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.     

血液系统恶性肿瘤患者化疗后合并中性粒细胞减少性肠炎的诊治研究

目的分析成人血液系统恶性肿瘤患者接受强烈化疗后中性粒细胞减少性肠炎（NE）的发生率、危险因素及预后情况。方法收集2004至2013年接受化疗的1804例血液系统恶性肿瘤患者，记录患者血常规、凝血检测和血液生化检测结果，并记录患者年龄、性别、原发病、既往化疗次数、既往化疗方案中是否使用阿糖胞苷、临床症状、肠壁厚度、中性粒细胞最低计数、中性粒细胞缺乏持续时间、NE的治疗方法和预后等，探讨NE起病诱因、临床特征、腹部B超特点、症状的预后意义及化疗药物对发病的影响等。结果1804例患者中226例（12.5%）化疗后合并NE，化疗后10~19d起病，中位起病时间为化疗后第14天。发生NE后26例患者死亡，病死率11.5%。化疗药物包括阿糖胞苷、临床症状≥4项、中性粒细胞缺乏持续超过7d以及B超下肠壁厚度≥10mm的患者病死率相对较高。结论NE是接受强烈化疗的血液系统肿瘤患者的严重的并发症，发生NE后患者病死率较高。     

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.