蒲公英 - 制药技术的传播者 GMP理论的实践者

搜索
查看: 5927|回复: 25
收起左侧

羟乙基淀粉事件——请理性看待

[复制链接]
药生
发表于 2018-2-8 18:54:09 | 显示全部楼层 |阅读模式

欢迎您注册蒲公英

您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看,没有帐号?立即注册

x
本帖最后由 范林 于 2018-2-8 18:57 编辑

    年底了,各证券机构忙着写各种总结,其中国信证券的2017年批签发回顾中提到了羟乙基淀粉,说如果羟乙基淀粉完全被人血白蛋白替代后,将会增加白蛋白的用量空间150%。这句话本身没有错,但是作者将这个作为行业经历寒冬,来年预期回暖的证明,我有一点不同的看法。         
    羟乙基淀粉完全被人血白蛋白替代,增加白蛋白的用量空间150%后,其企业本身真有那么大的提高?不见得。
    大家知道,中国60%的白蛋白都是进口的,国内生产的只占40%。而目前各企业基本都在全力扩大产能,争夺国内的市场份额。那么如果羟乙基淀粉被完全替代,国家的生产企业也只能看着,因为产能限制,市场扩大了你也只能生产那么多。而且,最近三年,中国进口白蛋白与国内白蛋白之比都是3:2。难道国内最近三年的产能没有增加嘛?国家已经在尽量给国内企业发展的空间了,不是市场不够大,而是你企业自身不够大。所以,羟乙基淀粉事件对血液制品企业本身无太大影响。
    那么有无有利于患者本身?不见得
    因成本原因,羟乙基淀粉价格为白蛋白1/7,如果完全被替代,那么对患者的经济负担将是一个巨大的增加。国家最早在2014年做了《国家食品药品监督管理总局提醒关注含羟乙基淀粉类药品安全风险》的报道,提醒关注含羟乙基淀粉类药品对严重脓毒血症患者的肾损伤及死亡率增加风险。并且文中明显提出“4、国外文献提到的风险在我国有无监测到?国外多项研究和荟萃分析结果提示严重脓毒血症患者使用羟乙基淀粉类药品与晶体液相比较,死亡率和/或需要肾脏替代疗法的肾损伤风险增加。但在我国收集到的羟乙基淀粉类药品不良反应报告中,用药原因主要为手术中或手术后补充血容量、失血性低血流量、脑梗塞、外伤、烧伤等;仅有1例(0.03%)用药原因为感染性休克,未发现有明显的使用风险。”之后就没有在发布任何的风险警示,那么我们可否可以认为,在提醒之后,羟乙基淀粉价在临床上正在规范使用,暂时未出现重大的不良反应。而且羟乙基淀粉不是某某神药,其在临床上的使用是得到了有效证明的。
    经历了某某神药事件后,我们已经习惯于用网络舆论来影响国家政策或者医生态度,由一个人或一个团体来促进一件事情的发展。就神药事件来看,这种模式有时候还是有效的,快速的揭露了某些大家已经习以为常的骗局。但是在某些事件上,还请大家理性看待,我们何不在规范使用的情况下,由市场来慢慢决定其命运。
    我相信,随着人们生活水平的提高,对于药物的要求将来慢慢提高,会主要要求使用价格更高副作用稍微小点的某些药;
    我相信,总有那么一天,医生会温和的对我说,你这种病可以用这三种药,有便宜的有贵的,当然便宜的副作用稍微大点点,满足不同人的需求;
    我相信,在用药上我们的选择可以越来越多,而不是越来越少;
    行业经历寒冬,这正是行业洗牌变更的良好时机。整合资源,提高血浆的综合利用才能血液制品健康发展的王道。
    本文观点仅为作者短见,未偏向任何一方,也未收取任何方利益,如有异同,欢迎礼貌讨论。
    本文引用了国信证券研究所《2017年批签发回顾》中的图片。




40.webp.jpg
回复

使用道具 举报

发表于 2018-2-8 19:27:40 | 显示全部楼层
理性看待作者短见

点评

有啥不同观点,欢迎交流  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-8 19:39
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-8 19:39:30 | 显示全部楼层
顽皮 发表于 2018-2-8 19:27
理性看待作者短见

有啥不同观点,欢迎交流
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
发表于 2018-2-8 20:10:15 | 显示全部楼层
羟乙基淀粉不是网络舆论的问题,而是造假造了这么多年的问题吧?

点评

论文造假是真,但是药品本身不一定  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-8 20:15
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-8 20:15:17 来自手机 | 显示全部楼层
红茶. 发表于 2018-2-8 20:10
羟乙基淀粉不是网络舆论的问题,而是造假造了这么多年的问题吧?

论文造假是真,但是药品本身不一定

点评

96篇论文造假啊! 效果连生理盐水都不如啊!  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-8 20:50
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
发表于 2018-2-8 20:50:37 | 显示全部楼层
范林 发表于 2018-2-8 20:15
论文造假是真,但是药品本身不一定

96篇论文造假啊!

效果连生理盐水都不如啊!

点评

你说的这个我也看到别人的帖子了,但是没有任何证明啊,国家也没正式发文。如果真是效果连生理盐水都不如,那么完全没存在必要了,你说是不?但是就算现在,还有一些临床医生仍然在使用,如果没有效果这些医生也不敢  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-8 20:58
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-8 20:58:40 来自手机 | 显示全部楼层
红茶. 发表于 2018-2-8 20:50
96篇论文造假啊!

效果连生理盐水都不如啊!

你说的这个我也看到别人的帖子了,但是没有任何证明啊,国家也没正式发文。如果真是效果连生理盐水都不如,那么完全没存在必要了,你说是不?但是就算现在,还有一些临床医生仍然在使用,如果没有效果这些医生也不敢使用吧。毕竟该药使用的情况都是在重症的情况下才使用,每人敢拿生命开玩笑吧……

点评

但是就算现在,还有一些临床医生仍然在使用——这句话反过来说,就是很多临床医生已经不敢使用了。 逻辑上类比上面——就算是现在,还有很多人在杀人,如果杀人没有坏处这些人也不敢杀人吧?毕竟没人敢拿生命开玩  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-8 21:29
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
发表于 2018-2-8 21:29:12 | 显示全部楼层
本帖最后由 红茶. 于 2018-2-8 21:30 编辑
范林 发表于 2018-2-8 20:58
你说的这个我也看到别人的帖子了,但是没有任何证明啊,国家也没正式发文。如果真是效果连生理盐水都不如 ...

但是就算现在,还有一些临床医生仍然在使用——这句话反过来说,就是很多临床医生已经不敢使用了。

逻辑上类比上面——就算是现在,还有很多人在杀人,如果杀人没有坏处这些人也不敢杀人吧?毕竟没人敢拿生命开玩笑吧?

EMA已经建议退市了。

12/01/2018

PRAC recommends suspending hydroxyethyl-starch solutions for infusion from the market Review finds measures to protect patients have not been sufficiently effective EMA’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) has recommended the suspension of the marketing authorisations for hydroxyethyl-starch (HES) solutions for infusion across the European Union. These products are used as plasma volume replacement following acute (sudden) blood loss, where treatment with alternative products known as ‘crystalloids’ alone is not considered to be sufficient.

The review was triggered by results from two drug utilisation studies indicating that HES solutions are being used in critically ill patients and those with sepsis and kidney injury despite restrictions introduced in 2013 to reduce the risks of kidney problems and deaths in these patient populations.

In 2013, the PRAC had recommended restrictions on the use of HES solutions, including that they must no longer be used to treat critically ill patients or patients with sepsis, because of an increased risk of kidney injury and mortality seen in clinical trials. The Committee requested that further studies be carried out to verify adherence to these restrictions.

The PRAC has reviewed the results from the drug utilisation studies of HES solutions for infusion together with the currently available data on benefits and risks from clinical trials and observational studies and feedback received from stakeholders and experts. Based on this review, the PRAC has concluded that the restrictions introduced in 2013 have not been sufficiently effective. The Committee explored the possibility of introducing additional measures but concluded that such measures would be ineffective or insufficient.

In view of the serious risks that certain patient populations are exposed to, the PRAC has recommended the suspension of the marketing authorisations for HES solutions. Alternative treatment options are available.

The PRAC recommendation will now be sent to the Coordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human (CMDh)1 for consideration at its meeting on 22-25 January 2018.

More about the medicines

HES solutions for infusion are used for the management of hypovolaemia (low blood volume) caused by acute blood loss, where treatment with alternative infusion solutions known as ‘crystalloids’ alone is not considered to be sufficient. They are given by infusion (drip) into a vein and are used as blood volume expanders to prevent shock following acute bleeding. They belong to the class of medicines known as colloids. Besides blood products, there are two types of medicines used for plasma volume replacement: crystalloids and colloids. Colloids contain large molecules such as starch, whereas crystalloids, such as saline or Ringer’s solutions, are pure electrolyte solutions.

In the European Union, HES solutions for infusion have been approved via national procedures and are available in the Member States under various trade names.

More about the procedure

The review of HES solutions for infusion was initiated on 17 October 2017 at the request of the Swedish Medical Products Agency, under Article 107i of Directive 2001/83/EC.

The review has been carried out by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), the Committee responsible for the evaluation of safety issues for human medicines, which has made a set of recommendations. The PRAC recommendations will now be sent to the Co-ordination Group for Mutual Recognition and Decentralised Procedures – Human (CMDh), which will adopt a position. The CMDh is a body representing EU Member States as well as Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is responsible for ensuring harmonised safety standards for medicines authorised via national procedures across the EU.



点评

我问了临床医生,他们确实还在正常使用。国外报道最多的还是他的不良反应,但是就疗效而言还是能满足要求。所以我理解其是一种不良反应较大的药品。  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-11 09:54
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
发表于 2018-2-8 21:34:35 | 显示全部楼层
美帝也在建议FDA进行退市了。


Consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen on Wednesday petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to immediately require the removal of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) intravenous (IV) solutions from the market because their risks outweigh their limited benefits and there are other, safer alternative IV solutions.


According to the petition, there are two main categories of IV solutions: crystalloid and colloid. Colloidal solutions, including HES, have largely the same content as crystalloid solutions but with added protein, starch or other large molecules in varying amounts.


The first HES solution was approved by FDA in 1972, and the petition notes that the “studies that supported its approval would likely have been deemed inadequate by today’s regulatory standards” as they were uncontrolled, with a small number of subjects and short periods of observation (less than 24 hours).


Following that approval, Public Citizen says serious safety concerns, related to coagulation interference and uptake in tissue, were reported. Later in the 1990s, evidence of renal abnormalities linked to HES solutions were also reported and by 2001, French guidelines on HES products had been expanded to include restrictions on dosing and treatment duration, among other measures.


The same year, a randomized trial showed a higher risk of acute kidney failure with HES solutions compared with gelatin-based IV fluids in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock.


And in August 2003, FDA added a warning to the labeling of one HES product, 6% hetastarch (Hespan), advising against using it in cardiopulmonary bypass surgery patients during the intraoperative and immediate post-operative periods because of an increased risk of coagulation abnormalities and bleeding in patients whose coagulation status is already impaired.


“Beginning in 2008, pivotal evidence began to emerge that even more definitively demonstrated the dangers of HES products,” the petition says. “Over the next four years, three large multicenter randomized clinical trials were published showing increased rates of renal failure, bleeding, and mortality associated with HES solution use in critically ill patients, including those with sepsis."


In 2012, the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices requested that the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA’s) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) review the risks and benefits of using HES.


FDA also held a public workshop in September 2012 to discuss the HES products' risks and benefits, and after reviewing the data, like the EMA’s PRAC, concluded that HES solutions should not be used in critically ill patients, including patients with sepsis and those admitted to an intensive care unit. In June 2013, FDA announced a new boxed warning for all HES products about the risk of mortality and severe renal injury in certain patient populations.


But Public Citizen takes issue with FDA’s decision to keep HES solutions on the market and says the agency “did not offer sufficient justification” in its conclusion that the safety concerns seen in critically ill patients, including those with sepsis, had not been definitively shown to apply to surgical and trauma patients.


“The harms of HES products to patients outweigh their very modest fluid-saving effects, and these solutions should not be used in any patient population, including in surgical, trauma, and pediatric patients. HES products should be immediately removed from the market to prevent further harm to thousands of patients,” the petition concludes.


Public Citizen and two leading medical experts also sent a letter on Wednesday to EMA, urging a ban on HES solutions for the EU market because the solutions cause kidney failure, bleeding, and death and there are safer alternatives available.

点评

Consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen on Wednesday petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to immediately require the removal of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) intravenous (IV) solutio  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-8 21:40
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-8 21:40:58 来自手机 | 显示全部楼层
红茶. 发表于 2018-2-8 21:34
美帝也在建议FDA进行退市了。



Consumer advocacy organization Public Citizen on Wednesday petitioned the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to immediately require the removal of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) intravenous (IV) solutions from the market because their risks outweigh their limited benefits and there are other, safer alternative IV solutions. 美帝建议退市是因为其临床风险和有更好的替代药品
回复

使用道具 举报

药士
发表于 2018-2-8 23:39:08 | 显示全部楼层
神药已不再风光。
回复

使用道具 举报

药徒
发表于 2018-2-9 08:41:34 | 显示全部楼层
兔子很厉害的

点评

你吓着我了  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-9 08:46
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-9 08:46:56 | 显示全部楼层
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
发表于 2018-2-9 08:49:05 | 显示全部楼层
我支持楼主,顶一个

点评

谢谢,有你我不孤独  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-9 08:50
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-9 08:50:42 | 显示全部楼层
王小妞 发表于 2018-2-9 08:49
我支持楼主,顶一个

谢谢,有你我不孤独
回复

使用道具 举报

药徒
发表于 2018-2-9 09:21:39 | 显示全部楼层
总是要不断变化,不断进步的

点评

市场就会进行选择  详情 回复 发表于 2018-2-9 09:24
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-9 09:24:09 来自手机 | 显示全部楼层
静水蓝心 发表于 2018-2-9 09:21
总是要不断变化,不断进步的

市场就会进行选择
回复

使用道具 举报

药师
发表于 2018-2-9 13:59:24 | 显示全部楼层
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-9 14:28:12 来自手机 | 显示全部楼层
xqliu 发表于 2018-2-9 13:59
交给市场

对头
回复

使用道具 举报

药生
 楼主| 发表于 2018-2-11 09:54:45 | 显示全部楼层
红茶. 发表于 2018-2-8 21:29
但是就算现在,还有一些临床医生仍然在使用——这句话反过来说,就是很多临床医生已经不敢使用了。

逻 ...

我问了临床医生,他们确实还在正常使用。国外报道最多的还是他的不良反应,但是就疗效而言还是能满足要求。所以我理解其是一种不良反应较大的药品。
回复

使用道具 举报

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 立即注册

本版积分规则

×发帖声明
1、本站为技术交流论坛,发帖的内容具有互动属性。您在本站发布的内容:
①在无人回复的情况下,可以通过自助删帖功能随时删除(自助删帖功能关闭期间,可以联系管理员微信:8542508 处理。)
②在有人回复和讨论的情况下,主题帖和回复内容已构成一个不可分割的整体,您将不能直接删除该帖。
2、禁止发布任何涉政、涉黄赌毒及其他违反国家相关法律、法规、及本站版规的内容,详情请参阅《蒲公英论坛总版规》。
3、您在本站发表、转载的任何作品仅代表您个人观点,不代表本站观点。不要盗用有版权要求的作品,转贴请注明来源,否则文责自负。
4、请认真阅读上述条款,您发帖即代表接受上述条款。

QQ|手机版|蒲公英|ouryao|蒲公英 ( 京ICP备14042168号-1 )  增值电信业务经营许可证编号:京B2-20243455  互联网药品信息服务资格证书编号:(京)-非经营性-2024-0033

GMT+8, 2025-2-15 18:06

Powered by Discuz! X3.4运维单位:苏州豚鼠科技有限公司

Copyright © 2001-2020, Tencent Cloud.

声明:蒲公英网站所涉及的原创文章、文字内容、视频图片及首发资料,版权归作者及蒲公英网站所有,转载要在显著位置标明来源“蒲公英”;禁止任何形式的商业用途。违反上述声明的,本站及作者将追究法律责任。
快速回复 返回顶部 返回列表