Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Natural products are important sources for the discovery of anti-tumor drugs. Evodiamine is the main alkaloid component of the traditional Chinese herb Wu-Chu-Yu, and it has weak antitumor activity. In recent years, a number of highly active antitumor candidates have been discovered with a significant progress. This article reviews the research progress of evodiamine-based antitumor drug design strategies, in order to provide reference for the development of new drugs with natural products as leads.

Objective To study the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the test formulation of compound lidocaine cream and reference formulation of lidocaine and prilocaine cream in Chinese healthy subjects and to evaluate whether there is bioequivalence between the two formulations.Methods A single-center,single-dose,randomized,open-label,two-period,two-sequence,crossover design was used.This study included 40 healthy subjects,and in each period,test formulation or reference formulation 60 g was applied to the skin in front of both thighs(200 cm2 each side,a total of 400 cm2)under fasting conditions,and the drug was left on for at least 5 h after application.The concentrations of lidocaine and prilocaine in plasma were determined using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry(LC-MS/MS)method.Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using WinNonlin 8.0 software to evaluate the bioequivalence of the two formulations.Results After the application of the test formulation compound lidocaine cream and the reference formulation lidocaine and prilocaine cream on both thighs of the subjects,the pharmacokinetic parameters of lidocaine in plasma were as follows:Cmax were(167.27±91.33)and(156.13±66.86)ng·mL-1,AUC0-t were(1 651.78±685.09)and(1 636.69±617.23)ng·mL-1·h,AUC0-∞ were(1 669.85±684.65)and(1 654.37±618.30)ng·mL-1·h,the adjusted geometric mean ratios were 104.49％,101.88％and 101.89％,respectively,with 90％confidence intervals of 98.18％-111.20％,97.80％-106.13％and 97.87％-106.07％,all within the range of 80.00％-125.00％.The pharmacokinetic parameters of prilocaine in plasma were as follows:Cmax were(95.66±48.84)and(87.52±39.16)ng·mL-1,AUC0-t were(790.86±263.99)and(774.14±256.42)ng·mL-1·h,AUC0_m were(807.27±264.67)and(792.84±254.06)ng·mL-1 h,the adjusted geometric mean ratios were 107.34％,103.55％and 102.98％,respectively with 90％confidence intervals of 101.69％-113.31％,99.94％-107.30％and 99.65％-106.43％,all within the range of 80.00％-125.00％.Conclusion The test formulation compound lidocaine cream and the reference formulation lidocaine and prilocaine cream are bioequivalent.

Objective To evaluate the bioequivalence and safety of ezetimibe tablets in healthy Chinese subjects.Methods The study was designed as a single-center,randomized,open-label,two-period,two-way crossover,single-dose trail.Subjects who met the enrollment criteria were randomized into fasting administration group and postprandial administration group and received a single oral dose of 10 mg of the subject presparation of ezetimibe tablets or the reference presparation per cycle.The blood concentrations of ezetimibe and ezetimibe-glucuronide conjugate were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry(HPLC-MS/MS),and the bioequivalence of the 2 preparations was evaluated using the WinNonlin 7.0 software.Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated to evaluate the bioequivalence of the 2 preparations.The occurrence of all adverse events was also recorded to evaluate the safety.Results The main pharmacokinetic parameters of total ezetimibe in the plasma of the test and the reference after a single fasted administration:Cmax were(118.79±35.30)and(180.79±51.78)nmol·mL-1;tmax were 1.40 and 1.04 h;t1/2 were(15.33±5.57)and(17.38±7.24)h;AUC0-t were(1 523.90±371.21)and(1 690.99±553.40)nmol·mL-1·h;AUC0-∞ were(1 608.70±441.28),(1 807.15±630.00)nmol·mL-1·h.The main pharmacokinetic parameters of total ezetimibe in plasma of test and reference after a single meal:Cmax were(269.18±82.94)and(273.93±87.78)nmol·mL-1;Tmax were 1.15 and 1.08 h;t1/2 were(22.53±16.33)and(16.02±5.84)h;AUC0_twere(1 463.37±366.03),(1 263.96±271.01)nmol·mL-1·h;AUC0-∞ were(1 639.01±466.53),(1 349.97±281.39)nmol·mL-1·h.The main pharmacokinetic parameters Cmax,AUC0-tand AUC0-∞ of the two preparations were analyzed by variance analysis after logarithmic transformation.In the fasting administration group,the 90％CI of the log-transformed geometric mean ratios were within the bioequivalent range for the remaining parameters in the fasting dosing group,except for the Cmax of ezetimibe and total ezetimibe,which were below the lower bioequivalent range.The Cmax of ezetimibe,ezetimibe-glucuronide,and total ezetimibe in the postprandial dosing group was within the equivalence range,and the 90％CI of the remaining parameters were not within the equivalence range for bioequivalence.Conclusion This test can not determine whether the test preparation and the reference preparation of ezetimibe tablets have bioequivalence,and further clinical trials are needed to verify it.