2 resultados para new product design
em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center
Resumo:
Treatment for cancer often involves combination therapies used both in medical practice and clinical trials. Korn and Simon listed three reasons for the utility of combinations: 1) biochemical synergism, 2) differential susceptibility of tumor cells to different agents, and 3) higher achievable dose intensity by exploiting non-overlapping toxicities to the host. Even if the toxicity profile of each agent of a given combination is known, the toxicity profile of the agents used in combination must be established. Thus, caution is required when designing and evaluating trials with combination therapies. Traditional clinical design is based on the consideration of a single drug. However, a trial of drugs in combination requires a dose-selection procedure that is vastly different than that needed for a single-drug trial. When two drugs are combined in a phase I trial, an important trial objective is to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). The MTD is defined as the dose level below the dose at which two of six patients experience drug-related dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). In phase I trials that combine two agents, more than one MTD generally exists, although all are rarely determined. For example, there may be an MTD that includes high doses of drug A with lower doses of drug B, another one for high doses of drug B with lower doses of drug A, and yet another for intermediate doses of both drugs administered together. With classic phase I trial designs, only one MTD is identified. Our new trial design allows identification of more than one MTD efficiently, within the context of a single protocol. The two drugs combined in our phase I trial are temsirolimus and bevacizumab. Bevacizumab is a monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway which is fundamental for tumor growth and metastasis. One mechanism of tumor resistance to antiangiogenic therapy is upregulation of hypoxia inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α) which mediates responses to hypoxic conditions. Temsirolimus has resulted in reduced levels of HIF-1α making this an ideal combination therapy. Dr. Donald Berry developed a trial design schema for evaluating low, intermediate and high dose levels of two drugs given in combination as illustrated in a recently published paper in Biometrics entitled “A Parallel Phase I/II Clinical Trial Design for Combination Therapies.” His trial design utilized cytotoxic chemotherapy. We adapted this design schema by incorporating greater numbers of dose levels for each drug. Additional dose levels are being examined because it has been the experience of phase I trials that targeted agents, when given in combination, are often effective at dosing levels lower than the FDA-approved dose of said drugs. A total of thirteen dose levels including representative high, intermediate and low dose levels of temsirolimus with representative high, intermediate, and low dose levels of bevacizumab will be evaluated. We hypothesize that our new trial design will facilitate identification of more than one MTD, if they exist, efficiently and within the context of a single protocol. Doses gleaned from this approach could potentially allow for a more personalized approach in dose selection from among the MTDs obtained that can be based upon a patient’s specific co-morbid conditions or anticipated toxicities.
Resumo:
Electronic waste is a fairly new and largely unknown phenomenon. Accordingly, governments have only recently acknowledged electronic waste as a threat to the environment and public health. In attempting to mitigate the hazards associated with this rapidly growing toxic waste stream, governments at all levels have started to implement e-waste management programs. The legislation enacted to create these programs is based on extended producer responsibility or EPR policy. ^ EPR shifts the burden of final disposal of e-waste from the consumer or municipal solid waste system to the manufacturer of electronic equipment. Applying an EPR policy is intended to send signals up the production chain to the manufacturer. The desired outcome is to change the methods of production in order to reduce production outputs/inputs with the ultimate goal of changing product design. This thesis performs a policy analysis of the current e-waste policies at the federal and state level of government, focusing specifically on Texas e-waste policies. ^ The Texas e-waste law known, as HB 2714 or the Texas Computer TakeBack Law, requires manufacturers to provide individual consumers with a free and convenient method for returning their used computers to manufacturers. The law is based on individual producer responsibility and shared responsibility among consumer, retailers, recyclers, and the TCEQ. ^ Using a set of evaluation criteria created by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the Texas e-waste law was examined to determine its effectiveness at reducing the threat of e-waste in Texas. Based on the outcomes of the analysis certain recommendations were made for the legislature to incorporate into HB 2714. ^ The results of the policy analysis show that HB 2714 is a poorly constructed law and does not provide the desired results seen in other states with EPR policies. The TakeBack Law does little to change the collection methods of manufacturers and even less to change their production habits. If the e-waste problem is to be taken seriously, HB 2714 must be amended to reflect the proposed changes in this thesis.^