RESUMO
OBJECTIVE:To explore the effect of clinical pharmacist intervention on the rational use of Alanyl-glutamine injection.METHODS:Referring to package inserts of Alanyl-glutamine injection,Clinical Pharmacy Consensus of Parenteral Nutrition,ASPEN Nutrition Therapy Guidelines for Critically Ill Patients,related domestic and foreign literatures,evaluation criteria for Alanyl-glutamine injection rational use was formulated.After collecting Alanyl-glutamine injection cases (497 cases) in the second quarter of 2015 and those cases (385 cases) in the second quarter of 2016,rational use of Alanyl-glutamine injection were analyzed comparatively before and after intervention.RESULTS:The utilization rate and irrational rate of Alanyl-glutamine injection were 4.6％ and 52.9％ before intervention as well as 2.9％ and 10.9％ after intervention,with statistical significance (P＜0.05).There was statistical significance in hyper-indication,excessive concentration of drug liquid,excessive supply of amino acid,irrational compatibility and solvent selection,long treatment course before and after intervention (P＜0.05).CONCLUSIONS:Clinical pharmacists reduce irrational rate of drug use and guarantee safe and effective drug use through formulating evaluation criteria for Alanyl-glutamine injection rational use and providing pharmaceutical intervention on rational use of Alanyl-glutamine injection.
RESUMO
Objective To evaluate the relationship between plasma imatinib and its effect in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia(CML). Methods Fifty-one CML patients were included in this study,who began taking imatinib from July 2005 to February 2008, with 34 cases of male, and 17 cases of female.Nine patients took imatinib at dose of 300 mg/d, 37 patients took imatinib at dose of 400 mg/d, and 5 patients took imatinib at dose of 600 mg/d. High-performance liquid chromatography was used to test imatinib plasma levels. Results The imatinib plasma levels was imatinib dose-related, and the imatinib plasma trough levels significantly varied between individuals[(342-4688)ng/ml]. The imatinib plasma levels was significant lower in 300 mg/d dose group [(1037±514) ng/ml] than 400 mg/d dose group [(2123±1016) ng/ml] (t =2.34, P =0.032),and the effective rate was 66.7 % (6/9) in 300 mg/d dose group, which was lower than 400 mg/d dose group of 89.19 % (33/37) (χ2=7.14, P =0.008). In 300 mg/d and 400 mg/d dose groups, 39 patients achieved effective treatment, and their imatinib plasma levels was significant higher than that of 7 patients who did not achieved effective treatment (t =2.25, P =0.037). The ROC curve results suggested that clinical treatment may be poor when the imatinib plasma level was lower than 1050 ng/ml (sensitivity was 84.6 %, specificity was 71.1 %).Conclusion The imatinib plasma levels was dose-related, and significantly varied between individuals.Clinical treatment effect may be poor when the imatinib plasma level was lower than 1050 ng/ml.
RESUMO
This is a study of assessing the comparative bioavailability of roxithromycin produced by two companies in 36 healthy volunteers. On the basis of informed consent, 36 healthy male volunteers received each medicine at the roxithromycin dose of 150mg in a cross-over study. There was a 1-week washout period among the doses. Plasma concentrations of roxithromycin were monitored by an LC-MS/MS for over a period of 72 hours after administration. In this study, roxithromycin was generally well tolerated. After an oral administration of roxithromycin capsule, the pharmacokinetic parameters of roxithromycin, such as AUC(0-72 h) (66 076 microg x L x h(-1) and 70 334 microg x L x h(-1) for test and reference capsule, respectively) and AUC(0-infinity) (68 153 microg x L x h(-1) and 72 362 microg x L x h(-1)) were significantly similar. For test and reference capsule, the values of C(max) were 6 631.5 microg x L(-1) and 7 033.9 microg x L(-1) respectively, of T1/2 were 15.39 +/- 4.61 h and 16.06 +/- 5.56 h, and of T(max) were 1.3 +/- 0.9 h and 1.4 +/- 0.7 h respectively. The relative bioavailability F was 94.9% +/- 22.4% of tested formulation. The values of 90% confidence interval around the ratios (test/reference) (obtained by analysis of variance, ANOVA) were 88.3%-101.2% for C(max), 86.2%-98.9% for AUC(0-72) h, being within the predefined acceptable range for the conclusion of bioequivalence. The results of statistical analysis suggest that the two formulations be bioequivalent.