Search

Regulatory advice and assessment play an important role in the successful development of new drugs and radiopharmaceuticals for the treatment of urologic malignancies. Cooperation between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical industry has led to the approval of more than 20 new urologic oncology products in the last 2 decades. Despite these advances, more effective treatments need to be developed and approved for the treatment of urologic malignancies. This review provides general information about the FDA׳s role in the development of investigational new drugs, with an emphasis on the regulatory process and the requirements for marketing approval. In addition, this review summarizes the products for the treatment of urologic malignancies that were approved by the FDA in the last 30 years and the key issues concerning urologic oncology products that were discussed publicly at Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee meetings in the past 10 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims We assessed adherence to European Society of Cardiology heart rate guidelines (i.e. heart rates less than 70 bpm) in patients with chronic stable heart failure. We also investigated the percent of patients on target doses of rate controlling drugs. Methods Multicenter study involving 549 patients from 12 heart failure centers in the Republic of Ireland. Patients in sinus rhythm with stabilized heart failure treatment and without recent cardiac events were included. Resting heart rates, demographics, co-morbidities and heart failure therapies were recorded. Results Heart rates = 70 bpm were noted in 176 (32.1%) patients with 117 (21.3%) having rates > 75 bpm. Non-achievement of target heart rates were unrelated to age, gender or most cardiovascular risk factors. However, 42% of patients with diabetes (p < 0.01), 56% of those with COPD (p < 0.0001) and 46% of those with NYHA Class 3 (p < 0.05) did not achieve target heart rates. Fifty eight (11%) subjects were not on beta-blockers and of these forty subjects (69%) (p < 0001) did not achieve target heart rates. Of those on beta-blockers only 25% were at target dose. However, beta-blocker dosage was unrelated to achieving target heart rates. Ivabradine was used in 11% of patients with 10% at target dosage. Conclusion This study highlights that a third of "stabilized" chronic heart failure patients have not reached recommended target heart rates. Respiratory problems, diabetes and marked dyspnea were associated with poorer rate control. Guideline unawareness, inadequate beta-blocker titration and under use of ivabradine may prevent patients gaining the proven benefits of heart rate control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients in the original Familial Atherosclerosis Treatment Study (FATS) cohort were subgrouped into those with triglyceride levels < or = 120 mg/dL (n = 26) and those with triglyceride levels > or = 190 mg/dL (n = 40). Their therapeutic responses to niacin plus colestipol, lovastatin plus colestipol, colestipol alone, or placebo were determined. Therapeutic response was also determined in the same 2 triglyceride subgroups (n = 12 and n = 27, respectively) of patients selected for low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and coronary artery disease. These triglyceride criteria were chosen to identify patient subgroups with high likelihood of "pattern A" (normal-size low-density lipoprotein [LDL] particles and triglyceride < or = 120 mg/dL) or "pattern B" (small dense LDL and triglyceride > or = 190 mg/dL). Our findings in these small patient subgroups are consistent with the emerging understanding that coronary artery disease patients presenting with high triglyceride levels have lower HDL-C, smaller less buoyant LDL-C, and greater very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol and VLDL apolipoprotein B, and are more responsive to therapy as assessed by an increase in HDL-C and reduction in triglycerides, VLDL-C, and VLDL apolipoprotein B. In the FATS high-triglyceride subgroup with these characteristics, a tendency toward greater therapeutic improvement in coronary stenosis severity was observed among those treated with either of the 2 forms of intensive cholesterol-lowering therapy. This improvement is associated with therapeutic reduction of LDL-C and elevation of HDL-C, but also appears to be associated with drug-induced improvement in LDL buoyancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a moderate dose, 3-drug lipid-lowering regimen were evaluated among 29 male patients with hyperlipidemia and coronary artery disease. In an initial 12-month phase, regular niacin, 500 mg qid, lovastatin, 20 mg bid, and colestipol, 10 g/bid, were given with dose adjustment for lipid targets and side effects. This was followed by 2 random sequence crossover phases (8 months each) alternating regular niacin with a polygel controlled-release formulation of niacin for use in this regimen. Lipid, lipoprotein, apoprotein, and clinical chemistry determinations were obtained at baseline, during the initial phase, at the 2 crossover phases, and at 6 weeks after therapy. A final questionnaire queried specific side effects and overall preferences. Low-/high-density lipoprotein (LDL/HDL) changed from means of 215/46 mg/dl at baseline, to 94/59 mg/dl after run-in, to 85/52 mg/dl after 8 months of controlled-release niacin, and to 98/56 mg/dl after 8 months of regular niacin (regular niacin vs controlled-release niacin, p <0.005/<0.05). The target of LDL < or = 100 mg/dl was achieved at 8 months by 83% of these patients with controlled-release niacin and by 52% with regular niacin (p <0.01). Compliance was 95% with controlled-release niacin versus 85% with regular niacin (p <0.001). The controlled-release niacin and regular niacin regimens did not differ in terms of uric acid, glucose, insulin, or asparate aminotransferase levels. Overall, 21% of patients called the 3 drugs "very easy" and 72% "fairly easy" to take. The controlled-release niacin-containing regimen was preferred by 21 patients and the regular niacin by 4. In conclusion, these regimens achieve striking lipid changes among hyperlipidemic patients. Controlled release is the preferred niacin preparation in terms of LDL reduction, compliance, patient preference, and achieving the National Cholesterol Education Program guideline of LDL < or = 100 mg/dl. The 2 niacin preparations did not differ in evidence of toxicity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]