PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John H Powers

Publications and source records attributed to John H Powers.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Antimicrobial drug resistance, regulation, and research.

Innovative regulatory and legislative measures to stimulate and facilitate the development of new antimicrobial drugs are needed. We discuss research approaches that can aid regulatory decision making on the treatment of resistant infections and minimization of resistance selection. We also outline current and future measures that regulatory agencies may employ to help control resistance and promote drug development. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic research models offer promising approaches to define the determinants of resistance selection and drug doses that optimize efficacy and reduce resistance selection. Internationally, variations exist in how regulators use drug scheduling, subsidy restrictions, central directives, educational guidelines, amendments to prescribing information, and indication review. Recent consultations and collaborations between regulators, academics, and industry are welcome. Efforts to coordinate regulatory measures would benefit from greater levels of international dialogue.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2006

Diagnosis of Lyme disease.

The use of serologic testing and its value in the diagnosis of Lyme disease remain confusing and controversial for physicians, especially concerning persons who are at low risk for the disease. The approach to diagnosing Lyme disease varies depending on the probability of disease (based on endemicity and clinical findings) and the stage at which the disease may be. In patients from endemic areas, Lyme disease may be diagnosed on clinical grounds alone in the presence of erythema migrans. These patients do not require serologic testing, although it may be considered according to patient preference. When the pretest probability is moderate (e.g., in a patient from a highly or moderately endemic area who has advanced manifestations of Lyme disease), serologic testing should be performed with the complete two-step approach in which a positive or equivocal serology is followed by a more specific Western blot test. Samples drawn from patients within four weeks of disease onset are tested by Western blot technique for both immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G antibodies; samples drawn more than four weeks after disease onset are tested for immunoglobulin G only. Patients who show no objective signs of Lyme disease have a low probability of the disease, and serologic testing in this group should be kept to a minimum because of the high risk of false-positive results. When unexplained nonspecific systemic symptoms such as myalgia, fatigue, and paresthesias have persisted for a long time in a person from an endemic area, serologic testing should be performed with the complete two-step approach described above.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Diagnosis of lyme disease.

The use of serologic testing and its value in the diagnosis of Lyme disease remain confusing and controversial for physicians, especially concerning persons who are at low risk for the disease. The approach to diagnosing Lyme disease varies depending on the probability of disease (based on endemicity and clinical findings) and the stage at which the disease may be. In patients from endemic areas, Lyme disease may be diagnosed on clinical grounds alone in the presence of erythema migrans. These patients do not require serologic testing, although it may be considered according to patient preference. When the pretest probability is moderate (e.g., in a patient from a highly or moderately endemic area who has advanced manifestations of Lyme disease), serologic testing should be performed with the complete two-step approach in which a positive or equivocal serology is followed by a more specific Western blot test. Samples drawn from patients within four weeks of disease onset are tested by Western blot technique for both immunoglobulin M and immunoglobulin G antibodies; samples drawn more than four weeks after disease onset are tested for immunoglobulin G only. Patients who show no objective signs of Lyme disease have a low probability of the disease, and serologic testing in this group should be kept to a minimum because of the high risk of false-positive results. When unexplained non-specific systemic symptoms such as myalgia, fatigue, and paresthesias have persisted for a long time in a person from an endemic area, serologic testing should be performed with the complete two-step approach described above.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2005

Microbiologic surrogate end points in clinical trials of infectious diseases: example of acute otitis media trials.

Clinical outcomes that measure how patients feel, function, or survive are the most important and relevant outcomes of therapy in clinical trials and in clinical practice. Surrogate end points, which do not directly measure clinical benefit to the patient, may function as substitutes for clinical end points in clinical trials. Such surrogates are attractive as they may allow measurement of outcomes earlier in time or with a smaller sample size than with clinical outcomes. Microbiologic biomarkers, such as culture results at a specific time after start of therapy, or pharmacodynamic analyses of the effect of drugs on organisms often are proposed as surrogate end points in clinical trials of therapies for infectious diseases. However, evaluation of biomarkers as surrogate end points poses distinct challenges, and only a few biomarkers have been useful replacements for clinical end points. Evaluation of biomarkers as potential surrogate end points first requires an understanding of the differences among measurements of the cause of a disease, risk factors for outcome, and measurements of treatment effects. We will discuss the definitions of clinical and surrogate end points and the reasons why surrogate end points may not predict the true clinical benefit of therapies. We will use the example of the biomarker of microbiologic outcomes from tympanocenteses performed during therapy as the sole measure of clinical effectiveness in clinical trials of acute otitis media to illustrate the challenges in evaluating biomarkers as surrogate end points.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2004

Issues in clinical trials of prophylaxis of fungal infections.

The validity of the results of a clinical trial is highly dependent upon the design of the trial. The definition of disease, the selection criteria for enrollment in the trial, the selection of the study and control drugs, and the end points all affect whether the information obtained from the trial ultimately is useful in making decisions in clinical practice. These factors all apply to the design of clinical trials of the prophylaxis of infectious diseases. In addition, prophylaxis trials have several important differences from the design of trials of the treatment of those same diseases. The risk-benefit analysis for trials of prophylaxis is different, in that asymptomatic patients are exposed to the drug and more patients will be exposed than will develop the disease under study. Standardization of the design of such clinical trials will allow more efficient development of new drugs and will allow clinicians to compare more accurately the safety and efficacy of prophylactic agents.

Antifungal Agents↗
PubMed2004

Considerations in clinical trials of combination antifungal therapy.

The cure rate for serious fungal diseases with currently available agents used as monotherapy is not optimal. The introduction of new classes of antifungal drugs in the last few years naturally leads to the hypothesis that antifungal drugs used in combination may be more effective than the same drugs used alone. The design and interpretation of combination therapy studies raise challenges beyond those encountered when drugs are studied as monotherapy in the treatment of a disease. The definition of combination therapy, the study design, the selection of appropriate patient populations, and the selection of end points, as well as practical considerations, are all important in the design and interpretation of clinical trials of combination therapies. Although combination therapies hold the promise of improved efficacy, it is important to prove this hypothesis, because they also may be associated with increased toxicity and increased drug costs. A careful consideration of study design factors before the initiation of a trial will help obtain the most useful information for patients in this important area.

Antifungal Agents↗
PubMed2004

Trends in antimicrobial drug development: implications for the future.

The need for new antimicrobial agents is greater than ever because of the emergence of multidrug resistance in common pathogens, the rapid emergence of new infections, and the potential for use of multidrug-resistant agents in bioweapons. Paradoxically, some pharmaceutical companies have indicated that they are curtailing anti-infective research programs. We evaluated the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) databases of approved drugs and the research and development programs of the world's largest pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to document trends in the development of new antimicrobial agents. FDA approval of new antibacterial agents decreased by 56% over the past 20 years (1998-2002 vs. 1983-1987). Projecting future development, new antibacterial agents constitute 6 of 506 drugs disclosed in the developmental programs of the largest pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Despite the critical need for new antimicrobial agents, the development of these agents is declining. Solutions encouraging and facilitating the development of new antimicrobial agents are needed.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗