Search

Objective: To examine whether joint management of cancer pain by physicians and pharmacists in clinics provides economic advantages from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system.Methods: From February 2018 to March 2020, 100 patients who visited the joint cancer pain clinic at the Xiangya Hospital of Central South University were included. These patients were randomly assigned to either the control or intervention groups. The control group received regular outpatient services from a physician, while the intervention group received regular outpatient services from a physician and medication education provided by a pharmacist. The study considered various direct costs, including drug expenses, physician-pharmacist outpatient services, adverse event management, consultations, examinations, and readmissions. The outcome indicators considered were the cancer pain control rate and the reduction in pain scores. Decision tree modeling, single-factor sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of joint physician-pharmacist outpatient services compared to physician-alone outpatient services.Results: The intervention group showed a significantly higher cancer pain control rate than the control group (0.69 vs. 0.39, p = 0.03). In the decision tree model, the intervention group had a significantly lower pain score than the control group (0.23 vs. 0.14). The cost per person in the intervention group was $165.39, while it was $191.1 per person in the control group. The univariate sensitivity analysis showed that the cost of self-management for patients in the control group was identified as the primary sensitivity factor. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the joint clinic group had a favorable incremental cost-effectiveness compared to the physician clinic group. In addition, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated an absolute advantage in the incremental cost-effectiveness of the joint clinic group over the outpatient physician group.Conclusion: The participation of pharmacists in joint cancer pain clinic services led to improved pain management for patients, demonstrating a clear advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Objectives: A phase III, 24-weeks Chinese clinical trial demonstrated that efficacy and safety outcomes of treatments with 40 mg/0.8 ml HS016 (n = 416) or adalimumab (n = 232) for active ankylosing spondylitis (AS) patients was comparable. In the present study, a subanalysis of the clinical trial was conducted to determine whether also individual efficacy indicators were comparable between HS016 and adalimumab.Methods: The individual efficacy indicators total and nocturnal back pain, global assessment of disease activity, swollen joint count, Maastricht AS Enthesitis Score, Bath AS Disease Activity Index, Bath AS Functional Index, Bath AS Metrology Index and chest expansion, were assessed at baseline and every 2 weeks during the treatment period.Results: This subanalysis revealed no significant difference between the patient groups treated with HS016 or adalimumab for any individual efficacy indicator investigated at any time point (all p > 0.05) beside faster total back pain score improvements in the adalimumab group on week 10, 12 and 22, which became equal at week 24. Among these indicators, chest expansion showed a significant increase at each time point compared with baseline, whereas all other efficacy indicators showed significant decreases compared with baseline at each time point (all p < 0.05). All efficacy indicators had increased or decreased rapidly by week 2, and the values continued to increase/decrease up to week 12, with subsequent smaller changes thereafter up to week 24 of treatment.Conclusion: The response trajectory of most individual efficacy indicators was comparable between HS016 and adalimumab at each time point during the 24 weeks of the trial.Clinical Trial Registration:http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=37910, identifier [ChiCTR1900022520]

Background: Leydig cells secrete the steroid hormone, testosterone, which is essential for male fertility and reproductive health. Stress increases the secretion of glucocorticoid [corticosterone, (CORT) in rats] that decreases circulating testosterone levels in part through a direct action on its receptors in Leydig cells. Intratesticular CORT level is dependent on oxidative inactivation of CORT by 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase 1 (HSD11B1) in rat Leydig cells. Pain may cause the stress, thus affecting testosterone production in Leydig cells.Methods: Adult male Sprague–Dawley rats orally received vehicle control or 5 or 10 mg/kg dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) 0.5 h before being subjected to pain stimulation for 1, 3, and 6 h. In the present study, we investigated the time-course changes of steroidogenic gene expression levels after acute pain-induced stress in rats and the possible mechanism of DHEA that prevented it. Plasma CORT, luteinizing hormone (LH), and testosterone (T) levels were measured, and Leydig cell gene expression levels were determined. The direct regulation of HSD11B1 catalytic direction by DHEA was detected in purified rat Leydig, liver, and rat Hsd11b1-transfected COS1 cells.Results: Plasma CORT levels were significantly increased at hour 1, 3, and 6 during the pain stimulation, while plasma T levels were significantly decreased starting at hour 3 and 6. Pain-induced stress also decreased Star, Hsd3b1, and Cyp17a1 expression levels at hour 3. When 5 and 10 mg/kg DHEA were orally administered to rats 0.5 h before starting pain stimulation, DHEA prevented pain-mediated decrease in plasma T levels and the expression of Star, Hsd3b1, and Cyp17a1 without affecting plasma CORT levels. DHEA was found to modulate HSD11B1 activities by increasing its oxidative activity and decreasing its reductive activity, thus decreasing the intracellular CORT levels in Leydig cells.Conclusion: Stress induced by acute pain can inhibit Leydig cell T production by upregulation of corticosterone. DHEA can prevent the negative effects of excessive corticosterone by modulating HSD11B1 activity.

Harnessing the broad immunostimulatory capabilities of chemotherapy in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors has improved immunotherapy outcomes in patients with cancer. Certain chemotherapeutic agents can extensively modify the tumor microenvironment (TME), resulting in the reprogramming of local immune responses. Although chemotherapeutic agents with an enhanced generation of potent anti-tumor immune responses have been tested in preclinical animal models and clinical trials, this strategy has not yet shown substantial therapeutic efficacy in selected difficult-to-treat cancer types. In addition, the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agent-based monotherapy in eliciting a long-term anti-tumor immune response is restricted by the immunosuppressive TME. To enhance the immunomodulatory effect of chemotherapy, researchers have made many attempts, mainly focusing on improving the targeted distribution of chemotherapeutic agents and designing combination therapies. Here, we focused on the mechanisms of the anti-tumor immune response to chemotherapeutic agents and enumerated the attempts to advance the use of chemo-immunotherapy. Furthermore, we have listed the important considerations in designing combinations of these drugs to maximize efficacy and improve treatment response rates in patients with cancer.