Olanzapine: an updated review of its use in the management of schizophrenia

Olanzapine, a thienobenzodiazepine derivative, is a second generation (atypical) antipsychotic agent which has proven efficacy against the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Compared with conventional antipsychotics, it has greater affinity for serotonin 5-HT2A than for dopamine D2 receptors. In large, well controlled trials in patients with schizophrenia or related psychoses, olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day was significantly superior to haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day in overall improvements in psychopathology rating scales and in the treatment of depressive and negative symptoms, and was comparable in effects on positive psychotic symptoms. The 1-year risk of relapse (rehospitalisation) was significantly lower with olanzapine than with haloperidol treatment. In the first double-blind comparative study (28-week) of olanzapine and risperidone, olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day proved to be significantly more effective than risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms but not on overall psychopathology symptoms. In contrast, preliminary results from an 8-week controlled study suggested risperidone 2 to 6 mg/day was superior to olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day against positive and anxiety/depressive symptoms (p < 0.05), although consistent with the first study, both agents demonstrated similar efficacy on measures of overall psychopathology. Improvements in general cognitive function seen with olanzapine treatment in a 1-year controlled study of patients with early-phase schizophrenia, were significantly greater than changes seen with either risperidone or haloperidol. However, preliminary results from an 8-week trial showed comparable cognitive enhancing effects of olanzapine and risperidone treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Several studies indicate that olanzapine has benefits against symptoms of aggression and agitation, while other studies strongly support the effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of depressive symptomatology. Olanzapine is associated with significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol and risperidone. In addition, olanzapine is not associated with a risk of agranulocytosis as seen with clozapine or clinically significant hyperprolactinaemia as seen with risperidone or prolongation of the QT interval. The most common adverse effects reported with olanzapine are bodyweight gain, somnolence, dizziness, anticholinergic effects (constipation and dry mouth) and transient asymptomatic liver enzyme elevations. In comparison with haloperidol, the adverse events reported significantly more frequently with olanzapine in > or = 3.5% of patients were dry mouth, bodyweight gain and increased appetite and compared with risperidone, only bodyweight gain occurred significantly more frequently with olanzapine. The high acquisition cost of olanzapine is offset by reductions in other treatment costs (inpatient and/or outpatient services) of schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that olanzapine does not significantly increase, and may even decrease, the overall direct treatment costs of schizophrenia, compared with haloperidol. Compared with risperidone, olanzapine has also been reported to decrease overall treatment costs, despite the several-fold higher daily acquisition cost of the drug. Olanzapine treatment improves quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and related psychoses to a greater extent than haloperidol, and to broadly the same extent as risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine demonstrated superior antipsychotic efficacy compared with haloperidol in the treatment of acute phase schizophrenia, and in the treatment of some patients with first-episode or treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The reduced risk of adverse events and therapeutic superiority compared with haloperidol and risperidone in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms support the choice of olanzapine as a first-line option in the management of schizophrenia in the acute phase and for the maintenance of treatment response.     

Meropenem: an updated review of its use in the management of intra-abdominal infections

Meropenem is a carbapenem antibacterial agent with a broad spectrum of activity which encompasses gram-negative, gram-positive and anaerobic bacteria. Like other carbapenems, meropenem is stable against chromosomal and extended-spectrum beta-lactamases. In patients with moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections, empirical monotherapy with meropenem achieved clinical response rates ranging from 91 to 100% in 7 randomised comparative trials. Efficacy rates were similar to those of imipenem/cilastatin (94 to 97%), clindamycin plus tobramycin (93%) and, overall, to cefotaxime plus metronidazole (75 to 100%), although there were differences between trials versus this combination regimen. According to limited data, meropenem also achieved clinical response rates of over 80% in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections. Meropenem is well tolerated, the most common adverse events being diarrhoea, rash, nausea/vomiting and inflammation at the injection site which are reported in <2.5% of patients each. Meropenem also has an improved CNS tolerability profile compared with imipenem/cilastatin. Conclusions: Extensive comparative clinical data demonstrate that meropenem can be used effectively as empirical monotherapy in moderate to severe intra-abdominal infections. It also shows potential in the most severe forms of infection, although experience in this infection type remains limited. Compared with standard combination regimens, meropenem offers the benefits of ease of administration without the need for monitoring. It also offers improved CNS tolerability compared with imipenem/cilastatin with the option of a higher maximum dosage, which may be a particular advantage in patients with severe intra-abdominal infections.     

Cefuroxime axetil: an updated review of its use in the management of bacterial infections

Cefuroxime axetil, a prodrug of the cephalosporin cefuroxime, has proven in vitro antibacterial activity against several gram-positive and gram-negative organisms, including those most frequently associated with various common community-acquired infections. In numerous randomised, controlled trials, 5 to 10 days' treatment with oral cefuroxime axetil (250 or 500 mg twice daily) was an effective treatment in patients with upper (URTI) and lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) as assessed by clinical and bacteriological criteria. The drug was as effective as several other cephalosporins, quinolones, macrolides and amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. Shorter courses (5 to 10 days') of cefuroxime axetil were at least as effective as a 10 day course. Furthermore, sequential therapy with intravenous cefuroxime (750 mg 2 or 3 times daily for 2 to 5 days) followed by oral cefuroxime axetil (500 mg twice daily for 3 to 8 days) proved an effective treatment in adult patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). This approach provided similar efficacy to intravenous ampicillin/sulbactam followed by oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, a full parenteral course of cefuroxime, or intravenous then oral azithromycin or clarithromycin. Additionally, cefuroxime axetil was an effective treatment in patients with genitourinary, skin and soft-tissue infections, and erythema migrans associated with early stage Lyme disease. The drug is well tolerated by adult and paediatric patients, with adverse effects that are consistent with those of other cephalosporins. The majority of adverse events (primarily gastrointestinal disturbances) were mild to moderate in intensity and reversible upon discontinuation of treatment, with very few serious adverse events reported. Conclusions: Cefuroxime axetil is a broad spectrum antibacterial agent with a pharmacokinetic profile that permits convenient twice-daily administration. The drug is an effective and well tolerated treatment in patients with various infections, including otitis media, pharyngitis, sinusitis, CAP and acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. Cefuroxime axetil proved effective as a component of intravenous/oral sequential therapy in the treatment of CAP, although there are currently no dosage recommendations available for this regimen in some countries. Cefuroxime axetil may be considered as an empirical therapy for a range of community-acquired infections, including those in which beta-lactamase-producing strains of common respiratory pathogens are identified as the causative organisms. In an era of rapidly emerging bacterial resistance, empirical treatment with bacterial agents, potentially preventing the emergence of bacterial resistance to agents such as cefuroxime axetil may ensure the appropriate use of newer antibacterial agents, potentially preventing the emergence of bacterial resistance to these newer drugs.     

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.     

Perindopril: an updated review of its use in hypertension

Perindopril erbumine (perindopril) is a prodrug ester of perindoprilat, an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor. Perindopril 4 to 8 mg once daily significantly reduces supine systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline values in hypertensive patients. These reductions are maintained for at least 24 hours, as evidenced by trough/peak ratios of >50%. Vascular abnormalities associated with hypertension were improved or normalised during perindopril treatment. Perindopril 4 to 8 mg once daily significantly decreased carotid-femoral aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV), improved arterial compliance, reduced left ventricular mass index and, in patients with recent cerebral ischaemia and/or stroke, preserved cerebral blood flow despite significantly reducing SBP and DBP. Further research is needed to establish the significance of promising results showing that reductions in aortic PWV were associated with reduced mortality in patients with end-stage renal failure, a third of whom received perindopril. Response rates (numbers of patients with supine DBP < or = 90 mm Hg) were significantly higher with perindopril 4 to 8 mg once daily (67 to 80%) than with captopril 25 to 50 mg twice daily (44 to 57%) in 3 randomised double-blind trials. In other clinical trials, the antihypertensive effects of perindopril were similar to those of other ACE inhibitors (including enalapril) and calcium-channel antagonists. Combination treatment with perindopril and an antihypertensive agent from another treatment class provided additional benefits, either as first-line treatment or in patients failing to respond to monotherapy. Perindopril monotherapy was also effective in the elderly and in patients with hypertension and concomitant disease. Perindopril has a similar adverse event profile to that of other ACE inhibitors; cough is the most common event reported during treatment, and is also the most common adverse event responsible for treatment withdrawal. Conclusions: Perindopril is a well tolerated ACE inhibitor that is significantly better than captopril (in terms of response rates) in the treatment of hypertension, and as effective as other ACE inhibitors. Perindopril appears to reverse some of the vascular abnormalities associated with hypertension, including arterial stiffness and left ventricular hypertrophy, although further research is needed to confirm promising results regarding its ability to decrease associated cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Results from ongoing studies will help confirm the place of perindopril in the treatment of hypertension; currently, it is an effective and well tolerated treatment for patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension.     

Irbesartan: an updated review of its use in cardiovascular disorders

Irbesartan interrupts the renin-angiotensin system via selective blockade of the angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor; the latter being responsible for the pressor related effects of angiotensin II. As treatment for mild to moderate hypertension, irbesartan 150 mg/day controlled diastolic BP in 56% of patients according to pooled data from several phase III studies and 77% of patients in a large phase IV study. in comparative trials, irbesartan was significantly more effective than losartan and valsartan as treatment for mild to moderate essential hypertension and as effective as enalapril or atenolol. Results from many studies show an additive antihypertensive effect when hydrochlorothiazide is added to irbesartan monotherapy. The drug also induces statistically significant regression of left ventricular mass in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, and preliminary evidence suggests it has beneficial haemodynamic effects in patients with heart failure. Irbesartan is very well tolerated, exhibiting an adverse event profile similar to that seen with placebo in comparative trials. In conclusion, although the role of irbesartan as a treatment for heart failure is little clearer than it was 2 years ago, the place of the drug in the management of hypertension is now better established. There is evidence to suggest the drug may have a role as initial therapy for hypertension, although formal recommendation in management guidelines will almost certainly not occur until long term morbidity and mortality benefits are established.     

Clopidogrel: a review of its use in the prevention of atherothrombosis

Clopidogrel is an ADP receptor antagonist that is indicated for the reduction of atherosclerotic events including myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke and vascular death in patients with atherosclerosis manifested by recent stroke, myocardial infarction or established peripheral vascular disease. In the 19 185 patients enrolled in the multicentre, randomised double-blind CAPRIE study, the annual risk of the combined end-point of ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction and death from vascular disease (vascular death) was significantly lower during treatment with clopidogrel 75 mg/day than aspirin 325 mg/day [5.3 vs 5.8%/year, respectively; relative risk reduction (RRR) 8.7%, p = 0.043] after a mean follow-up of 1.9 years. Clopidogrel provided even greater reductions in the risk of recurrent ischaemic events than aspirin in patients with a history of coronary artery bypass surgery, diabetes mellitus and in those receiving concomitant lipid-lowering therapy. Moreover there was a significant reduction in the incidence of hospitalisation in patients treated with clopidogrel. In a patient population (Saskatchewan, Canada) with a greater risk of ischaemic events than the CAPRIE study population, the number of patients needed to be treated with clopidogrel to prevent 1 ischaemic event was estimated to be 70 (vs 200 in the CAPRIE study). In randomised trials and registry surveys, clopidogrel 75 mg/day plus aspirin had similar efficacy (as measured by adverse cardiac outcomes) to ticlopidine 250mg twice daily plus aspirin during the 30 days after placement of intracoronary stents. Tolerability of clopidogrel was significantly better than ticlopidine in the randomised, double-blind CLASSICS study. Among patients treated with clopidogrel or aspirin in the CAPRIE study, the overall gastrointestinal tolerability of clopidogrel was generally better than that of aspirin; the frequency of gastrointestinal haemorrhage was significantly lower among patients treated with clopidogrel than aspirin. Diarrhoea, rash and pruritis were significantly more common with clopidogrel than aspirin. CONCLUSION: Clopidogrel was significantly more effective than aspirin in the prevention of vascular events (ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction or vascular death) [corrected] in patients with atherothrombotic disease manifested by recent myocardial infarction, recent ischaemic stroke or symptomatic peripheral arterial occlusive disease [corrected] in the CAPRIE study. The overall tolerability profile of the drug was similar to that of aspirin, although gastrointestinal haemorrhage occurred significantly less often in clopidogrel recipients. The drug is widely used in combination with aspirin for the prevention of atherothrombosis after placement of intravascular stents, and available data suggest that this combination is as effective as ticlopidine plus aspirin for this indication.     

Levofloxacin: an updated review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections

Levofloxacin is the L-form of the fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent, ofloxacin. In in vitro studies, levofloxacin demonstrated a broad range of activity against Gram-positive and -negative organisms and anaerobes. The drug is more active against Gram-positive organisms than ciprofloxacin, but less active than newer fluoroquinolones such as gatifloxacin. Its activity against Streptococcus pneumoniae is unaffected by the presence of penicillin resistance. In several randomised controlled trails, 5 to 14 days' treatment with intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin proved an effective therapy for upper and lower respiratory tract infections. In patients with mild to severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin 500mg once or twice daily was as effective as intravenous and/or oral gatifloxacin, clarithromycin, azithromycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. Overall, clinical response rates with levofloxacin ranged from 86 to 95% versus 88 to 96% with comparator agents; bacteriological response rates were 88 to 95% and 86 to 98%, respectively. Sequential (intravenous +/- oral switch) therapy with levofloxacin 750mg once daily was as effective as intravenous imipenem/cilastatin (+/- oral switch to ciprofloxacin) in patients with severe nosocomial pneumonia. Generally, oral levofloxacin 250 or 500mg once daily was at least as effective as oral cefaclor, cefuroxime axetil, clarithromycin or moxifloxacin in patients with acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis as assessed by either clinical or bacteriological response rates. This approach also provided similar efficacy to amoxicillin/ clavulanic acid or clarithromycin in patients with acute sinusitis. Sequential therapy with levofloxacin 500mg twice daily for 7 to 14 days' was as effective as intravenous imipenem/cilastatin in patients with suspected bacteraemia. Oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7 to 10 days was also an effective treatment in patients with uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections, and in those with complicated urinary tract infections. A higher dosage of sequential levofloxacin 750mg once daily proved as effective as intravenous ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (+/- oral switch to amoxicillin/clavulanic acid) in the treatment of complicated skin and skin structure infections. Pharmacoeconomic studies suggest that levofloxacin may be cost-saving in comparison to conventional therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Levofloxacin continues to demonstrate good clinical efficacy in the treatment of a range of infections, including those in which S. pneumoniae is a potential pathogen. Importantly, it has efficacy in CAP similar to that of gatifloxacin and at least as good as that of the third generation cephalosporins. Extensive clinical data confirm the good tolerability profile of this agent without the phototoxicity, hepatic and cardiac events evident with some of the other newer fluoroquinolone agents. Levofloxacin therefore offers a unique combination of documented efficacy and tolerability, and provides an important option for the treatment of bacterial infections.     

Micronised fenofibrate: an updated review of its clinical efficacy in the management of dyslipidaemia

Micronised fenofibrate is a synthetic phenoxy-isobutyric acid derivative (fibric acid derivative) indicated for the treatment of dyslipidaemia. Recently, a new tablet formulation of micronised fenofibrate has become available with greater bioavailability than the older capsule formulation. The micronised fenofibrate 160mg tablet is bioequivalent to the 200mg capsule. The lipid-modifying profile of micronised fenofibrate 160mg (tablet) or 200mg (capsule) once daily is characterised by a decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC) levels, a marked reduction in plasma triglyceride (TG) levels and an increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. Micronised fenofibrate 200mg (capsule) once daily produced greater improvements in TG and, generally, in HDL-C levels than the hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors simvastatin 10 or 20 mg/day, pravastatin 20 mg/day or atorvastatin 10 or 40 mg/day. Combination therapy with micronised fenofibrate 200mg (capsule) once daily plus fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg/day or atorvastatin 40 mg/day was associated with greater reductions from baseline than micronised fenofibrate alone in TC and LDL-C levels. Similar or greater changes in HDL-C and TG levels were seen in combination therapy, compared with monotherapy, recipients. Micronised fenofibrate 200mg (capsule) once daily was associated with significantly greater improvements from baseline in TC, LDL-C, HDL-C and TG levels than placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus enrolled in the double-blind, randomised Diabetes Atherosclerosis Intervention Study (DAIS) [> or =3 years follow-up]. Moreover, angiography showed micronised fenofibrate was associated with significantly less progression of coronary atherosclerosis than placebo. Micronised fenofibrate has also shown efficacy in patients with metabolic syndrome, patients with HIV infection and protease inhibitor-induced hypertriglyceridaemia and patients with dyslipidaemia secondary to heart transplantation. Micronised fenofibrate was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. The results of a large (n = 9884) 12-week study indicated that gastrointestinal disorders are the most frequent adverse events associated with micronised fenofibrate therapy. Elevations in serum transaminase and creatine phosphokinase levels have been reported rarely with micronised fenofibrate. In conclusion, micronised fenofibrate improves lipid levels in patients with primary dyslipidaemia; the drug has particular efficacy with regards to reducing TG levels and raising HDL-C levels. Micronised fenofibrate is also effective in diabetic dyslipidaemia; as well as improving lipid levels, the drug reduced progression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The results of large ongoing studies (e.g. FIELD with approximately 10 000 patients) will clarify whether the beneficial lipid-modifying effects of micronised fenofibrate result in a reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.     

Atorvastatin: an updated review of its pharmacological properties and use in dyslipidaemia.

Atorvastatin is a synthetic hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor. In dosages of 10 to 80 mg/day, atorvastatin reduces levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, triglyceride and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL)-cholesterol and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol in patients with a wide variety of dyslipidaemias. In large long-term trials in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. atorvastatin produced greater reductions in total cholesterol. LDL-cholesterol and triglyceride levels than other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. In patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), atorvastatin was more efficacious than lovastatin, pravastatin. fluvastatin and simvastatin in achieving target LDL-cholesterol levels and, in high doses, produced very low LDL-cholesterol levels. Aggressive reduction of serum LDL-cholesterol to 1.9 mmol/L with atorvastatin 80 mg/day for 16 weeks in patients with acute coronary syndromes significantly reduced the incidence of the combined primary end-point events and the secondary end-point of recurrent ischaemic events requiring rehospitalisation in the large. well-designed MIRACL trial. In the AVERT trial, aggressive lipid-lowering therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg/ day for 18 months was at least as effective as coronary angioplasty and usual care in reducing the incidence of ischaemic events in low-risk patients with stable CHD. Long-term studies are currently investigating the effects of atorvastatin on serious cardiac events and mortality in patients with CHD. Pharmacoeconomic studies have shown lipid-lowering with atorvastatin to be cost effective in patients with CHD, men with at least one risk factor for CHD and women with multiple risk factors for CHD. In available studies atorvastatin was more cost effective than most other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in achieving target LDL-cholesterol levels. Atorvastatin is well tolerated and adverse events are usually mild and transient. The tolerability profile of atorvastatin is similar to that of other available HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and to placebo. Elevations of liver transaminases and creatine phosphokinase are infrequent. There have been rare case reports of rhabdomyolysis occurring with concomitant use of atorvastatin and other drugs. CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin is an appropriate first-line lipid-lowering therapy in numerous groups of patients at low to high risk of CHD. Additionally it has a definite role in treating patients requiring greater decreases in LDL-cholesterol levels. Long-term studies are under way to determine whether achieving very low LDL-cholesterol levels with atorvastatin is likely to show additional benefits on morbidity and mortality in patients with CHD.     

Piperacillin/tazobactam: an updated review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections.

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity encompassing most Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria, including many pathogens producing beta-lactamases. Evidence from clinical trials in adults has shown that piperacillin/tazobactam, administered in an 8:1 ratio, is an effective treatment for patients with lower respiratory tract, intra-abdominal, urinary tract, gynaecological and skin/soft tissue infections, and for fever in patients with neutropenia. Combination regimens of piperacillin/tazobactam plus an aminoglycoside are used to treat patients with severe nosocomial (hospital-acquired) infections. In clinical trials, piperacillin/tazobactam was significantly more effective than ticarcillin/clavulanic acid in terms of clinical and microbiological outcome in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. In patients with intra-abdominal infections, clinical and bacteriological response rates were significantly higher with piperacillin/tazobactam than with imipenem/cilastatin (administered at a dosage lower than is recommended in countries outside Scandinavia). Piperacillin/tazobactam in combination with amikacin was at least as effective as ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia and was significantly more effective than ceftazidime plus amikacin in the empirical treatment of febrile episodes in patients with neutropenia or granulocytopenia. In other trials, the efficacy of piperacillin/tazobactam was similar to that of standard aminoglycoside-containing and other treatment regimens in patients with intra-abdominal, skin/soft tissue or gynaecological infections. Piperacillin/tazobactam is generally well tolerated. The most frequent adverse events are gastrointestinal symptoms (most commonly diarrhoea) and skin reactions. The incidence of adverse events with piperacillin/tazobactam is higher when the combination is given in combination with an aminoglycoside than when given as monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Because of the broad spectrum of antibacterial activity provided by piperacillin/tazobactam, it is useful for the treatment of patients with polymicrobial infections caused by aerobic or anaerobic beta-lactamase-producing bacteria. Piperacillin/tazobactam appears to have a particularly useful role in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections and, in combination with amikacin, in the treatment of patients with febrile neutropenia, especially given the current prevalence of Gram-positive infections in this group.     

Fluvoxamine. An updated review of its use in the management of adults with anxiety disorders

Fluvoxamine is a potent and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) that has little or no effect on other monoamine reuptake mechanisms. Relative to other SSRIs, fluvoxamine is a weak inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, a moderate inhibitor of CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 and a potent inhibitor of CYP1A2. In randomised, double-blind trials. fluvoxamine 100 to 300 mg/day for 6 to 10 weeks significantly reduced symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) compared with placebo. Response rates of 38 to 52% have been reported with fluvoxamine, compared with response rates of 0 to 18% with placebo. In patients with OCD, fluvoxamine had similar efficacy to that of clomipramine and, in smaller trials, the SSRIs paroxetine and citalopram and was significantly more effective than desipramine. Maintenance therapy with fluvoxamine may reduce the likelihood of relapses in up to 67% of patients with OCD. Fluvoxamine < or = 300 mg/day for 6 to 8 weeks was as effective as imipramine in patients with panic disorder, and significantly more effective than placebo. In addition, treatment with fluvoxamine < or = 300 mg/day for > or = 8 weeks improved symptoms of social phobia (social anxiety disorder), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), pathological gambling, compulsive buying, trichotillomania, kleptomania, body dysmorphic disorder, eating disorders and autistic disorder. Large trials comparing the efficacy of fluvoxamine and other SSRIs in patients with anxiety disorders are warranted. Fluvoxamine is generally well tolerated; in postmarketing studies, nausea was the only adverse event occurring in >10% of patients with less commonly reported events including somnolence, asthenia, headache, dry mouth and insomnia. Fluvoxamine is associated with a low risk of suicidal behaviour, sexual dysfunction and withdrawal syndrome. Fewer anticholinergic or cardiovascular events are associated with fluvoxamine than tricyclic antidepressants. Although comparative data are lacking, the tolerability profile of fluvoxamine appears to be broadly similar to those of other SSRIs. CONCLUSION: Fluvoxamine has demonstrated short term efficacy in the treatment of OCD, panic disorder, social phobia, PTSD and in a range of obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. The drug is as effective as clomipramine in patients with OCD but appears to have a better tolerability profile. On the basis of current treatment guidelines, fluvoxamine, like other SSRIs, is recommended as first-line treatment for a number of anxiety disorders. It appears to offer some pharmacokinetic advantages and a different drug interaction profile to the other SSRIs with a broadly similar spectrum of adverse events. However, direct comparisons are required to assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of the different agents of this drug class.     

Etanercept: an updated review of its use in rheumatoid arthritis,psoriatic arthritis and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis

Etanercept is a subcutaneously administered biological response modifier that binds and inactivates tumour necrosis factor-alpha, a proinflammatory cytokine. In patients with early active rheumatoid arthritis, etanercept 25mg twice weekly was associated with a more rapid improvement in disease activity and a significantly greater cumulative response than methotrexate over 12 months of treatment in a randomised, double-blind trial. In addition, etanercept recipients showed a slower rate of radiographic progression and a more rapid improvement in quality of life than methotrexate recipients. The efficacy of etanercept was maintained at 3 years' follow-up. Etanercept was also significantly better than placebo at reducing disease activity in patients who had an inadequate response to previous treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) in several well controlled trials. At study end (after 3 or 6 months' treatment), the percentage of patients achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response with etanercept (25mg or 16 mg/m(2) twice weekly) was 59 to 75% as monotherapy and 71% in combination with methotrexate; corresponding placebo response rates were 11 to 14% and 27%, respectively. Response has been maintained in patients who continued treatment for up to 5 years. In patients with psoriatic arthritis, etanercept 25mg twice weekly significantly reduced disease activity and improved skin lesions in two double-blind, placebo-controlled, 12- to 24-week trials. In the 24-week study, ACR20 response rates (50 vs 13%), psoriatic arthritis response rates (70 vs 23%) and the median improvement in skin lesions (33 vs 0%) were significantly greater in etanercept than in placebo recipients. In patients with polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, etanercept resulted in improvements in all measures of disease activity and was significantly more effective than placebo at reducing disease flare. Eighty percent of patients receiving etanercept achieved a >or=30% reduction in disease activity over 7 months of treatment, and this was maintained for up to 2 years in a trial extension. Etanercept was generally well tolerated in children and adults in clinical trials; the most commonly occurring adverse effects included injection site reactions, infection, headache, rhinitis and dizziness. In conclusion, etanercept has emerged as an important new treatment option in inflammatory arthritis. Etanercept provides rapid and sustained improvements in disease activity in patients with early and DMARD-refractory rheumatoid arthritis and has been shown to inhibit radiographic progression in those with early disease. Well controlled studies have also demonstrated the efficacy of etanercept in patients with psoriatic arthritis or polyarticular-course juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.     

Abciximab: an updated review of its therapeutic use in patients with ischaemic heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularisation

Abciximab (Reopro) is an antibody fragment that dose-dependently inhibits platelet aggregation and leucocyte adhesion by binding to the glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, vitronectin and Mac-1 receptors.Abciximab (0.25 mg/kg bolus plus infusion of 0.125 micro g/kg/min for 12 hours) showed greater efficacy than tirofiban in reducing the 30-day composite endpoint of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or urgent target-vessel revascularisation in the randomised, double-blind TARGET study in patients scheduled for stent placement. In addition, the beneficial effects of treatment with abciximab previously observed in the randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled EPILOG and EPISTENT studies have been maintained to 1 year, with a significantly reduced incidence of ischaemic complications relative to placebo consistently observed across a range of subgroups including age, sex, bodyweight and indication for revascularisation.The incidence of the composite endpoint was reduced in patients presenting with acute MI of <48 hours' duration in comparison with either fibrinolytic therapy or stenting alone in the randomised STOPAMI and ADMIRAL trials, primarily because of a reduced requirement for urgent repeat revascularisation and reduced incidence of mortality. In the randomised, nonblind, multicentre CADILLAC trial in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), stenting alone was superior to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and stenting alone was not inferior to PTCA plus abciximab.Recent large randomised, multicentre studies (ASSENT-3 and GUSTO-V) have shown higher efficacy (on various ischaemic endpoints) of abciximab in combination with either a reduced dose of tenecteplase or reteplase compared with the fibrinolytic drug alone. TIMI grade 3 flow rates at 60 and 90 minutes in the TIMI-14 and SPEED trials were higher in patients who received abciximab in combination with either alteplase or reteplase than abciximab alone and were similar to that seen with the full-dose fibrinolytic alone.In the randomised, multicentre GUSTO IV-ACS study, no significant differences in any of the ischaemic endpoints at either 7 or 30 days in patients with acute coronary syndromes who were not scheduled to undergo early revascularisation (within 12 hours of end of infusion) were apparent between those who received abciximab (bolus and either 24- or 48-hour infusion) and those who received placebo in addition to aspirin and heparin. The most common adverse events associated with the use of abciximab are bleeding complications and thrombocytopenia, although the risk of major bleeding can be limited through adhering to current administration protocols.Treatment costs are generally higher in both stent plus abciximab and angioplasty plus abciximab groups than stent plus placebo, primarily because of the acquisition cost of abciximab. Abciximab appeared most cost beneficial in high-risk patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary revascularisation; among lower risk patients, abciximab therapy has been associated with higher total in-hospital and 6-month medical costs than eptifibatide. CONCLUSION: The GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist abciximab, when used with aspirin and heparin, has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the short- and long-term risk of ischaemic complications in patients with ischaemic heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, when used with aspirin and heparin. High-risk patients (including those with diabetes mellitus) derive particular benefits from abciximab treatment. Abciximab remains an important therapeutic option for the prevention of complications in patients with ischaemic heart disease.     

Colonic drug delivery: an updated review

Specific targeting of drug to the colon is recognized to have several therapeutic advantages. Drugs that are destroyed by the acidic environment of the stomach or metabolized by pancreatic enzymes are only slightly affected in the colon. Sustained colonic delivery of drugs can be useful in the treatment of nocturnal asthma, angina, and arthritis. Treatment of colonic diseases such as ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, and colorectal cancer is more effective with direct delivery of drugs to the colon. This article is aimed at providing insight into the design considerations and evaluation of colonic drug delivery systems. The anatomy and physiology of the lower gastrointestinal tract is discussed; then the biopharmaceutical aspects are considered in relation to drug absorption in the colon. Various approaches to colon-specific drug delivery are discussed.     

Clopidogrel: an updated and comprehensive review

The risk of adverse events in patients with acute coronary syndrome remains substantial despite the use of regular aspirin. The addition of clopidogrel to regular aspirin therapy has been shown to be associated with significantly better outcomes in a variety of clinical settings within the spectrum of acute coronary syndromes. In this article, the evidence and therapeutic implications for the use of clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-elevation and ST elevation acute coronary syndromes is discussed, and also in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The use of clopidogrel in combination with other antithrombotics in the acute setting is considered, including glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists and direct thrombin inhibitors. Clopidogrel has changed the way in which patients with non-ST-elevation and, more recently, ST elevation acute coronary syndromes are treated.     

Eprosartan: a review of its use in the management of hypertension

The angiotensin II receptor antagonist eprosartan is approved for the treatment of essential hypertension and may be administered using a convenient once-daily regimen. The drug is a well tolerated and effective antihypertensive agent with benefit in the secondary prevention of cerebrovascular events, independent of blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects. Eprosartan has a low potential for serious adverse events and has not been associated with clinically significant drug interactions, establishing it as a promising agent for combination antihypertensive strategies. Unlike ACE inhibitors such as enalapril, eprosartan does not have a tendency to cause persistent nonproductive cough. Accordingly, eprosartan represents a useful therapeutic option in the management of patients with hypertension, including those who have had a stroke and those with co-morbid type 2 diabetes mellitus.