982 resultados para United States. Food and Drug Administration. Medical Library
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.
Resumo:
A long-standing controversy is whether autophagy is a bona fide cause of mammalian cell death. We used a cell-penetrating autophagy-inducing peptide, Tat-Beclin 1, derived from the autophagy protein Beclin 1, to investigate whether high levels of autophagy result in cell death by autophagy. Here we show that Tat-Beclin 1 induces dose-dependent death that is blocked by pharmacological or genetic inhibition of autophagy, but not of apoptosis or necroptosis. This death, termed "autosis," has unique morphological features, including increased autophagosomes/autolysosomes and nuclear convolution at early stages, and focal swelling of the perinuclear space at late stages. We also observed autotic death in cells during stress conditions, including in a subpopulation of nutrient-starved cells in vitro and in hippocampal neurons of neonatal rats subjected to cerebral hypoxia-ischemia in vivo. A chemical screen of ~5,000 known bioactive compounds revealed that cardiac glycosides, antagonists of Na(+),K(+)-ATPase, inhibit autotic cell death in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, genetic knockdown of the Na(+),K(+)-ATPase α1 subunit blocks peptide and starvation-induced autosis in vitro. Thus, we have identified a unique form of autophagy-dependent cell death, a Food and Drug Administration-approved class of compounds that inhibit such death, and a crucial role for Na(+),K(+)-ATPase in its regulation. These findings have implications for understanding how cells die during certain stress conditions and how such cell death might be prevented.
Resumo:
Between-country differences in medical and sociodemographic variables, and patient-related outcomes (PROs) before treatment might explain published variations of side effects after radical prostatecomy (RP) or radiotherapy (RAD) for prostate cancer (PCa). This hypothesis was tested among 1908 patients from the United States, Spain, and Norway. Significant between-country differences were observed for most factors investigated before treatment. The observations should be considered in comparison of the frequency and severity of internationally published studies. Background: In men with PCa, large variations of PROs after RP or high-dose RAD might be related to betweencountry differences of medical and sociodemographic variables, and differences in PROs before treatment in the sexual and urinary domains. Patients and Methods: In 1908 patients with localized PCa from Norway, the United States, or Spain, the relation between medical (prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, cT-category) and sociodemographic variables (age, education, marital status) before treatment was investigated. Using the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaire, PROs before treatment within the sexual and urinary domains were also considered. Results: Compared with the European patients, American patients were younger, fewer had comorbid conditions, and more had a high education level. Fifty-three percent of the US men eligible for RP had low-risk tumors compared with 42% and 31% among the Norwegian and the Spanish patients, respectively. Among the Spanish RAD patients, 54% had had low-risk tumors compared with 34% of the American and 21% of the Norwegian men planned for RAD, respectively. Compared with the European patients, significantly fewer US patients reported moderate or severe sexual dysfunction and related problems. In most subgroups, the number of patients with sexual or urinary dysfunction exceeded that of patients with bother related to the reported dysfunction. Conclusion: Statistically significant between-country differences were observed in medical and sociodemographic variables, and in PROs before treatment within the sexual and urinary domains. Large differences between reported dysfunction and related problems within the sexual and urinary domains indicate that dysfunction and bother should be reported separately in addition to calculation of summary scores. The documented differences, not at least regarding PROs, might in part explain the large variation of side effects after treatment evident in the medical literature
Resumo:
Document prepared on the occasion of the visit of President Barack Obama to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador in March 2011
Resumo:
Le profonde trasformazioni che hanno interessato l’industria alimentare, unitamente alle accresciute capacità delle scienze mediche ed epidemiologiche di individuare nessi causali tra il consumo di determinate sostanze e l’insorgere di patologie, hanno imposto al legislatore di intervenire nella materia della c.d. sicurezza alimentare mettendo in atto sistemi articolati e complessi tesi a tutelare la salute dei consociati. Quest’ultimo obiettivo viene perseguito, da un lato, mediante disposizioni di natura pubblicistica e di carattere preventivo e, dall’altro lato, dallo strumento della responsabilità civile. Le due prospettive di tutela della salute delle persone costituiscono parti distinte ma al tempo stesso fortemente integrate in una logica unitaria. Questa prospettiva emerge chiaramente nel sistema statunitense: in quel ordinamento la disciplina pubblicistica della sicurezza degli alimenti – definita dalla Food and Drug Administration – costituisce un punto di riferimento imprescindibile anche quando si tratta di stabilire se un prodotto alimentare è difettoso e se, di conseguenza, il produttore è chiamato a risarcire i danni che scaturiscono dal suo utilizzo. L’efficace sinergia che si instaura tra la dimensione pubblicistica del c.d. Public Enforcement e quella risarcitoria (Private Enforcement) viene ulteriormente valorizzata dalla presenza di efficaci strumenti di tutela collettiva tra i quali la class action assume una importanza fondamentale. Proprio muovendo dall’analisi del sistema statunitense, l’indagine si appunta in un primo momento sull’individuazione delle lacune e delle criticità che caratterizzano il sistema nazionale e, più in generale quello comunitario. In un secondo momento l’attenzione si focalizza sull’individuazione di soluzioni interpretative e de iure condendo che, anche ispirandosi agli strumenti di tutela propri del diritto statunitense, contribuiscano a rendere maggiormente efficace la sinergia tra regole preventive sulla sicurezza alimentare e regole risarcitorie in materia di responsabilità del produttore.
Resumo:
OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to describe the process to obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the expanded indication for treatment with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) (Medtronic, Inc., Santa Rosa, California) in patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes. BACKGROUND The R-ZES is the first drug-eluting stent specifically indicated in the United States for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes. METHODS We pooled patient-level data for 5,130 patients from the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program. A performance goal prospectively determined in conjunction with the FDA was established as a rate of target vessel failure at 12 months of 14.5%. In addition to the FDA pre-specified cohort of less complex patients with diabetes (n = 878), we evaluated outcomes of the R-ZES in all 1,535 patients with diabetes compared with all 3,595 patients without diabetes at 2 years. RESULTS The 12-month rate of target vessel failure in the pre-specified diabetic cohort was 7.8% (upper 95% confidence interval: 9.51%), significantly lower than the performance goal of 14.5% (p < 0.001). After 2 years, the cumulative incidence of target lesion failure in patients with noninsulin-treated diabetes was comparable to that of patients without diabetes (8.0% vs. 7.1%). The higher risk insulin-treated population demonstrated a significantly higher target lesion failure rate (13.7%). In the whole population, including complex patients, rates of stent thrombosis were not significantly different between patients with and without diabetes (1.2% vs. 0.8%). CONCLUSIONS The R-ZES is safe and effective in patients with diabetes. Long-term clinical data of patients with noninsulin-treated diabetes are equivalent to patients without diabetes. Patients with insulin-treated diabetes remain a higher risk subset. (The Medtronic RESOLUTE Clinical Trial; NCT00248079; Randomized, Two-arm, Non-inferiority Study Comparing Endeavor-Resolute Stent With Abbot Xience-V Stent [RESOLUTE-AC]; NCT00617084; The Medtronic RESOLUTE US Clinical Trial (R-US); NCT00726453; RESOLUTE International Registry: Evaluation of the Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent System in a 'Real-World' Patient Population [R-Int]; NCT00752128; RESOLUTE Japan-The Clinical Evaluation of the MDT-4107 Drug-Eluting Coronary Stent [RJ]; NCT00927940).
Resumo:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for risk assessment and risk management in the post-market surveillance of the U.S. medical device industry. One of the FDA regulatory mechanisms, the Medical Device Reporting System (MDR) is an adverse event reporting system intended to provide the FDA with advance warning of device problems. It includes voluntary reporting for individuals, and mandatory reporting for device manufacturers. ^ In a study of alleged breast implant safety problems, this research examines the organizational processes by which the FDA gathers data on adverse events and uses adverse event reporting systems to assess and manage risk. The research reviews the literature on problem recognition, risk perception, and organizational learning to understand the influence highly publicized events may have on adverse event reporting. Understanding the influence of an environmental factor, such as publicity, on adverse event reporting can provide insight into the question of whether the FDA's adverse event reporting system operates as an early warning system for medical device problems. ^ The research focuses on two main questions. The first question addresses the relationship between publicity and the voluntary and mandatory reporting of adverse events. The second question examines whether government agencies make use of these adverse event reports. ^ Using quantitative and qualitative methods, a longitudinal study was conducted of the number and content of adverse event reports regarding breast implants filed with the FDA's medical device reporting system during 1985–1991. To assess variation in publicity over time, the print media were analyzed to identify articles related to breast implant failures. ^ The exploratory findings suggest that an increase in media activity is related to an increase in voluntary reporting, especially following periods of intense media coverage of the FDA. However, a similar relationship was not found between media activity and manufacturers' mandatory adverse event reporting. A review of government committee and agency reports on the FDA published during 1976–1996 produced little evidence to suggest that publicity or MDR information contributed to problem recognition, agenda setting, or the formulation of policy recommendations. ^ The research findings suggest that the reporting of breast implant problems to FDA may reflect the perceptions and concerns of the reporting groups, a barometer of the volume and content of media attention. ^
Resumo:
The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) play key roles in making Class III, medical devices available to the public, and they are required by law to meet statutory deadlines for applications under review. Historically, both agencies have failed to meet their respective statutory requirements. Since these failures affect patient access and may adversely impact public health, Congress has enacted several “modernization” laws. However, the effectiveness of these modernization laws has not been adequately studied or established for Class III medical devices. ^ The aim of this research study was, therefore, to analyze how these modernization laws may have affected public access to medical devices. Two questions were addressed: (1) How have the FDA modernization laws affected the time to approval for medical device premarket approval applications (PMAs)? (2) How has the CMS modernization law affected the time to approval for national coverage decisions (NCDs)? The data for this research study were collected from publicly available databases for the period January 1, 1995, through December 31, 2008. These dates were selected to ensure that a sufficient period of time was captured to measure pre- and post-modernization effects on time to approval. All records containing original PMAs were obtained from the FDA database, and all records containing NCDs were obtained from the CMS database. Source documents, including FDA premarket approval letters and CMS national coverage decision memoranda, were reviewed to obtain additional data not found in the search results. Analyses were conducted to determine the effects of the pre- and post-modernization laws on time to approval. Secondary analyses of FDA subcategories were conducted to uncover any causal factors that might explain differences in time to approval and to compare with the primary trends. The primary analysis showed that the FDA modernization laws of 1997 and 2002 initially reduced PMA time to approval; after the 2002 modernization law, the time to approval began increasing and continued to increase through December 2008. The non-combined, subcategory approval trends were similar to the primary analysis trends. The combined, subcategory analysis showed no clear trends with the exception of non-implantable devices, for which time to approval trended down after 1997. The CMS modernization law of 2003 reduced NCD time to approval, a trend that continued through December 2008. This study also showed that approximately 86% of PMA devices do not receive NCDs. ^ As a result of this research study, recommendations are offered to help resolve statutory non-compliance and access issues, as follows: (1) Authorities should examine underlying causal factors for the observed trends; (2) Process improvements should be made to better coordinate FDA and CMS activities to include sharing data, reducing duplication, and establishing clear criteria for “safe and effective” and “reasonable and necessary”; (3) A common identifier should be established to allow tracking and trending of applications between FDA and CMS databases; (4) Statutory requirements may need to be revised; and (5) An investigation should be undertaken to determine why NCDs are not issued for the majority of PMAs. Any process improvements should be made without creating additional safety risks and adversely impacting public health. Finally, additional studies are needed to fully characterize and better understand the trends identified in this research study.^
Resumo:
Since the tragic events of September, 11 2001 the United States bioterrorism and disaster preparedness has made significant progress; yet, numerous research studies of nationwide hospital emergency response have found alarming shortcomings in surge capacity and training level of health care personnel in responding to bioterrorism incidents. The primary goals of this research were to assess hospital preparedness towards the threat of bioterrorist agents in the Southwest Region of the United States and provide recommendations for its improvement. Since little formal research has been published on the hospital preparedness of Oklahoma, Arizona, Texas and New Mexico, this research study specifically focused on the measurable factors affecting the respective states' resources and level of preparedness, such as funding, surge capacity and preparedness certification status.^ Over 300 citations of peer-reviewed articles and 17 Web sites were reviewed, of which 57 reports met inclusion criteria. The results of the systematic review highlighted key gaps in the existing literature and the key targets for future research, as well as identified strengths and weaknesses of the hospital preparedness in the Southwest states compared to the national average. ^ Based on the conducted research, currently, the Southwest states hospital systems are unable fully meet presidential preparedness mandates for emergency and disaster care: the staffed beds to 1,000 population value fluctuated around 1,5 across the states; funding for the hospital preparedness lags behind hospital costs by millions of dollars; and public health-hospital partnership in bioterrorism preparedness is quite weak as evident in lack of joint exercises and training. However, significant steps towards it are being made, including on-going hospital preparedness certification by the Joint Commission of Health Organization. Variations in preparedness levels among states signify that geographic location might determine a hospital level of bioterrorism preparedness as well, tending to favor bigger states such as Texas.^ Suggested recommendations on improvement of the hospital bioterrorism preparedness are consistent with the existing literature and include establishment and maintenance of solid partnerships between hospitals and public health agencies, conduction of joint exercises and drills for the health care personnel and key partners, improved state and federal funding specific to bioterrorism preparedness objectives, as well as on-going training of the clinical personnel on recognition of the bioterrorism agents.^
Resumo:
Background. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the federal government that is responsible for monitoring and maintaining public health through the regulation of many industries, including food safety. Through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the FDA was granted authority over the implementation and regulation of nutrition labeling on packaged foods. Many nutrients are printed on nutrition labels as well as their percent Daily Values. Research has been undertaken to examine the evidentiary basis the FDA relied upon in making its determinations regarding which nutrients to include on nutrition labels as well as their Daily Values. ^ Methods. Relevant legal policies, scientific studies, and other published literature (either in print or electronic form) were used to collect data. ^ Results. Results demonstrated that the FDA did not employ one single method in its determination of which nutrients to select for inclusion on food labels. The agency relied upon current public heath studies of that time as well as recommendations from the U.S. Surgeon General.^
Resumo:
Untitled and undated manuscript written by Tudor offering his opinions on political and commercial relations between the United States, England, and France, and the causes of American animosity toward those countries. Topics and events referenced include the slave trade, Napoleon, and the Little Belt Affair. Introduction and parts one through three.
Resumo:
Includes bibliographical references.
Resumo:
Mode of access: Internet.