The growing prevalence of dementia makes it important for us to better understand its pathophysiology and treatment modalities, to improve the quality of life of patients and caregivers. Alzheimer\'s disease (AD), a neurodegenerative disease, is the most common form of amnestic dementia in the geriatric population. Pathophysiology of AD is widely attributed to aggregation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and hyperphosphorylation of tau proteins. Initial treatment modalities aimed to increase brain perfusion in a non-specific manner. Subsequent therapy focused on rectifying neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain. Newer drugs modify the progression of the disease by acting against aggregated Aβ plaques. However, not all drugs used in therapy of AD have been granted approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This review categorizes and summarizes the FDA-approved drugs in the treatment of AD in a manner that would make it a convenient reference for researchers and practicing physicians alike. Drugs that mitigate symptoms of dementia may be categorized into mitigators of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD), and mitigators of cognitive decline. BPSD mitigators include brexpiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic with a once-daily dosage suited to treat agitation in dementia patients, and suvorexant, an orexin receptor antagonist used to treat sleep disturbances. Cognitive decline mitigators include cholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine and glutamate inhibitors such as memantine. Donepezil is the most commonly prescribed drug. It is cheap, well-tolerated, and may be prescribed orally once daily, or as a transdermal patch once weekly. It increases ACh levels, enhances oligodendrocyte differentiation and also protects against Aβ toxicity. However, regular cardiac monitoring is required due to reports of cardiac conduction side effects. Rivastigmine requires a twice-daily oral dosage or once-daily replacement of transdermal patch. It has fewer cardiac side effects than donepezil, but local application-site reactions have been noted. Galantamine, in addition to improving cognitive symptoms in a short span of time, also delays the development of BPSDs and has minimal drug-drug interactions by virtue of having multiple metabolic pathways. However, cardiac conduction disturbances must be closely monitored for. Memantine, a glutamate regulator, acts as an anti-Parkinsonian agent and an antidepressant, in addition to improving cognition and neuroprotection, and requires a once-daily dosage in the form of immediate-release or sustained-release oral tablets. Disease-modifying drugs such as aducanumab and lecanemab reduce the Aβ burden. Both act by binding with fibrillary conformations of Aβ plaques in the brain. These drugs have a risk of causing amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, especially in persons with ApoE4 gene. Aducanumab is administered once every 4 weeks and lecanemab once every 2 weeks. The decision on the choice of the drug must be made after considering the availability of drug, compliance of patient (once-daily vs. multiple doses daily), cost, specific comorbidities, and the risk-benefit ratio for the particular patient. Other non-pharmacological treatment modalities must also be adopted to have a holistic approach toward the treatment of AD.

UNASSIGNED: Impella 5.5 (Abiomed, Danvers, MA, USA) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mechanical circulatory support for ≤14 days. It is unknown whether prolonged support is associated with worse outcomes. We sought to review our single-center experience with Impella 5.5 and compare outcomes based on support duration.
UNASSIGNED: We retrospectively reviewed adult patients (≥18 years old) supported with Impella 5.5 at our institution (May 2020 to April 2023). Patients on prolonged support (>14 days) were compared with those supported for ≤14 days.
UNASSIGNED: There were 31 patients supported with Impella 5.5 including 14 (45.2%) supported >14 days. Median support duration for those on prolonged support was 43.5 (interquartile range [IQR] 25 to 63.5) days versus 8 (IQR 6, 13) days for those who were not (P < 0.001). Overall, the device-related complication rate was 9.7% and did not differ between groups (P = 0.08). Overall, 30-day postimplant survival was 71% and did not differ by support duration (P = 0.2). In-hospital mortality was 32% and did not differ between cohorts (P > 0.99). Among those surviving to explant (n = 22), long-term strategy included bridge to durable ventricular assist device (18%, n = 4), cardiac transplant (55%, n = 12), and cardiac recovery (27%, n = 6).
UNASSIGNED: High-risk patients with cardiogenic shock may be supported with Impella 5.5 beyond the FDA-approved duration without increased risk of complications or mortality.

In December 2022, the new guideline for evaluating the effect of psychotropic drugs on the performance to drive a motor vehicle was issued by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) and implemented in Japan. Of the safety information, information on the influence of medications on driving performance is particularly important because it can be relevant to the social functioning of patients. In principle, the package inserts of medications are designed based on evidence and provide precautions regarding the operation of heavy machinery such as automobiles in Japan, the United States, and Europe. The effects of medications on driving performance are generally evaluated in a tiered approach involving nonclinical and clinical studies. Because of the wide variety of functional domains involved in automobile driving, the selection of evaluation methods for a given medication depends on their characteristics, which is a complicated method. Therefore, to evaluate the effects of psychotropic drugs on driving performance efficiently and appropriately, we developed the MHLW guideline that specifically defines the evaluation methods used in pharmacological studies, the neuropsychological tests used in pharmacodynamic studies, and the situations in which driving studies are necessary. Regarding the planning of appropriate drug development strategies, we review the background of the MHLW guideline and its differences from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guideline.

UNASSIGNED: An initial investigation of US medical device guidelines is presented, with the aid of those of medicines as qualitative comparator. Since the first recorded FDA medical device guideline (February 1975) until the mid-2010s, the number of medical device guidelines has been basically stable, then rapidly rose.
UNASSIGNED: The rise of the COVID-19 pandemic and digital health technologies explains 50% of the upward momentum in guidelines since the mid-2010s. Concomitantly, medical device and medicinal guidelines became moderately correlated. This perspective posits that this trend will continue irrespective of the ebbing pandemic as it is embedded in the concept of \'innovation saltus\' - i.e. discrete periods of elevated innovation. A key aspiration of this work is to inspire additional research into this interesting area of regulatory science; namely, examination of guidelines (as proxy measures of regulations) and their influence on innovation.

Healthcare professionals need a clear understanding of information about gene-drug interactions in order to make optimal use of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing. In this report, we compare PGx information in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations with information presented in Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines.
Information from CPIC guidelines and the FDA Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations do not have a high level of concordance. Many drugs mentioned in CPIC guidelines are not listed in the FDA table and vice versa, and the same gene-drug association and dosing recommendation was reported for only 5 of the 126 drugs included in either source. Furthermore, classification of drugs in specific sections of the FDA table does not correlate well with CPIC-assigned or provisionally assigned clinical actionability levels. The Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base (PharmGKB) clinical annotation levels are generally high for drugs mentioned in CPIC guidelines. PharmGKB clinical annotation levels are often unassigned or are lower level for drugs listed on the FDA table but not in CPIC guidelines. These differences may be due in part to FDA having access to PGx information that is unavailable in published literature and/or because PGx classifications are based on criteria other than clinical actionability.
There are important differences between the PGx information presented in the FDA Table of Pharmacogenetic Associations and in CPIC guidelines. FDA and CPIC have different perspectives when evaluating PGx associations and use different approaches and information resources when considering clinical validity related to specific medicines. Understanding how information sources developed by each group differ and can be used together to form a holistic view of PGx may be helpful in increasing adoption of these information sources in practice.

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether and to what degree trials submitted to the US FDA to support drug approval adhere to NCCN guideline-recommended care in their baseline and surveillance CNS imaging protocols.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the frequency with which the trials cited in US FDA drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC between 2015 and 2020 deviated from NCCN guideline-recommended care for baseline and surveillance CNS imaging.
METHODS: Retrospective observational analysis using publicly available data of (1) list of trials cited by the FDA in drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC from 2015 to 2020 (2) individual trial protocols (3) published trial data and supplementary appendices (4) archived versions of the NCCN guidelines for NSCLC from 2009 to 2018 (the years during which the trials were enrolling).
METHODS: Estimated percentage of trials for first line advanced NSCLC leading to FDA approval which deviated from NCCN guideline-recommended care with regards to CNS baseline and surveillance imaging.
RESULTS: A total of 14 studies that had been cited in FDA drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC met our inclusion criteria between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2020. Of these trials, 8 (57.1%) deviated from NCCN guidelines in their baseline CNS imaging requirement. The frequency of re-assessment of CNS disease was variable amongst trials as well, with 9 (64.3%) deviating from NCCN recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: The trials supporting US FDA drug approvals in first line advanced NSCLC often have CNS imaging requirements that do not adhere to NCCN guidelines. Many trials permit alternative, substandard methods and the proportion of patients undergoing each modality is uniformly not reported. Nonstandard CNS surveillance protocols are common. To best serve patients with advanced NSCLC in the US, drug approvals by the FDA must be based on trials that mirror clinical practice and have imaging requirements consistent with current US standard of care.

Breast cancer has historically been a disease for which immunotherapy was largely unavailable. Recently, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced/metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has demonstrated efficacy, including longer progression-free survival and increased overall survival in subsets of patients. Based on clinical benefit in randomized trials, ICIs in combination with chemotherapy for the treatment of some patients with advanced/metastatic TNBC have been approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), expanding options for patients. Ongoing questions remain, however, about the optimal chemotherapy backbone for immunotherapy, appropriate biomarker-based selection of patients for treatment, the optimal strategy for immunotherapy treatment in earlier stage disease, and potential use in histological subtypes other than TNBC. To provide guidance to the oncology community on these and other important concerns, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew upon the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for breast cancer, including diagnostic testing, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations. The evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers treating patients with breast cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) produce guidelines for the design of pivotal psychiatric drug trials used in new drug applications. It is unknown who are involved in the guideline development and what specific trial design recommendations they give.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study of EMA Clinical Efficacy and Safety Guidelines and FDA Guidance Documents. Study outcomes: (1) guideline committee members and declared conflicts of interest; (2) guideline development and organisation of commenting phases; (3) categorisation of stakeholders who comment on draft and final guidelines according to conflicts of interest (\'industry\', \'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts\', \'independent\', \'unclear\'); and (4) trial design recommendations (trial duration, psychiatric comorbidity, \'enriched design\', efficacy outcomes, comparator choice). Protocol registration https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.22.20018499 (27 January 2020).
RESULTS: We included 13 EMA and five FDA guidelines covering 15 psychiatric indications. Eleven months after submission, the EMA had not processed our request regarding committee member disclosures. FDA offices draft the Guidance Documents, but the Agency is not in possession of employee conflicts of interest declarations because FDA employees generally may not hold financial interests (although some employees may hold interests up to $15,000). The EMA and FDA guideline development phases are similar; drafts and final versions are publicly announced and everybody can submit comments. Seventy stakeholders commented on ten guidelines: 38 (54%) \'industry\', 18 (26%) \'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts\', six (9%) \'independent\' and eight (11%) \'unclear\'. They submitted 1014 comments: 640 (68%) \'industry\', 243 (26%) \'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts\', 44 (5%) \'independent\' and 20 (2%) \'unclear\' (67 could not be assigned to a specific stakeholder). The recommended designs were generally for trials of short duration; with restricted trial populations; allowing previous exposure to the drug; and often recommending rating scale efficacy outcomes. EMA mainly recommended three arm designs (both placebo and active comparators), whereas FDA mainly recommended placebo-controlled designs. There were also other important differences and FDA\'s recommendations regarding the exclusion of psychiatric comorbidity seemed less restrictive.
CONCLUSIONS: The EMA and FDA clinical research guidelines for psychiatric pivotal trials recommend designs that tend to have limited generalisability. Independent and non-conflicted stakeholders are underrepresented in the guideline development. It seems warranted with more active involvement of scientists and independent organisations without conflicts of interest in the guideline development process.

暂无摘要。

To optimize responsible opioid prescribing after inpatient operation, we implemented a clinical trial with the following objectives: prospectively validate patient-centered opioid prescription guidelines and increase the FDA-compliant disposal rate of leftover opioid pills to higher than currently reported rates of 20% to 30%.
We prospectively enrolled 229 patients admitted for 48 hours or longer after elective general, colorectal, urologic, gynecologic, or thoracic operation. At discharge, patients received a prescription for both nonopioid analgesics and opioids based on their opioid usage the day before discharge: if 0 oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) were used, then five 5-mg oxycodone pill-equivalents were prescribed; if 1 to 29 MME were used, then fifteen 5-mg oxycodone pill-equivalents were prescribed; if 30 or more MME were used, then thirty 5-mg oxycodone pill-equivalents were prescribed. We considered patients\' opioid pain medication needs to be satisfied if no opioid refills were obtained. To improve FDA-compliant disposal of leftover pills, we implemented patient education, convenient drop-box, reminder phone call, and questionnaire.
Our opioid guideline satisfied 93% (213 of 229) of patients. Satisfaction was significantly higher in lower opioid usage groups (p = 0.001): 99% (99 of 100) in the 0 MME group, 90% (91 of 101) in the 1 to 29 MME group, and 82% (23 of 28) in the 30 or more MME group. Overall, 95% (217 of 229) of patients used nonopioid analgesics. Sixty percent (138 of 229) had leftover pills; 83% (114 of 138) disposed of them using an FDA-compliant method and 51% (58 of 114) used the convenient drop-box. Of 2,604 prescribed pills, only 187 (7%) were kept by patients.
This clinical trial prospectively validated a patient-centered opioid discharge prescription guideline that satisfied 93% of patients. FDA-compliant disposal of excess pills was achieved in 83% of patients with easily actionable interventions.