OBJECTIVE: We intended to evaluate the double standard status and to identify factors of determining double standard criteria in multinational corporations of Korea, and specifically those in the occupational health and safety area. METHODS: A postal questionnaire had been sent, between August 2002 and September 2002, to multinational corporations in Korea. A double standard company was defined as those who answered in more than one item as adopting a different standard among the five items regarding double standard identification. By comparing double standard companies with equivalent standard companies, determinants for double standards were then identified using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of multinational corporations, 45.1% had adopted a double standard. Based on the question naire's scale level, the factor of 'characteristic and size of multinational corporation' was found to have the most potent impact on increasing double standard risk. On the variable level, factors of 'number of affiliated companies' and 'existence of an auditing system with the parent company' showed a strong negative impact on double standard risk. CONCLUSION: : Our study suggests that a distinctive approach is needed to manage the occupational safety and health for multinational corporations. This approach should be focused on the specific level of a corporation, not on a country level.
Humans ; Internationality ; Korea* ; Logistic Models ; Occupational Health ; Parents

Combination therapies of antihypertensive drugs are recommended in cases where hypertension is not controlled by monotherapy. This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) between fixed-dose combination (FDC) of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg and the corresponding loose combination. Because of the high intra-subject variability for maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) of fimasartan, a randomized, open-label, 3×3 partial replicated crossover design was adopted. Subjects received a single dose of FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg or the corresponding loose combination in each period. Blood samples for PK analysis were collected up to 48 hours for fimasartan and 144 hours for amlodipine, respectively. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and its 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the FDC to the loose combination for C(max) and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last quantifiable time point (AUC(last)) were calculated. Sixty healthy subjects were randomized, and 57 subjects completed the study. The concentration-time profiles of fimasartan and amlodipine were similar between the FDC and loose combination. The GMRs (90% CIs) of the FDC to the loose combination for C(max) and AUC(last) were 1.0440 (0.9202–1.1844) and 1.0412 (0.9775–1.1090) for fimasartan, and 1.0430 (1.0156–1.0711) and 1.0339 (1.0055–1.0631) for amlodipine, respectively. The GMRs and its 90% CIs for C(max) and AUC(last) of fimasartan and amlodipine were included not only in the scaled bioequivalence criteria but also in the conventional bioequivalence criteria. In conclusion, FDC of fimasartan/amlodipine 60/10 mg showed comparable PK profiles with the corresponding loose combination, which suggests their bioequivalence.
Amlodipine ; Antihypertensive Agents ; Cross-Over Studies ; Healthy Volunteers ; Hypertension ; Pharmacokinetics ; Plasma ; Therapeutic Equivalency

BACKGROUND: Molecular imaging such as positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) can provide the crucial pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic information of a drug non-invasively at an early stage of clinical drug development. Nevertheless, not much has been known how molecular imaging has been actually used in drug development studies.METHODS: We searched PubMed using such keywords as molecular imaging, PET, SPECT, drug development, and new drug, or any combination of those to select papers in English, published from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2015. The information about the publication year, therapeutic area of a drug candidate, drug development phase, and imaging modality and utility of imaging were extracted.RESULTS: Of 10,264 papers initially screened, 208 papers met the eligibility criteria. The more recent the publication year, the bigger the number of papers, particularly since 2010. The two major therapeutic areas using molecular imaging to develop drugs were oncology (47.6%) and the central nervous system (CNS, 36.5%), in which efficacy (63.5%) and proof-of-concept through either receptor occupancy (RO) or other than RO (29.7%), respectively, were the primary utility of molecular imaging. PET was used 4.7 times more frequently than SPECT. Molecular imaging was most frequently used in phase I clinical trials (40.8%), whereas it was employed rarely in phase 0 or exploratory IND studies (1.4%).CONCLUSIONS: The present study confirmed the trend that molecular imaging has been more actively employed in recent clinical drug development studies although its adoption was rather slow and rare in phase 0 studies.
Central Nervous System ; Clinical Trials, Phase I as Topic ; Molecular Imaging ; Positron-Emission Tomography ; Publications ; Tomography, Emission-Computed ; Tomography, Emission-Computed, Single-Photon

BACKGROUND: Molecular imaging such as positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) can provide the crucial pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic information of a drug non-invasively at an early stage of clinical drug development. Nevertheless, not much has been known how molecular imaging has been actually used in drug development studies. METHODS: We searched PubMed using such keywords as molecular imaging, PET, SPECT, drug development, and new drug, or any combination of those to select papers in English, published from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2015. The information about the publication year, therapeutic area of a drug candidate, drug development phase, and imaging modality and utility of imaging were extracted. RESULTS: Of 10,264 papers initially screened, 208 papers met the eligibility criteria. The more recent the publication year, the bigger the number of papers, particularly since 2010. The two major therapeutic areas using molecular imaging to develop drugs were oncology (47.6%) and the central nervous system (CNS, 36.5%), in which efficacy (63.5%) and proof-of-concept through either receptor occupancy (RO) or other than RO (29.7%), respectively, were the primary utility of molecular imaging. PET was used 4.7 times more frequently than SPECT. Molecular imaging was most frequently used in phase I clinical trials (40.8%), whereas it was employed rarely in phase 0 or exploratory IND studies (1.4%). CONCLUSIONS The present study confirmed the trend that molecular imaging has been more actively employed in recent clinical drug development studies although its adoption was rather slow and rare in phase 0 studies.

Tegoprazan is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker that treats gastric acid-related diseases. Clarithromycin was widely used as one of various regimens for eradicating Helicobacter pylori. This study compared the pharmacokinetic and safety profile of tegoprazan and clarithromycin between combination therapy and monotherapy to evaluate the potential drug-drug interaction. An open-label, randomized, 6-sequence, 3-period crossover study was conducted in 24 healthy subjects. According to the assigned sequence, the subject was administered the assigned treatment during 5 days in each period. PK parameters of tegoprazan and clarithromycin administered in combination were compared with those of the respective monotherapies. The co-administration of tegoprazan with clarithromycin increased maximum steady-state plasma concentration (C ss,max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve in dosing interval at steady-state (AUC ss,tau ) of tegoprazan (1.6-fold in C ss,max and 2.5-fold in AUC ss,tau ) and M1 (2.0-fold in C ss,max , 2.5-fold in AUC ss,tau ) than tegoprazan alone. The C ss,max and AUC sss,tau of 14-hydroxyclarithromycin increased 1.8- and 2.0-fold in co-administration, respectively. The AUC ss.tau of clarithromycin was slightly increased in co-administration, but C ss,max was not changed. Combination of tegoprazan and clarithromycin and those of the respective monotherapies were tolerated in 24 healthy subjects. There may exist drug interaction that lead to reciprocal increase in plasma drug concentrations when tegoprazan and clarithromycin were administrated in combination and no safety concerns were raised. It is suggested that an in-depth analysis of the concentrationresponse relationship is necessary to determine whether these concentration changes warrant clinical action.