Biomedical subjects

Greg L Plosker

Publications and source records attributed to Greg L Plosker.

At least 73 records · Page 4Linked to original sources

PubMed2004

Spotlight on omalizumab in allergic asthma.

Omalizumab (Xolair) is a humanized monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It selectively binds to circulating immunoglobulin E (IgE) and, thereby, prevents binding of IgE to mast cells and other effector cells. Without surface-bound IgE, these cells are unable to recognize allergens, thus preventing cellular activation by antigens and the subsequent allergic/asthmatic symptoms. Omalizumab decreases free serum IgE levels in a dose-dependent manner, reduces IgE receptor density on effector cells, and significantly improves airway inflammation parameters. Omalizumab is slowly absorbed after subcutaneous administration, and mean elimination half-life is 26 days, thus allowing infrequent administration of the drug. Omalizumab dosage is determined by bodyweight and pretreatment serum total IgE levels. Patients treated with subcutaneous omalizumab in clinical trials received a dosage that was approximately equal to 0.016 mg/kg/IgE (IU/mL) per 4 weeks. Thus, patients received 150 or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 225, 300, or 375 mg every 2 weeks. In adults and adolescents (> or = 12 years of age) with moderate to severe allergic asthma, subcutaneous administration of omalizumab as add-on therapy with ICS improved the number of asthma exacerbations, rescue medication use, asthma symptom scores, and quality-of-life (QOL) scores compared with placebo during 28- and 32-week double-blind trials. In addition, concomitant ICS use was significantly decreased in patients receiving omalizumab, and in the two largest double-blind trials approximately 40% of omalizumab recipients completely withdrew from ICS therapy while maintaining effective asthma control. In general, results of extension studies showed that the beneficial effects of omalizumab were maintained over a total period of 52 weeks. Omalizumab was well tolerated as add-on therapy with ICS during treatment for up to 52 weeks. Common adverse events in clinical trials included injection site reaction, viral infection, upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, headache, and pharyngitis, although the incidence of adverse events with omalizumab was similar to that with placebo. In conclusion, omalizumab, as add-on therapy with ICS, is an effective and well tolerated agent for the treatment of moderate to severe allergic asthma in adolescents and adults. In addition to its symptomatic and QOL benefits, omalizumab therapy allows ICS dosage reduction or discontinuation of ICS in many patients. Comparisons of omalizumab with other asthma therapies have yet to be conducted; however, clinical efficacy and tolerability data indicate that omalizumab is a valuable option in the treatment of allergic asthma.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate: a review of its use in the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris.

The two-compound product containing calcipotriol 50 microg/g plus betamethasone dipropionate 0.5 mg/g (Dovobet, Daivobet) [referred to here as calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate], is a topical treatment for psoriasis vulgaris, combining a vitamin D analog and a corticosteroid. For most adult patients with psoriasis vulgaris on the trunk and limbs, up to 4 weeks of therapy with calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate provides an effective and well tolerated treatment. In clinical trials, patients with a mean baseline psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) of 9.5-10.9 experienced a mean 65.0-74.4% PASI improvement within 4 weeks, significantly better than improvements with calcipotriol 50 microg/g monotherapy, betamethasone dipropionate 0.5 mg/g monotherapy, or placebo. In addition, in 6.4%-20.1% of patients, lesions cleared. In patients who were subsequently treated with calcipotriol maintenance therapy, benefits were retained for at least 4 weeks. The safety of calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate in patients treated for up to 1 year was generally good; fewer than 5% of patients experienced adverse events possibly associated with long-term corticosteroid use.

Betamethasone↗

PubMed2004

Palivizumab: a review of its use as prophylaxis for serious respiratory syncytial virus infection.

Palivizumab (Synagi) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that provides immunoprophylaxis against serious lower respiratory tract infections (LRTIs) caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). RSV is the leading cause of hospitalization for LRTIs in infants, causing winter- or wet-season epidemics. In two double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, intramuscular palivizumab 15 mg/kg every 30 days for 5 months significantly reduced RSV-related hospitalizations by 55% in 1502 infants with prematurity and/or bronchopulmonary dysplasia/chronic lung disease (BPD/CLD) and by 45% in 1287 infants with hemodynamically significant congenital heart disease (HSCHD). Reductions were statistically significant versus placebo in infants with BPD/CLD, with all degrees of prematurity, and with acyanotic/other heart disease. Palivizumab was generally well tolerated, with < or =1.9% of recipients discontinuing treatment for tolerability reasons. In placebo-controlled trials, the most common potentially drug-related adverse events were fever, nervousness, injection-site reactions, and diarrhea. Drug-related events occurred in 7.2-11% of palivizumab recipients in controlled trials (vs 6.9-10% with placebo) and 0-7.9% in open-label trials. Very few serious potentially drug-related adverse events occurred in clinical trials; four occurred in 2 of 285 patients in one open-label trial. No significant anti-palivizumab antibodies developed during palivizumab use. Palivizumab trough serum concentrations were below the recommended 40 microg/mL in about 33% and up to 14% of children prior to their second and third palivizumab injections. In pharmacoeconomic studies, the cost of palivizumab per hospitalization averted was generally lowest in the highest-risk infants. Drug cost was generally the most influential factor in sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, prophylaxis with palivizumab significantly reduces the incidence of RSV-related hospitalization relative to placebo and is generally well tolerated in high-risk infants aged <2 years, including those with prematurity and BPD/CLD or HSCHD, which are risk factors for early or serious RSV infection. Palivizumab is approved for use in these patients. Other high-risk infants in whom palivizumab has not been formally assessed, such as those with immunodeficiency, cystic fibrosis, or location-specific risk factors (including extended hospital stays) might potentially benefit from palivizumab. The use of palivizumab in these other high-risk populations is likely to be determined as much by pharmacoeconomic considerations as by efficacy outcomes.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Omalizumab: a review of its use in the management of allergic asthma.

UNLABELLED: Omalizumab (Xolair) is a humanized monoclonal antibody used in the treatment of adolescent and adult patients with moderate to severe allergic asthma inadequately controlled with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). It selectively binds to circulating immunoglobulin E (IgE) and, thereby, prevents binding of IgE to mast cells and other effector cells. Without surface-bound IgE, these cells are unable to recognize allergens, thus preventing cellular activation by antigens and the subsequent allergic/asthmatic symptoms. Omalizumab decreases free serum IgE levels in a dose-dependent manner, reduces IgE receptor density on effector cells, and significantly improves airway inflammation parameters. Omalizumab is slowly absorbed after subcutaneous administration, and mean elimination half-life is 26 days, thus allowing infrequent administration of the drug. Omalizumab dosage is determined by bodyweight and pretreatment serum total IgE levels. Patients treated with subcutaneous omalizumab in clinical trials received a dosage that was approximately equal to 0.016 mg/kg/IgE (IU/mL) per 4 weeks. Thus, patients received 150 or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 225, 300, or 375 mg every 2 weeks. In adults and adolescents (> or =12 years of age) with moderate to severe allergic asthma, subcutaneous administration of omalizumab as add-on therapy with ICS improved the number of asthma exacerbations, rescue medication use, asthma symptom scores, and quality-of-life (QOL) scores compared with placebo during 28- and 32-week double-blind trials. In addition, concomitant ICS use was significantly decreased in patients receiving omalizumab, and in the two largest double-blind trials approximately 40% of omalizumab recipients completely withdrew from ICS therapy while maintaining effective asthma control. In general, results of extension studies showed that the beneficial effects of omalizumab were maintained over a total period of 52 weeks. Omalizumab was well tolerated as add-on therapy with ICS during treatment for up to 52 weeks. Common adverse events in clinical trials included injection site reaction, viral infection, upper respiratory tract infection, sinusitis, headache, and pharyngitis, although the incidence of adverse events with omalizumab was similar to that with placebo. CONCLUSION: Omalizumab, as add-on therapy with ICS, is an effective and well tolerated agent for the treatment of moderate to severe allergic asthma in adolescents and adults. In addition to its symptomatic and QOL benefits, omalizumab therapy allows ICS dosage reduction or discontinuation of ICS in many patients. Comparisons of omalizumab with other asthma therapies have yet to be conducted; however, clinical efficacy and tolerability data indicate that omalizumab is a valuable option in the treatment of allergic asthma.

Antibodies, Anti-Idiotypic↗

PubMed2003

Rituximab: a review of its use in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia.

Rituximab is an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that has demonstrated efficacy in patients with various lymphoid malignancies, including indolent and aggressive forms of B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). While the optimal use of the drug in many clinical settings has yet to be clarified, two pivotal trials have established rituximab as a viable treatment option in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent NHL, and as a standard first-line treatment option when combined with cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy in elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (the most common type of aggressive NHL). The former was a noncomparative trial in relapsed indolent NHL (follicular and small lymphocytic subtypes) with clinical responses achieved in about half of patients treated with rituximab 375 mg/m(2) intravenously once weekly for 4 weeks, which was similar to some of the most encouraging results reported with traditional chemotherapeutic agents. The latter was a randomised comparison of eight cycles of CHOP plus rituximab 375 mg/m(2) intravenously (one dose per cycle) versus CHOP alone in previously untreated elderly patients (60 to 80 years of age) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. In this pivotal trial, 2-year event-free and overall survival were significantly higher with rituximab plus CHOP, and there was no increase in clinically significant adverse effects compared with CHOP alone. Treatment with rituximab is generally well tolerated, particularly in terms of adverse haematological effects and serious or opportunistic infections relative to standard chemotherapy. Infusion-related reactions occur in the majority of patients treated with rituximab; these are usually mild to moderate flu-like symptoms that decrease in frequency with subsequent infusions. In approximately 10% of patients, however, severe infusion-related reactions develop (e.g. bronchospasm, hypotension). These reactions are usually reversible with appropriate interventions and supportive care but there have been rare reports of fatalities. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trials with rituximab indicate that the drug has broad application to B-cell malignancies, although further clarification is needed to determine its optimal use in many of these clinical settings. Importantly, rituximab in combination with CHOP chemotherapy has emerged as a new treatment standard for previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, at least in elderly patients. Compared with conventional chemotherapy, rituximab is associated with markedly reduced haematological events such as severe neutropenia, as well as associated infections. Rituximab may be particularly suitable for elderly patients or those with poor performance status, and its tolerability profile facilitates its use in combination with cytotoxic drugs. PHARMACODYNAMIC PROPERTIES: Rituximab is a mouse/human chimaeric IgG(1)-kappa monoclonal antibody that targets the CD20 antigen found on the surface of malignant and normal B lymphocytes. Although treatment with rituximab induces lymphopenia in most patients, typically lasting about 6 months, a full recovery of B lymphocytes in the peripheral blood is usually seen 9-12 months after therapy, as CD20 is not expressed on haematopoietic stem cells. CD20 is, however, expressed on >90% of B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphomas (NHL) and to a lesser degree on B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) cells. Although not fully elucidated, the cytotoxic effects of rituximab on CD20-positive malignant B cells appears to involve complement-dependent cytotoxicity, complement-dependent cellular cytotoxicity, antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity and induction of apoptosis. In addition, in vitro data indicate that rituximab sensitises tumour cells to the effects of conventional chemotherapeutic drugs. PHARMACOKINETIC PROPERTIES: Serum rituximab concentrations increased in proportion to dose across a wide range of single- and multiple-dose intravenous regimens in patients with B-cell NHL. When administll NHL. When administered at a dose of 375 mg/m(2) once weekly for 4 weeks in a pivotal trial in patients with relapsed or refractory indolent B-cell NHL (follicular or small lymphocytic subtypes), peak serum concentrations essentially doubled from the first (239.1 mg/L) to the fourth (460.7 mg/L) infusion, while elimination half-life (t(1/2)) increased from 76.3 to 205.8 hours (3.2 to 8.6 days). The concomitant increase in serum rituximab concentrations and t(1/2) with each successive infusion may be due, at least in part, to the elimination of circulating CD20-positive B cells and reduction or saturation of CD20-binding sites after the initial infusions of rituximab. The pharmacokinetic properties of rituximab are also characterised by wide inter-individual variability, and serum drug concentrations that are correlated with clinical response. Although pharmacokinetic data are limited in patients with aggressive forms of NHL, such as diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, rituximab appears to have a similar pharmacokinetic profile in these patients to that in patients with indolent B-cell NHL. The pharmacokinetics of rituximab are also reported to be similar whether the drug is administered with or without cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP) chemotherapy. THERAPEUTIC USE: A number of studies have demonstrated efficacy of intravenous rituximab in patients with various lymphoid malignancies of B-cell origin, including indolent (e.g. follicular lymphoma) and aggressive (e.g. diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) forms of NHL, and CLL, but the drug has not yet been approved for use in CLL, and approved indications in NHL vary between countries. In the US, for example, rituximab is available for the treatment of patients with low-grade or follicular, relapsed or refractory, CD20-positive B-cell NHL. In Europe, the drug has similar approval for relapsed or refractory follicular NHL as in the US, but has also been approved for use in combination with CHOP chemotherapy for the most common aggressive form of NHL (CD20-positive, diffuse large B-cell lymphoma). Rituximab was approved for these indications primarily on the basis of results from two pivotal trials. In Japan, rituximab has been approved for indolent B-cell NHL and mantle cell lymphoma (an aggressive form of B-cell NHL), primarily on the basis of results of a Japanese phase II trial. Indolent NHL: Results of several studies evaluating rituximab 375 mg/m(2) once weekly for 4 weeks in patients with indolent forms of B-cell NHL (primarily follicular and small lymphocytic lymphomas) showed objective response (OR) rates ranging from approximately 40-60% in those receiving the drug for relapsed or refractory indolent B-cell NHL, and slightly higher (50-70%) for those receiving rituximab as first-line therapy. In a pivotal trial in 166 patients with relapsed or refractory low-grade or follicular B-cell NHL, intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis showed an OR rate of 48%, and a projected median time to progression of 13 months. Encouraging data are also emerging on the use of rituximab in combination with chemotherapeutic agents (e.g. CHOP, fludarabine-containing regimens) or other drugs (e.g. interferon-alpha2a) in previously untreated patients with indolent forms of B-cell NHL (primarily follicular and small lymphocytic subtypes). Rates for OR were consistently around 95%, with the majority being complete responses (CRs). Follow-up data from a study in 40 patients with low-grade or follicular B-cell NHL treated with rituximab plus CHOP as first-line therapy showed that responses were durable with a progression-free survival and median duration of response >5 years.Bcl-2 gene rearrangement (t14;18) occurs in malignant cells in up to 85% of patients with follicular lymphoma, and minimal residual disease in peripheral blood and bone marrow can be monitored using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). In several studies assessing blood and/or bone marrow, rituximab has achieved molecular response (conversion from PCR-positive to PCR-negative bcl-2 status) in at least half of the patients. Aggressive NHL: Studies with rituximab as monotherapy in aggressive B-cell NHL, a potentially curable disorder, have generally been restricted to patients with relapsed or recurrent disease, since CHOP has traditionally been the standard first-line treatment regimen. However, promising results from phase II monotherapy studies prompted further clinical investigation of rituximab in conjunction with chemotherapy. Thus, most studies with rituximab in patients with aggressive forms of B-cell NHL have involved combination therapy, including a pivotal randomised trial comparing eight cycles of standard CHOP therapy plus rituximab 375 mg/m(2) (one dose per cycle) versus CHOP alone in 399 previously untreated elderly patients (60-80 years of age) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Results of the pivotal trial showed a clear advantage for rituximab plus CHOP versus CHOP in terms of event-free survival (primary endpoint) at 2 years (57% vs 38%, p < 0.001). Overall survival at 2 years (70% vs 57%, p < 0.01) and CR rate (76% vs 63%, p < 0.01) were also higher with the rituximab-CHOP combination. Other, smaller trials with rituximab in combination with CHOP or other chemotherapeutic regimens, either as first-line therapy or for patients with relapsed or refractory aggressive B-cell NHL, have also shown promising results in terms of clinical response rates.CLL: In relatively small trials (n < 40) conducted primarily in patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell CLL, rituximab monotherapy (various regimens) achieved OR rates of 23-45%, with median duration of response ranging from approximately 3-10 months. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Antibodies, Monoclonal↗

PubMed2003

Tacrolimus: a further update of its use in the management of organ transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Extensive clinical use has confirmed that tacrolimus (Prograf) is a key option for immunosuppression after transplantation. In large, prospective, randomised, multicentre trials in adults and children receiving solid organ transplants, tacrolimus was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure rates and the incidence of biopsy-proven acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. Notably, the lower incidence of rejection episodes after renal transplantation in tacrolimus recipients was reflected in improved cost effectiveness. In bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients, the incidence of tacrolimus grade II-IV graft-versus-host disease was significantly lower with tacrolimus than cyclosporin treatment. Efficacy was maintained in renal and liver transplant recipients after total withdrawal of corticosteroid therapy from tacrolimus-based immunosuppression, with the incidence of acute rejection episodes at up to 2 years' follow-up being similar with or without corticosteroids. Tacrolimus provided effective rescue therapy in transplant recipients with persistent acute or chronic allograft rejection or drug-related toxicity associated with cyclosporin treatment. Typically, conversion to tacrolimus reversed rejection episodes and/or improved the tolerability profile, particularly in terms of reduced hyperlipidaemia. In lung transplant recipients with obliterative bronchiolitis, conversion to tacrolimus reduced the decline in and/or improved lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Tolerability issues may be a factor when choosing a calcineurin inhibitor. Cyclosporin tends to be associated with a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, hirsutism, gingivitis and gum hyperplasia, whereas the incidence of some types of neurotoxicity, disturbances in glucose metabolism, diarrhoea, pruritus and alopecia may be higher with tacrolimus treatment. Renal function, as assessed by serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rates, was better in tacrolimus than cyclosporin recipients at up to 5 years' follow-up. CONCLUSION: Recent well designed trials have consolidated the place of tacrolimus as an important choice for primary immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation and in BMT. Notably, in adults and children receiving transplants, tacrolimus-based primary immunosuppression was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion treatment in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure and the incidence of acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. The reduced incidence of rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus translated into a better cost effectiveness relative to cyclosporin microemulsion treatment. The optimal immunosuppression regimen is ultimately dependent on balancing such factors as the efficacy of the individual drugs, their tolerability, potential for drug interactions and pharmacoeconomic issues.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Saquinavir: a review of its use in boosted regimens for treating HIV infection.

UNLABELLED: Protease inhibitor boosting involves concurrent administration of a protease inhibitor, such as saquinavir, plus a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, usually ritonavir in subtherapeutic doses. Since protease inhibitors are extensively metabolised by CYP3A4, this results in a marked increase in systemic exposure of saquinavir or other protease inhibitors boosted by ritonavir. As with traditional protease inhibitor regimens, boosted regimens are typically used in combination with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). In protease inhibitor-experienced and -naive patients with HIV infection, twice-daily and once-daily boosted saquinavir regimens achieved good rates of viral suppression, improved CD4+ cell counts and were generally well tolerated in clinical trials. Encouraging results have also been reported in a number of small studies in heavily pretreated HIV-infected patients who received salvage therapy comprising double-boosted regimens of saquinavir plus lopinavir with subtherapeutic doses of ritonavir, along with other agents. The largest clinical trials have been multicentre, randomised comparisons of twice-daily boosted saquinavir versus twice-daily boosted indinavir (MaxCmin1) or lopinavir (MaxCmin2) regimens. In the MaxCmin1 study, >90% of patients in both groups had an undetectable viral load (<400 copies/mL) after 48 weeks of therapy in the on-treatment analysis. However, viral suppression was achieved in significantly more saquinavir than indinavir recipients in the intention-to-treat analysis, which appeared to be due to the significantly greater percentage of patients in the indinavir group who switched from randomised therapy because of adverse events. Interim 24-week results of the MaxCmin2 trial indicate that 90% of patients in both groups combined had plasma HIV RNA levels <400 copies/mL; final results at 48 weeks will report data separately for the boosted regimens of saquinavir and lopinavir. CONCLUSION: Boosted protease inhibitor regimens (including two NRTIs) are recommended as a first-line option in current HIV treatment guidelines and are used extensively in clinical practice. The convenient administration schedule and good pharmacokinetic profile associated with boosted saquinavir regimens have the potential to increase adherence to therapy and improve antiretroviral effects through increased drug exposure. Twice-daily boosted saquinavir is one of the most extensively evaluated boosted protease inhibitor regimens and has been shown to have good efficacy on surrogate markers of HIV disease as well as significant tolerability advantages over boosted indinavir. Once-daily boosted saquinavir regimens may be most suitable for HIV-infected patients with busy lifestyles and those who would benefit from directly observed therapy.

Area Under Curve↗

PubMed2003

Tipranavir.

Tipranavir is a potent and selective non-peptidic HIV-1 protease inhibitor with a markedly improved resistance profile compared with traditional, peptidomimetic protease inhibitors. The presence of five or fewer protease gene mutations or one or two protease inhibitor resistance-associated mutations (PRAMs) is associated with reduced susceptibility to currently available protease inhibitors. However, 16-20 mutations (including three or more PRAMs) may be needed to confer resistance to tipranavir. Tipranavir-based therapy achieved sustained viral suppression for more than 48 weeks in a small phase II trial in multiple protease inhibitor-experienced HIV-infected patients. A large dose-finding study demonstrated potent virological reduction through 14 days of functional monotherapy in heavily pretreated HIV-infected patients with 6 to >20 protease gene mutations at baseline. Two large, ongoing, phase III trials in patients with multi-drug resistant HIV infection are comparing the efficacy of tipranavir/ritonavir 500/200mg twice daily plus a patient-individualised background antiretroviral regimen versus other ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor regimens. In general, tipranavir has been well tolerated in clinical trials. As with other protease inhibitors, the most common adverse events with tipranavir have been gastrointestinal disturbances.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2003

Insulin glargine: an updated review of its use in the management of diabetes mellitus.

Insulin glargine is a human insulin analogue prepared by recombinant DNA technology. Modification of the human insulin molecule at position A21 and at the C-terminus of the B-chain results in the formation of a stable compound that is soluble at pH 4.0, but forms amorphous microprecipitates in subcutaneous tissue from which small amounts of insulin glargine are gradually released. The plasma concentration versus time profile of insulin glargine is therefore relatively constant in relation to conventional human insulins, with no pronounced peak over 24 hours. This allows once-daily administration as basal therapy. Early randomised trials with insulin glargine generally showed greater reductions in fasting blood or plasma glucose levels and a reduced frequency of nocturnal hypoglycaemia relative to neutral protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. In addition to this basal therapy, patients continued to use the regular mealtime insulin regimen to which they were accustomed. More recent data with insulin glargine have included evidence of improved glycaemic control, with improvements in satisfaction with treatment over NPH insulin. Furthermore, the time of day at which insulin glargine is injected has no clinically relevant effect on glycaemic control in these patients. There are also data from small, nonblind studies to suggest comparable glycaemic control with insulin glargine and continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Results from comparative studies and meta-analyses in individuals with type 2 diabetes show lower incidences of nocturnal hypoglycaemia with insulin glargine than with NPH insulin, with two studies showing a significantly greater improvement in glycosylated haemoglobin levels with insulin glargine than with NPH. Insulin glargine is well tolerated, and is not associated with greater immunogenicity or increases in bodyweight than NPH insulin. Long-term data show maintenance of glycaemic control with insulin glargine for up to 39 months in adults and children with type 1 and adults with type 2 diabetes. In conclusion, insulin glargine is an effective and well tolerated basal insulin therapy when given as a single daily subcutaneous injection to patients with diabetes, with benefits in terms of glycaemic control and reduced frequency of hypoglycaemia over regimens based on conventional basal insulins. Accumulating data and official recommendations show the suitability of insulin glargine for first-line use in selected patients with type 2 diabetes who require insulin treatment, as well as in patients with type 1 disease, and confirm its use in children and adolescents.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Icodextrin: a review of its use in peritoneal dialysis.

UNLABELLED: Icodextrin (Extraneal) is a high molecular weight glucose polymer developed specifically for use as an alternative osmotic agent to dextrose during the once-daily long-dwell exchange in peritoneal dialysis (PD). Isosmotic 7.5% icodextrin solution induces transcapillary ultrafiltration (UF) by a mechanism resembling 'colloid' osmosis (unlike hyper-osmolar dextrose-based solutions, which induce UF by crystalline osmosis). In addition, absorption of icodextrin from the peritoneal cavity is relatively slow compared with that of dextrose; this results not only in UF of longer duration, but also a lower carbohydrate load compared with medium (2.5%) and strong (4.25%) dextrose exchanges. In randomised clinical trials of up to 2 years in duration, administration of icodextrin for the long (8- to 16-hour) overnight exchange in continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) or daytime exchange in automated peritoneal dialysis (APD) produced net UF which exceeded that with 1.5% and 2.5% dextrose solutions (thereby improving fluid balance), and was equivalent to that with 4.25% dextrose solution. Icodextrin also increased peritoneal clearances of creatinine and urea nitrogen compared with 2.5% dextrose solution. The increase in UF volume with icodextrin was enhanced in CAPD patients with high peritoneal membrane permeability (i.e. high and high-average transporters), maintained in the small number of patients followed-up for 2 years and sustained during episodes of peritonitis. Icodextrin reduced the percentage of patients with net negative UF in contrast to 1.5% and 2.5% dextrose and, in noncomparative studies, extended PD technique survival in patients who had failed dextrose-based dialysis. The use of icodextrin was also associated with some symptomatic improvements and health-related quality of life advantages, and no adverse effect on patient survival, compared with dextrose, although confirmation of these findings is ideally required in appropriately designed studies. The tolerability of icodextrin was generally similar to that of dextrose-based solutions in controlled clinical trials, although there was an approximate three-fold increase in the risk of new skin rash (5.5% vs 1.7%). However, reports of severe cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions remain rare; this possibility should not preclude the use of the polymer. CONCLUSION: 7.5% icodextrin solution offers the first feasible alternative to conventional dextrose solutions for the once-daily long-dwell exchange in PD. It is effective, generally well tolerated and appears to be most useful in situations of reduced or inadequate UF with dextrose, including in high and high-average transporters, during episodes of peritonitis and patients who have failed dextrose-based dialysis.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2003

Oral fludarabine.

Fludarabine is an antimetabolite antineoplastic agent used in the treatment of various haematological malignancies, particularly B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). An oral formulation of fludarabine has recently become available in the majority of European countries for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory B-cell CLL after initial treatment with an alkylating agent-based regimen. It is the first oral formulation of a purine analogue available for clinical use in B-cell CLL. Pharmacokinetic studies evaluating the bioavailability of oral fludarabine indicate that an oral dose of 40 mg/m2/day would provide similar systemic drug exposure to the standard intravenous dose of 25 mg/m2/day. A phase II study evaluated the clinical efficacy of six to eight cycles of oral fludarabine 40 mg/m2/day for 5 days of each 28-day cycle in 78 patients with previously treated B-cell CLL. Depending on the criteria used, the overall response rate was 46.2% (20.5% complete response [CR], 25.6% partial response [PR]) or 51.3% (17.9% CR, 33.3% PR). These results were similar to the 48% overall response rate reported in a similar historical control group treated with intravenous fludarabine. Myelosuppression (WHO grade 3 or 4) was the most frequently reported adverse effect with oral fludarabine therapy. Other common adverse effects included infection and gastrointestinal disturbances, although these were usually of mild to moderate severity (WHO grade 1 or 2). Overall, the tolerability profile of oral fludarabine is similar to that of the intravenous formulation.

Administration, Oral↗

PubMed2003

Novolizer: a multidose dry powder inhaler.

Novolizer is a multidose breath-actuated dry powder inhaler (DPI) approved for use with salbutamol (albuterol) and budesonide. It has multiple patient feedback mechanisms and an inspiratory flow rate threshold designed to optimise dosage. In two studies, children aged 4-11 years with asthma correctly used Novolizer and generated mean peak inspiratory flow rates (PIFRs) through Novolizer of 76 and 92.7 L/min, well above the Novolizer threshold of 35-50 L/min. In healthy volunteers, median lung deposition of budesonide administered via Novolizer was 19.9-32.1% at mean PIFRs of 54-99 L/min. In a randomised, double-blind, single-dose study in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, the 1-hour improvement from baseline in mean maximum forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV(1)) was 21.3% with inhalation of salbutamol through Novolizer, and 19.5% through Sultanol pressurised metered-dose inhaler (MDI). FEV(1) increased significantly in patients with asthma and COPD treated for 4 weeks in a randomised, open-label comparison of salbutamol through either Novolizer or Sultanol MDI. A randomised open-label study in adults with asthma treated with inhaled budesonide found equivalent improvements in FEV(1) and symptoms with Novolizer and Turbuhaler. Novolizer was well accepted overall. Most patients preferred it to previously used MDIs or DPIs. Only 4-5% found the taste feedback unacceptable. Physicians observed improved compliance over 4 weeks in 80% of patients with asthma using Novolizer.

Administration, Inhalation↗

PubMed2003

Eptifibatide: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in percutaneous coronary intervention and acute coronary syndromes.

UNLABELLED: Eptifibatide (Integrilin) is a selective inhibitor of platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptors used as adjunctive therapy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), particularly those requiring PCI. Most economic analyses of eptifibatide have incorporated clinical and healthcare resource use data from either the ESPRIT (Enhanced Suppression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Therapy) study in low- to moderate-risk patients undergoing selective PCI with stent implantation or the PURSUIT (Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy) trial in patients with ACS. Eptifibatide achieved statistically significant reductions in combined endpoints of death and ischaemic complications in both of these large multicentre clinical trials, in which patients were randomised to receive intravenous eptifibatide or placebo as adjunctive therapy to heparin and aspirin (plus a thienopyridine in ESPRIT). In US economic analyses using ESPRIT trial data, approximately 40% and 70% of the acquisition cost of eptifibatide was offset by reduced medical resource consumption during the initial hospitalisation period and over a 1-year period, respectively. Eptifibatide was associated with a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio of $US1407 (year 2000 costs) per life-year gained (LYG) in a retrospective US cost-effectiveness analysis that incorporated data from the ESPRIT trial and modelled life expectancy using a large cardiovascular database.Several cost-effectiveness analyses used prospectively collected data from the PURSUIT trial and modelled survival projections using similar methods. These analyses, conducted in the US, Canada and Western Europe, also showed favourable results ($US3761-$US18 774 per LYG; various years of costing). Cost-utility ratios reported in US analyses varied somewhat, but remained <$US20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (1996 values) when clinical efficacy data were derived from the US cohort of PURSUIT. CONCLUSION: Significant clinical benefits have been demonstrated with eptifibatide as adjunctive therapy in patients undergoing selective PCI with stent implantation in the ESPRIT trial and in patients with ACS in the PURSUIT trial. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using data from either ESPRIT or PURSUIT have demonstrated favourable cost-effectiveness ratios for both indications in various countries. ESPRIT-based results from the limited number of available economic analyses are particularly favourable. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide in ACS (i.e. PURSUIT-based results) may be further improved by targeting the drug for patients in whom catheterisation and PCI are planned, although further analyses are required to confirm this.

Angina, Unstable↗

PubMed2003

Inhaled salmeterol/fluticasone propionate combination: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma.

UNLABELLED: Asthma guidelines recommend an inhaled corticosteroid plus a long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist (beta(2)-adrenoceptor agonist) as the preferred maintenance therapy for moderate and severe persistent asthma. Advair/Seretide Diskus also registered as Accuhaler is fixed-dose salmeterol (a long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonist) and fluticasone propionate (a corticosteroid) administered via a single powder inhalation device. The clinical effectiveness of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate in patients with persistent asthma symptoms has been established in comparative clinical trials. Pharmacoeconomic analyses, based on data from these clinical trials, have been conducted from a healthcare payer perspective in various countries. In patients with asthma not controlled with inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was associated with more favourable (lower) cost-effectiveness ratios than fluticasone propionate monotherapy, oral montelukast plus inhaled fluticasone propionate, inhaled budesonide, and inhaled formoterol plus budesonide. As the initial maintenance therapy in patients with persistent asthma symptoms while receiving short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate was cost effective relative to montelukast monotherapy. Although the total cost of asthma management tended to be slightly higher with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate than with fluticasone propionate or montelukast monotherapy, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate consistently had a more favourable cost-effectiveness ratio in terms of per successfully treated week or symptom-free day and/or was associated with small incremental costs to achieve significant additional clinical benefits. In clinical practice, salmeterol plus fluticasone propionate was associated with lower asthma-related costs than treatment with other maintenance therapies.In patients with asthma symptoms despite treatment with inhaled corticosteroids, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate produced clinically meaningful improvements in overall Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) scores relative to salmeterol or placebo monotherapy, in emotional function domain scores relative to fluticasone propionate or budesonide, and in asthma symptoms domain scores relative to budesonide. In patients with persistent asthma symptoms while receiving short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate produced clinically meaningful improvements in overall AQLQ scores compared with fluticasone propionate or montelukast. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that salmeterol/fluticasone propionate administered via a single inhaler represents a cost-effective treatment option (relative to fluticasone propionate at the same nominal dosage, budesonide, formoterol plus budesonide and montelukast plus fluticasone propionate) in patients with asthma not controlled with inhaled corticosteroid therapy. In patients with asthma not controlled with short-acting beta(2)-agonists alone, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is a cost effective treatment relative to monotherapy with montelukast. Importantly, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with improvements in health-related quality of life.

Albuterol↗

PubMed2003

Escitalopram: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in depression.

UNLABELLED: Escitalopram (Cipralex), a new highly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is the active S-enantiomer of RS-citalopram. It is effective in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and may have a faster onset of therapeutic effect than citalopram. It has also been shown to lead to improvements in measures of QOL. Escitalopram is generally well tolerated, with nausea being the most common adverse event associated with its use. Modelled pharmacoeconomic analyses found escitalopram to have a cost-effectiveness and cost-utility advantage over other SSRIs, including generic citalopram and fluoxetine and branded sertraline, and also over the serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) venlafaxine extended-release (XR). These studies used a decision-analytic approach with a 6-month time horizon and were performed in Western Europe (year of costing 2000 or 2001). Cost-effectiveness ratios for escitalopram, in terms of cost per successfully treated patient over 6 months, ranged from Euro 871 to Euro 2598 in different countries, based on direct costs and remission rates, and were consistently lower (i.e. more favourable) than the ratios for comparators (Euro 970 to Euro 3472). Outcomes similarly favoured escitalopram when indirect costs (represented by those associated with sick leave and loss of productivity) were included. The results of comparisons with citalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline were not markedly affected by changes to assumptions in sensitivity analyses, although comparisons with venlafaxine XR were sensitive to changes in the remission rate. The mean number of QALYs gained during the 6-month period was similar for all drugs evaluated, but direct costs were lower with escitalopram, leading to lower cost-utility ratios than for comparators. Incremental analyses performed in two of the studies confirmed the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility advantage of escitalopram. A prospective, 8-week comparative pharmacoeconomic analysis found that escitalopram achieved similar efficacy to venlafaxine XR, but was associated with 40% lower direct costs (Euro 85 vs Euro 142 per patient over 8 weeks; 2001 costs), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. In both the modelled and prospective analyses, the differences in overall direct costs were mainly due to lower secondary care costs (in particular those related to hospitalisation) with escitalopram. In the prospective analysis, escitalopram had lower estimated drug acquisition costs than venlafaxine XR. CONCLUSION: Escitalopram, the S-enantiomer of RS-citalopram and a highly selective SSRI, is an effective antidepressant in patients with MDD, has a favourable tolerability profile, and, on the basis of available data, appears to have a rapid onset of therapeutic effect. Modelled pharmacoeconomic analyses from Western Europe suggest that it may be a cost-effective alternative to generic citalopram, generic fluoxetine and sertraline. Although the available data are less conclusive in comparison with venlafaxine XR, escitalopram is at least as cost effective as the SNRI based on a prospective study, and potentially more cost effective based on modelled analyses. Overall, clinical and pharmacoeconomic data support the use of escitalopram as first-line therapy in patients with MDD.

Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation↗

PubMed2002

Sertraline: a review of its use in the management of major depressive disorder in elderly patients.

UNLABELLED: Sertraline is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) with well established antidepressant and anxiolytic activity. Results from several well designed trials show that sertraline (50 to 200 mg/day) is effective in the treatment of major depressive disorder in elderly patients (> or =60 years of age). Primary endpoints in most studies included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) score and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Sertraline was significantly more effective than placebo, and was as effective as fluoxetine, nortriptyline and imipramine in elderly patients. During one trial, amitriptyline was significantly more effective than sertraline [mean reduction from baseline on one of six primary outcomes (HDRS)], although no quantitative data were provided. Subgroup analysis of data from a randomised, double-blind trial in elderly patients with major depressive disorder suggests that vascular morbidity, diabetes mellitus or arthritis does not affect the antidepressant effect of sertraline. Secondary endpoints from these clinical trials suggest that sertraline has significant benefits over nortriptyline in terms of quality of life. In addition, significant differences favouring sertraline in comparison with nortriptyline and fluoxetine have been recorded for a number of cognitive functioning parameters. Sertraline is generally well tolerated in elderly patients with major depressive disorder, and lacks the marked anticholinergic effects that characterise the adverse event profiles of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). The most frequently reported adverse events in patients aged > or =60 years with major depressive disorder receiving sertraline 50 to 150 mg/day were dry mouth, headache, diarrhoea, nausea, insomnia, somnolence, constipation, dizziness, sweating and taste abnormalities. The tolerability profile of sertraline is generally similar in younger and elderly patients. Sertraline has a low potential for drug interactions at the level of the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. In addition, no dosage adjustments are warranted for elderly patients solely based on age. CONCLUSION: Sertraline is an effective and well tolerated antidepressant for the treatment of major depressive disorder in patients aged > or =60 years. Since elderly patients are particularly prone to the anticholinergic effects of TCAs as a class, SSRIs such as sertraline are likely to be a better choice for the treatment of major depressive disorder in this age group. In addition, sertraline may have advantages over the SSRIs paroxetine, fluoxetine and fluvoxamine in elderly patients because of the drug's comparatively low potential for drug interactions, which is of importance in patient groups such as the elderly who are likely to receive more than one drug regimen.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Vinorelbine: a review of its use in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Vinorelbine is a semisynthetic vinca alkaloid that is effective as monotherapy in elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the large comparative Elderly Lung Cancer Vinorelbine Italian Study (ELVIS), patients receiving vinorelbine monotherapy achieved an objective response rate of 19.7%. The median survival time and the 1-year survival rate were significantly higher in recipients of vinorelbine plus best supportive care than in recipients of best supportive care alone. Vinorelbine recipients generally scored better than recipients of best supportive care on quality-of-life (QOL) functioning scales and experienced significantly fewer lung cancer-related symptoms; however, QOL scores were worse with vinorelbine for parameters relating to drug tolerability. Comparative phase III trials investigating the efficacy of combination therapy with vinorelbine and other agents specifically in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC have been conducted only for the combination of vinorelbine and gemcitabine [the Southern Italy Cooperative Oncology Group (SICOG) trial and the Multicenter Italian Lung Cancer in the Elderly Study (MILES)]. Objective response rates for vinorelbine/gemcitabine combination therapy in these phase III trials were 22 and 20%, respectively. The SICOG trial was closed early when an interim analysis demonstrated a significant survival advantage for combination therapy with vinorelbine plus gemcitabine over vinorelbine monotherapy. However, a survival advantage for combination therapy versus vinorelbine monotherapy was not demonstrated in the larger MILES trial. The main adverse effect of vinorelbine monotherapy in the elderly is myelosuppression. Adverse events associated with most antineoplastic agents, such as mild alopecia, nausea, vomiting and mucositis, were reported in clinical trials; however, these events were rarely severe. Mild-to-moderate neurotoxicity, including constipation (presumably from autonomic neuropathy), was also reported. The addition of gemcitabine to vinorelbine increased the incidence of both haematological and nonhaematological adverse events. However, there was no significant increase in the incidence of life-threatening toxicity. Vinorelbine as a single agent is effective in elderly patients with NSCLC and is associated with improved survival and at least a trend towards improved QOL parameters compared with best supportive care alone. Vinorelbine was associated with a generally manageable tolerability profile. The benefit of adding gemcitabine to vinorelbine for the treatment of NSCLC in the elderly is equivocal; improved survival was reported in one comparative trial, but not in another larger one. Vinorelbine is an effective and well tolerated palliative treatment option for elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

Age Factors↗

PubMed2002

Cefditoren pivoxil.

Cefditoren pivoxil is an orally absorbed prodrug that is rapidly hydrolysed by intestinal esterases to the microbiologically active cephalosporin cefditoren. Cefditoren has a broad spectrum of activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including common respiratory and skin pathogens. Cefditoren has shown excellent in vitro activity against the Gram-positive pathogens penicillin-susceptible and -intermediate Streptococcus pneumoniae, S. pyogenes and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus. Cefditoren was inactive against methicillin-resistant S. aureus. Of the important Gram-negative pathogens, cefditoren had potent antibacterial effects against beta-lactamase-positive and -negative Haemophilus influenzae, H. parainfluenzae and beta-lactamase-positive and -negative Moraxella catarrhalis. Cefditoren does not have antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa or atypical respiratory pathogens and has only variable activity against anaerobes. In healthy volunteers, single doses of cefditoren pivoxil 200 and 400mg achieved maximal plasma concentrations of 2.6 to 3.1 mg/L and 3.8 to 4.6 mg/L, respectively. Cefditoren penetrates rapidly into bronchopulmonary and tonsillar tissue as well as inflammatory and noninflammatory blister fluid. In two, randomised, double-blind trials involving patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), cefditoren 200 and 400mg twice daily for 10 days produced clinical cure rates of 88 to 89% within 48 hours of treatment completion. Clinical cure rates in patients with AECB were similar to those of either clarithromycin 500mg twice daily or cefuroxime axetil 250mg twice daily. In patients with streptococcal pharyngitis, a 10-day course of cefditoren pivoxil 200mg twice daily produced clinical cure rates of 94% at 4 to 7 days after treatment, which were similar to those observed for phenoxymethylpenicillin potassium 250 mg four times daily. In uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, a 10-day course of cefditoren pivoxil 200 or 400mg twice daily produced the same clinical cure rate of 89% within 48 hours of treatment completion. These cefditoren pivoxil dosage regimens were as effective as a 10-day course of either cefadroxil 500 mg twice daily or cefuroxime axetil 250mg twice daily in treating uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, including those caused by S. aureus and S. pyogenes. The most common adverse events associated with therapeutic doses of cefditoren pivoxil are diarrhoea, nausea, headache, abdominal pain and vaginal candidiasis.

Animals↗