This study is to investigate the anti-tumor activities of a novel cyclophosphamide derivate 4, 6-diphenyl cyclophosphamide (9b) in vivo and in vitro, and its possible mechanism of action. The inhibitory effects of 9b on human hepatoma cell line HepG2, human breast carcinoma cell line MCF-7 and human myeloid leukemia cell line K562 were measured by MTT assay in vitro. Cell cycle distribution and apoptotic rate were evaluated by flow cytometry. To evaluate the anti-tumor effect of 9b in vivo, mouse model bearing inoculated H22 tumor was established. The results indicated that 9b could inhibit the proliferation of HepG2, MCF-7 and K562 cells in a dose and time dependent manner. The ICo50 values of 9b were 32.34 micromol.L-1 to HepG2 cells, 87.07 micromol.L-1 to MCF-7 cells and 149.10 micromol.L-1 to K562 cells after incubation for 48 h. The results of flow cytometry indicated that after being treated for 48 h with different concentrations of 9b, the ratios of HepG2, MCF-7 cells at the Go/G1 phase and K562 cells at the G0/Gl phase and G2/M phase increased significantly compared with control group, and the apoptotic rate increased with the increase of the concentration of 9b. 9b could significantly reduce tumor weight of H22 solid tumor mouse model in vivo. To summarize, 9b showed significantly anti-tumor activity in vivo and in vitro, of which the mechanism might be associated with the change of cell cycle distribution and induction of tumor cell apoptosis.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy,safety and economy of centrally procured ceftazidime injection for treating pulmonary infections,and to provide a reference for clinical therapeutic decisions.Methods Based on the active monitoring and drug evaluation functions of the China Hospital Pharmacovigilance System(CHPS),a retrospective analysis was conducted.Electronic medical records of 203 patients treated with ceftazidime injection for pulmonary injections in our hospital from February 2021 to August 2022 were collected.Patients were divided into two groups based on the type of ceftazidime used,the centrally procured ceftazidime group(102 cases)and the non-centrally procured ceftazidime group(101 cases).Efficacy was evaluated by the effectiveness rate,safety by the incidence of adverse reactions,and economy by cost-effectiveness analysis.Differences between the two groups were compared.Results Treatment efficiency was 90.20%in the centrally procured group and 91.09%in the non-centrally procured group,with no statistically significant difference(P>0.05).The incidence of adverse reactions was 10.78%in the centrally procured group and 5.94%in the non-centrally procured group,with no statistically significant difference(P>0.05).The average cost-effectiveness ratio(C/E)was 1.56±0.86 in the centrally procured group and 18.96±9.38 in the non-centrally procured group,indicating a smaller C/E value for the centrally procured group.Sensitivity analysis results were consistent with the cost-effectiveness analysis results.Conclusion Centrally procured ceftazidime injection has equivalent efficacy and safety compared to non-centrally procured ceftazidime,with improved economic value.Therefore,the centrally procured variant should be given priority when using ceftazidime for the treatment of pulmonary infections.