Education and training for medicines development, regulation, and clinical research in emerging countries.

The aim of this satellite workshop held at the 17th World Congress of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology (WCP2014) was to discuss the needs, optimal methods and practical approaches for extending education and teaching of medicines development, regulation, and clinical research to Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs). It was generally agreed that, for efficiently treating the rapidly growing number of patients suffering from non-communicable diseases, modern drug therapy has to become available more widely and with a shorter time lag in these countries. To achieve this goal many additional experts working in medicines development, regulation, and clinical research have to be trained in parallel. The competence-oriented educational programs designed within the framework of the European Innovative Medicine Initiative-PharmaTrain (IMI-PhT) project were developed with the purpose to cover these interconnected fields. In addition, the programs can be easily adapted to the various local needs, primarily due to their modular architecture and well defined learning outcomes. Furthermore, the program is accompanied by stringent quality assurance standards which are essential for providing internationally accepted certificates. Effective cooperation between international and local experts and organizations, the involvement of the industry, health care centers and governments is essential for successful education. The initiative should also support the development of professional networks able to manage complex health care strategies. In addition it should help establish cooperation between neighboring countries for jointly managing clinical trials, as well as complex regulatory and ethical issues.

Corrigendum: Core competencies for pharmaceutical physicians and drug development scientists.

[This corrects the article on p. 105 in vol. 4, PMID: 23986704.].

Core competencies for pharmaceutical physicians and drug development scientists.

Professional groups, such as IFAPP (International Federation of Pharmaceutical Physicians and Pharmaceutical Medicine), are expected to produce the defined core competencies to orient the discipline and the academic programs for the development of future competent professionals and to advance the profession. On the other hand, PharmaTrain, an Innovative Medicines Initiative project, has become the largest public-private partnership in biomedicine in the European Continent and aims to provide postgraduate courses that are designed to meet the needs of professionals working in medicines development. A working group was formed within IFAPP including representatives from PharmaTrain, academic institutions and national member associations, with special interest and experience on Quality Improvement through education. The objectives were: to define a set of core competencies for pharmaceutical physicians and drug development scientists, to be summarized in a Statement of Competence and to benchmark and align these identified core competencies with the Learning Outcomes (LO) of the PharmaTrain Base Course. The objectives were successfully achieved. Seven domains and 60 core competencies were identified and aligned accordingly. The effective implementation of training programs using the competencies or the PharmaTrain LO anywhere in the world may transform the drug development process to an efficient and integrated process for better and safer medicines. The PharmaTrain Base Course might provide the cognitive framework to achieve the desired Statement of Competence for Pharmaceutical Physicians and Drug Development Scientists worldwide.

Association between the C3435T single-nucleotide polymorphism of multidrug resistance 1 gene and risk of gastric cancer.

The multidrug resistance 1 (MDR1) gene encodes P-glycoprotein, which confers resistance to antineoplastic drugs, but also affects the kinetic disposition of certain drugs and carcinogens. The C3435T polymorphism of the MDR1 gene may influence the transport and excretion of carcinogens, increasing the risk of cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between this polymorphism and the risk of gastric cancer (GC). Ninety-eight patients with non-cardia GC and 203 healthy subjects participated in the study. DNA was extracted from leukocytes and the MDR1 polymorphism was analyzed using PCR-RFLP. Serology was performed by ELISA for the investigation of infection with Helicobacter pylori. No significant difference in the genotype (p=0.668) or allele (p=0.745) frequency of the C3435T polymorphism was observed between the GC and control groups. There was no association between the genotypes studied and the risk of GC in patients infected with H. pylori (p=0.662). Patient survival was not correlated with the genotypes studied (p=0.454). No correlation was observed between the C3435T polymorphism of the MDR1 gene and GC risk or prognosis in the population studied.

A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections.

The safety and efficacy of cefepime empiric monotherapy compared with standard broad-spectrum combination therapy for hospitalized adult patients with moderate to severe community-acquired bacterial infections were evaluated. In an open-label, multicenter study, 317 patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score ranging from >5 to =19 were enrolled with documented pneumonia (n=196), urinary tract infection (n=65), intra-abdominal infection (n=38), or sepsis (n=18). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cefepime 1 to 2 g IV twice daily or three times a day or IV ampicillin, cephalothin, or ceftriaxone +/-aminoglycoside therapy for 3 to 21 days. For both treatment groups, metronidazole, vancomycin, or macrolide therapy was added as deemed necessary. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response at the end of therapy. Two hundred ninety-six (93%) patients met evaluation criteria and were included in the efficacy analysis. Diagnoses included the following: 180 pneumonias (90 cefepime, 90 comparator), 62 urinary tract infections (29 cefepime, 33 comparator), 37 intra-abdominal infections (19 cefepime, 18 comparator), and 17 sepses (8 cefepime, 9 comparator). At the end of therapy, overall clinical success rates were 131/146 (90%) for patients treated with cefepime vs 125/150 (83%) for those treated with comparator (95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.6% to 16.3%). The clinical success rate for patients with community-acquired pneumonia, the most frequent infection, was 86% for both treatment groups. Among the patients clinically evaluated, 162 pathogens were isolated and identified before therapy. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Escherichia coli (n=49), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n=29), Haemophilus influenzae (n=14), and Staphylococcus aureus (n=11). Bacteriologic eradication/presumed eradication was 97% for cefepime vs 94% for comparator-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16% of cefepime patients and 19% of comparator patients. In conclusion, cefepime had higher cure rates compared with broad-spectrum combination therapy as an initial empiric treatment for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe community-acquired infections, including urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections, and sepsis.

A multicenter comparative study of cefepime versus broad-spectrum antibacterial therapy in moderate and severe bacterial infections

The safety and efficacy of cefepime empiric monotherapy compared with standard broad-spectrum combination therapy for hospitalized adult patients with moderate to severe community-acquired bacterial infections were evaluated. In an open-label, multicenter study, 317 patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score ranging from >5 to =19 were enrolled with documented pneumonia (n=196), urinary tract infection (n=65), intra-abdominal infection (n=38), or sepsis (n=18). Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive cefepime 1 to 2 g IV twice daily or three times a day or IV ampicillin, cephalothin, or ceftriaxone ± aminoglycoside therapy for 3 to 21 days. For both treatment groups, metronidazole, vancomycin, or macrolide therapy was added as deemed necessary. The primary efficacy variable was clinical response at the end of therapy. Two hundred ninety-six (93 percent) patients met evaluation criteria and were included in the efficacy analysis. Diagnoses included the following: 180 pneumonias (90 cefepime, 90 comparator), 62 urinary tract infections (29 cefepime, 33 comparator), 37 intra-abdominal infections (19 cefepime, 18 comparator), and 17 sepses (8 cefepime, 9 comparator). At the end of therapy, overall clinical success rates were 131/146 (90 percent) for patients treated with cefepime vs 125/150 (83 percent) for those treated with comparator (95 percent confidence interval [CI]: - 2.6 percent to 16.3 percent). The clinical success rate for patients with community-acquired pneumonia, the most frequent infection, was 86 percent for both treatment groups. Among the patients clinically evaluated, 162 pathogens were isolated and identified before therapy. The most commonly isolated pathogens were Escherichia coli (n=49), Streptococcus pneumoniae (n=29), Haemophilus influenzae (n=14), and Staphylococcus aureus (n=11). Bacteriologic eradication/presumed eradication was 97 percent for cefepime vs 94 percent for comparator-treated patients. Drug-related adverse events were reported in 16 percent of cefepime patients and 19 percent of comparator patients. In conclusion, cefepime had higher cure rates compared with broad-spectrum combination therapy as an initial empiric treatment for hospitalized patients with moderate to severe community-acquired infections, including urinary tract infections, intra-abdominal infections, and sepsis