UNASSIGNED: Since the initial release of biosimilars 18 years ago, regulations for their licensing have changed considerably; however, there is no global consensus on these regulations. Establishing harmonized regulatory guidelines for the approval of biosimilars with support from the ICH, an independent, non-profit association under Swiss law, will significantly enhance the affordability of biological drugs.
UNASSIGNED: Regulatory guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and World Health Organization (WHO) were analyzed for historical changes and elements critical to the safety and efficacy of biosimilars.
UNASSIGNED: Analysis of all EMA and FDA filings show that none of the animal testing and clinical efficacy testing failed because animals do not have the required receptors to initiate pharmacologic responses, and efficacy studies cannot be statistically powered to conclude any results. New analytical technologies will enable good biosimilarity determination, avoiding both tests.
UNASSIGNED: Scientifically based ICH guidelines that remove redundant studies will reduce development costs, improve safety, and allow global drug distribution based on single compliance. These guidelines are particularly necessary for emerging countries lacking the expertise and resources to evaluate biosimilar filings.

Bioanalysis concerns the identification and quantification of analytes in various biological matrices. Validation of any analytical method helps to achieve reliable results that are necessary for proper decisions on drug dosing and patient safety. In the case of bioanalytical methods, validation additionally covers steps of pharmacokinetic and toxicological studies - such as sample collection, handling, shipment, storage, and preparation. We drew our attention to the difference of both the newest FDA Guidance and the EMA Guideline on bioanalytical method validation. We aimed to point out advantages of both documents from the laboratory perspective. The FDA and the EMA documents are similar, but not identical. The EMA describes the practical conduct of experiments more precisely, while the FDA presents reporting recommendations more comprehensively. There are also differences in recommended validation parameters. We hope that the International Council for Harmonisation will combine advantages of both documents to avoid confusing differences in terminology as well as the unnecessary effort of being compliant with two or more guidelines.

In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration updated the contraindications for the use of alteplase in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), potentially creating a greater impact on treatment. A history of intracranial hemorrhage and recent stroke within 3 months were removed as contraindications, increasing the number of patients eligible for alteplase. The aim of this commentary is to call attention to the updates and discuss them relative to current American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines. Additionally, we estimate the clinical impact of the updates by analyzing AIS admissions to a large-volume Comprehensive Stroke Center.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for follow-up of clinically localized renal neoplasms undergoing active surveillance, or following definitive therapy.
METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published articles in the English literature between January 1999 and 2011 relevant to key questions specified by the Panel related to kidney neoplasms and their follow-up (imaging, renal function, markers, biopsy, prognosis). Study designs consisting of clinical trials (randomized or not), observational studies (cohort, case-control, case series) and systematic reviews were included.
RESULTS: Guideline statements provided guidance for ongoing evaluation of renal function, usefulness of renal biopsy, timing/type of radiographic imaging and formulation of future research initiatives. A lack of studies precluded risk stratification beyond tumor staging; therefore, for the purposes of postoperative surveillance guidelines, patients with localized renal cancers were grouped into strata of low- and moderate- to high-risk for disease recurrence based on pathological tumor stage.
CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation for patients on active surveillance and following definitive therapy for renal neoplasms should include physical examination, renal function, serum studies and imaging and should be tailored according to recurrence risk, comorbidities and monitoring for treatment sequelae. Expert opinion determined a judicious course of monitoring/surveillance that may change in intensity as surgical/ablative therapies evolve, renal biopsy accuracy improves and more long-term follow-up data are collected. The beneficial impact of careful follow-up will also need critical evaluation as further study is completed.

OBJECTIVE: This Guideline is intended to provide a rational basis for the management of patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer based on currently available published data.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the published literature was conducted using controlled vocabulary supplemented with keywords relating to the relevant concepts of prostate cancer and castration resistance. The search strategy was developed and executed by reference librarians and methodologists to create an evidence report limited to English-language, published peer-reviewed literature. This review yielded 303 articles published from 1996 through 2013 that were used to form a majority of the guideline statements. Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions were used for guideline statements lacking sufficient evidence-based data.
RESULTS: Guideline statements were created to inform clinicians on the appropriate use of observation, androgen-deprivation and antiandrogen therapy, androgen synthesis inhibitors, immunotherapy, radionuclide therapy, systemic chemotherapy, palliative care and bone health. These were based on six index patients developed to represent the most common scenarios encountered in clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS: As a direct result of the significant increase in FDA-approved therapeutic agents for use in patients with metastatic CRPC, clinicians are challenged with a multitude of treatment options and potential sequencing of these agents that, consequently, make clinical decision-making more complex. Given the rapidly evolving nature of this field, this guideline should be used in conjunction with recent systematic literature reviews and an understanding of the individual patient\'s treatment goals. In all cases, patients\' preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing management strategies.

OBJECTIVE: The guideline purpose is to provide the urologist with a framework for the early detection of prostate cancer in asymptomatic average risk men.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and summarized evidence derived from over 300 studies that addressed the predefined outcomes of interest (prostate cancer incidence/mortality, quality of life, diagnostic accuracy and harms of testing). In addition to the quality of evidence, the panel considered values and preferences expressed in a clinical setting (patient-physician dyad) rather than having a public health perspective. Guideline statements were organized by age group in years (age <40; 40 to 54; 55 to 69; ≥ 70).
RESULTS: Except prostate specific antigen-based prostate cancer screening, there was minimal evidence to assess the outcomes of interest for other tests. The quality of evidence for the benefits of screening was moderate, and evidence for harm was high for men age 55 to 69 years. For men outside this age range, evidence was lacking for benefit, but the harms of screening, including over diagnosis and overtreatment, remained. Modeled data suggested that a screening interval of two years or more may be preferred to reduce the harms of screening.
CONCLUSIONS: The Panel recommended shared decision-making for men age 55 to 69 years considering PSA-based screening, a target age group for whom benefits may outweigh harms. Outside this age range, PSA-based screening as a routine could not be recommended based on the available evidence.