.7 mm³; 95% CI, −9.1–7.7 mm³). The lumen area measured by SATM was significantly smaller than that measured by LATM in the smaller lumen area group (mean of difference, 1.07 mm²; 95% CI, 0.89–1.25 mm²) but not in the larger lumen area group (mean of difference, −0.07 mm²; 95% CI, −0.22–0.08 mm²). In the smaller lumen group, the mean difference was lower in the Bland-Altman plot of IVUS and LATM (0.46 mm²; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65 mm²) than in that of IVUS and SATM (1.53 mm²; 95% CI, 1.27–1.79 mm²).ConclusionSATM underestimated the lumen parameters for computed lumen segmentation in CCTA, and this may be overcome by using LATM.     

Utilization and Complications of Central Venous Access Devices in Oncology Patients

Purpose: To describe how central venous access devices (CVADs) are utilized for ambulatory oncology patients and to evaluate the rate of complications. Method: Single institution retrospective study of oncology patients with CVADs who received systemic treatment at the Walker Family Cancer Centre (WFCC) between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Results: A total of 480 CVADS were placed in 305 patients, of which 408 (85%) were peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and 72 (15%) were implanted vascular access devices (PORTs). The incidence of early and late complications was 9% and 24%, respectively. For the entire cohort, the rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 16%, of which 9% were CVAD-related thrombosis (CRTs) and 7% were distant VTE. The CRT rates were similar for PICCs and PORTs (9% vs. 7%). A total of 6% of CVADs were complicated by infection (i.e., localized infections and bacteremia), with a total infection rate of 0.43 and 0.26 per 1000 indwelling days for PICCs and PORTs, respectively. The incidence of central line associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) was greater for PICCs than PORTs, at a rate of 0.22 compared with 0.08 per 1000 indwelling days, respectively. The premature catheter removal rate was 26% for PICCs and 18% for PORTs. PORTs required more additional hospital visits. Conclusions: PICCs were utilized more frequently than PORTs and had a higher rate of premature removal. The rates of VTE and CRT were similar for both CVAD types. PORTs had a lower rate of infection per 1000 indwelling days. However, the management of PORT related complications required more visits to the hospital and oncology clinic.