Twenty-four-week safety and tolerability of nevirapine vs. abacavir in combination with zidovudine/lamivudine as first-line antiretroviral therapy: a randomized double-blind trial (NORA)

Objective To compare the safety/tolerability of abacavir and nevirapine in HIV‐infected adults starting antiretroviral (ARV) therapy in Uganda. Methods Twenty‐four‐week randomized double‐blind trial conducted with 600 symptomatic ARV‐naive adults with CD4 <200 cells/mm³ allocated to zidovudine/lamivudine plus 300 mg abacavir (A) and nevirapine placebo (n = 300) or 200 mg nevirapine (N) and abacavir placebo (n = 300) twice daily. The primary endpoint was any serious adverse event (SAE) definitely/probably or uncertain whether related to blinded nevirapine/abacavir. Secondary endpoints were adverse events leading to permanent discontinuation of blinded nevirapine/abacavir, and grade 4 events. Results Seventy‐two per cent participants were women; 19% had WHO stage 4 disease; the median age was 37 years (range 18–66); the median baseline CD4 count was 99 cells/mm³ (1–199). Ninety‐five per cent completed 24 weeks: 4% died and 1% were lost to follow‐up. Thirty‐seven SAEs occurred on blinded drug in 36 participants. Twenty events [6 (2.0%) abacavir, 14 (4.7%) nevirapine participants] were considered serious adverse reactions definitely/probably/uncertain whether related to blinded abacavir/nevirapine [HR = 0.42 (95% CI 0.16–1.09) P = 0.06]. Only 2.0% of abacavir participants [six patients (0.7–4.3%)] experienced a suspected hypersensitivity reaction (HSR). In total 14 (4.7%) abacavir and 30 (10.0%) nevirapine participants discontinued blinded abacavir/nevirapine (P = 0.02): because of toxicity (6A, 15N; P = 0.07, all rash/possible HSR and/or hepatotoxicity), anti‐tuberculosis therapy (6A, 13N), or for other reasons (2A, 2N). Conclusions There was a trend towards a lower rate of serious adverse reactions in Ugandan adults with low CD4 starting ARV regimens with abacavir than with nevirapine. This suggests that abacavir could be used more widely in resource‐limited settings without major safety concerns.     

Cost‐effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever asthma therapy in Denmark – Cost‐effectiveness analysis based on five randomised controlled trials

Background and Aims: Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART®) is an effective asthma‐management regime where patients use budesonide/formoterol both as maintenance treatment and as additional doses as needed to improve overall asthma control by reducing symptoms and exacerbations. The aim of this study was to determine the cost‐effectiveness of the Symbicort SMART® regime in Denmark vs higher dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) plus reliever medication, similar dose inhaled corticosteroid/long‐acting β₂‐agonist (ICS/LABA) combination therapy plus reliever medication or higher dose of inhaled ICS/LABA combination therapy plus reliever medication. Methods: The cost‐effectiveness analyses were based on effectiveness and resource utilisation data, which were prospectively collected during the treatment period in five randomised clinical trials (duration: 24 weeks, 26 weeks or 1 year). Economic analyses were conducted from both a health care sector (direct costs) and a societal perspective [total costs, i.e direct costs + indirect costs (sick leave)]. The time horizon for the economic analyses was 1 year. The effectiveness measure used was the number of avoided severe exacerbations per patient per year. Results: Patients treated with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy showed statistically significant fewer severe exacerbations per patient compared with the alternative treatment regimes in all comparisons. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy was a dominant treatment option when compared with higher dose ICS or higher dose ICS/LABA, i.e. it was more effective at a lower total cost. In two of the three comparisons with a similar ICS/LABA dose, Symbicort SMART® was dominant. Conclusion: Cost‐effectiveness analyses of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy show that the significant reduction in the number of severe exacerbations observed in all the included clinical studies is predominately obtained at lower costs compared with alternative treatment regimes. This indicates that budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy is a cost‐effective treatment option in a Danish setting. Please cite this paper as: Wickstrøm J, Dam N, Malmberg I, Hansen BB and Lange P. Cost‐effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol for maintenance and reliever asthma therapy in Denmark – Cost‐effectiveness analysis based on five randomised controlled trials. The Clinical Respiratory Journal 2009; 3: 169–180.     

Efficacy and safety of switching from basal insulin to once‐daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart in Japanese patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes: A 4‐week,randomized, open‐label,treat‐to‐target study

Aims/Introduction

A prospective, 4‐week, single‐center, randomized, open‐label, parallel‐group, treat‐to‐target study was carried out to develop an algorithm for safe and effective switching from basal insulin to once‐daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart (IDegAsp) in patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes.

Materials and Methods

Patients were randomly assigned to continue their current basal insulin therapy (n = 10) or to switch to IDegAsp on a 1:1 unit basis (n = 10). The insulin dose could be titrated once weekly, targeting a self‐measured blood glucose of 80–100 mg/dL before breakfast. A mixed meal test was carried out at baseline and after 4 weeks.

Results

After 4 weeks, the mean daily dose of insulin was similarly increased by 60% in both groups, and there was a significant decrease of mean plasma glucose and glucose area under the glucose concentration vs time curve for 2 h in the meal test. The mean estimated treatment difference (IDegAsp group ? basal insulin group) of the mean plasma glucose level was ?28 mg/dL (95% confidence interval ?47 to ?8, P = 0.008) after 4 weeks and that of the area under the glucose concentration vs time curve for 2 h was ?2,800 mg/min/dL (95% confidence interval ?5,300 to ?350, P = 0.028), confirming the superiority of IDegAsp to basal insulin. In the IDegAsp group, the 2‐h postprandial plasma glucose level was significantly decreased to the fasting plasma glucose range. There were no confirmed hypoglycemic episodes in either group during the 4‐week study period.

Conclusions

After switching from basal insulin, the IDegAsp dose can be uptitrated by 60% based on fasting plasma glucose data. However, monitoring of postprandial glucose should be considered before further uptitration of IDegAsp.