Shi C.,Zhejiang University of Science and Technology |
Shi C.,Hangzhou Translational Medicine Research Center |
Yan W.,Zhejiang University of Science and Technology |
Wang G.,Zhejiang University of Science and Technology |
And 7 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2015
Background: Recently, using the patient's genotype to guide warfarin dosing has gained interest; however, whether pharmacogenetics-based dosing (PD) improves clinical outcomes compared to conventional dosing (CD) remains unclear. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to evaluate these two strategies. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese VIP and ChineseWan-fang databases were searched. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was time within the therapeutic range (TTR); the secondary end points were the time to maintenance dose and time to first therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR), an INR greater than 4, adverse events, major bleeding, thromboembolism and death from any cause. Results: A total of 11 trials involving 2,678 patients were included in our meta-analysis. The results showed that PD did not improve the TTR compared to CD, although PD significantly shortened the time to maintenance dose (MD = -8.80; 95% CI: -11.99 to -5.60; P<0.00001) and the time to first therapeutic INR (MD = -2.80; 95% CI: -3.45 to -2.15; P<0.00001). Additionally, PD significantly reduced the risk of adverse events (RR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and major bleeding (RR = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.89, P = 0.03), although it did not reduce the percentage of INR greater than 4, the risk of thromboembolic events and death from any cause. Subgroup analysis showed that PD resulted in a better improvement in the endpoints of TTR and over-anticoagulation at a fixed initial dosage rather than a non-fixed initial dosage. Conclusions: The use of genotype testing in the management of warfarin anticoagulation was associated with significant improvements in INR-related and clinical outcomes. Thus, genotype-based regimens can be considered a reliable and accurate method to determine warfarin dosing and may be preferred over fixed-dose regimens. © 2015 Shi et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Source
Li Y.-L.,Hangzhou First Peoples Hospital |
Li Y.-L.,Nanjing Medical University |
Pan Y.-N.,Zhejiang University City College |
Wu W.-J.,Zhejiang University City College |
And 10 more authors.
Medical Oncology | Year: 2016
Erlotinib is effective in NSCLC patients with known drug-sensitizing EGFR mutations, but its clinical efficacy in patients with wild-type EGFR or acquired resistance to erlotinib remains modest. Evodiamine is a chemical extracted from the Evodia rutaecarpa (Juss.) Benth, we showed that evodiamine could induce anti-proliferation and apoptosis in four wild-type EGFR NSCLC cell lines, and combining evodiamine with erlotinib might successfully inhibit cell proliferation and survival in wild-type EGFR NSCLC cells, characterized as erlotinib-resistant. In addition, evodiamine plus erlotinib significantly increased the apoptotic rate of NSCLC cells, as compared to single agent treatment alone. Further investigation of the mechanism underlying these effects revealed that evodiamine plus erlotinib might downregulate Mcl-1 expression through the mTOR/S6K1 control of its translation. Thus, our study has revealed evodiamine as a pertinent sensitizer to erlotinib and the strategy of combining erlotinib with evodiamine appears to be an attractive option for reversing resistance to erlotinib. © 2016, Springer Science+Business Media New York. Source