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.     

米非司酮联合宫瘤消胶囊对子宫肌瘤治疗效果

目的分析米非司酮和宫瘤消胶囊的联合应用对子宫肌瘤的临床治疗效果。方法本研究对象为80例子宫肌瘤患者,收治时间均在2017年3月—2018年3月期间。将上述子宫肌瘤患者随机分成两组,各40例。给予对照组患者口服米非司酮进行治疗,研究组患者在上述治疗的基础上增加宫瘤消胶囊口服治疗,记录2组患者治疗效果,性激素水平及子宫体积及肿瘤体积变化。结果(1)研究组患者的总体有效率显著高于对照组;(2)研究组患者的P、E2、LH及FSH均显著低于对照组;(3)研究组患者子宫体积及肿瘤体积均显著低于对照组。结论米非司酮片和宫瘤消胶囊的联合治疗对子宫肌瘤患者的治疗效果较显著。     

新型四腔水箱在腹外科腔镜电凝线清洗消毒中的应用研究

摘要〓目的〓研究四腔水箱在腹外科腔镜电凝线擦拭法清洗消毒中的应用效果。方法〓通过目测法和ATP生物荧光法,对本研究的四腔水箱用于腹外科腔镜电凝线的清洗效果进行评价。结果〓传统治疗碗清洗的206件腔镜电凝线清洗质量合格率为86.4%,四腔水箱清洗的206件腹腔镜电凝线清洗质量合格率为94.6%,差异有统计学意义（P＜0.01）。用四腔水箱清洗腔镜电凝线擦拭过程中的护理人员满意度较高。结论〓四腔水箱可提高腹外科腔镜电凝线清洗质量和护理人员满意度。