Piperacillin/tazobactam: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in moderate to severe bacterial infections.

Piperacillin/tazobactam is a beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitor combination with a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity against most Gram-positive and Gram-negative aerobic bacteria and anaerobic bacteria. Piperacillin/tazobactam is effective and well-tolerated in patients with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI), intra-abdominal infections, skin and soft tissue infections, and febrile neutropenia. In comparative clinical trials against various other antibacterial regimens, piperacillin/tazobactam has shown higher clinical success rates, particularly in the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections and febrile neutropenia. Cost analyses of piperacillin/tazobactam have been variable, in part, because of differences in specific costs included. Three US cost analyses found that piperacillin/tazobactam had lower total medical costs than clindamycin plus gentamicin or imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections, and ticarcillin/ clavulanic acid in community-acquired pneumonia. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin had lower total costs than ceftazidime plus amikacin in another cost analysis of patients with febrile neutropenic episodes modelled in nine European countries. However, piperacillin/tazobactam plus tobramycin was more costly than ceftazidime plus tobramycin in hospital-acquired pneumonia in a US cost analysis. In cost-effectiveness analyses, all studies of intra-abdominal infections, pneumonia and febrile neutropenic episodes consistently reported lower costs per unit of effectiveness versus comparators. Piperacillin/tazobactam was dominant (greater efficacy and lower costs) versus imipenem/cilastatin in intra-abdominal infections and ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin or meropenem in pneumonia. Piperacillin/tazobactam plus amikacin was dominant over ceftazidime plus amikacin in the treatment of febrile neutropenic episodes. In a cost-effectiveness analysis of skin and soft tissue infection, piperacillin/tazobactam had lower costs per successfully treated patient than ceftriaxone or cefotaxime, but a slightly higher cost-effectiveness ratio than amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. All cost-effectiveness analyses were based on decision-analytical models. CONCLUSIONS: Piperacillin/tazobactam is likely to reduce overall treatment costs of moderate to severe bacterial infections by increasing initial treatment success, thereby reducing the length of hospital stay and the use of additional antibacterials. Piperacillin/tazobactam has shown clinical and economic advantages over standard antibacterial regimens in the treatment of intra-abdominal infections, LRTIs, febrile episodes in patients with neutropenia, and skin and soft tissue infections, although more complete published data are needed to confirm these results. Present data regarding clinical efficacy, bacterial resistance and costs would support the use of piperacillin/tazobactam as an empirical first-line option in moderate to severe bacterial infections.     

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.     

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.     

哌拉西林-三唑巴坦和头孢哌酮-舒巴坦治疗呼吸道细菌感染的疗效比较

目的 :评价国产哌拉西林 三唑巴坦治疗呼吸道中、重度细菌感染的有效性和安全性。方法 :采用随机对照试验方法 ,选择头孢哌酮 舒巴坦为对照药物 ,将 80例呼吸道中、重度细菌感染病人分为试验组和对照组(各 40例 ) ,试验组静脉滴注哌拉西林 三唑巴坦 4.5 g,q 8h或q1 2h× 7～ 1 4d,对照组静脉滴注头孢哌酮 舒巴坦 2 .0 g,q 8h或q 1 2h× 7～1 4d。结果 :试验组临床治愈率为 82 % (3 3 /40 ) ,有效率为 90 % (3 6/40 ) ,细菌清除率为 92 %(3 4/3 7)。而对照组分别为 85 % (3 4/40 ) ,92 %(3 7/40 )和 94% (3 4/3 6)。经统计学处理 2组差异无显著意义 (P >0 .0 5 )。 2组不良反应发生率均为5 %。结论 :哌拉西林 三唑巴坦在临床的有效性和安全性与头孢哌酮 舒巴坦相似 ,是一种高效、广谱、安全的新型抗菌药     

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.     

Doripenem: a review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections

Doripenem, a parenteral, broad-spectrum antibacterial agent of the carbapenem family, is indicated as empirical therapy in serious bacterial infections in adults. Doripenem is indicated in Japan for use as a single agent in intra-abdominal infections (IAIs), lower respiratory tract infections (including nosocomial pneumonia), complicated urinary tract infections (cUTIs) and a variety of other bacterial infections, such as complicated skin and skin structure infections (cSSSIs), obstetric and gynaecological infections, serious ear, nose and throat infections, sepsis and endocarditis, dental and oral surgical infection, and ophthalmic infection caused by various susceptible strains of Gram-negative, Gram-positive or anaerobic bacteria. Doripenem is indicated in the US for the treatment of complicated IAIs (cIAIs) or cUTIs, including pyelonephritis, caused by susceptible strains of designated pathogens, and in the EU for the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia (including ventilator-associated pneumonia [VAP]), cIAIs or cUTIs.Doripenem has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae, and anaerobic pathogens. The drug also has a low propensity to select for resistance and is suitable for the prolonged infusions that may be required to achieve pharmacodynamic/pharmacokinetic targets for bactericidal activity (and therefore efficacy) against pathogens with increased MICs (minimum concentrations required to inhibit the pathogens). Doripenem is no less effective than other antibacterial agents, including meropenem, imipenem/cilastin, piperacillin/tazobactam or levofloxacin in a wide range of serious bacterial infections, such as complicated lower respiratory infections, nosocomial pneumonia (including VAP), cIAIs and cUTIs, and is well tolerated. Thus, doripenem is a valuable addition to the options available for the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients.     

Ertapenem: a review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections

The Group 1, 1 beta-methyl carbapenem ertapenem (Invanz) is approved for parenteral use in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and acute pelvic infection caused by susceptible strains of certain designated organisms in both the US and the EU. Additional approved indications in the US include complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI). Ertapenem is approved for use in adults in both the US and the EU and in paediatric patients aged >or=3 months in the US.Ertapenem has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity against Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae, Gram-positive pathogens and anaerobic pathogens. It has similar efficacy to comparator antibacterials such as piperacillin/tazobactam in cSSSI (including diabetic foot infection), cIAI and acute pelvic infection and ceftriaxone with or without metronidazole in cIAI, cUTI and CAP. The drug has also shown efficacy in the treatment of paediatric patients with complicated community-acquired bacterial infections. Ertapenem has a convenient once-daily administration schedule and is generally well tolerated. Thus, ertapenem is an important option for the empirical treatment of complicated community-acquired bacterial infections in hospitalised patients.     

Cefditoren pivoxil: a review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections

Cefditoren pivoxil (Spectracef, Meiact) is a third-generation oral cephalosporin with a broad spectrum of activity against pathogens, including both Gram-positive and -negative bacteria, and is stable to hydrolysis by many common beta-lactamases. Cefditoren pivoxil is approved for use in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), mild-to-moderate community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute maxillary sinusitis, acute pharyngitis/tonsillitis and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections (indications may differ between countries).In clinical trials in adults and adolescents, cefditoren pivoxil demonstrated good clinical and bacteriological efficacy in AECB, CAP, acute maxillary sinusitis, acute pharyngitis/tonsillitis and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections and was generally well tolerated. Thus, cefditoren pivoxil is a good option for the treatment of adult and adolescent patients with specific respiratory tract or skin infections, particularly if there is concern about Streptococcus pneumoniae with decreased susceptibility to penicillin, or beta-lactamase-mediated resistance among the common community-acquired pathogens.     

Piperacillin/tazobactam in the treatment of serious acute soft tissue infection.

Twenty-five consecutive patients admitted to hospital with severe soft tissue infection were entered into an open trial designed to evaluate safety and efficacy of the drug combination tazobactam/piperacillin. The dosage regimen was 4 g piperacillin/500 mg tazobactam Q8H. There were twenty cases of uncomplicated cellulitis and five cases with associated abscess formation. These five cases required adjunctive surgical drainage. Mean duration of therapy was 7.6 days. No other antibiotics were administered unless treatment with the study drug failed. There were eight treatment failures, six related to the trial drug. Four patients developed an allergic response to the trial drug, necessitating a change of therapy. Three patients failed to respond; all three had acute cellulitis in association with peripheral vascular disease. Significant bacterial isolates were grown in thirteen patients; Group A streptococci in three, S. aureus in five, other pathogenic streptococci in four and coliforms or Ps. aeruginosa in five. The majority of isolates except the streptococci were resistant to piperacillin but all isolates except one strain of Ps. aeruginosa were susceptible to the combination. The combination is suitable for the treatment of serious soft tissue infection, but increased doses may be appropriate in infection at poorly perfused sites.     

Meropenem: a review of its use in the treatment of serious bacterial infections

Meropenem (Merrem, Meronem) is a broad-spectrum antibacterial agent of the carbapenem family, indicated as empirical therapy prior to the identification of causative organisms, or for disease caused by single or multiple susceptible bacteria in both adults and children with a broad range of serious infections. Meropenem is approved for use in complicated intra-abdominal infection (cIAI), complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) and bacterial meningitis (in paediatric patients aged > or = 3 months) in the US, and in most other countries for nosocomial pneumonia, cIAI, septicaemia, febrile neutropenia, cSSSI, bacterial meningitis, complicated urinary tract infection (UTI), obstetric and gynaecological infections, in cystic fibrosis patients with pulmonary exacerbations, and for the treatment of severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Meropenem has a broad spectrum of in vitro activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, including extended-spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL)- and AmpC-producing Enterobacteriaceae. It has similar efficacy to comparator antibacterial agents, including: imipenem/cilastatin in cIAI, cSSSI, febrile neutropenia, complicated UTI, obstetric or gynaecological infections and severe CAP; clindamycin plus tobramycin or gentamicin in cIAI or obstetric/gynaecological infections; cefotaxime plus metronidazole in cIAI; cefepime and ceftazidime plus amikacin in septicaemia or febrile neutropenia; and ceftazidime, clarithromycin plus ceftriaxone or amikacin in severe CAP. Meropenem has also shown similar efficacy to cefotaxime in paediatric and adult patients with bacterial meningitis, and to ceftazidime when both agents were administered with or without tobramycin in patients with cystic fibrosis experiencing acute pulmonary exacerbations. Meropenem showed greater efficacy than ceftazidime or piperacillin/tazobactam in febrile neutropenia, and greater efficacy than ceftazidime plus amikacin or tobramycin in patients with nosocomial pneumonia. Meropenem is well tolerated and has the advantage of being suitable for administration as an intravenous bolus or infusion. Its low propensity for inducing seizures means that it is suitable for treating bacterial meningitis and is the only carbapenem approved in this indication. Thus, meropenem continues to be an important option for the empirical treatment of serious bacterial infections in hospitalized patients.     

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.     

Gatifloxacin: a review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections in the US

Gatifloxacin (Tequin) is an 8-methoxy fluoroquinolone approved in the US for use in the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis (AECB), acute sinusitis, uncomplicated and complicated urinary tract infections (UTIs), pyelonephritis, gonorrhoea and uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections. Gatifloxacin has a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity in vitro and good clinical and bacteriological efficacy in patients with indicated infections following once-daily administration by the intravenous or oral routes. It is generally well tolerated; the most common adverse events are associated with the gastrointestinal tract and CNS. Recent approvals for the use of gatifloxacin in the treatment of CAP due to multidrug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae (MDRSP) and in uncomplicated skin and skin structure infections extend the role of this drug in the treatment of bacterial infections in the US.     

Gatifloxacin: a review of its use in the management of bacterial infections.

Gatifloxacin is an 8-methoxy fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent. The drug has a broader spectrum of antibacterial activity than the older fluoroquinolones (e.g. ciprofloxacin) and shows good activity against many Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens, atypical organisms and some anaerobes. Notably, gatifloxacin is highly active against both penicillin-susceptible and -resistant strains of Streptococcus pneumoniae, a common causative pathogen in community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), acute sinusitis and acute bacterial exacerbations of bronchitis. Gatifloxacin is absorbed well from the gastrointestinal tract (oral bioavailability is almost 100%). Therefore, patients can be switched from intravenous to oral therapy without an adjustment in dosage. High concentrations of gatifloxacin are achieved in plasma and target tissues/fluids. Gatifloxacin has a long plasma elimination half-life, thus allowing once-daily administration. Few clinically significant interactions between gatifloxacin and other drugs have been reported. In patients with CAP, clinical response rates in recipients of intravenous/oral gatifloxacin 400 mg/day ranged from 86.8 to 98.0% and rates of bacterial eradication ranged from 83.1 to 100% (up to 28 days post-treatment). Gatifloxacin showed efficacy similar to that of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, ceftriaxone (with or without erythromycin) with or without stepdown to clarithromycin, levofloxacin or clarithromycin. Gatifloxacin was as effective as clarithromycin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, and was significantly more effective (in terms of clinical response; p < 0.035) than 7 to 10 days' treatment with cefuroxime axetil in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic bronchitis. In acute sinusitis, gatifloxacin showed clinical efficacy similar to that of clarithromycin, trovafloxacin or amoxicillin/clavulanic acid. Genitourinary infections were also successfully treated with gatifloxacin. Gatifloxacin is generally well tolerated. Its tolerability profile was broadly similar to those of comparator agents in comparative trials. The most common adverse events are gastrointestinal symptoms (oral formulation) and injection site reactions. CONCLUSIONS: Gatifloxacin has an extended spectrum of antibacterial activity and provides better coverage of Gram-positive organisms (e.g. S. pneumoniae) than some older fluoroquinolones. The drug has favourable pharmacokinetic properties, is administered once daily and is at least as well tolerated as other fluoroquinolones. Gatifloxacin is a useful addition to the fluoroquinolones currently available for use in the clinical setting and has an important role in the management of adult patients with various bacterial infections. As with other fluoroquinolones, careful control of gatifloxacin usage in the community is important in order to prevent the emergence of bacterial resistance and thus preserve the clinical value of this agent.     

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.     

Levofloxacin: a review of its use in the treatment of bacterial infections in the United States

Levofloxacin (Levaquin) is a fluoroquinolone antibacterial agent with a broad spectrum of activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and atypical respiratory pathogens. It is active against both penicillin-susceptible and penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae. The prevalence of S. pneumoniae resistance to levofloxacin is <1% overall in the US.A number of randomised comparative trials in the US have demonstrated the efficacy of levofloxacin in the treatment of infections of the respiratory tract, genitourinary tract, skin and skin structures. Sequential intravenous to oral levofloxacin 750mg once daily for 7-14 days was as effective in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia as intravenous imipenem/cilastatin 500-1000mg every 6-8 hours followed by oral ciprofloxacin 750mg twice daily in one study. In patients with mild to severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7-14 days achieved clinical and bacteriological response rates similar to those with comparator agents, including amoxicillin/clavulanic acid, clarithromycin, azithromycin, ceftriaxone and/or cefuroxime axetil and gatifloxacin. A recent study indicates that intravenous or oral levofloxacin 750mg once daily for 5 days is as effective as 500mg once daily for 10 days, in the treatment of mild to severe CAP. Exacerbations of chronic bronchitis and acute maxillary sinusitis respond well to treatment with oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7 and 10-14 days, respectively.Oral levofloxacin was as effective as ofloxacin in uncomplicated urinary tract infections and ciprofloxacin or lomefloxacin in complicated urinary tract infections. In men with chronic bacterial prostatitis treated for 28 days, oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily achieved similar clinical and bacteriological response rates to oral ciprofloxacin 500mg twice daily. Uncomplicated skin infections responded well to oral levofloxacin 500mg once daily for 7-10 days, while in complicated skin infections intravenous and/or oral levofloxacin 750mg for 7-14 days was at least as effective as intravenous ticarcillin/clavulanic acid (+/- switch to oral amoxicillin/clavulanic acid) administered for the same duration.Levofloxacin is generally well tolerated, with the most frequently reported adverse events being nausea and diarrhoea; in comparison with some other quinolones it has a low photosensitising potential and clinically significant cardiac and hepatic adverse events are rare. CONCLUSION: Levofloxacin is a broad-spectrum antibacterial agent with activity against a range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and atypical organisms. It provides clinical and bacteriological efficacy in a range of infections, including those caused by both penicillin-susceptible and -resistant strains of S. pneumoniae. Levofloxacin is well tolerated, and is associated with few of the phototoxic, cardiac or hepatic adverse events seen with some other quinolones. It also has a pharmacokinetic profile that is compatible with once-daily administration and allows for sequential intravenous to oral therapy. The recent approvals in the US for use in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia and chronic bacterial prostatitis, and the introduction of a short-course, high-dose regimen for use in CAP, further extend the role of levofloxacin in treating bacterial infections.     

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.     

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.     

Indobufen: an updated review of its use in the management of atherothrombosis

Indobufen inhibits platelet aggregation by reversibly inhibiting the platelet cyclooxygenase enzyme thereby suppressing thromboxane synthesis. Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy of oral indobufen in the secondary prevention of thromboembolic complications in patients with or without atrial fibrillation, in the prevention of graft occlusion after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and in the treatment of intermittent claudication. In the secondary prevention of thromboembolic events indobufen 200 mg once or twice daily was significantly more effective than no treatment although not as effective as ticlopidine 250 mg once or twice daily, during 1-year nonblind clinical trials. Compared with placebo, indobufen 100 mg twice daily significantly reduced the risk of stroke in a small 28-month trial of patients at increased risk of systemic embolism (50% had atrial fibrillation). Furthermore, in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation and a recent cerebrovascular event enrolled in the 1-year Studio Italiano Fibrillazione Atriale (SIFA) trial, indobufen 100 or 200 mg twice daily was as effective as warfarin (titrated to produce an international normalised ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) in the secondary prevention of thromboembolic events; the incidences of the composite end-point of major vascular events (10.6 vs 9.0%) and recurrent stroke (5 vs 4%) were similar between treatments. In 2 large 12-month trials, the Studio Indobufene nel Bypass Aortocoronarico (SINBA) and the UK study, indobufen 200 mg twice daily was as effective as aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 300 or 325 mg plus dipyridamole 75 mg 3 times daily in the prevention of early and late occlusion of saphenous grafts in patients after CABG surgery. Indobufen 200 mg twice daily for 6 months significantly improved walking capacity compared with placebo, and caused a more pronounced improvement in both pain-free and total walking distance than either pentoxifylline 300 mg or aspirin 500 mg twice daily in separate 6- and 12-month studies of patients with intermittent claudication. Oral indobufen up to 200 mg twice daily was generally well tolerated in >5000 patients with atherosclerotic disease. Adverse events (predominantly gastrointestinal), reported by 3.9% of patients, rarely required withdrawal from treatment. In the SINBA and UK studies, fewer adverse events and less gastrointestinal bleeding were seen with indobufen than with aspirin plus dipyridamole treatment, while in the SIFA trial, noncerebral bleeding events occurred significantly less frequently in indobufen than warfarin recipients (0.6 vs 5.1%) and major bleeding events occurred only in the warfarin group. Conclusion: Indobufen is as effective as warfarin in the prophylaxis of thromboembolic events in at risk patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation, as aspirin plus dipyridamole in the prevention of CABG occlusion and may be more effective than aspirin or pentoxifylline in improving walking capacity in patients with intermittent claudication. The improved tolerability profile of indobufen (favourable gastric tolerance and reduced haemorrhagic complications) compared with aspirin 300 to 325 mg 3 times daily or warfarin, in addition to a similar antiplatelet effect, suggests indobufen can be considered a drug with a definite role in the management of atherothrombotic events. In particular, indobufen may be an effective alternative for at risk patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation in whom anticoagulant therapy is contraindicated or who are at higher risk of bleeding.     

Ertapenem: a review of its use in the management of bacterial infections

Ertapenem, a carbapenem antibacterial, has in vitro activity against many Gram- negative (including Enterobacteriaceae) and Gram-positive aerobic and anaerobic bacteria that are commonly associated with various infections.Once-daily parenteral (intravenous or intramuscular) ertapenem 1g was as effective as comparator antimicrobial agents (piperacillin/tazobactam or ceftriaxone +/- metronidazole) in patients with bacterial infections in randomised, double-blind, multicentre clinical trials. Response rates with ertapenem were 84% and 87% (combined microbiological and clinical) in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infections (CIAI), 82% (clinical) in patients with complicated skin and skin structure infections (CSSSI), 86% and 92% (microbiological) in patients with complicated urinary tract infections (CUTI), 92% (clinical) in patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) associated with typical pathogens and 94% (clinical) in patients with acute pelvic infection. Respective response rates were statistically equivalent to those with comparators (81-94%). The efficacy of ertapenem was equivalent to that of piperacillin/tazobactam in patients infected with Enterobacteriaceae or anaerobes and to ceftriaxone in patients infected with Enterobacteriaceae. Ertapenem was generally well tolerated by patients with bacterial infections, with most adverse events being mild to moderate in severity. The most common ertapenem-associated adverse events were diarrhoea, infused vein complication, nausea, headache, vaginitis in females, phlebitis and/or thrombophlebitis and vomiting. CONCLUSION: Ertapenem is a broad-spectrum parenteral antibiotic with activity against many Gram-negative (including Enterobacteriaceae) and Gram-positive aerobic and anaerobic bacteria and is suitable for once-daily administration. Ertapenem has a role in the treatment of CAP associated with typical respiratory pathogens and is of particular value in the treatment of polymicrobial infections (such as CIAI, CSSSI, CUTI and acute pelvic infections), especially where Enterobacteriaceae and anaerobic bacteria are involved.