Background:To compare the efficacy and safety of monthly administrations of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists LY01005 and Zoladex ? in Chinese patients with premenopausal breast cancer. Methods:From October 2020 to November 2021, 188 premenopausal breast cancer patients were enrolled in 34 hospitals and randomized 1:1 to receive either LY01005 or Zoladex ? every 28 days for a total of three injections. All patients concomitantly received oral tamoxifen (TAM). The primary efficacy endpoint was cumulative probability of maintaining menopausal level [oestradiol (E2) ≤30 pg/ml] from day 29 to day 85. The second efficacy endpoint included changes in E2, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) compared with the baseline. Pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety were analyzed. The study also evaluated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of LY01005. Results:A total of 188 patients were randomised and 187 patients received either LY01005 or Zoladex ?. Cumulative probabilities of maintaining menopausal level (E2≤30 pg/ml) from day 29 to day 85 were 93.1% for LY01005 and 86.3% for Zoladex ?. The between-group difference was 6.8% (95% CI: -2.3%, 15.9%) and primary efficacy in the LY01005 group was not inferior to that in the Zoladex ? group. Changes in E2, LH, and FSH levels compared with the baseline were equivalent between the two groups (E2: 89.34% to 90.23% vs. 82.11% to 85.02%; LH: 88.89% to 95.52% vs. 89.70% to 97.02%; FSH: 75.36% to 80.85% vs.73.07% to 80.24%, respectively). After three consecutive doses of LY01005, the LH and FSH levels of the subjects showed a transient increase after the first dose, reached a peak on the second day and then started to decrease. The LH and FSH reached a lower level and remained at or below that level until the 85th day. Both treatments were well-tolerated. Conclusion:LY01005 is as effective as Zoladex ? in suppressing E2 to menopausal levels in Chinese patients with premenopausal breast cancer, with a similar safety profile.

Background:To compare the efficacy and safety of monthly administrations of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists LY01005 and Zoladex ? in Chinese patients with premenopausal breast cancer. Methods:From October 2020 to November 2021, 188 premenopausal breast cancer patients were enrolled in 34 hospitals and randomized 1:1 to receive either LY01005 or Zoladex ? every 28 days for a total of three injections. All patients concomitantly received oral tamoxifen (TAM). The primary efficacy endpoint was cumulative probability of maintaining menopausal level [oestradiol (E2) ≤30 pg/ml] from day 29 to day 85. The second efficacy endpoint included changes in E2, luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) compared with the baseline. Pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), and safety were analyzed. The study also evaluated the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of LY01005. Results:A total of 188 patients were randomised and 187 patients received either LY01005 or Zoladex ?. Cumulative probabilities of maintaining menopausal level (E2≤30 pg/ml) from day 29 to day 85 were 93.1% for LY01005 and 86.3% for Zoladex ?. The between-group difference was 6.8% (95% CI: -2.3%, 15.9%) and primary efficacy in the LY01005 group was not inferior to that in the Zoladex ? group. Changes in E2, LH, and FSH levels compared with the baseline were equivalent between the two groups (E2: 89.34% to 90.23% vs. 82.11% to 85.02%; LH: 88.89% to 95.52% vs. 89.70% to 97.02%; FSH: 75.36% to 80.85% vs.73.07% to 80.24%, respectively). After three consecutive doses of LY01005, the LH and FSH levels of the subjects showed a transient increase after the first dose, reached a peak on the second day and then started to decrease. The LH and FSH reached a lower level and remained at or below that level until the 85th day. Both treatments were well-tolerated. Conclusion:LY01005 is as effective as Zoladex ? in suppressing E2 to menopausal levels in Chinese patients with premenopausal breast cancer, with a similar safety profile.

Caloric restriction(CR)and intermittent fasting(IF)are two dietary intervention strategies that have garnered increasing attention for their potential role in regulating inflammation and metabolic disorders.With the widespread adoption of high-calorie diets and sedentary lifestyles,the incidence of metabolic diseases such as obesity,type 2 diabetes,and cardiovascular diseases has risen significantly,posing major public health challenges.This review explores how CR and IF impact inflammation reduction and metabolic health improvement through mechanisms such as metabolic reprogramming,autophagy activation,and inhibition of inflammatory pathways.Notably,both strategies have shown promising intervention effects in inflammatory diseases like multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus.Additionally,CR and IF demonstrate positive effects in the metabolic regulation of obesity,diabetes,and cardiovascular diseases.Despite their clinical potential,long-term adherence and safety remain key challenges for widespread implementation.Future research should focus on personalized interventions and the integration of multiple therapeutic approaches to further validate the clinical value of CR and IF.In summary,CR and IF offer novel,non-pharmacological strategies for managing chronic diseases,presenting significant potential for future clinical application.

Background::Erythropoietin is a glycoprotein that mainly regulates erythropoiesis. In patients with chronic renal failure with anemia, darbepoetin alfa can stimulate erythropoiesis, correct anemia, and maintain hemoglobin levels. This study was designed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa injections as being not inferior to epoetin alfa injections (Recombinant Human Erythropoietin injection, rHuEPO) when maintaining hemoglobin (Hb) levels within the target range (10.0-12.0 g/dL) for the treatment of renal anemia.Methods::Ninety-five patients were enrolled in this study from April 15, 2013 to April 10, 2014 at 25 sites. In this study, patients ( n = 95) aged 18-70 years were randomized into a once per week intravenous darbepoetin alfa group ( n = 56) and a twice or three times per week intravenous epoetin alfa group ( n = 39) for 28 weeks, who had anemia with hemoglobin levels between 6 g/dL and 10 g/dL due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and were undergoing hemodialysis or hemofiltration with ESA-naive (erythropoiesis stimulating agent-naive). The primary efficacy profile was the mean Hb level (the non-inferiority margin was -1.0 g/dL, week 21-28); the secondary efficacy profiles were the Hb increase rate (week 0-4), the target Hb achievement cumulative rate and time, the change trends of the Hb levels, and the target Hb maintenance ratio. Adverse events (AEs) were observed and compared, and the efficacy and safety were analyzed between the two treatment groups. Additionally, the frequencies of dose adjustments between the darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa groups were compared during the treatment period. SAS? software version 9.2 was used to perform all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used for all efficacy, safety, and demographic variable analyses, including for the primary efficacy indicators. Results::The mean Hb level was 11.3 g/dL in the darbepoetin alfa group and 10.7 g/dL in the epoetin alfa group, respectively; the difference of the lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) between the two groups was 0.1 g/dL (>-1.0 g/dL), and non-inferiority was proven; the Hb levels started to increase in the first four weeks at a similar increase rate; no obvious differences were observed between the groups in the target Hb achievement cumulative rates, and the Hb levels as well as the target Hb level maintenance rate changed over time. The incidence of AEs was 62.5% in the darbepoetin alfa group and 76.9% in the epoetin alfa group. All the adverse events observed in the study were those commonly associated with hemodialysis.Conclusion::Darbepoetin alfa intravenously once per week can effectively increase Hb levels and maintain the target Hb levels well, which makes it not inferior to epoetin alfa intravenously twice or three times per week. Darbepoetin alfa shows an efficacy and safety comparable to epoetin alfa for the treatment of renal anemia.

Background::This study was to explore the clinical efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa injection replacing epoetin alfa injection (recombinant human erythropoietin injection, rHuEPO) for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney failure in Chinese patients undergoing hemodialysis.Method::This study was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, intergroup parallel control phase III noninferiority trial from April 19, 2013 to September 9, 2014 at 25 sites. In this study, the members of the darbepoetin alfa group underwent intravenous administration once per week or once every two weeks. The members of the control drug epoetin alfa group underwent intravenous administration two or three times per week. All subjects underwent epoetin alfa administration during the 8-week baseline period. After that, subjects were randomly assigned to the darbepoetin alfa group or epoetin alfa group. The noninferiority in the changes of the average Hb concentrations from the baseline to the end of the evaluation period (noninferiority threshold: -1.0 g/dl) was tested between the two treatments. The time-dependent hemoglobin (Hb) concentration and the maintenance rate of the target Hb concentration (the proportion of subjects with Hb concentrations between 10.0 and 12.0 g/dl) were also evaluated. Iron metabolism, including changes in the serum iron, total iron-binding capacity, ferritin, transferrin saturation, and comparisons of the dose adjustments between the two groups during the treatment period were analyzed further. Adverse events (AEs) were also observed and compared, and the safety was analyzed between the two treatment groups. The conversion rate switching from epoetin alfa to darbepoetin alfa was also discussed. SAS ? software version 9.2 was used to perform all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used for all efficacy, safety, and demographic variable analyses, including for the primary efficacy indicators. Results::Four hundred and sixty-six patients were enrolled in this study, and ultimately 384 cases were analyzed for safety, including 267 cases in the darbepoetin alfa group and 117 cases in the epoetin alfa group. There were 211 cases in the per-protocol set, including 152 cases in the darbepoetin alfa group and 59 cases in the epoetin alfa group. The changes in the average Hb concentrations from the baseline to the end of the evaluation period were -0.07 and -0.15 g/dl in the darbepoetin alfa group and epoetin alfa group respectively. The difference between the two groups was 0.08 g/dl (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.22 to 0.39), and the lower limit of the 95% CI was -0.22 > -1.0 g/dl. The average Hb concentrations of the two groups were 10.88-11.43 g/dl (darbepoetin alfa) and 10.91-11.38 g/dl (epoetin alfa) during the study period of Weeks 0-28, with the maintenance rates of the target Hb concentration ranging within 71%-87% and 78%-95% in the darbepoetin alfa group and epoetin alfa group respectively. During the period of comparison between the two groups, the incidence of AEs in the darbepoetin alfa group was 61.42%, while in the epoetin alfa group it was 56.41%. All of the adverse events and reactions in the study were those commonly associated with hemodialysis.Conclusion::The overall efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa for the treatment of Chinese renal anemia patients undergoing hemodialysis are consistent with those of epoetin alfa.

Background::Erythropoietin is a glycoprotein that mainly regulates erythropoiesis. In patients with chronic renal failure with anemia, darbepoetin alfa can stimulate erythropoiesis, correct anemia, and maintain hemoglobin levels. This study was designed to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa injections as being not inferior to epoetin alfa injections (Recombinant Human Erythropoietin injection, rHuEPO) when maintaining hemoglobin (Hb) levels within the target range (10.0-12.0 g/dL) for the treatment of renal anemia.Methods::Ninety-five patients were enrolled in this study from April 15, 2013 to April 10, 2014 at 25 sites. In this study, patients ( n = 95) aged 18-70 years were randomized into a once per week intravenous darbepoetin alfa group ( n = 56) and a twice or three times per week intravenous epoetin alfa group ( n = 39) for 28 weeks, who had anemia with hemoglobin levels between 6 g/dL and 10 g/dL due to chronic kidney disease (CKD) and were undergoing hemodialysis or hemofiltration with ESA-naive (erythropoiesis stimulating agent-naive). The primary efficacy profile was the mean Hb level (the non-inferiority margin was -1.0 g/dL, week 21-28); the secondary efficacy profiles were the Hb increase rate (week 0-4), the target Hb achievement cumulative rate and time, the change trends of the Hb levels, and the target Hb maintenance ratio. Adverse events (AEs) were observed and compared, and the efficacy and safety were analyzed between the two treatment groups. Additionally, the frequencies of dose adjustments between the darbepoetin alfa and epoetin alfa groups were compared during the treatment period. SAS? software version 9.2 was used to perform all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used for all efficacy, safety, and demographic variable analyses, including for the primary efficacy indicators. Results::The mean Hb level was 11.3 g/dL in the darbepoetin alfa group and 10.7 g/dL in the epoetin alfa group, respectively; the difference of the lower limits of the 95% confidence intervals (CI) between the two groups was 0.1 g/dL (>-1.0 g/dL), and non-inferiority was proven; the Hb levels started to increase in the first four weeks at a similar increase rate; no obvious differences were observed between the groups in the target Hb achievement cumulative rates, and the Hb levels as well as the target Hb level maintenance rate changed over time. The incidence of AEs was 62.5% in the darbepoetin alfa group and 76.9% in the epoetin alfa group. All the adverse events observed in the study were those commonly associated with hemodialysis.Conclusion::Darbepoetin alfa intravenously once per week can effectively increase Hb levels and maintain the target Hb levels well, which makes it not inferior to epoetin alfa intravenously twice or three times per week. Darbepoetin alfa shows an efficacy and safety comparable to epoetin alfa for the treatment of renal anemia.

Background::This study was to explore the clinical efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa injection replacing epoetin alfa injection (recombinant human erythropoietin injection, rHuEPO) for the treatment of anemia associated with chronic kidney failure in Chinese patients undergoing hemodialysis.Method::This study was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, intergroup parallel control phase III noninferiority trial from April 19, 2013 to September 9, 2014 at 25 sites. In this study, the members of the darbepoetin alfa group underwent intravenous administration once per week or once every two weeks. The members of the control drug epoetin alfa group underwent intravenous administration two or three times per week. All subjects underwent epoetin alfa administration during the 8-week baseline period. After that, subjects were randomly assigned to the darbepoetin alfa group or epoetin alfa group. The noninferiority in the changes of the average Hb concentrations from the baseline to the end of the evaluation period (noninferiority threshold: -1.0 g/dl) was tested between the two treatments. The time-dependent hemoglobin (Hb) concentration and the maintenance rate of the target Hb concentration (the proportion of subjects with Hb concentrations between 10.0 and 12.0 g/dl) were also evaluated. Iron metabolism, including changes in the serum iron, total iron-binding capacity, ferritin, transferrin saturation, and comparisons of the dose adjustments between the two groups during the treatment period were analyzed further. Adverse events (AEs) were also observed and compared, and the safety was analyzed between the two treatment groups. The conversion rate switching from epoetin alfa to darbepoetin alfa was also discussed. SAS ? software version 9.2 was used to perform all statistical analyses. Descriptive statistics were used for all efficacy, safety, and demographic variable analyses, including for the primary efficacy indicators. Results::Four hundred and sixty-six patients were enrolled in this study, and ultimately 384 cases were analyzed for safety, including 267 cases in the darbepoetin alfa group and 117 cases in the epoetin alfa group. There were 211 cases in the per-protocol set, including 152 cases in the darbepoetin alfa group and 59 cases in the epoetin alfa group. The changes in the average Hb concentrations from the baseline to the end of the evaluation period were -0.07 and -0.15 g/dl in the darbepoetin alfa group and epoetin alfa group respectively. The difference between the two groups was 0.08 g/dl (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.22 to 0.39), and the lower limit of the 95% CI was -0.22 > -1.0 g/dl. The average Hb concentrations of the two groups were 10.88-11.43 g/dl (darbepoetin alfa) and 10.91-11.38 g/dl (epoetin alfa) during the study period of Weeks 0-28, with the maintenance rates of the target Hb concentration ranging within 71%-87% and 78%-95% in the darbepoetin alfa group and epoetin alfa group respectively. During the period of comparison between the two groups, the incidence of AEs in the darbepoetin alfa group was 61.42%, while in the epoetin alfa group it was 56.41%. All of the adverse events and reactions in the study were those commonly associated with hemodialysis.Conclusion::The overall efficacy and safety of darbepoetin alfa for the treatment of Chinese renal anemia patients undergoing hemodialysis are consistent with those of epoetin alfa.

Objective To describe the natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia(CIN)Ⅰand the biologic factors associated with the progression of CINⅠ and to analyze the predictive values of p16INK4a protein for the progression of CINⅠ. Methods From August 2010 to July 2013, 104 patients referred for abnormal cytology [≤ low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL); including negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy (NILM), atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS), LSIL] and high-risk (HR) HPV positive,and were diagnosed CINⅠ by colposcopy-assisted biopsy and followed at 1-year intervals in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. In order to analyze the relationship between the progression of CINⅠ with clinical biologic factors, including patient age, cervical cytology before colposcopy, loads of HR HPV, HPV L1 capsid protein, p16INK4a protein,χ2 tests was used to compare the different frequencies of factors in groups of progressed and persisted/regressed CINⅠ, then five factors with progressed CINⅠwere processed into binary logistic regression analysis. Results (1) In the first year of follow-up, among 104 patients(including 15 cases NILM,78 cases ASCUS,11 cases LSIL), 52 cases of them were NILM and HR HPV negative, 30 cases were negative for intraepithelial lesion, 10 cases were CINⅠ, 5 cases were CINⅡand 7 cases were CINⅢ. In total, 82 cases (78.8%,82/104) cases had regressed, 10 cases (9.6%,10/104) persisted, 12 cases (11.5%,12/104) progressed [including 5 cases (4.8%,5/104) progressed to CIN Ⅱ, 7 cases (6.7%,7/104) progressed to CIN Ⅲ, none progressed to invasive cancer]. (2) All patients, 88 cases of them accepted immunohistochemical detection the expression of p16INK4a protein. The result shown that 30 cases (34%,30/88) were positive and 58 cases (66%,58/88) were negative. And 94 cases accepted immunocytochemical detection the expression of HPV L1 capsid protein, 49 cases (52%,49/94) were positive and 45 cases (48%,45/94) were negative. (3) Univariate analysis showed that age of the patient, loads of HR HPV, cervical cytology before colposcopy and the expression of HPV L1 capsid protein were not risk factors of the progression of CINⅠ(all P>0.05) except for the expression of p16INK4a protein (P<0.05). Multivariable analysis found that p16INK4a protein positive was associated with progression of CINⅠ(OR=5.1,95%CI:1.162-22.387,P=0.031). (4) Thirty-one cases were p16INK4a protein positive, 8 cases (27%,8/30) of them progressed,while 4 cases (7%,4/58) of 58 cases with p16INK4a protein negative progressed,in which there were significant difference (P<0.05). The sensitivity was 75%, the specificity was 71%, the positive predictive value was 27%and the negative predictive value was 93%for progression to CINⅡ-Ⅲof p16INK4a protein staining. Conclusions The progression rate of CINⅠwith abnormal cytology (≤LSIL) and HR HPV positive was lower, and there was no progression to invasion at 1-year intervals. Immunostaining of p16INK4a protein as the risk factors of CINⅠprogression could have a role in prediction of CINⅠand the management of high-risk CINⅠ.