4.2 Article

Renal Toxicity Caused by Brand-name Versus Generic Cisplatin: A Comparative Analysis

期刊

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 43, 期 4, 页码 390-395

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyt020

关键词

cisplatin; generic; brand name; renal toxicity

类别

资金

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, Japan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A generic cisplatin formulation has replaced the brand-name formulation since November 2003 in our hospital. We retrospectively assessed the renal toxicity caused by the brand-name and generic cisplatin formulations. The medical records of patients with thoracic malignancy who were treated at our hospital between November 2000 and April 2008 were reviewed. In total, 1296 eligible patients received 80 mg/m(2) of cisplatin: 499 patients were treated with the brand-name cisplatin formulation before November 2003 (Group 1) and 797 patients were treated with the generic formulation after November 2003 (Group 2). We compared the maximum serum creatinine level after chemotherapy in the two groups. The patient characteristics, including age, sex and performance status, and pretreatment serum creatinine levels were well balanced between the two groups. More patients received four cycles of chemotherapy in Group 2 (P 0.0001). The median (range) of the maximum serum creatinine levels during all the chemotherapy cycles were 1.1 (0.54.1) mg/dl and 1.1 (0.54.4) mg/dl in Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P 0.0237). The incidence of grade 0 serum creatinine elevations decreased from 47 to 39, while that of grade 1 serum creatinine elevations increased from 32 to 41 (P 0.0094). The incidence rates of grade 2 or 3 serum creatinine elevations were similar (21 vs. 20). The time to serum creatinine elevation was also similar in Groups 1 and 2 (P 0.161). Although grade 1 maximum serum creatinine level was more common in the generic cisplatin formulation group, this was attributed to the larger number of patients receiving four cycles of chemotherapy in this group.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据