UNLABELLED ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Data on clinical characteristics and outcomes in regard to hip fracture (HF) type are controversial. This study aimed to evaluate whether clinical and laboratory predictors of poorer outcomes differ by HF type. METHODS Prospective evaluation of 761 consecutively admitted patients (mean age 82.3 ± 8.8 years; 74.9% women) with low-trauma non-pathological HF. Clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes were recorded. Haematological, renal, liver and thyroid status, C-reactive protein, cardiac troponin I, serum 25(OH) vitamin D, PTH, leptin, adiponectin and resistin were determined. RESULTS The cervical compared to the tronchanteric HF group was younger, have higher mean haemoglobin, albumin, adiponectin and resistin and lower PTH levels (all P < 0.05). In-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay (LOS), incidence of post-operative myocardial injury and need of institutionalisation were similar in both groups. Multivariate analysis revealed as independent predictors for in-hospital death in patient with cervical HF male sex, hyperparathyroidism and lower leptin levels, while in patients with trochanteric HF only hyperparathyroidism; for post-operative myocardial injury dementia, smoking and renal impairment in the former group and coronary artery disease (CAD), hyperparathyroidism and hypoleptinaemia in the latter; for LOS > 20 days CAD, and age > 75 years and hyperparathyroidism, respectively. Need of institutionalisation was predicted by age > 75 years and dementia in both groups and also by hypovitaminosis D in the cervical and by hyperparathyroidism in the trochanteric HF. CONCLUSIONS Clinical characteristics and incidence of poorer short-term outcomes in the two main HF types are rather similar but risk factors for certain outcomes are site-specific reflecting differences in underlying mechanisms.

Despite more than a century of evolving federal legislation, there remain many unapproved drugs on the United States (US) market. This article reviews the history of drug approval in the US, beginning with the landmark Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, through to the development of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 was the first comprehensive federal legislation covering drug regulation. Intervening legislation, such as the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and Kefauver-Harris Amendments in 1962, was later instituted. In June 2006, a century after the development of the FDA as an enforcement body, an initiative was undertaken to remove unapproved drugs from the marketplace. The Marketed Unapproved Drugs - Compliance Policy Guide outlines enforcement policies aimed at efficiently and rationally bringing all unapproved and illegally marketed drugs into the approval process, or discontinuing their manufacture, distribution, and sale. The FDA has been actively pursuing control of unapproved drugs in recent years, with an approach concentrating on drug safety to ensure optimal public health and consumer protection.

BACKGROUND Fenofibrate is used to treat primary hypercholesterolemia, mixed lipidemia, and hypertriglyceridemia in adults who do not respond to nonpharmacologic measures. Fenofibrate is a prodrug that is rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to fenofibric acid, the active moiety. A new orally administered agent, fenofibric acid, was developed as an alternative to fenofibrate. OBJECTIVE Two separate studies were conducted to evaluate the bioequivalence of fenofibric acid relative to fenofibrate under fasted and fed (standard breakfast) conditions, characterize the pharmacokinetic profile, and assess the safety and tolerability of fenofibric acid. METHODS In study 1 (fasted), during each study period, volunteers received a single 105-mg dose of fenofibric acid or single 145-mg dose of fenofibrate (depending on their randomization scheme) after an overnight fast (a minimum fast of 10 hours). A 7-day washout period followed the first treatment period, after which the volunteers received the alternate treatment. Study 2 followed a similar dosing scheme and differed only in that volunteers received their single dose after being fed a standard meal (575 calories, of which 36% were contributed by fat). Serial blood samples in both studies were collected up to 72 hours after drug administration. The pharmacokinetic parameters of interest for assessing bioequivalence were AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞), C(max), and T(max). The criterion for a lack of difference between products was a 90% CI between 0.80 and 1.25 for the fenofibric acid:fenofibrate ratios for AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞), and C(max.) Tolerability was assessed by adverse events (AEs), laboratory parameters, vital signs, and physical examinations. RESULTS Volunteers in study 1 (fasted; n = 54) were aged 18 to 43 years; 19 (35%) were men and 35 (65%) were women; mean weight was 155.2 pounds (range, 103.0-267.0 pounds); and 48 (89%) were white, 1 (2%) was black, and 5 (9%) were white/American Indian/Alaskan native/Asian. Volunteers in study 2 (fed; n = 54) were aged 18 to 43 years; 27 (50%) were men and 27 (50%) were women; mean weight was 161.9 pounds (range, 112.0-225.0 pounds); and 51 (94%) were white (including 2 Hispanic) and 3 (6%) were black. The 90% CIs about the ratio of the fenofibric acid geometric mean to the fenofibrate geometric mean were within the 80% and 125% limits for the pharmacokinetic parameters C(max), AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-∞) of the ln-transformed data in both study 1 (fasted) and study 2. In study 1 (fasted), 14 volunteers (26%) experienced a total of 29 AEs; the most common nonlaboratory AEs were dizziness (6%) and headache (4%). In study 2, 12 volunteers (22%) experienced a total of 19 AEs; the most common nonlaboratory AEs were headache (17%) and dry throat (4%). AEs were generally mild or moderate in intensity. CONCLUSIONS In these 2 single-dose studies, these healthy volunteers administered a single oral dose of 105-mg fenofibric acid met the US Food and Drug Administration regulatory criteria for assuming bioequivalence to a single oral dose of 145-mg fenofibrate tablets with respect to the rate and extent of fenofibric acid absorption in both fed and fasted states. Fenofibric acid at the dose studied was well tolerated in this population.

UNC119 is widely expressed among vertebrates and other phyla. We found that UNC119 recognized the acylated N terminus of the rod photoreceptor transducin α (Tα) subunit and Caenorhabditis elegans G proteins ODR-3 and GPA-13. The crystal structure of human UNC119 at 1.95-Å resolution revealed an immunoglobulin-like β-sandwich fold. Pulldowns and isothermal titration calorimetry revealed a tight interaction between UNC119 and acylated Gα peptides. The structure of co-crystals of UNC119 with an acylated Tα N-terminal peptide at 2.0 Å revealed that the lipid chain is buried deeply into UNC119's hydrophobic cavity. UNC119 bound Tα-GTP, inhibiting its GTPase activity, thereby providing a stable UNC119-Tα-GTP complex capable of diffusing from the inner segment back to the outer segment after light-induced translocation. UNC119 deletion in both mouse and C. elegans led to G protein mislocalization. Thus, UNC119 is a Gα subunit cofactor essential for G protein trafficking in sensory cilia.

OBJECTIVE Drug-drug interactions can limit the safety of colchicine for treating rheumatic diseases. Seven separate drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies were performed to elucidate the in vivo effects of concomitant treatment with colchicine and known inhibitors of cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4)/P-glycoprotein (cyclosporine, ketoconazole, ritonavir, clarithromycin, azithromycin, verapamil ER [extended release]), and diltiazem ER) on the pharmacokinetics of colchicine. The objective was to develop colchicine-dosing algorithms with improved safety. METHODS All studies were open-label, non-randomized, single-center, one-sequence, two-period DDI experiments, using two 0.6-mg doses of colchicine, separated by a minimum 14-day washout period, followed by administration of the approved on-label regimen of known CYP3A4/P-glycoprotein inhibitors. Plasma concentrations of colchicine, but not the reference CYP3A4/P-glycoprotein inhibitors, were determined, and the pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. RESULTS The ratios of the maximum concentration and area under the curve from time 0 to infinity for colchicine plus CYP3A4/P-glycoprotein inhibitors versus colchicine alone were >125% across all studies, with the exception of studies involving azithromycin. Significant DDIs were present when single doses of colchicine were coadministered with most of the selected CYP3A4/P-glycoprotein inhibitors. Recommended colchicine dose reductions of 33-66% for the treatment of acute gout and 50-75% for prophylaxis were calculated for concomitant therapy with each agent, with the exception of no dose adjustment when colchicine is used in combination with azithromycin. CONCLUSION These studies provide quantitative evidence regarding drug interactions and necessary adjustments in the dose of colchicine if colchicine treatment is continued during therapy with multiple CYP3A4/P-glycoprotein inhibitors. We demonstrated the need for specific reductions in the dose of colchicine when it is used in combination with 2 broadly prescribed calcium channel blockers (verapamil ER and diltiazem ER) and that the dose of colchicine does not need to be adjusted when it is used in combination with azithromycin.

BACKGROUND Gout is a common inflammatory arthritis that affects ∼4% of the US population. Most patients with gout are >50 years of age and have multiple comorbidities. Gout is caused by the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in joints secondary to hyperuricemia. Gout typically presents as an acute painful inflammation (flare) involving one or more joint. Left untreated it can progress into a more chronic polyarthritis. Acute gout flare treatment options include colchicine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and corticosteroids. The safety and efficacy of colchicine, especially in the presence of comorbidity and potential contraindications, has only recently been systematically investigated. METHODS Through the use of a systematic computer-based literature analysis, this pharmacoeconomic review evaluated costs, risks, and benefits of Colcrys (colchicine) compared with other treatments for gout in the US. RESULTS Both colchicine and NSAIDs are historically associated with gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events (AEs). Colchicine has very low risk for AEs, even in patients with GI disorders; whereas, NSAIDS are contraindicated in patients with GI disorders, renal insufficiency, and heart failure. The monthly cost of treating 100 patients with Colcrys was $33,100 compared with $3000 for NSAIDs. However, hospitalization for GI complications (1.8%) and heart failure (1.9%) is common with NSAIDs and can increase the monthly cost of treating 100 patients with NSAIDs to $161,000, considering $15,000-20,000 per day of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS Considering high costs associated with treating patients with gout, it seems prudent to choose the treatment with greatest benefit, lowest cost, and least risk. Despite higher cost per dose, colchicine appears to be more cost effective for management of gout flares than NSAIDs.

We developed a method, MosDEL, to generate targeted knockouts of genes in Caenorhabditis elegans by injection. We generated a double-strand break by mobilizing a Mos1 transposon adjacent to the region to be deleted; the double-stranded break is repaired using injected DNA as a template. Repair can delete up to 25 kb of DNA and simultaneously insert a positive selection marker.