Octocog alfa, plasma/albumin-free method

Octocog alfa, plasma/albumin-free method (octocog alfa-PFM) is a recombinant, human, full length, coagulation factor VIII that has been produced without the addition of human- or animal-derived plasma proteins, thereby virtually eliminating the risk of transmission of blood-borne pathogens. Octocog alfa-PFM is structurally and functionally very similar to a previously marketed, albumin-containing formulation of the same recombinant factor VIII. The haemostatic efficacy of octocog alfa-PFM was rated excellent or good in the acute treatment of most breakthrough bleeding episodes in adolescents or adults with moderately severe or severe haemophilia A who were receiving prophylaxis with octocog alfa-PFM and who had been previously treated with factor VIII. Most bleeding episodes resolved after one or two infusions of octocog alfa-PFM. Efficacy was similar regardless of the cause or site of the bleeding episode. Similar excellent or good haemostatic efficacy was observed with octocog alfa-PFM in previously treated children aged <6 years with haemophilia A and during perioperative use in patients with haemophilia A undergoing surgical or invasive dental procedures. Octocog alfa-PFM was well tolerated during clinical development and in the 15-month post-marketing period. There were very few adverse events and serious events were rare. The risk for developing inhibitors (antibodies) to factor VIII was very low.     

Sulfasalazine: a review of its use in the management of rheumatoid arthritis

Sulfasalazine (salazosulfapyridine) [Azulfidine, Salazopyrin] is a well established disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) used in the treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clinical trials with sulfasalazine have used an array of measures of disease activity, such as the number of tender and swollen joints, Ritchie articular index (RAI) and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR). In randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, sulfasalazine was associated with statistically significant benefits for various measures of disease activity, according to results of individual trials and/or meta-analysis. Sulfasalazine was associated with broadly similar efficacy to that of various other DMARDs in several randomised, double-blind, comparative trials. Promising results have also been demonstrated with sulfasalazine in combination with other DMARDs (e.g. methotrexate and hydroxychloroquine) in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis and in those with more established disease. Sulfasalazine was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, the most frequently reported adverse effects being adverse gastrointestinal effects, headache, dizziness and rash; myelosuppression can also occur. Sulfasalazine has a relatively short lag time until its onset of action and is often considered to be among the more efficacious traditional DMARDs. Based on considerations of safety, convenience and cost, many rheumatologists (particularly outside of the US) select sulfasalazine as initial therapy, although preferred first-line treatment options vary between countries.     

Recombinant Human C1 Inhibitor (Conestat Alfa)

Conestat alfa is a recombinant human C1 inhibitor used in the treatment of angioedema attacks in patients with hereditary angioedema (HAE). Patients with type I or II HAE have a deficiency in functional C1 inhibitor, which is an important regulator of complement and contact system activation. The therapeutic efficacy of conestat alfa in the treatment of angioedema attacks in patients with HAE was evaluated in two similar randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials conducted in North America and Europe. The randomized controlled phases of both studies were closed after interim analyses provided compelling evidence of statistically significant positive efficacy findings and showed no apparent adverse safety findings. Results of the pooled analysis of the two trials showed that conestat alfa provided significantly faster initial relief of symptoms than placebo. The median time to the beginning of relief of symptoms (primary endpoint) was 66 minutes with conestat alfa 100 units/kg, 122 minutes with conestat alfa 50 units/kg, and 495 minutes with placebo. Conestat alfa was also statistically superior to placebo for the secondary endpoint of median time to minimal symptoms, with values of 266, 247, and 1210 minutes for the respective treatment groups. On the basis of data from open-label extension studies and integrated analyses of clinical trial data, conestat alfa has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of repeated HAE attacks and in patients with potentially life-threatening HAE attacks with involvement of the upper airways. Conestat alfa was generally well tolerated in clinical trials, with the most frequently reported adverse event being headache. In the two randomized controlled trials, headache and vertigo were the only adverse events deemed to be related to study treatment.     

Duloxetine: a review of its use in the treatment of major depressive disorder

Duloxetine (Cymbalta) is an orally administered, selective serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) that has been approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).Based on a considerable body of evidence, duloxetine at dosages ranging from 40 to 120 mg/day was effective in the short- and long-term treatment of MDD. Significant improvements versus placebo in core emotional symptoms as well as painful physical symptoms associated with depression, were seen in most, but not all, appropriately designed studies; results of meta-analyses suggested that improvements in these efficacy measures were apparent after 1-2 weeks' treatment with the highest recommended dosage of 60 mg once daily. Short-term (< or =15 weeks) administration of duloxetine at fixed or flexible dosages between 60 and 120 mg/day was noninferior to paroxetine 20 mg once daily, noninferior or inferior to escitalopram 10-20mg once daily, and had a similar global benefit-risk (GBR) profile to that of venlafaxine extended-release (XR) 150-225 mg/day in the treatment of MDD. Longer-term (6-8 months) treatment with duloxetine was similar in efficacy to paroxetine and escitalopram. Duloxetine is generally well tolerated, although it may be appropriate to avoid initiating treatment with the 60 mg/day dosage, as this has been associated with a higher discontinuation rate due to adverse events in some (but not all) comparative studies with escitalopram and venlafaxine XR.Definitive comparisons are awaited, although duloxetine seemingly provides a useful alternative to SSRIs and other SNRIs for the treatment of MDD. It also appears to be an attractive option for MDD patients presenting with painful physical symptoms.     

Prepandemic Influenza Vaccine H5N1 (Split Virion, Inactivated, Adjuvanted) [Prepandrix™]

Although rare, influenza pandemics are a recurrent event, and influenza A/H5N1 is generally considered to be the most likely causative agent of the next pandemic. Vaccines are widely considered to be the first line of defense for protecting populations in advance of an influenza pandemic. Because it is not known beforehand which strain of influenza A/H5N1 virus could give rise to a pandemic, prepandemic vaccines that impart broad cross-reactive immunogenicity are required. In addition, low doses of H5 hemagglutinin are preferable in order to make antigen supplies go further towards meeting global demands for prepandemic vaccines.Prepandemic influenza vaccine H5N1 [Prepandrix(trade mark); AS03-H5N1 vaccine] is a split virion, inactivated vaccine containing H5 hemagglutinin antigen adjuvanted with a novel 10% oil-in-water emulsion-based adjuvant system (AS03). It is approved in the EU for use as an active immunization against H5N1 subtype influenza A virus (influenza A/H5N1 virus) in adults aged 18-60 years. The recommended dosage in this population is two doses of 0.5 mL containing 3.75 microg of H5 hemagglutinin, administered >/=21 days apart. Adjuvantation of H5N1 vaccine with AS03 allows for a reduction in the H5 hemagglutinin dose required to elicit an adequate immune response, and administration of two doses of the adjuvanted vaccine met all criteria for the licensure of influenza vaccines set out in European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) and US FDA documents.In two clinical trials, two doses of AS03-H5N1 vaccine containing 3.75 microg of H5 hemagglutinin induced an immune response in healthy volunteers aged 18-60 years against the homologous, clade 1 vaccine strain, A/Vietnam/1194/2004, and the heterologous, drifted, clade 2 nonvaccine strains, A/Anhui/1/2005, A/Indonesia/5/2005, and A/turkey/Turkey/1/2005. This cross-clade response persisted for >/=6 months following administration of the first vaccine dose in the majority of vaccine recipients. In addition, AS03-H5N1 vaccine protected against lethal challenge with A/Vietnam/1194/2004 or A/Indonesia/5/2005 in animal studies. The vaccine was generally well tolerated and adverse events were transient and predominantly of mild to moderate severity.AS03-H5N1 vaccine has demonstrated antigen dose-sparing properties and cross-clade reactive immunity in clinical trials and challenge studies in animal models. As a result, stockpiling AS03-H5N1 vaccine has the potential to protect populations against a pandemic caused by an influenza A/H5N1 virus and may represent an important measure in pandemic preparedness.     

Zoledronic acid: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of bone metastases

Zoledronic acid (Zometa is a third-generation nitrogen-containing parenteral bisphosphonate indicated for the treatment of bone metastases due to solid tumours or multiple myeloma and for hypercalcaemia of malignancy (HCM). In patients with advanced breast or prostate cancer, zoledronic acid 4 mg every 3-4 weeks for up to 15 months significantly reduced the proportion of patients with > or =1 skeletal-related event (SRE), excluding HCM, compared with placebo. In patients with advanced breast cancer or multiple myeloma, the incidence of SREs was similar in patients treated with zoledronic acid 4 mg or pamidronic acid 90 mg every 3-4 weeks for up to 25 months but, in breast cancer patients, zoledronic acid reduced the risk of SREs, including HCM, by an additional 20% compared with pamidronic acid.In modelled cost-utility studies comparing direct costs based on efficacy and resource-use data from these and/or other trials, results have varied. In the most recent study performed from the perspective of the UK NHS and modelled over a 10-year treatment period in women with advanced breast cancer, intravenous zoledronic acid and oral ibandronic acid were dominant over no treatment. Intravenous zoledronic acid was the most cost effective, in terms of incremental costs per QALY gained, followed by oral ibandronic acid, intravenous pamidronic acid and intravenous ibandronic acid. Two other modelled analyses in patients with advanced breast cancer, also conducted from the perspective of the NHS, evaluated the cost utility of three bisphosphonate therapies in patients receiving hormonal therapy or intravenous chemotherapy. Analyses were modelled over 14.3 months (i.e. expected survival) and assumptions varied markedly from results in clinical breast cancer trials. Also, efficacy assumptions for zoledronic acid were not based on clinical trials with the drug. The results of these analyses suggest that oral ibandronic acid is more cost effective than intravenous zoledronic acid and intravenous pamidronic acid in terms of incremental cost per QALY gained. In a global, 15-month modelled cost-effectiveness analysis of patients with advanced prostate cancer, conducted from a third-party perspective, the incremental cost per QALY gained for zoledronic acid versus no treatment was $US159 200 (year 2000 value), which is about 3-fold greater than commonly accepted thresholds for cost effectiveness.In conclusion, a recent modelled economic analysis suggests that intravenous zoledronic acid 4 mg is dominant relative to no treatment in the management of bone metastases in patients with advanced breast cancer. In contrast, in patients with advanced prostate cancer, the incremental cost per QALY gained for zoledronic acid 4 mg versus no treatment was predicted to be higher than commonly accepted thresholds. Compared with other bisphosphonates in the setting of advanced breast cancer, intravenous zoledronic acid was more cost effective than oral or intravenous ibandronic acid and intravenous pamidronic acid in one study, but less cost effective than oral ibandronic acid in another. Further efficacy and economic data comparing intravenous zoledronic acid with oral ibandronic acid are needed. Meanwhile, zoledronic acid appears to be the most cost effective intravenous bisphosphonate for the management of bone metastases in patients with advanced breast cancer and possibly in patients with different types of advanced solid tumours.     

Irbesartan: a review of its use in hypertension and diabetic nephropathy

Irbesartan (Aprovel, Avapro, Irbetan, Karvea), an angiotensin II receptor type 1 antagonist, is approved in many countries worldwide for the treatment of hypertension. It is also approved in some regions for the treatment of nephropathy in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus. In adults with essential hypertension, irbesartan is effective at reducing blood pressure (BP) over a 24-hour period with once-daily administration. Irbesartan also slows the progression of renal disease in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes, with this effect partly independent of its BP-lowering effect. In addition, irbesartan was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. Thus, irbesartan is a useful treatment option for patients with hypertension, including those with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy.     

Telmisartan/Hydrochlorothiazide: a review of its use as fixed-dose combinations in essential hypertension

Fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) [Micardis Plus((R)), Micardis((R)) HCT, PritorPlus((R))] are available in many countries for the treatment of patients with essential hypertension. Combining the angiotensin II receptor antagonist (angiotensin II receptor blocker [ARB]) telmisartan with the thiazide diuretic HCTZ provides antihypertensive therapy with complementary mechanisms of action. In the US and EU, telmisartan/HCTZ is approved for patients whose hypertension is not adequately controlled with telmisartan monotherapy; US labelling for the fixed-dose combination also includes inadequate control of blood pressure (BP) with HCTZ monotherapy.The antihypertensive efficacy of once-daily telmisartan/HCTZ has been demonstrated in several large, randomized trials in patients with stages 1 and 2 hypertension. The addition of HCTZ to telmisartan achieved significant reductions in BP in nonresponders to telmisartan monotherapy, and the antihypertensive efficacy of telmisartan/HCTZ was similar to or significantly greater than that of various comparator agents. Moreover, in studies that used ambulatory BP monitoring, telmisartan/HCTZ provided consistent 24-hour BP reductions throughout morning, daytime and night-time periods. The BP-lowering efficacy over the entire 24-hour dose administration interval is consistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of telmisartan, which has the longest elimination half-life among currently available ARBs and a unique chemical structure. Adverse events with telmisartan/HCTZ in clinical trials were typically mild and transient, and no unexpected events occurred that had not been previously reported with either telmisartan or HCTZ. Extensive tolerability data are available for telmisartan, in particular from the ONTARGET study, the largest clinical outcomes trial with an ARB. As such, fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan/HCTZ provide an effective, rational and generally well tolerated treatment option for the management of patients with hypertension.