Search

Background: Inexpensive medicines with a long history of use may currently be prescribed off-label for rare indications. Reimbursement is at the discretion of health insurance companies, and may be unpredictable. The example addressed was ephedrine as add-on treatment for myasthenia gravis. Stakeholders from academia, a patient organization, the Dutch National Health Care Institute (NHCI) and Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) advised on the trial design. The NHCI and MEB agreed to provide scientific advice on the suitability of the evidence generated by the trial, for regulatory decisions. This paper describes the feasibility of the trial and the utility of its aggregated results., Results: The trialists experienced the trial as feasible. Retrospective interviews showed that the trial as performed was acceptable to patients. The treatment effect in the primary outcome measure, muscle strength, was statistically significant when inferred to the population level, though the effect size was modest. Secondary outcomes were statistically significant in a preplanned, fixed effects analysis within the four patients. The NHCI advised that it could potentially make reimbursement decisions based on the Fitting Evidence framework, should the trialists decide to apply for reimbursement. The MEB advised that for a licensing decision, the N-of-1 design is a last-resort option for demonstrating treatment benefit in a rare disease. N-of-1 trials alone do not provide enough evidence on potential risk. The MEB found the current trial inconclusive. It suggested doing a 2-armed trial of longer duration, possibly with a different outcome measure (postponement of corticosteroid use). It suggested engaging a consultancy or commercial sponsor, should the trialists decide to seek market authorization of the drug., Conclusions: In theory, evidence from aggregated N-of-1 trials is suitable for use in licensing and reimbursement decisions. The current example illustrates differences in interpretation of N-of-1 results by health authorities. In the era of personalized medicine, consensus is required on the interpretation of data from study designs geared to small groups. Demonstrating effectiveness of inexpensive medicines in small populations may require involvement of non-commercial parties, to preserve affordability.

Introduction: Myasthenia gravis (MG), a rare neuromuscular disease, is often initially treated using acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. Patients who do not respond adequately depend on the use of corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive medication, but these may have serious side effects. Clinical observations suggest that ephedrine can diminish, postpone or even prevent the need for immunosuppressive therapy when added to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors or low-dose prednisone. In the Netherlands, ephedrine is not licensed for MG nor is reimbursement guaranteed. MG is a rare condition, and ephedrine might be indicated only in a subset of patients. Thus, randomised controlled trials comparing large groups are difficult to conduct. We, therefore, aim to aggregate data from a small series of n-of-1 trials (also known as single patient trials) to assess the effect of ephedrine as add-on treatment for MG., Methods and Analysis: Single-centre, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomised, multiple crossover n-of-1 studies in 4 adult patients with generalised MG who show inadequate improvement on pyridostigmine and/or immunosuppressive drugs. Each n-of-1 trial has 3 cycles of two 5-day intervention periods., Treatment: 25 mg ephedrine or placebo, twice daily., Main Outcome Measure: Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) test., Statistical Analysis: fixed effects linear model for QMG for all patients combined., Secondary Outcome Measures: Clinical: effects on MG-Composite and MG-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) scales; QMG at individual level; adverse events. Acceptability of trial design: number of patients eligible and enrolled; number of treatment cycles completed; patients' and caregivers' experiences., Ethics and Dissemination: This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Leiden University Medical Center, No. P14.108. Results of the trial will be reported in a peer-reviewed publication. Regulatory stakeholders will comment on the suitability of the trial for market authorisation and reimbursement purposes., Trial Registration Number: This study is registered under EudraCT number 2014-001355-23, protocol no. 40960, V.1.0, registration date 27 March 2014., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Aim: Early prediction of (non-)response to infliximab therapy can improve therapeutic benefit by avoiding unnecessary periods of high disease activity during ineffective therapy. This prospective cohort study therefore aimed to study the predictive value of (1) disease activity alone and (2) infliximab serum trough concentrations in addition to disease activity 6 weeks after start of treatment for achieving low disease activity after 6 months., Methods: Disease activity and infliximab serum trough concentrations were assessed in all rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients at 2, 6 and 26 weeks after initiation of infliximab therapy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and Youden indices were used to calculate specificity for prediction of good response after 6 months while aiming for maximum sensitivity., Results: Fifty-seven consecutive RA patients starting with infliximab therapy were included. After 6 months, 15 (26%, 95 % CI 15, 38%) patients reached good European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) response. A disease activity score <4.2 at 6 weeks after initiation of therapy was a moderate predictor for reaching EULAR response after 6 months (sensitivity 100%, specificity 49%). Infliximab serum trough concentrations (>2.5 mg l(-1)) as predictor complimentary to disease activity (<4.2) slightly increased the specificity from 49% to 54% without changing the sensitivity (100%). As 39% of the patients did not fulfill at least one of these criteria at week 6, these patients could already be switched to another therapy after 6 weeks., Conclusions: The combination of disease activity and infliximab serum trough concentrations could be a fair predictor to identify early (after 6 weeks) patients who have insufficient response after 6 months of therapy., (© 2013 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: This study in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treated with infliximab describes prospectively the course of (anti)infliximab levels within an infusion cycle to assess at what moment patients develop low/no infliximab trough levels and/or detectable anti-infliximab levels., Methods: Infliximab treated RA patients were included in this descriptive open-label cohort study. During one infusion cycle (anti-)infliximab levels were assessed just before and one hour after infusion, and subsequently at 50%, 75% and at the end of the infusion cycle (pre-infusion)., Results: 27 patients were included. The median infliximab levels decreased from 77.0 mg/l (p25-p75: 65-89) one hour after the infusion to pre-infusion levels of 0.0 mg/l (p25-p75: 0.0-3.1). In 7 (26%) patients pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies were detected; these antibodies were already present halfway through the infusion cycle in 5 of the 7 individuals. Patients with detectable pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies have significantly more often low/no infliximab levels (< 1 mg/l) halfway trough the infusion cycle (in 5/7 patients) compared to patients without detectable pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies (0/20 patients, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Most anti-infliximab forming patients have detectable anti-infliximab antibodies halfway through an infusion cycle, which implies that these patients are exposed to nontherapeutical infliximab levels during more than half of their infusion cycle. As none of the patients without anti-infliximab antibodies had no/low-infliximab levels halfway through the infusion cycle, the presence of pre-infusion anti-infliximab antibodies seems a sensitive and specific predictor for no/low infliximab-levels.

Objective: To determine long-term retention, percentage of patients withdrawing because of adverse events, percentage of patients achieving seizure freedom, safety profile of the new anti-epileptic drugs lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate., Methods: All patients treated with lamotrigine, levetiracetam or topiramate in the Epilepsy Centre were identified. Each drug was analyzed from introduction of the drug in the Netherlands up to a final assessment point 2 years later., Results: Data from 1066 patients were included: 336 for lamotrigine, 301 for levetiracetam, 429 for topiramate. Two-year retention rates were 69.2% (lamotrigine), 45.8% (levetiracetam), 38.3% (topiramate); (LTG vs. LEV at p<0.001; LTG vs. TPM at p<0.001; LEV vs. TPM at p=0.005). Seizure freedom rates were lowest for lamotrigine and highest for levetiracetam. Adverse events played a role in drug discontinuation in 154/429 patients (35.9%) on topiramate, 52/336 patients (15.5%) on lamotrigine (p<0.001), 68/301 patients (22.5%) on levetiracetam (p<0.001). Mood and general CNS-effects are common in patients on lamotrigine and levetiracetam, and neurocognitive side effects are most prevalent in patients on topiramate. A positive effect on cognition is frequently noted in patients on lamotrigine., Conclusion: A drug that is only modestly efficacious but has a favourable safety profile may look better than a drug that is more efficacious but produces clinically meaningful adverse events. Therefore, a drug's retention rate is mainly determined by its side effect profile. As a consequence, retention rate was highest for lamotrigine and lowest for topiramate. Intermediate retention rates were seen with levetiracetam use.

Objective: To establish cost-effectiveness of antiepileptic drug (AED) treatment strategies of newly diagnosed patients with epilepsy., Methods: A decision analysis was carried out comparing effectiveness and treatment cost of six treatment strategies comprising carbamazepine (CBZ), lamotrigine (LTG), and valproate (VPA) as first-line and second-line drugs. Three outcome groups were defined: complete success, partial success, and failure. Data on seizure control and failure due to adverse effects were derived from the literature. Data on resource use and costs were collected for each outcome group by means of a patient survey., Results: Cost data were obtained from 71 patients. Cost increased from complete success to failure outcome groups. The probability of obtaining complete success varied from 64% (VPA-CBZ strategy) to 74% (LTG-VPA strategy). The strategy LTG-VPA was more effective than the least expensive strategy CBZ-VPA, but at higher costs per additional effectively treated patient. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed these findings to be robust. Subsequent analysis showed that changing inclusion criteria used in the selection of the studies from the literature had a major effect on cost-effectiveness ratios of the various strategies. The probability that LTG first-line therapy is the most cost-effective option remains small, even defining a high cost-effectiveness threshold. Nevertheless, LTG second-line strategies can be cost-effective depending on the willingness to pay for patient improvement., Conclusions: Only a few studies satisfied our inclusion criteria for employment in our decision model. Our model supports the use of conventional AEDs as first-line options for patients with newly diagnosed epilepsy. LTG second-line therapy is likely to be the most cost-effective option in case society is willing to pay more than Euro 6000 for an additional successfully treated patient. This study also illustrates that, with the data presently available, the outcome of decision analysis for AED treatment choice depends on the inclusion criteria used to select trials. Prospective real-life studies are needed in which first- and second-line treatment strategies are compared with respect to both effectiveness and costs.

Background: Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) has been studied in combination with efavirenz in healthy volunteers and no interaction was found. No data are available on the possible interaction of tenofovir DF with nevirapine and efavirenz in HIV-infected patients. In this study the combination of nevirapine 200 mg twice daily with tenofovir DF 300 mg once daily and nevirapine 400 mg once daily with tenofovir DF 300 mg once daily were compared with nevirapine twice daily or once daily without tenofovir DF in HIV-infected patients. Furthermore, the combination of efavirenz 600 mg and tenofovir DF 300 mg once daily was compared with use of efavirenz 600 mg once daily only., Methods: Data were retrospectively collected from routine therapeutic drug monitoring plasma samples. Nevirapine, efavirenz, and tenofovir plasma levels and tenofovir concentration ratios were analyzed. The concentration ratio represents the measured plasma concentration compared with the time-adjusted average concentration, as measured in a reference population. Six different groups were studied: 200 mg nevirapine twice daily, 400 mg nevirapine once daily, 600 mg efavirenz once daily, all without tenofovir DF (groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively), and the same groups with the drugs combined with tenofovir 300 mg once daily (groups 4, 5, and 6, respectively)., Results: Plasma samples were evaluable for 272, 18, 126, 32, 94, and 118 patients in the groups 1-6, respectively. No differences were found in plasma levels for tenofovir, nevirapine, and efavirenz for either of the combinations studied. Addition of tenofovir DF to efavirenz or nevirapine in HIV-infected patients does not influence the plasma levels of nevirapine or efavirenz. Furthermore, nevirapine and efavirenz have no effect on tenofovir plasma levels or tenofovir concentration ratios., Conclusion: Efavirenz or nevirapine can be coadministered with tenofovir DF in HIV-infected patients without dose modifications.

Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir DF) was studied in combination with rifampin in 24 healthy subjects in a multiple-dose, open-label, single-group, two-period study. All subjects were given tenofovir DF at 300 mg once a day (QD) from days 1 to 10 (period 1). From days 11 to 20 the subjects received tenofovir DF at 300 mg combined with rifampin at 600 mg QD (period 2). The multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of tenofovir (day 10 and 20) and rifampin (day 20) were assessed. The drug-related adverse events (AEs) experienced during this study were mostly mild. Only one grade 3 AE possibly or probably related to the treatment (raised liver enzyme levels) occurred during period 2; the subject was withdrawn from the study. Pharmacokinetic data for 23 subjects were thus evaluable. Point estimates for the mean ratios of tenofovir with rifampin versus tenofovir alone for the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h (AUC(0-24)), the maximum concentration of drug in plasma (C(max)), and the minimum concentration of drug in plasma (C(min)) were 0.88, 0.84, and 0.85, respectively. The 90% classical confidence intervals for AUC(0-24), C(max), and C(min) were 0.84 to 0.92, 0.78 to 0.90, and 0.80 to 0.91, respectively, thus suggesting pharmacokinetic equivalence. Similarly, coadministration of rifampin and tenofovir DF did not result in changes in the values of the tenofovir pharmacokinetic parameters. For rifampin, the values of the pharmacokinetic parameters found in this study were comparable to those found in the literature, indicating that tenofovir DF has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of rifampin. In conclusion, adaptation of either the rifampin or the tenofovir DF dose for the simultaneous treatment of tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in HIV-infected patients is probably not required.

Aims: A once-daily (q.d.) nucleoside-sparing regimen can prevent mitochondrial toxicity, overcome viral resistance and improve compliance. In the present study the effect of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of once-daily nelfinavir/ritonavir was evaluated in healthy subjects., Methods: This was a multiple-dose, open-label, single-group, two-period study in 24 healthy subjects. Each received from days 1-10 (period 1): 1875 mg nelfinavir plus 200 mg ritonavir q.d. with a 300-kcal snack. During days 11-20 (period 2) efavirenz 600 mg q.d. was added to the regimen. Blood samples were collected up to 24 h after dosing on days 10 (period 1) and 20 (period 2). High-performance liquid chromatography methods were used for the determination of the concentrations of all compounds. The main pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods., Results: All subjects completed the study. After the first period mean nelfinavir AUC(0-24 h), C(max) and C(24) were 49.6 mg h(-1) l(-1), 5.0 mg l(-1) and 0.37 mg l(-1), and the sum of nelfinavir plus its active metabolite M8 C(24) was 0.83 mg l(-1). The relative bioavailability, expressed as a geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval) for nelfinavir AUC(0-24 h), C(max) and C(24) of period 2 compared with period 1 was: 1.30 (1.21, 1.40), 1.29 (1.19, 1.40) and 1.48 (1.32, 1.66). The sum of nelfinavir and M8 C(24) in period 2 was 0.99 mg l(-1), an increase of 19%. No serious adverse events occurred., Conclusions: The studied regimens were well tolerated. Nelfinavir/ritonavir given together with efavirenz resulted in a 48% higher mean C(24) concentration for nelfinavir, and the sum of nelfinavir and M8 C(24) concentrations was 0.99 mg l(-1). Efavirenz exposure in this study was similar to that reported previously, and therefore can be used effectively in combination with ritonavir and nelfinavir.

Coadministration of lopinavir-ritonavir, an antiretroviral protease inhibitor, at the standard dose (400/100 mg twice a day [BID]) with the antituberculous agent rifampin is contraindicated because of a significant pharmacokinetic interaction due to induction of cytochrome P450 3A by rifampin. In the present study, two adjusted-dose regimens of lopinavir-ritonavir were tested in combination with rifampin. Thirty-two healthy subjects participated in a randomized, two-arm, open-label, multiple-dose, within-subject controlled study. All subjects were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/100 mg BID from days 1 to 15. From days 16 to 24, the subjects in arm 1 received lopinavir-ritonavir at 800/200 mg BID in a dose titration, and the subjects in arm 2 received lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/400 mg BID in a dose titration. Rifampin was given at 600 mg once daily to all subjects from days 11 to 24. The multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of lopinavir, ritonavir, and rifampin were assessed. Twelve of 32 subjects withdrew from the study. For nine subjects lopinavir-ritonavir combined with rifampin resulted in liver enzyme level elevations. Pharmacokinetic data for 19 subjects were evaluable. Geometric mean ratios for the lopinavir minimum concentration in serum and the maximum concentration in serum (C(max)) on day 24 versus that on day 10 were 0.43 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.96) and 1.02 (90% CI, 0.85 to 1.23), respectively, for arm 1 (n = 10) and 1.03 (90% CI, 0.68 to 1.56) and 0.93 (90% CI, 0.81 to 1.07), respectively, for arm 2 (n = 9). Ritonavir exposure increased from days 10 to 24 in both arms. The geometric mean C(max) of rifampin was 13.5 mg/liter (day 24) and was similar between the two arms. Adjusted-dose regimens of lopinavir-ritonavir in combination with therapeutic drug monitoring and monitoring of liver function may allow concomitant use of rifampin.

Since 1999 an ongoing international interlaboratory quality control program has analyzed antiretroviral drugs in plasma. Results of the third round of this program are presented. Quality control samples were prepared by spiking drug-free plasma with varying concentrations of the currently available protease inhibitors and the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors efavirenz and nevirapine. Thirty-three laboratories participated in the program and were requested to analyze the quality control samples. Results were from 30 laboratories. Of all measurements, 82% were performed within 80%-120% accuracy limits. Only 3 laboratories performed all their measurements within these limits, and 12 participants reported at least 90% of their analyses within the acceptance range. Mean accuracy for low drug concentrations was worse than for medium and high concentrations. The percentage of satisfactory measurements for the 6 laboratories that participated for the third time in the program increased from 54% in the first round to 85% in the third round. The program revealed a large variability in the laboratories' ability to measure antiretroviral drugs accurately. This variability may have important implications for therapeutic drug monitoring of these drugs and for pharmacokinetic studies. Interlaboratory testing is useful to alert laboratories to previously undetected analytical problems.

Aims: This study was performed to evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetics, food intake requirements and short-term tolerability of once-daily combinations of nelfinavir and low-dose ritonavir., Methods: Twenty-seven healthy volunteers were randomized over three groups to receive a once-daily regimen of nelfinavir/ritonavir 2,000/200 mg (group 1), 2,000/400 mg (group 2) or 2,500/200 mg (group 3) with food for 14 days. Pharmacokinetic parameters for nelfinavir and its active metabolite M8 were assessed on study days 15 and 16, after administration of the regimens with a full (610 kcal) or light (271 kcal) breakfast, respectively., Results: Pharmacokinetic data were evaluable for eight volunteers in group 1, eight in group 2 and four in group 3. Administration of nelfinavir/ritonavir with a full breakfast resulted in geometric mean (GM) nelfinavir AUC(24h) values of 76.8, 51.3, and 61.9 h*mg/l in group 1, 2 and 3, respectively. GM 24-h Cmin concentrations of nelfinavir were 0.76 mg l(-1), 0.43 mg l(-1) and 0.47 mg l(-1), respectively. Co-administration of ritonavir increased M8 concentrations more than nelfinavir concentrations, resulting in GM AUC(24h) and Cmin values for nelfinavir plus M8 that were higher than or comparable to reference values for the approved regimen of nelfinavir (1,250 mg BID without ritonavir). In the 2,000/200 mg group, seven out of eight subjects had a Cmin value of nelfinavir plus M8 above a threshold of 1.0 mg l-1. Administration of the combinations with a light breakfast resulted in significant decreases in the AUC(24h) and Cmin of nelfinavir and nelfinavir plus M8, compared with intake with a full breakfast. For the Cmin of nelfinavir plus M8, the GM ratio (light/full breakfast) was 0.76 (90% confidence interval 0.67-0.86, participants from all groups combined). Short-term tolerability was satisfactory, apart from a higher than expected incidence of mild rash (12%)., Conclusions: Administration of nelfinavir in a once-daily regimen appears feasible. A nelfinavir/ritonavir 2,000/200 mg combination appears appropriate for further evaluation. Once-daily nelfinavir/ritonavir should be taken with a meal containing at least 600 kcal.

Background: Adherence to protease inhibitor-containing antiretroviral therapy is crucial, but difficult to measure., Objective: To compare and combine various methods of measuring adherence to the strict protease inhibitor-containing regimens., Methods: The following methods were used: medication event monitoring system (MEMS) caps (electronic monitoring), therapeutic drug monitoring, pill count, pharmacy refill data, questionnaires, diaries (for registration of food patterns and special events related to the use of MEMS), adherence assessment by the physician and clinical nurse specialist, and in-depth interviews. In addition, ultrasensitive viral load and resistance testing was performed., Results: Twenty-eight patients were included; data could be evaluated in 26. According to MEMS data, 25% of the patients took fewer than 95% of all doses, and two thirds of the patients took fewer than 95% of the doses on time. Only 43% of the patients showed good adherence with food restrictions. Methods that showed significant correlations with MEMS results were patients' self-reported adherence; therapeutic drug monitoring, indicating plasma levels outside predefined ranges; and estimation of adherence by a clinical nurse specialist, especially by in-depth interview., Conclusion: Diary-corrected MEMS data gave a detailed insight into patients' adherence patterns. Patients' self-report and therapeutic drug monitoring were significantly correlated with the MEMS data, and the clinical nurse specialist may also play a role in identifying patients who are imperfectly adherent.

An international interlaboratory quality control program for measurement of antiretroviral drugs was initiated. The first round was confined to protease inhibitors and showed large variability in the performance of participating laboratories. The results demonstrate the need for and utility of an ongoing quality control program in this area of bioanalysis.

Purpose: Monotherapy has been the gold standard in epilepsy treatment for the last 20 years, partly because of the reputation for increased toxicity of polytherapy. However, monotherapy and polytherapy have not been compared in a double-blind clinical trial. Open trials that compared the two treatments were not optimally designed and compared the two at unequal drug loads (i.e., at nonequivalent dosages). We report on a double-blind clinical trial in which a combination of carbamazepine (CBZ) and valproate (VPA) was compared with CBZ monotherapy. Patients started with equal drug loads, and neurotoxicity was the primary outcome measure., Methods: The 130 adult patients with untreated generalized tonic-clonic and/or partial seizures were randomized to equal drug loads of either monotherapy (400 mg CBZ per day) or polytherapy (200 mg CBZ plus 300 mg VPA per day). Outcome was measured by seizure counts, clinimetric epilepsy scales, and neuropsychological tests at baseline, at 2 and 12 months, and irregularly between 2 and 12 months., Results: No statistical differences were found between the two treatments in the reduction of seizure frequencies, in overall neurotoxicity, or in overall systemic toxicity. The frequencies and clinimetric scores of certain adverse effects did differ (e.g., more monotherapy patients remained sedated, and more polytherapy patients gained weight). Fewer polytherapy patients withdrew because of adverse effects (14 vs. 22%), although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.15). Neuropsychological assessment did not show significant differences., Conclusions: No differences were found in overall neurotoxicity between monotherapy and polytherapy.

Objective: To characterize sources of variation in plasma concentrations of nelfinavir and its active metabolite M8 and to evaluate the use of therapeutic drug monitoring for nelfinavir treatment., Methods: Plasma samples and patient's characteristics were obtained from outpatient clinic. Differences between groups of patients were studied by comparing the observed plasma concentrations with the corresponding concentration on a pharmacokinetic population curve based on median plasma levels., Results: Plasma samples (618) were available from 355 patients taking 1250 mg nelfinavir twice daily. The median ratio between M8 and nelfinavir concentrations was 0.29. This ratio appeared to be independent of the time after ingestion. Statistically significantly lower M8 concentrations were found in Black and Asian patients, or when comedication with CYP3A4 inducers was used. Coadministration of CYP2C19 inhibitors, such as omeprazole, decreased the median M8/nelfinavir ratio. Nevertheless, nelfinavir concentrations and summed concentrations of nelfinavir and M8 were only marginally affected in these patients. Diarrhoea was identified as a cause for lower nelfinavir concentrations, without changing the M8/nelfinavir ratio. In a number of patients with suspected therapy failure or intoxication, abnormal nelfinavir plasma concentrations were found. Dose adjustments based on nelfinavir plasma levels were helpful in a number of patients., Conclusion: This study shows that the total concentration of nelfinavir and M8 together is not significantly influenced when variation in M8 levels occurs. Consequently, measuring M8 concentrations in addition to nelfinavir concentrations is not required for the purpose of therapeutic drug monitoring for this drug.

In antiretroviral therapy, to improve compliance the need is increasing to develop regimens that combine potency and safety with convenient dosing. The objective of our study was to find a once-daily dosing regimen of a HIV-protease inhibitor, indinavir (IDV), by combining it with ritonavir (RTV). In the study, 12 healthy volunteers took a single IDV dose of 800 mg on day 1. Plasma and urine sampling was done for 12 hours. From day 2 to day 21, participants took RTV liquid 200 mg (group A) or 400 mg (group B) once daily. Repeated pharmacokinetic sampling was performed over the course of 24 hours, after single doses of indinavir 400 mg (day 15), 800 mg (day 18), and 1200 mg (day 21). The best dosage regimen in this pharmacokinetic study was selected based on efficacy and tolerability criteria. The study comprised 10 male and 2 female healthy volunteers, mean age, 25 years (range, 18-50 years), mean weight, 70 kg (range, 52-83 kg). One male participant discontinued on day 8 due to influenza. All other participants completed the study without the occurrence of serious adverse events. RTV inhibited indinavir plasma clearance by 51% to 70%, leading to increased and prolonged IDV exposure. Renal clearance was influenced by the addition of RTV and dosage increments of IDV. The efficacy criterion was best fulfilled by 1200 mg IDV/400 mg RTV, whereas this combination performed most poorly on tolerability criteria. Based on the single dose data, a once-daily regimen of IDV with a low dose of RTV is possible. The best dosage regimen to start with among those studied here appears to be 1200 mg IDV/400 mg RTV, which could be decreased at steady state to 800 IDV/400 RTV or 1200 IDV/200 RTV if toxicity occurs. Steady-state pharmacokinetic data of once-daily IDV/RTV regimens in HIV-infected patients are warranted.

Purpose: When monotherapy with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) fails, combination therapy is tried in an attempt to improve effectiveness by improving efficacy, tolerability, or both. We reviewed the available studies (both animal and human) on AED polytherapy to determine whether AEDs can be selected for combination therapy based on their mechanisms of action, and if so, which combinations are associated with increased effectiveness. Because various designs and methods of analysis were used in these studies, it was also necessary to evaluate the appropriateness of these approaches., Methods: Published papers reporting on AED polytherapy in animals or humans were identified by Medline search and by checking references cited in these papers., Results: Thirty-nine papers were identified reporting on two-drug AED combinations. Several combinations were reported to offer improved effectiveness, but no uniform approach was used in either animal or human studies for the evaluation of pharmacodynamic drug interactions; efficacy was often the only end point., Conclusions: There is evidence that AED polytherapy based on mechanisms of action may enhance effectiveness. In particular, combining a sodium channel blocker with a drug enhancing GABAergic inhibition appears to be advantageous. Combining two GABA mimetic drugs or combining an AMPA antagonist with an NMDA antagonist may enhance efficacy, but tolerability is sometimes reduced. Combining two sodium channel blockers seems less promising. However, given the incomplete knowledge of the pathophysiology of seizures and indeed of the exact mechanisms of action of AEDs, an empirical but rational approach for evaluating AED combinations is of fundamental importance. This would involve appropriate testing of all possible combinations in animal models and subsequent evaluation of advantageous combinations in clinical trials. Testing procedures in animals should include the isobologram method, and the concept of drug load should be the basis of studies in patients with epilepsy.

In connection with a national cost-effective evaluation study of short contact dithranol therapy for psoriasis, the question arose whether dithranol cream irritation is influenced by constituents of the vehicle. To establish the role of the different components of the vehicle in the mechanism of dithranol irritation, the dithranol 3% cream used in the evaluation study and its vehicle with nine different combinations of its components were tested in a blind study. The creams were applied for 15, 30 and 45 min on the backs of 12 healthy volunteers. Irritation was scored as erythema by visual and colorimeter scoring. The dithranol creams with salicylic acid among their stabilizers showed 42% more irritation than the dithranol creams with only sorbic acid or no stabilizers at all. Stability tests showed no significant degradation of dithranol in the two less irritating creams when kept at 4 degrees C for 11 months. Salicylic acid in the cream aggravates dithranol-induced erythema.

Purpose: We reviewed the literature to determine whether an analysis of published data could clarify the relationship between antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy and adverse affects (AE). We highlight the problems encountered., Methods: We made a Medline-search for articles published between 1974 and 1994 reporting the number of AE and doses or serum levels of every AED, per patient or treatment group, and used the PDD/DDD ratio to calculate AED load per patient from doses or the OSL/AToxL ratio to do so from serum levels of individual drugs. The PDD/DDD is the sum of ratios of the actual prescribed daily doses divided by the published average therapeutic dose of each drug. The OSL/AToxL is the sum of each observed serum level divided by its average toxic level., Results: We retrieved 118 trial reports. Most had to be excluded because of incomplete reporting of concomitant medication or AE. The data of the 15 articles selected for further analysis indicate a relationship between drug load and number of AE. We noted no relationship between the number of AEDs administered and AE. In add-on studies, the difference in neurotoxicity between the active and placebo arm may be obscured if the relative increase in drug load is small, as exemplified by the study of McGuire et al.., Conclusions: Articles reporting add-on trials of new AEDs generally do not provide detailed information about the basic medication to which the new AED is added, which makes calculation of total drug load impossible. Furthermore, often only frequency of AE is reported, not severity or development of tolerance, making it difficult to judge the impact of AE. However, despite the paucity of available information, we present some evidence that toxicity in AED polytherapy may be related to total drug load, rather than to the number of drugs administered. Therefore, the present trend to reject polytherapy for fear of increased toxicity is not warranted, which removes one of the objections to initiating specific research to prove or disprove the value of AED combinations as long as the drug load is appropriate.

Some investigators argue that treating epilepsy with several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) simultaneously (polytherapy) may give rise to more adverse effects than monotherapy, but this argument lacks supporting quantitative data. To reexamine this issue, we recruited a cohort of patients from the outpatients of the Special Centres for Epilepsy in The Netherlands and from the outpatients of the Department of Neurology, Nijmegen University, The Netherlands. Two tools were used for analysis. All daily doses of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were standardized by the ratio of prescribed daily dose to defined daily dose (PDD/DDD). The DDD is the assumed average effective daily dose for a drug used for its main indication in adults. The assignment of DDD values is the task of the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Drugs Statistics Methodology and Nordic Council on Medicines, which regularly publishes Guidelines for Defined Daily Doses. The severity of adverse effects (AE) was assessed by using the Neurotoxicity Index and the Systemic Toxicity Index as developed by the VA Cooperative Study Group for their recent studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of AEDs. One hundred sixty-one patients received monotherapy; all had a PDD/DDD ratio < or = 2/day; 128 of 262 patients receiving polytherapy also had < or = 2 PDD/DDD ratios/day. The mono- and polytherapy groups were stratified according to the PDD/DDD ratio. The prevalence of neurological AE for patients with similar PDD/DDD ratios was 50-80% for monotherapy patients and 50-82% for polytherapy patients. The difference between the mono- and polytherapy groups was not significant.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The achievement of treatment objectives for patients with epilepsy, as defined by the treating clinicians, was compared with scoring of clinimetric indexes. Patients with the treatment objectives "complete seizures remission" or "treatment impairment/benefit balance" were included in this study. The clinimetric indexes were also compared with a clinical status rating, as assessed by the clinician. No correlation was observed between clinimetric indexes and achievement of the treatment objective. The difference noted in outcome of treatment objectives and index scores may have resulted because the indexes were group-intended and the clinician's judgment was individual-oriented. The clinician's assessment of clinical status of the patient did correlate with the composite index of impairments (CII), however, a clinimetric scale for severity of impairments caused by epilepsy. The advantage of the CII over the clinical status rating is that the CII is constructed with objective data and shows the cause of change observed during follow-up.

Drug prescribing patterns for the management of inpatients and outpatients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were investigated. The population of patients resembled published epidemiological descriptions of RA patients with respect to age and sex distribution. Multiple drug therapy was common in the treatment of both hospitalised and clinic patients. 90% of all patients with RA received non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) therapy, indomethacin and naproxen being the two most frequently prescribed NSAIDs for both in- and outpatients. The vast majority of inpatients (85%) and outpatients (79%) received slow-acting antirheumatic drug (SAARD) treatment. 13% of hospitalised patients received H2-antagonist drugs in addition to their NSAIDs. A high proportion of inpatients (46%) received oral corticosteroids in the management of their rheumatoid arthritis, while only 15% of clinic patients were prescribed corticosteroids.