Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The informa-tion on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale,application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA’s programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA’s regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion Each expedited program requiresa different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innova-tive medication development.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The informa-tion on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale,application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA’s programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA’s regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion Each expedited program requiresa different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innova-tive medication development.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The informa-tion on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale,application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA’s programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA’s regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion Each expedited program requiresa different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innova-tive medication development.

Background: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) have been implementing the expedited programs that promote the innovative approval of new medications to be used for serious diseases. The authors comprehensively investigated, analyzed, and compared the regulations and guidelines associated with the expedited programs. Methods: The expedited programs for innovative drug development and approval were searched from the homepages of FDA, EMA and MFDS. The detailed information on the regulations and guidelines associated with the programs was comprehensively extracted from various electronic repositories of each regulatory authority. The informa-tion on each program was analyzed, categorized, and compared from the points of benefits, applicability with scientific rationale,application procedure, and maintenance. Results: FDA’s programs include Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Therapy Designation, Priority Review Designation, and Accelerated Approval. EMA’s regulation implements PRIority MEdicines (PRIME), Accelerated Assessment, Marketing Authorization under Exceptional Circumstances (MAEC), and Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA). MFDS has a single Expedited Program. These programs are broadly categorized into those that 1) facilitate early and proactive communication with regulatory authorities, 2) shorten the review time after submitting a marketing application, and 3) temporarily approve a marketing authorization under certain conditions. Conclusion Each expedited program requiresa different level and amount of safety and efficacy evidence to be submitted to each regulatory authority. This article will likely provide the comprehensive information on which program provides scientific and regulatory advantages to be taken for innova-tive medication development.

PURPOSE: Acute pyelonephritis (APN) is a serious bacterial infection that can cause renal scarring in children. Early identification of APN is critical to improve treatment outcomes. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a prognostic marker of many diseases, but it has not yet been established in urinary tract infection (UTI). The aim of this study was to determine whether NLR is a useful marker to predict APN or vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 298 pediatric patients (age≤36 months) with febrile UTI from January 2010 to December 2014. Conventional infection markers (white blood cell [WBC] count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP]), and NLR were measured. RESULTS: WBC, CRP, ESR, and NLR were higher in APN than in lower UTI (P<0.001). Multiple logistic regression analyses showed that NLR was a predictive factor for positive dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) defects (P<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was high for NLR (P<0.001) as well as CRP (P<0.001) for prediction of DMSA defects. NLR showed the highest area under the ROC curve for diagnosis of VUR (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: NLR can be used as a diagnostic marker of APN with DMSA defect, showing better results than those of conventional markers for VUR prediction.
Bacterial Infections ; Blood Cells ; C-Reactive Protein ; Child* ; Cicatrix ; Diagnosis ; Erythrocyte Count ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Pyelonephritis ; Retrospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Succimer ; Urinary Tract Infections* ; Urinary Tract* ; Vesico-Ureteral Reflux

PURPOSE: Acute pyelonephritis (APN) is a serious bacterial infection that can cause renal scarring in children. Early identification of APN is critical to improve treatment outcomes. The neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is a prognostic marker of many diseases, but it has not yet been established in urinary tract infection (UTI). The aim of this study was to determine whether NLR is a useful marker to predict APN or vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 298 pediatric patients (age≤36 months) with febrile UTI from January 2010 to December 2014. Conventional infection markers (white blood cell [WBC] count, erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP]), and NLR were measured. RESULTS: WBC, CRP, ESR, and NLR were higher in APN than in lower UTI (P<0.001). Multiple logistic regression analyses showed that NLR was a predictive factor for positive dimercaptosuccinic acid (DMSA) defects (P<0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was high for NLR (P<0.001) as well as CRP (P<0.001) for prediction of DMSA defects. NLR showed the highest area under the ROC curve for diagnosis of VUR (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: NLR can be used as a diagnostic marker of APN with DMSA defect, showing better results than those of conventional markers for VUR prediction.
Bacterial Infections ; Blood Cells ; C-Reactive Protein ; Child* ; Cicatrix ; Diagnosis ; Erythrocyte Count ; Humans ; Logistic Models ; Pyelonephritis ; Retrospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Succimer ; Urinary Tract Infections* ; Urinary Tract* ; Vesico-Ureteral Reflux

PURPOSE: Rotavirus is the main cause of infantile diarrheal disease worldwide, especially in patients 3-24 months of age. Infants younger than 3 months of age are relatively protected by transplacental antibody. So the purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical features and severity of neonatal rotaviral gastroenteritis less than 1 month of age. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was established of 62 neonates less than 1 month of age and with a diagnosis of rotaviral gastroenteritis who had been admitted to Pochon CHA University between June 2002 through July 2004. The rotavirus was examined by stool latex agglutination. RESULTS: During 2 years, the total number of admitted patients for rotaviral gastroenteritis was 688 and among these, less than 1 month of age accounted for 9% (62). The occurrence was generally even distribution from January to July (7.14+/-1.0) but since then decreased (2.4+/-1.8). The most common chief complaint was mild fever (46%) when admitted which subsided within 1 hospital day in most patients. 4 patients had seizure and cyanosis with no typical symptoms of rotaviral gastroenteritis. During admission, all the patients had diarrhea. 17% of the patients had leukocytosis and positive C-reactive protein. In one patient, stool occult blood test was positive but there was no necrotizing gastroenteritis evidence. The mean period of hospital day was 5.8+/-2.5 and breast-milk feeding was 62.9%. CONCLUSION: Neonatal rotaviral gastroenteritis is not a rare disease. Most patients have fever and diarrhea and improve through conservative therapy but a few patients may have severe complications so we must be more cautious about the hygiene for prevention.
Agglutination ; C-Reactive Protein ; Cyanosis ; Diagnosis ; Diarrhea ; Fever ; Gastroenteritis* ; Humans ; Hygiene ; Infant ; Infant, Newborn* ; Latex ; Leukocytosis ; Occult Blood ; Rare Diseases ; Retrospective Studies ; Rotavirus ; Seizures

BACKGROUND: Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection is particularly associated with progressive and ultimately chronic recurrent respiratory infections in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, chronic destroyed lung disease, and cystic fibrosis. Its treatment is also very complex because of drug resistance and recurrence. METHODS: Forty eight cultures from 18 patients with recurrent P. aeruginosa pneumonia from 1998 to 2002 were included in this study. Two or more pairs of sputum cultures were performed during 2 or more different periods of recurrences. The comparison of strains was made according to the phenotypic patterns of antibiotic resistance and chromosomal fingerprinting by pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) using the genomic DNA of P. aeruginosa from the sputum culture. RESULTS: Phenotypic patterns of antibiotic resistance of P. aeruginosa were not correlated with their prior antibiotic exposition. Fifteen of 18 patients (83.3%) had recurrent P. aeruginosa pneumonia caused by the strains with same PFGE pattern. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the most of the recurrent P. aeruginosa infections in chronic lung disease occurred due to the relapse of prior infections. Further investigations should be performed for assessing the molecular mechanisms of the persistent colonization and for determining how to eradicate clonal persistence of P. aeruginosa.
Bronchiectasis ; Colon ; Cystic Fibrosis ; Dermatoglyphics ; DNA ; Drug Resistance ; Drug Resistance, Microbial ; Electrophoresis, Gel, Pulsed-Field ; Humans ; Lung Diseases* ; Pneumonia ; Pseudomonas aeruginosa* ; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive ; Recurrence* ; Respiratory Tract Infections ; Sputum

No abstract available.
Autopsy* ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay*

Necrotizing fasciitis (NF) is a rapidly progressive necrosis of the subcutaneous tissue and fascia, caused by bacterial infection. Usually presenting in the extremities, trunk, or perineum, it is uncommon in the craniofacial or cervical area. Cervicofacial NF is a potentially fatal infection, which should be managed with early detection and intervention. Most cases have a primary odontogenic source of infection, especially when the masticator space is involved. We report a case of masticator space NF that developed without odontogenic origin in a 78-year old female who was treated with prompt surgical drainage and intravenous antibiotics.
Anti-Bacterial Agents ; Bacterial Infections ; Drainage ; Extremities ; Fascia ; Fasciitis, Necrotizing ; Female ; Humans ; Mandible ; Mouth, Edentulous ; Necrosis ; Osteomyelitis ; Perineum ; Subcutaneous Tissue