Search

Zoledronic acid (Zometa) is an effective inhibitor of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption. Zoledronic acid demonstrated efficacy in the reduction of skeletalrelated events (SREs) in patients with multiple myeloma or bone metastases secondary to breast cancer, prostate cancer or other solid tumours, or hypercalcaemia of malignancy. Zoledronic acid was effective in patients with multiple myeloma or metastatic breast cancer with osteolytic or mixed bone lesions. The proportion of patients who experienced an SRE was similar during 12 months of treatment with zoledronic acid 4mg or pamidronic acid 90mg, but significantly fewer patients receiving zoledronic acid required radiotherapy to bone. Furthermore, in patients with breast cancer and osteolytic lesions, median time to a first SRE was more than 4 months longer with zoledronic acid than with pamidronic acid. In the multiple event analysis in a 12-month extension study (total study duration was 25 months) in patients with breast cancer, zoledronic acid was superior to pamidronic acid, with an 18% reduction in the risk of experiencing an SRE. Both drugs were associated with a slight reduction in pain. Zoledronic acid 4mg, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the proportion of patients with prostate cancer bone metastases experiencing an SRE, particularly pathological fractures after 15 months' treatment. The drug also significantly delayed the onset of skeletal complications compared with placebo in patients with prostate cancer and other solid tumours including non-small cell lung cancer. When administered as a single 15-minute intravenous infusion, zoledronic acid 4mg was significantly more effective than pamidronic acid administered as a 2-hour infusion in the treatment of severe hypercalcaemia of malignancy, as assessed by complete responses measuring normalised serum calcium concentrations at day 10 after a single dose. Furthermore, zoledronic acid normalised serum calcium concentrations significantly faster than pamidronic acid, and the duration of response and median time to relapse were approximately twice as long in zoledronic acid recipients than in pamidronic acid recipients. Zoledronic acid is well tolerated and has a similar tolerability profile to pamidronic acid. The most commonly reported adverse events included flu-like symptoms (fever, arthralgias, myalgias and bone pain), fatigue, gastrointestinal reactions, anaemia, weakness, dyspnoea and oedema. Conclusion: In conjunction with antitumour therapy, zoledronic acid should be considered for routine use to reduce skeletal complications in patients with advanced malignancies involving bone. In patients with hypercalcaemia of malignancy, zoledronic acid is expected to become the treatment of choice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Losartan is an orally active, selective, nonpeptide, angiotensin II AT receptor antagonist. ▴ Losartan 50 or 100 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of a doubling of serum creatinine, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death (43.5% vs 47.1%, p = 0.02) in a pivotal, well designed trial (Reduction of Endpoints in Non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan [RENAAL] study) in 1513 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and proteinuria. ▴ Losartan also significantly reduced the incidence of doubling of serum creatinine level (p = 0.006), ESRD (p = 0.002), ESRD or death (p = 0.01) and doubling of serum creatinine and ESRD (p = 0.01) compared with placebo in the RENAAL trial. There were similar incidences of overall mortality and morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular causes between treatment groups. ▴ In addition, data from several nonblind and double-blind studies indicates that losartan effectively reduces the mean albumin excretion rate. Two double-blind studies show that losartan has similar effects to enalapril on kidney function. ▴ Data from 4058 patients (3300 with essential hypertension) who have received losartan (10-150 mg/day) in clinical trials indicate it is well tolerated. In the RENAAL study 17.2% and 21.7% of losartan and placebo recipients discontinued treatment because of adverse events, but causality was not determined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Capecitabine is an orally administered prodrug of fluorouracil which is indicated in the US and Europe, in combination with docetaxel, for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer failing anthracycline therapy, and as monotherapy for metastatic breast cancer resistant to paclitaxel and anthracycline therapy (US) or failing intensive chemotherapy (Europe). Capecitabine is also approved for use in metastatic colorectal cancer. Capecitabine is metabolically activated preferentially at the tumour site, and shows antineoplastic activity and synergy with other cytotoxic agents including cyclophosphamide or docetaxel in animal models. Bioavailability after oral administration is close to 100%. In patients with pretreated advanced breast cancer, capecitabine is effective as monotherapy and also in combination with other agents. Combination therapy with capecitabine 1250 mg/m twice daily for 2 weeks of every 3-week cycle plus intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m on day one of each cycle was superior to intravenous monotherapy with docetaxel 100 mg/m on day one of each cycle. Capecitabine plus docetaxel significantly reduced the risks of disease progression and death by 35% (p = 0.0001) and 23% (p < 0.05), respectively, and significantly increased median survival (p < 0.05) and objective response rates (p < 0.01). Efficacy has also been demonstrated with capecitabine monotherapy and combination therapy in previously untreated patients in preliminary trials. The most common adverse effects occurring in patients receiving capecitabine monotherapy include lymphopenia, anaemia, diarrhoea, hand-and-foot syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hyperbilirubinaemia, dermatitis and vomiting (all >25% incidence). While gastrointestinal events and hand-and-foot syndrome occurred more often with capecitabine than with paclitaxel or a regimen of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF), neutropenic fever, arthralgia, pyrexia and myalgia were more common with paclitaxel, and nausea, stomatitis, alopecia and asthenia were more common with CMF. The incidence of adverse effects and hospitalisation was similar in patients receiving capecitabine plus docetaxel and those receiving docetaxel monotherapy. In conclusion, capecitabine, an oral prodrug of fluorouracil which is activated preferentially at the tumour site, is an effective and convenient addition to the intravenous polychemotherapeutic treatment of advanced breast cancer in pretreated patients, and also has potential as a component of first-line combination regimens. Combined capecitabine plus docetaxel therapy resulted in similar rates of treatment-related adverse effects and hospitalisation to those seen with docetaxel monotherapy. Capecitabine is also effective as monotherapy in pretreated patients and phase II data for capecitabine as first-line monotherapy are also promising. While gastrointestinal effects and hand-and-foot syndrome occur often with capecitabine, the tolerability profile was comparatively favourable for other adverse effects (notably, neutropenia and alopecia). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nesiritide (Natrecor) is a recombinant form of human B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide that has beneficial vasodilatory, natriuretic, diuretic and neurohormonal effects. The drug is administered intravenously for the management of patients with decompensated congestive heart failure (CHF). In the Vasodilation in the Management of Acute Congestive Heart Failure (VMAC) study, patients hospitalised with acute decompensated CHF who received nesiritide had significantly greater mean reductions from baseline in pulmonary capillary wedge pressure 3 hours after starting treatment than nitroglycerin or placebo recipients (-5.8 vs -3.8 and -2mm Hg, respectively); all patients also received standard therapy (e.g. intravenous diuretics). Improvements in other haemodynamic parameters were also seen in nesiritide recipients. In addition, significantly more nesiritide than placebo recipients reported an improvement in dyspnoea after 3 hours’ treatment in VMAC, whereas there was no significant difference between nitroglycerin and placebo recipients. Improvements in global clinical status, dyspnoea and fatigue were also seen with nesiritide in another active-comparator study and in a placebo-controlled study. In VMAC, there was no significant difference between nesiritide and nitroglycerin recipients in 6-month mortality. In the other active-comparator trial, 6-month mortality was significantly lower in recipients of nesiritide 0.015 µg/kg/min than in dobutamine recipients (although mortality was not a prespecified endpoint and this result should be interpreted with caution). In this same study, the 21-day all-cause hospital readmission rate was significantly lower with nesiritide 0.015 µg/kg/min than with dobutamine and the duration of active drug treatment was significantly shorter with nesiritide than with dobutamine. Nesiritide is generally well tolerated. In VMAC, significantly more adverse events occurred with nitroglycerin than with nesiritide. The most common adverse events reported during the first 24 hours of therapy in nesiritide and nitroglycerin recipients included general pain, abdominal pain, catheter-related pain, headache, nausea, asymptomatic and symptomatic hypotension, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia and angina pectoris. Most episodes of symptomatic hypotension resolved spontaneously or after an intravenous volume challenge of ≤250ml. In addition, nesiritide does not appear to be proarrhythmic. Conclusion: Short-term intravenous infusion of nesiritide is associated with haemodynamic and symptomatic improvements in patients with acutely decompensated CHF. Nesiritide may offer tolerability and practical advantages over currently used vasodilators, inodilators and inotropes in this condition; in particular, nesiritide does not appear to have proarrhythmic effects. Nesiritide also appears to be effective and well tolerated in patients receiving concomitant β-blocker therapy and in patients with renal insufficiency. Thus, nesiritide is a suitable first-line option for the treatment of patients with acutely decompensated CHF and is a welcome addition in an area where intravenous agents are few. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Terbinafine, an orally and topically active antimycotic agent, inhibits the biosynthesis of the principal sterol in fungi, ergosterol, at the level of squalene epoxidase. Squalene epoxidase inhibition results in ergosterol-depleted fungal cell membranes (fungistatic effect) and the toxic accumulation of intracellular squalene (fungicidal effect). Terbinafine has demonstrated excellent fungicidal activity against the dermatophytes and variable activity against yeasts and non-dermatophyte molds in vitro. Following oral administration, terbinafine is rapidly absorbed and widely distributed to body tissues including the poorly perfused nail matrix. Nail terbinafine concentrations are detected within 1 week after starting therapy and persist for at least 30 weeks after the completion of treatment. Randomized, double-blind trials showed oral terbinafine 250 mg/day for 12 or 16 weeks was more efficacious than itraconazole, fluconazole and griseofulvin in dermatophyte onychomycosis of the toenails. In particular, at 72 weeks' follow-up, the multicenter, multinational, L.I.ON. (Lamisil vs Itraconazole in ONychomycosis) study found that mycologic cure rates (76 vs 38% of patients after 12 weeks' treatment; 81 vs 49% of recipients after 16 weeks' therapy) and complete cure rates were approximately twice as high after terbinafine treatment than after itraconazole (3 or 4 cycles of 400 mg/day for 1 week repeated every 4 weeks) in patients with toenail mycosis. Furthermore, the L.I.ON. Icelandic Extension study demonstrated that terbinafine was more clinically effective than intermittent itraconazole to a statistically significant extent at 5-year follow-up. Terbinafine produced a superior complete cure rate (35 vs 14%), mycologic cure rate (46 vs 13%) and clinical cure rate (42 vs 18%) to that of itraconazole. The mycologic and clinical relapse rates were 23% and 21% in the terbinafine group, respectively, compared with 53% and 48% in the itraconazole group. In comparative clinical trials, oral terbinafine had a better tolerability profile than griseofulvin and a comparable profile to that of itraconazole or fluconazole. Post marketing surveillance confirmed terbinafine's good tolerability profile. Adverse events were experienced by 10.5% of terbinafine recipients, with gastrointestinal complaints being the most common. Unlike the azoles, terbinafine has a low potential for drug-drug interactions. Most pharmacoeconomic evaluations have shown that the greater clinical effectiveness of oral terbinafine in dermatophyte onychomycosis translates into a cost-effectiveness ratio superior to that of itraconazole, fluconazole and griseofulvin. Conclusion: Oral terbinafine has demonstrated greater effectiveness than itraconazole, fluconazole and griseofulvin in randomized trials involving patients with onychomycosis caused by dermatophytes. The drug is generally well tolerated and has a low potential for drug interactions. Therefore, terbinafine is the treatment of choice for dermatophyte onychomycosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Ezetimibe, a synthetic 2-azetidinone, is the first of a new class of compounds that selectively inhibits the absorption of cholesterol and related plant sterols in the intestine. The drug, and its glucuronyl metabolite, are thought to inhibit a putative cholesterol transporter of enterocytes, located within the brush-border membrane of the small intestine. ▴ In large, randomized, placebo-controlled, 12-week trials, ezetimibe reduced levels of low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) by approximately 18%; triglyceride levels were reduced by approximately 6% in one trial but not another. Ezetimibe produced a modest increase in levels of high density lipoprotein-cholesterol. ▴ Moreover, reductions in LDL-C and triglyceride levels were greater in patients treated with ezetimibe coadministered with a statin (lovastatin, pravastatin, atorvastatin or simvastatin), than with either of those agents given alone. The coadministration of the lowest statin dose and ezetimibe produced similar LDL-C reductions to the administration of the highest statin dose alone. ▴ Ezetimibe also provided beneficial effects on plasma lipid levels when administered to patients with hypercholesterolemia already receiving a statin. ▴ Ezetimibe plus a statin reduced LDL-C levels more than the maximum statin dose alone in a trial in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and was effective in a placebo-controlled trial in patients with homozygous sitosterolemia. ▴ The drug was well tolerated in clinical studies conducted to date. In large, randomized, double-blind trials, ezetimibe had a similar tolerability profile to that of placebo. Coadministration of ezetimibe and a statin did not increase the incidence of adverse events related to statin monotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Stavudine administered once daily is a nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor. ▴ The efficacy (reduction in viral load and increase in CD4+ lymphocyte counts from baseline) of stavudine once daily-containing triple therapy was similar to that of stavudine immediate release (IR)-containing triple therapy in the treatment of antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV infection in two 48-week, randomised, double-blind trials. ▴ In the largest trial (n = 783), 80% of patients receiving stavudine 75 or 100mg once daily in combination with lamivudine 150mg twice daily and efavirenz 600mg once daily, and 75% of patients receiving stavudine IR 30 or 40mg twice daily-containing combination therapy, had HIV RNA levels reduced to below the limit of quantification at 48 weeks (<400 copies/ml; intent-to-treat analysis). These findings are supported by those from the smaller trial in 150 patients. ▴ Stavudine once daily triple therapy was well tolerated, with the incidence of adverse events being similar to that with stavudine IR. Grades 2-4 treatment related adverse events occurring in ≥3% of patients in either group were dizziness, rash, abnormal dream, headache, insomnia, fatigue and peripheral neurological symptoms. ▴ Peripheral neurological symptoms occurred in 3% of patients receiving long-term treatment with stavudine once daily and 6% of patients receiving stavudine IR in a combined analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Voriconazole, a broad-spectrum triazole antifungal agent, inhibits the cytochrome P450-dependent enzyme 14-α-sterol demethylase, thereby disrupting the fungal membrane and stopping fungal growth. The drug shows excellent in vitro activity against Aspergillus spp., including itraconazole- and amphotericin B-resistant A. fumigatus isolates. ▴ At 12 weeks, 52.8% of voriconazole recipients achieved a successful outcome (complete or partial response) versus 31.6% of amphotericin B recipients in a randomised, nonblind trial in 392 patients (aged ≥12 years) with invasive aspergillosis. Patients received intravenous voriconazole (6 mg/kg once every 12 hours on day 1, then 4 mg/kg once every 12 hours for ≥7 days; patients could then be switched to oral voriconazole 200mg once every 12 hours) or intravenous amphotericin B (1 to 1.5 mg/kg/day for ≥14 days). At the investigators' discretion, those who failed to respond to or experienced toxicity with the initial randomised drug could be switched to other licensed antifungal therapy. ▴ Voriconazole was generally well tolerated. The most common treatment-related adverse events were transient visual disturbances (≈30% of patients) and skin rashes (6%). ▴ Voriconazole was generally better tolerated than amphotericin B; voriconazole recipients experienced significantly (p < 0.02 both comparisons) fewer treatment-related adverse events or serious adverse events. The incidence of visual disturbances was significantly (p < 0.001) higher with voriconazole than amphotericin B treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aripiprazole is a quinolinone derivative and the first of a new class of atypical antipsychotics. The drug has partial agonist activity at dopamine D(2) and serotonin 5-HT(1A) receptors, and is also an antagonist at 5-HT(2A) receptors. In patients with acute relapse of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, aripiprazole 15 to 30 mg/day was at least as effective as haloperidol 10 mg/day and had similar efficacy to risperidone 6 mg/day in well designed, 4-week, placebo-controlled trials. Negative symptoms improved earlier in the aripiprazole than the risperidone group. Efficacy of aripiprazole was observed at week 1 in several trials and was sustained throughout the study periods. Aripiprazole was superior to placebo in a 26-week trial in patients with stable, chronic schizophrenia. In a 52-week trial involving patients with acute relapsing disease, aripiprazole was similar to haloperidol as assessed by time to failure to maintain response and was superior in ameliorating negative and depressive symptoms. The incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms during aripiprazole therapy was similar to that with risperidone and placebo but lower than with haloperidol. Compared with placebo, the proportion of patients with increased plasma prolactin levels and QTc prolongation was similar in patients treated with aripiprazole 15 to 30 mg/day but was significantly increased with haloperidol and risperidone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parkinson's disease, a movement disorder caused by degeneration of nigrostriatal dopaminergic neurons in the substantia nigra, is characterized by resting tremor, rigidity, bradykinesia and postural instability. For over 30 years levodopa has been considered as the first-line treatment for this condition, but long-term treatment is complicated by the development of motor fluctuations and hyperkinesias. For patients with Parkinson's disease, entacapone reduces the peripheral metabolism of levodopa by inhibiting catechol-O-methyl transferase and, thus, prolonging the bioavailability of levodopa in the CNS. In patients with Parkinson's disease who have motor fluctuations, entacapone significantly increases the duration of "on" time, reduces that of "off" time and reduces mean daily intake of levodopa compared with placebo treatment. Data from the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale indicate that treatment with entacapone is associated with improved activities of daily living and motor disability scores. In clinical studies, entacapone is not associated with elevation of liver enzymes or changes in other clinical chemistry parameters. Gastrointestinal (such as nausea and diarrhea) or CNS (such as hallucinations and worsening of dyskinesias) adverse events with entacapone are of mild to moderate severity and usually subside with adjustment of the levodopa dosage. Pharmacoeconomic evaluations also suggest that entacapone is a viable treatment option in Parkinson's disease. Two Markov state transition studies suggest that the increased drug costs incurred when entacapone is added to a patients' treatment regimen would be at least partially offset by savings in other healthcare sectors such as inpatient care. Both studies predicted that treatment with entacapone would result in an increase in quality-adjusted life years. The clinical and economic data clearly support the use of entacapone in combination with levodopa in patients with Parkinson's disease. However, a levodopa-sparing strategy is favored by many clinicians in an attempt to offset the development of motor fluctuations in later years and thus dopamine agonists are often employed in monotherapy and in combination with lower dosages of levodopa. The use of COMT inhibitors should lead to an increase in the duration of clinical effect of each individual levodopa dose, a consequent reduction in the frequency of levodopa administration, and ultimately to a potential reduction in the development of motor fluctuations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aminosalicylate balsalazide is a prodrug which is metabolised by bacterial azo reductases in the colon to release its therapeutically active moiety mesalazine [mesalamine (US) or 5-aminosalicylic acid] and an inert carrier molecule. The systemic absorption of balsalazide and its metabolites is not required for the therapeutic efficacy of the drug, and has been demonstrated to be limited. Data from well designed trials with a duration of 8 to 12 weeks show that oral balsalazide 6.75 g/day is as effective as (two trials) or more effective than (one trial) oral delayed-release (pH-dependent) mesalazine 2.4 g/day and appears to be as effective as oral sulfasalazine 3 g/day in the treatment of active mild-to-moderate ulcerative colitis. In addition, balsalazide appears to have a faster onset of action than mesalazine. Furthermore, balsalazide was as effective as delayed-release mesalazine (dosages used were 1.2 and 1.5 g/day, where 1.6 g/day is recommended) and oral sulfasalazine 2 g/day (recommended dosage) in the prevention of relapse in ulcerative colitis in remission after 6 to 12 months of treatment; the balsalazide dosage was 3 g/day versus mesalazine and 2 g/day versus sulfasalazine. Although not well established, additional benefits may be achieved with balsalazide dosages up to 6 g/day. Data from well designed, 2- to 12-month trials show that balsalazide is well tolerated by patients with ulcerative colitis in both acute and maintenance indications, and is better tolerated than standard formulations of sulfasalazine at therapeutically relevant dosages. Conclusion: Balsalazide is a well tolerated and effective first-line therapeutic option for patients with ulcerative colitis, both for the treatment of active mild-to-moderate disease and as maintenance therapy to prevent disease relapse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Fondaparinux sodium, a selective factor Xa inhibitor, is the first in a new class of antithrombotics. It binds selectively with high affinity to antithrombin III and specifically catalyses the inactivation of factor Xa. The elimination half-life of fondaparinux sodium permits once daily treatment. ▴ A randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-ranging, multicentre phase IIb study in 933 eligible patients established that a subcutaneous dose of between 1.5 and 3mg of fondaparinux sodium has the optimum efficacy and safety profile for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery. ▴ Fondaparinux sodium, given to more than 3600 patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery who participated in prospective, randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase III clinical trials, significantly reduced the incidence of venous thromboembolism, with an overall risk reduction of 55.2% compared with enoxaparin. ▴ Fondaparinux sodium was well tolerated by patients undergoing major orthopaedic surgery, and at the recommended clinical dose of 2.5mg has a similar tolerability profile, including bleeding events, to standard enoxaparin regimens. Fondaparinux sodium has not been reported to cause antibody-induced thrombocytopenia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enoxaparin (enoxaparin sodium) is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) indicated for use in the treatment of ischaemic complications of unstable angina and non-Q wave myocardial infarction (MI). Unfractionated heparin (UFH) has for many years represented the standard in anticoagulant therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes; however, recent studies suggest that enoxaparin is also a viable option for anticoagulant therapy in these patients. The ESSENCE (Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q wave Coronary Events) and the TIMI 11B (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) studies reported that twice daily enoxaparin was significantly more effective than a continuous infusion of UFH in reducing the composite triple endpoint of death, MI, or recurrent angina or urgent revascularisation. Follow-up of both patient populations showed continued benefit associated with enoxaparin. Enoxaparin has been compared with tinzaparin in the treatment of unstable coronary artery disease using a nonblind study design. There was no difference between treatment groups in the therapeutic endpoints. Three nonblind studies have also compared the effects of enoxaparin and UFH in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy following acute MI. The HART II (Heparin and Aspirin Reperfusion Therapy), the ASSENT 3 (Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic Regimen) and the ENTIRE-TIMI 23 (Enoxaparin and Tenecteplase with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor as Reperfusion strategy in ST Elevation MI - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) studies have revealed that enoxaparin in combination with alteplase or tenecteplase is at least equivalent (HART II and ENTIRE-TIMI 23), and possibly superior (ASSENT 3) to UFH. Enoxaparin is administered as a twice-daily subcutaneous injection. In contrast, UFH is administered as an intravenous infusion which requires routine monitoring of the activated partial thromboplastin time to ensure adequate levels of anticoagulation are maintained. During the acute phase of the the ESSENCE and TIMI 11B studies, the incidence of major bleeding was similar in patients receiving enoxaparin to that in patients receiving UFH. In contrast, the rates of minor bleeding were higher in patients receiving enoxaparin than in those receiving UFH throughout these studies. Conclusions: Data from the ESSENCE, TIMI 11B and ASSENT 3 studies have prompted calls for those LMWHs which have been shown to be superior to UFH, to be considered as first choice treatment for anticoagulation in unstable coronary syndromes. To date, these suggestions are not reflected in current guidelines which consider UFH and LMWHs equally. Irrespective, the clinical data reported in this review support the use of enoxaparin in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. These data suggest that enoxaparin shows certain clinical and practical advantages over standard treatment with UFH and represents an important development in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Gliclazide modified release (MR) is a new formulation of the drug gliclazide and is given once daily. The hydrophilic matrix of hypromellose-based polymer in the new formulation effects a progressive release of the drug which parallels the 24-hour glycaemic profile in untreated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. ▴ The formulation shows high bioavailability and its absorption profile is unaffected by coadministration with food. Mean plasma glucose levels are significantly reduced over a 24-hour period in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with gliclazide MR once daily, in both fasting and postprandial states. ▴ No cardiovascular ATP-sensitive potassium channel interaction has been observed at therapeutic concentrations of gliclazide MR. Gliclazide MR has also demonstrated antioxidant properties that are independent of glycaemic control. ▴ In a randomised, double-blind, multicentre study, gliclazide MR 30 to 120mg once daily showed similar efficacy to gliclazide immediate release (IR) 80 to 320 mg/day (in divided doses for doses >80mg) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus over a 10-month period, reducing glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) to a similar extent. ▴ The drug appeared most efficacious in patients who had previously been treated by diet alone, where significant reductions in HbA from baseline of 0.9% and 0.95% were seen at 10 and 24 months. Similarly, a sustained effect of gliclazide MR was observed in a subgroup of elderly patients defined a priori; HbA was decreased to a similar degree to that observed in the general study population. ▴ Gliclazide MR showed similar tolerability to gliclazide IR after 10 months' treatment in the randomised trial. The most commonly observed adverse events were arthralgia, arthritis, back pain and bronchitis (each <5%). Bodyweight remained stable. ▴ In this study no episodes of nocturnal hypoglycaemia or hypoglycaemia requiring third party assistance were observed during treatment with gliclazide MR. Episodes of symptomatic hypoglycaemia were infrequent, occurring in approximately 5% of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Perindopril is a long-acting ACE inhibitor, acting through its only active metabolite perindoprilat. It inhibits the renin-angiotensin system by preventing both the conversion of angiotensin I to angiotensin II and the degradation of bradykinin, thereby reducing the vasoconstriction and left ventricular remodelling characteristic of heart failure. ▴ Perindopril 4mg significantly improved a range of haemodynamic parameters in single-dose and long-term (8 weeks and 3 months) studies involving patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), with little or no effect on blood pressure or heart rate. ▴ In randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials conducted over 3 months and a large noncomparative study (up to 30 months), perindopril 4mg once daily significantly increased exercise tolerance and reduced symptoms of heart failure in patients with mild to moderate CHF. ▴ Perindopril 4mg once daily is generally well tolerated in patients with mild to moderate CHF. In a large noncomparative study the most commonly reported adverse clinical event was cough, which led to 2.8% of patients discontinuing treatment. ▴ In short-term comparative trials there was a significantly lower incidence of first-dose hypotension following the recommended starting dose of perindopril 2mg than after the equivalent starting doses of captopril, enalapril and lisinopril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Tiotropium bromide is an anticholinergic bronchodilator that antagonises muscarinic M, M and M receptors. It dissociates more slowly from M receptors and, importantly, from M receptors (which are located in bronchial smooth muscle) than from M receptors and subsequently has a long duration of action permitting once-daily administration. ▴ In patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), tiotropium 18µg once daily significantly improved lung function compared with placebo and ipratropium 40µg four times daily in 1-year trials or salmeterol 50µg twice daily in a 6-month study. ▴ The incidence of COPD exacerbations decreased and use of rescue medication was lower with tiotropium compared with placebo or ipratropium. There was no evidence of tachyphylaxis during 1-year treatment with tiotropium. ▴ Compared with placebo, salmeterol and ipratropium, tiotropium produced significant improvements in patients’ perception of dyspnoea and health-related quality of life. ▴ Tiotropium is generally well tolerated; dry mouth is the most common drug-related adverse event, occurring in about 10 to 16% of patients in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlabelled: Almotriptan is a selective serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) receptor agonist ('triptan'). Its efficacy and tolerability have been assessed in a number of randomised, controlled trials in over 4800 adults with moderate or severe attacks of migraine. Oral almotriptan has a rapid onset of action (significant headache relief is observed 0.5 hours after administration of a 12.5mg dose) and efficacy is sustained in most patients who respond by 2 hours. The drug is significantly more effective than placebo as measured by a number of parameters including 2-hour headache response and pain-free response rates. Other symptoms of migraine, including nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, are also alleviated by almotriptan. The efficacy of oral almotriptan appears to be maintained over repeated doses for multiple attacks of migraine treated over a long period (up to 1 year). High headache response rates were reported over all attacks without tachyphylaxis. For the relief of single attacks of migraine, oral almotriptan 12.5mg had similar efficacy to oral sumatriptan 50mg. Patients given almotriptan report less concern with adverse effects than patients given sumatriptan. The lower incidence of chest pain following treatment with almotriptan than with sumatriptan may lead to a reduction in direct costs, with fewer patients requiring management of chest pain. Almotriptan is well tolerated. Most adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity, transient and generally resolved without intervention or the need for treatment withdrawal. The most common adverse events associated with oral almotriptan 12.5mg treatment were dizziness, paraesthesia, nausea, fatigue, headache, somnolence, skeletal pain, vomiting and chest symptoms. The incidence of adverse events did not differ from placebo and decreased in the longer term. Almotriptan can be coadministered with drugs that share a common hepatic metabolic path; in addition, dosage reduction is required only in the presence of severe renal or hepatic impairment.Conclusions: Almotriptan is an effective drug for the acute treatment of moderate or severe attacks of migraine in adults. An oral dose of almotriptan 12.5mg has shown greater efficacy than placebo; current data indicate that efficacy is similar to that of oral sumatriptan 50mg, and is maintained in the long term (< or = 1 year). Almotriptan has a good adverse event profile and a generally similar overall tolerability profile to sumatriptan; of note, almotriptan is associated with a significantly lower incidence of chest pain than sumatriptan. However, further clinical experience is required to clearly define the place of almotriptan among the other currently available triptans. Nevertheless, because triptans have an important place in various management regimens, and because the nature of individual patient response to triptans is idiosyncratic, almotriptan is likely to become a useful treatment option in the management of adults with moderate or severe migraine headaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paroxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), with antidepressant and anxiolytic activity. In 6- to 24-week well designed trials, oral paroxetine 10 to 50 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and as effective as other SSRIs and other antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Relapse or recurrence over 1 year after the initial response was significantly lower with paroxetine 10 to 50 mg/day than with placebo and similar to that with imipramine 50 to 275 mg/day. The efficacy of paroxetine 10 to 40 mg/day was similar to that of TCAs and fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day in 6- to 12-week trials in patients aged ≥60 years with major depression. Paroxetine 10 to 40 mg/day improved depressive symptoms to an extent similar to that of TCAs in patients with comorbid illness, and was more effective than placebo in the treatment of dysthymia and minor depression. Paroxetine 20 to 60 mg/day was more effective than placebo after 8 to 12 weeks' treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Improvement was maintained or relapse was prevented for 24 weeks to 1 year in patients with OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder or GAD. The efficacy of paroxetine was similar to that of other SSRIs in patients with OCD and panic disorder and similar to that of imipramine but greater than that of 2′chlordesmethyldiazepam in patients with GAD. Paroxetine is generally well tolerated in adults, elderly individuals and patients with comorbid illness, with a tolerability profile similar to that of other SSRIs. The most common adverse events with paroxetine were nausea, sexual dysfunction, somnolence, asthenia, headache, constipation, dizziness, sweating, tremor and decreased appetite. In conclusion, paroxetine, in common with other SSRIs, is generally better tolerated than TCAs and is a first-line treatment option for major depressive disorder, dysthymia or minor depression. Like other SSRIs, paroxetine is also an appropriate first-line therapy for OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, GAD and PTSD. Notably, paroxetine is the only SSRI currently approved for the treatment of social anxiety disorder and GAD, which makes it the only drug of its class indicated for all five anxiety disorders in addition to major depressive disorder. Thus, given the high degree of psychiatric comorbidity of depression and anxiety, paroxetine is an important first-line option for the treatment of major depressive disorder, OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, GAD and PTSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Paroxetine is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), with antidepressant and anxiolytic activity. In 6- to 24-week well designed trials, oral paroxetine 10 to 50 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo, at least as effective as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and as effective as other SSRIs and other antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Relapse or recurrence over 1 year after the initial response was significantly lower with paroxetine 10 to 50 mg/day than with placebo and similar to that with imipramine 50 to 275 mg/day. The efficacy of paroxetine 10 to 40 mg/day was similar to that of TCAs and fluoxetine 20 to 60 mg/day in 6- to 12-week trials in patients aged ≥60 years with major depression. Paroxetine 10 to 40 mg/day improved depressive symptoms to an extent similar to that of TCAs in patients with comorbid illness, and was more effective than placebo in the treatment of dysthymia and minor depression. Paroxetine 20 to 60 mg/day was more effective than placebo after 8 to 12 weeks' treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, social anxiety disorder (social phobia), generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Improvement was maintained or relapse was prevented for 24 weeks to 1 year in patients with OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder or GAD. The efficacy of paroxetine was similar to that of other SSRIs in patients with OCD and panic disorder and similar to that of imipramine but greater than that of 2′chlordesmethyldiazepam in patients with GAD. Paroxetine is generally well tolerated in adults, elderly individuals and patients with comorbid illness, with a tolerability profile similar to that of other SSRIs. The most common adverse events with paroxetine were nausea, sexual dysfunction, somnolence, asthenia, headache, constipation, dizziness, sweating, tremor and decreased appetite. In conclusion, paroxetine, in common with other SSRIs, is generally better tolerated than TCAs and is a first-line treatment option for major depressive disorder, dysthymia or minor depression. Like other SSRIs, paroxetine is also an appropriate first-line therapy for OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, GAD and PTSD. Notably, paroxetine is the only SSRI currently approved for the treatment of social anxiety disorder and GAD, which makes it the only drug of its class indicated for all five anxiety disorders in addition to major depressive disorder. Thus, given the high degree of psychiatric comorbidity of depression and anxiety, paroxetine is an important first-line option for the treatment of major depressive disorder, OCD, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, GAD and PTSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Almotriptan is a selective serotonin 5-HT receptor agonist (‘triptan’). Its efficacy and tolerability have been assessed in a number of randomised, controlled trials in over 4800 adults with moderate or severe attacks of migraine. Oral almotriptan has a rapid onset of action (significant headache relief is observed 0.5 hours after administration of a 12.5mg dose) and efficacy is sustained in most patients who respond by 2 hours. The drug is significantly more effective than placebo as measured by a number of parameters including 2-hour headache response and pain-free response rates. Other symptoms of migraine, including nausea, photophobia and phonophobia, are also alleviated by almotriptan. The efficacy of oral almotriptan appears to be maintained over repeated doses for multiple attacks of migraine treated over a long period (up to 1 year). High headache response rates were reported over all attacks without tachyphylaxis. For the relief of single attacks of migraine, oral almotriptan 12.5mg had similar efficacy to oral sumatriptan 50mg. Patients given almotriptan report less concern with adverse effects than patients given sumatriptan. The lower incidence of chest pain following treatment with almotriptan than with sumatriptan may lead to a reduction in direct costs, with fewer patients requiring management of chest pain. Almotriptan is well tolerated. Most adverse events were of mild or moderate intensity, transient, and generally resolved without intervention or the need for treatment withdrawal. The most common adverse events associated with oral almotriptan 12.5mg treatment were dizziness, paraesthesia, nausea, fatigue, headache, somnolence, skeletal pain, vomiting and chest symptoms. The incidence of adverse events did not differ from placebo and decreased in the longer term. Almotriptan can be coadministered with drugs that share a common hepatic metabolic path; in addition, dosage reduction is required only in the presence of severe renal or hepatic impairment. Conclusions: Almotriptan is an effective drug for the acute treatment of moderate or severe attacks of migraine in adults. An oral dose of almotriptan 12.5mg has shown greater efficacy than placebo; current data indicate that efficacy is similar to that of oral sumatriptan 50mg, and is maintained in the long term (≤1 year). Almotriptan has a good adverse event profile and a generally similar overall tolerability profile to sumatriptan; of note, almotriptan is associated with a significantly lower incidence of chest pain than sumatriptan. However, further clinical experience is required to clearly define the place of almotriptan among the other currently available triptans. Nevertheless, because triptans have an important place in various management regimens, and because the nature of individual patient response to triptans is idiosyncratic, almotriptan is likely to become a useful treatment option in the management of adults with moderate or severe migraine headaches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Beraprost sodium (beraprost) is a stable, orally active prostacyclin analogue with vasodilatory, antiplatelet and cytoprotective effects. Beraprost acts by binding to prostacyclin membrane receptors ultimately inhibiting the release of Ca from intracellular storage sites. This reduction in the influx of Ca has been postulated to cause relaxation of the smooth muscle cells and vasodilation. Data from a large, randomised, double-blind, multicentre study indicated that beraprost was as efficacious as ticlopidine in the treatment of patients with peripheral arterial disease (Buerger's disease and arteriosclerosis obliterans). Most patients receiving beraprost exhibited reduction of ulcer size, reported improvement of granulation appearance of the tissue and showed improvement of pain at rest and sensation of cold in the extremities. In a large pivotal clinical trial in patients with intermittent claudication, beraprost treatment was associated with statistically significant increases in pain-free and absolute walking distances compared with those in patients receiving placebo. Statistically significant differences in the incidence of critical cardiovascular events among both treatment groups were not observed but patients receiving beraprost were more likely to be satisfied with changes in their quality of life. However, while preliminary unpublished data from a large, phase III, placebo-controlled study in the US suggested a trend toward fewer critical cardiovascular events (no specific data presented), this study did not confirm the positive results from the European phase III trial and statistical significance was not achieved in the study's endpoints relating to exercise. A series of small, noncomparative clinical trials of patients with the rare condition of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) demonstrated that substantial reductions of pulmonary arterial pressure and resistance, increase of cardiac output, and increase of exercise capacity appeared to be associated with beraprost therapy; however, these data are very limited and in most instances are not fully published. Beraprost is a well tolerated agent. Overall, the main adverse events include headache, hot flushes, diarrhoea and nausea. However, patients with PAH showed higher incidence of adverse events than those with peripheral arterial disease. Conclusion: Beraprost, an orally administered PGI analogue, is generally well tolerated and appears to be an effective agent in the treatment of patients with Buerger's disease and arteriosclerosis obliterans. Comparative data from a large randomised trial indicated that the drug appears as effective as ticlopidine in patients with these conditions. In patients with intermittent claudication, significant benefits of beraprost compared with placebo were reported in a randomised clinical trial; however, the use of beraprost in these patients is not supported by recent preliminary unpublished data from a large, phase III, placebo-controlled study. Limited data suggest some efficacy with long-term beraprost treatment of patients with PAH, where options are few and where oral administration of the drug could be a considerable advantage over intravenous prostacyclin (PGI) therapy. Additional well-designed and, where possible, large trials with active comparators are necessary to define more precisely the place of beraprost in the treatment of patients with PAH, Buerger's disease and arteriosclerosis obliterans. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alzheimer's disease affects 15 million people worldwide. As the elderly population grows, the incidence of Alzheimer's disease will also increase. It is estimated that by 2010, 40 million US citizens will be over the age of 65 years and by 2040, it is predicted that 14 million US citizens will have Alzheimer's disease. There is currently no treatment which stops or delays the progression of this condition; however, anticholinesterase therapy provides some symptomatic relief. The cognitive impairment experienced by patients with Alzheimer's disease is partially due to degeneration of cholinergic pathways within the CNS and therefore symptomatic treatments have focused on restoring cholinergic inputs. Donepezil is a second generation anticholinesterase drug which reduces cortical acetylcholinesterase activity and improves, or at least slows the decline in, cognitive functioning in patients with Alzheimer's disease. In patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, treatment with donepezil (5 to 10 mg/day) for 1 year extended the median time to a clinically evident functional decline by 5 months compared with treatment with placebo. In addition, patients receiving donepezil have also shown significant improvement in ratings of global function, cognition, activities of daily living and disease severity over a 1-year period (p < 0.05 in each case). In patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease, donepezil significantly improved ratings of behavior compared with placebo (p < 0.05). Donepezil treatment is associated with the well recognized adverse events which accompany cholinergic therapy. The most frequently reported adverse events with donepezil treatment are gastrointestinal complaints such as nausea, diarrhea and vomiting, and CNS conditions including dizziness, headache and insomnia. These adverse events are typically mild and transient. Preliminary data from a direct comparison of donepezil and rivastigmine suggests that donepezil may exhibit an improved tolerability profile compared with rivastigmine. Recent data suggest that use of donepezil is associated with a significant delay in the time to institutionalization. Data from modeling and pharmacoeconomic studies also predict that use of donepezil may lead to a reduction in costs. However, it is likely that these savings will be distributed across multiple healthcare and non-healthcare systems and may not be fully represented in the budgets of those who are responsible for the direct costs of providing this medication. Donepezil is the only cholinesterase inhibitor currently available in a once daily formulation and with a relatively simple dose escalation schedule. This regimen coupled with a good tolerability profile makes donepezil a first-line treatment for patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. However, only direct comparisons between donepezil and other second generation anticholinesterases will provide definitive data which can be used to maximize patient outcomes. In addition, wider clinical experience with donepezil may help to identify a subgroup of patients who respond strongly to treatment thus improving patient care and reducing costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ The relatively long half-life of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor fluoxetine has allowed the development of a delayed-release (enteric-coated) formulation containing 90mg fluoxetine per capsule for once-weekly oral administration. ▴ The cumulative relapse rate in patients switched to once-weekly fluoxetine 90mg for 25 weeks (after responding to 13 weeks of fluoxetine 20 mg/day) was similar to that in patients continuing to receive fluoxetine 20 mg/day and significantly lower than seen in patients switched to placebo. ▴ The efficacy of the once-weekly formulation was also similar to that of the daily formulation in other assessment parameters (modified 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Clinical Global Impressions - Severity of Illness Scale). ▴ Patient compliance (measured using an electronically monitored tablet bottle) was maintained at 87.5% in evaluable patients receiving once-weekly fluoxetine 90mg for 12 weeks from a baseline of 85.4% after responding to 4 weeks of fluoxetine 20 mg/day; in contrast, compliance declined significantly (from 87.3% at baseline to 79.4%; p < 0.001) in patients continuing to receive 20 mg/day for 12 weeks. ▴ Once-weekly fluoxetine is well tolerated, with a tolerability profile similar to that of the immediate-release formulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rabeprazole is an inhibitor of the gastric proton pump. It causes dose-dependent inhibition of acid secretion. In 8-week studies, among patients with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), rabeprazole 20 mg/day or 10mg twice daily was as effective as omeprazole and superior to ranitidine in the healing of GORD. Symptom relief with rabeprazole was superior to that provided by placebo and ranitidine and similar to omeprazole. In long-term trials rabeprazole 10 mg/day was similar to omeprazole 20 mg/day in a 2-year study and superior to placebo in 1-year studies, in both the maintenance of healing and prevention of symptoms in patients with healed GORD. In nonerosive GORD, 4-week studies have shown rabeprazole to be more effective than placebo in relieving heartburn and various other gastrointestinal symptoms. Data among patients with Barrett's oesophagus suggest rabeprazole 20 mg/day may be more effective than placebo in maintaining healing of associated oesophagitis after 1 year of treatment. One-week triple Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy with rabeprazole plus clarithromycin and amoxicillin achieved eradication rates of ≥85%. Rabeprazole is as effective as omeprazole and lansoprazole when included as part of a triple-therapy regimen for the eradication of H. pylori. Eradication rates of >90% were achieved when rabeprazole 20 to 40 mg/day was included as part of a quadruple eradication regimen. As monotherapy for peptic ulcer healing and symptom relief, 4- to 8-week studies have shown rabeprazole 10 to 40 mg/day to be superior to placebo and ranitidine and have similar efficacy to omeprazole. Preliminary 1-year data among 16 patients with Zollinger-Ellison syndrome suggest rabeprazole 60 to 120 mg/day can resolve and prevent the recurrence of symptoms and endoscopic lesions associated with this condition. In clinical trials of up to 2 years' duration the tolerability of rabeprazole is similar to that of placebo, ranitidine and omeprazole. Common adverse events assigned to rabeprazole have been diarrhoea, headache, rhinitis, nausea, pharyngitis and abdominal pain. Histological changes and increases in serum gastrin levels were unremarkable and typical of proton pump inhibitors. No dosage adjustment is necessary in renal and mild to moderate hepatic impairment. Conclusion: Rabeprazole is a well tolerated proton pump inhibitor. It has proven efficacy in healing, symptom relief and prevention of relapse of peptic ulcers and GORD and can form part of effective H. pylori eradication regimens. It is an important alternative to H antagonists and an additional treatment option to other proton pump inhibitors in the management of acid-related disorders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine which is selectively activated in tumour tissue to the active moiety fluorouracil and is cytotoxic through inhibition of DNA synthesis. In patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, first-line therapy with intermittent capecitabine achieved significantly higher objective tumour response rates than therapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin in pooled analysis. Response rates were also higher in patients pretreated in the adjuvant setting and whose primary site of metastasis was the lung. However, no significant differences between the two treatment groups were seen in the time to disease progression, time to treatment failure or overall survival. Preliminary data suggest response may be improved by combining capecitabine with other anticancer therapies such as oxaliplatin, irinotecan and radiotherapy. Capecitabine in therapeutic dosage regimens generally has acceptable tolerability. Diarrhoea and hand-and-foot syndrome are the major dose-limiting toxicities associated with capecitabine therapy, with adverse effects generally of a gastrointestinal nature. Overall, diarrhoea, stomatitis, nausea and alopecia were significantly less common with capecitabine than with bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin. In addition, capecitabine recipients experienced significantly less myelosuppression, although more capecitabine recipients discontinued therapy because of adverse events. Importantly, patients spent less time in hospital after capecitabine than after bolus fluorouracil and leucovorin therapy, and the oral route of administration of capecitabine is likely to be preferred. In conclusion, capecitabine has shown superior tumour response and less myelosuppression, although more grade 3 hand-and-foot syndrome, in comparison with the ‘Mayo Clinic’ regimen of fluorouracil therapy, but is unlikely to improve survival. Significantly, its oral route of administration is likely to be preferred by patients. Future strategies to improve patient response may involve selection of those patients likely to respond best to capecitabine, through determination of relevant enzyme levels and combination of capecitabine with various antineoplastic agents. Data on the effect of the drug on quality of life would help establish its role. In the meantime, capecitabine appears to offer an effective and more convenient alternative to fluorouracil as first-line monotherapy for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Tegafur is a prodrug of the antineoplastic agent fluorouracil, and is administered in a 1:4 molar ratio with the fluorouracil modulator uracil. ▴ Oral tegafur/uracil 300 mg/m/day plus calcium folinate 75 or 90 mg/day for 28 days every 35 days was as effective as intravenous (IV) fluorouracil 425 mg/m/day plus folinic acid 20 mg/m/day for 5 days every 28 or 35 days in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in two large, randomised, nonblind, multicentre trials (n = 816 and 380). ▴ Median survival time among patients treated with tegafur/ uracil or fluorouracil was approximately 12 months in both trials. Results from both trials also demonstrated no significant between-group differences in overall response rates among patients treated with oral tegafur/uracil (12 and 11%) or IV fluorouracil (15 and 9%). ▴ In elderly patients (aged ≥70 years) with metastatic colorectal cancer, results from small noncomparative studies showed that treatment with oral tegafur/uracil afforded overall response rates of 12.5 to 29% and was well tolerated. ▴ During preoperative treatment with oral tegafur/uracil plus calcium folinate as an adjunct to radiotherapy in patients with stage II or III rectal cancer, the maximum tolerated dosage of tegafur/uracil was 350 mg/m/day (administered 5 days per week for 5 weeks). Among the 15 patients who were followed for 5 to 8 months, three had a complete response to treatment. Treatment with tegafur/uracil was also given postoperatively ▴ The most common adverse events associated with oral tegafur/uracil were anaemia, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, thrombocytopenia, mucositis, neutropenia, asthenia, anorexia and abdominal pain. ▴ Oral tegafur/uracil was associated with a significantly more favourable tolerability profile than IV fluorouracil in the two large randomised trials. In particular, stomatitis and most adverse haematological events were less frequent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

black triangle Frovatriptan, a new serotonin receptor agonist developed for the acute treatment of migraine, has high affinity for serotonin 5-HT1B and 5-HT1D receptor subtypes and is a potent stimulator of contraction in human basilar arteries. black triangle A long terminal elimination half-life (approximately 26 hours) is a distinctive pharmacokinetic feature of frovatriptan which appears to be independent of dose, age, gender and renal function. black triangle A single oral dose of frovatriptan 2.5mg was effective in the acute treatment of migraine providing meaningful relief within 2 hours to approximately twice as many recipients as placebo in clinical trials. black triangle Consistent relief of migraine symptoms was achieved in patients who treated a number of consecutive attacks with frovatriptan and the incidence of 24-hour migraine recurrence was reduced. black triangle Frovatriptan was well tolerated in clinical trials, with the overall incidence of adverse events occurring with frovatriptan 2.5mg only slightly higher than that reported with placebo. Mild to moderate fatigue, nausea and paraesthesia were the most commonly reported drug-related adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Darbepoetin alfa is a novel erythropoiesis-stimulating protein developed for the treatment of anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease. ▴ In single-dose studies in patients undergoing dialysis, the mean terminal half-life for intravenous darbepoetin alfa was approximately 3-fold longer than for intravenous recombinant human erythropoetin (r-HuEPO, epoetin alfa; 25.3 vs 8.5 hours). The mean terminal half-life after subcutaneous administration of darbepoetin alfa was 48.8 hours. ▴ In randomised nonblind trials in patients undergoing dialysis, darbepoetin alfa (0.45 μg/kg) given once weekly for the correction of anaemia increased haemoglobin (Hb) levels to a similar extent as darbepoetin alfa three times weekly or r-HuEPO two or three times weekly. ▴ A double-blind, randomised clinical trial reported that switching patients from a three-times weekly regimen of r-HuEPO to once weekly darbepoetin alfa with additional placebo twice weekly (all intravenously) maintained Hb levels between 9.0 and 13.0 g/dl to a similar extent as continued treatment with r-HuEPO three times weekly. ▴ In a randomised nonblind study, r-HuEPO-naive patients with chronic renal insufficiency received either subcutaneous darbepoetin alfa once weekly or r-HuEPO twice weekly. 93% of patients receiving darbepoetin alfa and 92% of patients receiving r-HuEPO achieved a Hb increase of ≥ 1.0 g/dl from baseline and the mean increase in Hb level over the initial 4 weeks was similar for both treatments. ▴ The number and frequency of adverse events, withdrawals and deaths reported in clinical trials did not differ between patients receiving darbepoetin alfa and patients receiving r-HuEPO. There have been no reports of immune responses to darbepoetin alfa in 1534 patients receiving treatment for up to 2 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cyclosporin is a lipophilic cyclic polypeptide immunosuppressant that interferes with the activity of T cells chiefly via calcineurin inhibition. The original oil-based oral formulation of this drug (Sandimmun) was characterised by high intra- and interpatient pharmacokinetic variability, with poor bioavailability in many patients; a novel microemulsion formulation (Neoral) was therefore developed to circumvent these problems. Studies show increases, attributable chiefly to improved absorption in patients who absorb the drug only poorly from the original formulation, in mean systemic exposure to cyclosporin with the microemulsion, with no clinically significant differences in tolerability or drug interaction profiles. Cyclosporin microemulsion is at least as effective as the oil-based formulation in renal, liver and heart transplant recipients, with trends towards decreased incidence of acute rejection with the microemulsion formulation in some (statistically significant in a few) trials. Cyclosporin microemulsion and tacrolimus appear to have similar efficacy in preventing acute rejection episodes in most renal, pancreas-kidney, liver and heart transplant recipients. However, there are indications of superior efficacy for tacrolimus in some trials, particularly in the prevention of severe acute rejection and in Black transplant recipients. Current 12-month data also indicate equivalent efficacy of sirolimus in renal transplantation. Conversion from the oil-based to microemulsion formulation in stable renal, liver and heart transplant recipients is achievable with no change in acute rejection rates. The addition of an anti-interleukin-2 receptor monoclonal antibody and/or mycophenolate mofetil to cyclosporin microemulsion plus corticosteroids decreases rates of acute rejection; corticosteroid withdrawal without increased acute rejection rates was also achieved on the addition of these agents in some trials. Pharmacoeconomic analyses have shown savings in direct healthcare costs in kidney or liver transplantation when cyclosporin microemulsion is used in preference to the oil-based formulation, although studies incorporating indirect costs or expressing costs in terms of therapeutic outcomes are currently unavailable. Conclusions: The introduction of cyclosporin microemulsion has consolidated the place of the drug as a mainstay of therapy in all types of solid organ transplantation; research into optimisation of outcomes through more effective therapeutic monitoring in patients receiving this formulation is ongoing. Several novel immunosuppressants have been introduced in recent years: further clinical and pharmacoeconomic research will be needed to clarify the relative positioning of these agents, particularly with respect to specific patient groups. Other new drugs (basiliximab/daclizumab and mycophenolate mofetil) offer particular advantages when used in combination with cyclosporin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insulin glargine is a recombinant human insulin analogue produced by DNA technology using a nonpathogenic strain of Escherichia coli. Two modifications of human insulin result in a stable molecule which is soluble in slightly acidic conditions (pH 4.0) and precipitates in the neutral pH of subcutaneous tissue. Because of these properties, absorption of insulin glargine is delayed and the analogue provides a fairly constant, basal insulin supply without peaks in plasma insulin levels for approximately 24 hours, similar to that achieved by a continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion. Insulin glargine is indicated as a once daily subcutaneous injection to provide basal glycaemic control in adults and children aged >6 years with type 1 diabetes mellitus and in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Fasting plasma glucose and fasting blood glucose levels generally improved to a greater extent in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus receiving insulin glargine than patients who administered Neutral Protamine Hagedorn (NPH) insulin. In patients with type 1 or 2 disease, glycosylated haemoglobin levels were slightly reduced and to a similar extent with insulin glargine and NPH insulin. Most clinical trials in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus demonstrated a lower incidence of hypoglycaemia, especially nocturnal hypoglycaemia, compared with NPH insulin. One of the most common adverse events with insulin glargine treatment was injection site pain which, in some studies, occurred more frequently than in patients receiving NPH insulin. In all cases the symptoms were mild and treatment discontinuation was not required. Otherwise, the drug is well tolerated and does not appear to be immunogenic. Conclusions: Insulin glargine once a day provides basal control of glycaemia for approximately 24 hours without inducing peaks in plasma insulin levels in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. In long term, well designed trials insulin glargine once daily improved glycaemic control at least as effectively as NPH insulin given once or twice daily. The drug was well tolerated and in most studies the incidence of nocturnal hypoglycaemia was significantly less in patients treated with insulin glargine compared with patients receiving NPH insulin. Therefore, insulin glargine is likely to be a useful addition to the armamentarium of insulin therapy by establishing basal glycaemic control with once daily administration and a reduced risk of nocturnal hypoglycaemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 500mg 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 (750mg 2 or 3 times daily for 2 to 5 days) followed by oral cefuroxime axetil (500mg 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 β-lactamase-producing strains of common respiratory pathogens are identified as the causative organisms. In an era of rapidly emerging bacterial resistance, empirical treatment with 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Telmisartan is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist that is highly selective for type 1 angiotensin II receptors. It was significantly more effective than placebo in large (n >100), double-blind, randomised, multicentre clinical trials in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Telmisartan 20 to 160mg once daily produced mean reductions in supine trough systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure of up to 15.5 and 10.5mm Hg, respectively. Maximum blood pressure reduction occurred with a dosage of 40 to 80 mg/day. Telmisartan 40 to 120 mg/day was as effective as amlodipine 5 to 10 mg/day or atenolol 50 to 100 mg/day in dose-titration studies. Telmisartan 20 to 160 mg/day was generally similar in efficacy to enalapril 5 to 20 mg/day or lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/day in both titration-to-response and other studies. Hydrochlorothiazide was coadministered in most of the titration-to-response studies if patients remained hypertensive. Telmisartan 80 mg/day was more effective than submaximal dosages of losartan (50 mg/day) or valsartan (80 mg/day) and was as effective as a fixed-dose combination of losartan 50mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg over the last 6 hours of the dosage interval and the whole 24-hour postdose interval. In patients with severe hypertension, telmisartan 80 to 160 mg/day was as effective as enalapril 20 to 40 mg/day (both agents could be titrated and combined sequentially with hydrochlorothiazide 25mg and amlodipine 5mg). The addition of hydrochlorothiazide to telmisartan was more effective than each agent alone at lowering blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Telmisartan was well tolerated in patients with mild to moderate hypertension and was significantly less likely to cause persistent, dry cough than lisinopril. Conclusion: Telmisartan is an effective antihypertensive agent with a tolerability profile similar to that of placebo. Comparative data have shown telmisartan to be as effective as other major classes of antihypertensive agents at lowering blood pressure. Compared with lisinopril, telmisartan is associated with a significantly lower incidence of dry, persistent cough. Therefore, telmisartan is a useful therapeutic option in the management of patients with hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy affecting women and imposes a substantial economic burden on society. Estrogen is thought to play a major role in both the initiation and promotion of hormone dependent breast cancer, and a number of well recognized risk factors for breast cancer reflect increased cumulative estrogen exposure (e.g. early menarche, late menopause). Metastatic breast cancer is an incurable condition and the goals of treatment are to relieve symptoms, improve health-related quality of life and prolong life. Women with hormone receptor-positive disease are candidates for hormonal treatment. In contrast, chemotherapy is traditionally the treatment of choice in those with hormone receptor-negative disease or symptomatic visceral disease. Anastrozole is a highly selective nonsteroidal type II aromatase inhibitor that suppresses plasma and intratumoral estrogen levels. The results of 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials have shown anastrozole to be at least as effective as tamoxifen in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, although survival data are lacking. In the smaller of these trials, the median time to disease progression was significantly prolonged (p = 0.005) in anastrozole, compared with tamoxifen, recipients (11.1 vs 5.6 months), although combined analysis of the 2 trials revealed no significant difference between anastrozole and tamoxifen in terms of this end-point. Similarly, anastrozole has been shown to be at least as effective as megestrol in the second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer in 2 multicenter randomized studies. Combined analysis of the studies revealed a significant survival advantage (p < 0.025) for anastrozole 1 mg/day, compared with megestrol 40mg 4 times daily, recipients (estimated hazard ratio 0.78; 97.5% confidence interval 0.6 to <1). Tolerability is an important consideration in women with advanced breast cancer. The most common adverse events associated with anastrozole therapy were gastrointestinal disturbance, hot flushes, asthenia and pain. Anastrozole is associated with less vaginal bleeding and thromboembolic disease than tamoxifen and less bodyweight gain than megestrol. Anastrozole also appears to be a cost-effective option in the first- and second-line treatment of advanced breast cancer, although data are limited. Conclusion: Current treatment guidelines support the use of anastrozole in the second-line treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. Although current treatment guidelines do not yet reflect this, data from recent, well designed studies demonstrate that anastrozole is likely to be a viable alternative to tamoxifen in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Parecoxib (parecoxib sodium) is an injectable prodrug of valdecoxib, which is a potent and selective inhibitor of cyclo-oxygenase-2. ▴ Intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) parecoxib ≥20mg has analgesic activity superior to that of placebo and similar to that of IV or IM ketorolac 30 or 60mg in well controlled trials in patients with postoperative dental pain (n = 304 to 457). ▴ In a well controlled trial (n = 202), IV parecoxib 20 or 40mg showed analgesic activity greater than that of placebo and IV morphine 4mg and similar to that of IV ketorolac 30mg following gynaecological surgery. ▴ Following orthopaedic surgery, the analgesic activity of IV parecoxib 20 or 40mg was similar to that of IV ketorolac 30mg and superior to that of IV morphine 4mg or placebo in well controlled trials (n = 175 and 208). ▴ IV parecoxib (40mg twice daily for 7 days) produced significantly fewer gastrointestinal erosions and/or ulcers than ketorolac (15mg 4 times a day for 5 days) in healthy volunteers in a well controlled trial; effects on upper gastrointestinal mucosa were similar for parecoxib and placebo. ▴ Parecoxib is well tolerated after dental, gynaecological or orthopaedic surgery. The most common adverse events irrespective of treatment (parecoxib, ketorolac or placebo) after dental surgery were nausea, alveolar osteitis, dizziness and headache. ▴ Nausea, abdominal pain, headache, abdominal fullness, dizziness, back pain, fever, hypoactive bowel sounds, vomiting, tachycardia, somnolence, abnormal breath sounds and pruritus occurred in ≥10% of parecoxib recipients after gynaecological surgery. Similar results were seen in placebo recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ganciclovir is a nucleoside guanosine analogue which incorporates ganciclovir triphosphate (the active moiety) into DNA during elongation, thereby inhibiting viral replication. Comparative studies of pre-emptive and prophylactic ganciclovir therapies in bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients have shown similar rates of cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection, disease and patient mortality. Long term prophylaxis with either oral, or sequential intravenous/oral, ganciclovir has shown efficacy in renal allograft recipients, including high risk patients or those receiving antilymphocyte antibody therapy. A preliminary study indicates that ganciclovir is more efficacious than aciclovir in paediatric patients. Both oral and intravenous prophylactic ganciclovir regimens have shown efficacy compared with no antiviral treatment in lung transplant recipients; initial reports have shown similar efficacy between pre-emptive and prophylactic ganciclovir. Oral ganciclovir monotherapy is as efficacious as sequential intravenous/oral ganciclovir therapy in liver transplant recipients. Pre-emptive treatment was equally as effective as long term ganciclovir prophylaxis in high risk patients. Ganciclovir prophylaxis for 4 weeks appears ineffective in heart allograft recipients treated with antithymocyte globulin. Long term sequential intravenous/oral ganciclovir therapy has shown greater efficacy in preventing CMV disease than sequential ganciclovir/aciclovir therapy in these patients. Initial reports indicate that pre-emptive therapy may be beneficial in this patient group, although this remains to be determined. Ganciclovir in therapeutic dosage regimens generally has acceptable tolerability with adverse effects usually of a haematological or neurological nature. Neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and anaemia are the primary dose-limiting toxicities associated with ganciclovir therapy. Overall, neutropenia occurs less frequently with administration of oral ganciclovir than with intravenous ganciclovir. Monitoring of renal function is recommended as serum creatinine levels may rise during ganciclovir therapy. In addition, ganciclovir prophylaxis appears more cost effective than the majority of other currently available therapies for CMV, with oral ganciclovir more cost effective than intravenous ganciclovir. In conclusion, it is unlikely that a single strategy will be able to be applied to all transplant patients for the prevention of CMV disease. An optimal strategy will probably be a risk-adapted approach. Prophylactic treatment with ganciclovir appears the best strategy to implement in high risk patients; oral ganciclovir formulations may be best employed where lower toxicity is required. Pre-emptive treatment with ganciclovir appears most efficacious in patients identified as lower risk or, in the case of BMT recipients, where lower toxicity may be desirable. Ganciclovir remains an important therapeutic option for the prevention and treatment of CMV disease in transplant recipients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The fixed low-dose combination of the ACE inhibitor perindopril and the non-thiazide diuretic indapamide has been evaluated in the management of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Combination therapy aims to improve overall therapeutic efficacy while minimising adverse effects. In well-designed multicentre clinical trials, perindopril/indapamide at doses ranging from 2/0.625 to 8/2.5 mg/day was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving adequate blood pressure (BP) control. A similar reduction in supine BP was observed when combined perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day was compared with losartan 50 mg/day or atenolol 50 mg/day. Similar reductions in 24-hour ambulatory BP were also seen with perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day and irbesartan 150 mg/day. However, response and normalisation rates were significantly higher with combination therapy than with losartan or irbesartan monotherapy. Combined perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day therapy effectively reduced BP in elderly patients aged 65 to 85 years to a significantly greater extent than either atenolol 50 mg/day or placebo. Supine BP was also normalised in approximately two-thirds of patients in a small noncomparative trial in patients with hypertension and renal impairment. Low-dose perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day was well tolerated in clinical trials; the most common adverse events were headache and cough. Hypokalaemia, associated with the use of diuretics, occurred with a higher incidence with combined perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day therapy than with either atenolol 50 mg/day or placebo. Perindopril/indapamide 2/0.625 mg/day has shown efficacy in well designed comparative trials with atenolol, losartan and irbesartan including elderly patients and patients with renal impairment. Studies comparing this dosage of perindopril/ indapamide with other combination therapies would be beneficial in allowing the place of perindopril/indapamide to be more accurately determined. The fixed-low dose combination of perindopril/indapamide provides a promising and well tolerated treatment option in the management of patients with mild to moderate hypertension. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efavirenz is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) used in the treatment of patients with HIV infection. Both US and British treatment guidelines for HIV infection recommend NNRTI- or protease inhibitor-based combinations [i.e. with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] as first-line treatment options in the management of HIV disease. Results of a pivotal randomised study (DMP 266-006) comparing efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy in patients with HIV infection (the majority of whom were antiretroviral therapy-naive) showed the efavirenz-based regimen was better tolerated and had greater success in achieving reductions in viral load below the limit of detection. These and other clinical data were incorporated into economic models in 2 analyses, one conducted in the US and the other in Canada. The US analysis examined long term clinical and economic outcomes predicted on the basis of response (viral load and CD4+ cell counts), tolerability and willingness to adhere to therapy. The efavirenz-based regimen was the dominant treatment strategy as it was predicted to improve survival and reduce direct medical costs in the US healthcare system. Compared with the indinavir-containing regimen, survival was increased by 11% (absolute difference) and cumulative costs were reduced by $US10 326 per patient (1998 discounted costs) at 5 years after starting treatment with efavirenz-based therapy. The Canadian analysis was conducted from the perspective of the Ontario healthcare system. This study did not consider differences in clinical efficacy between treatment groups, costs of study medication or outcomes beyond 1 year - all factors that would have favoured the efavirenz-based regimen. Of the 2 treatment options, the efavirenz-based regimen was associated with 7.4% lower average annual medical care costs, primarily because of greater costs associated with adverse clinical events with the indinavir-based regimen. In conclusion, current treatment guidelines for HIV infection recognise efavirenz-based combination regimens as a first-line treatment option. A pivotal comparative clinical trial (DMP 266-006) showed a significantly greater virological response to efavirenz- than indinavir-based triple combination therapy, and the efavirenz-based regimen was better tolerated. These clinical data are supported by pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted in the US and Canada, both of which showed lower medical care costs with the efavirenz-based regimen. The US analysis also predicted long term health benefits, such as improved survival, with efavirenz- versus indinavir-based triple combination therapy. These results must be weighed against the inherent difficulties of predicting long term treatment failure rates from short term data, and the limited number of pharmacoeconomic analyses conducted with efavirenz to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risedronate is a novel orally administered pyridinyl bisphosphonate indicated for the prevention or treatment of postmenopausal and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis and Paget's disease. The drug reduces bone turnover and decreases resorption chiefly through osteoclastic effects, with no undesirable effects on cortical porosity or thickness or on cancellous bone volume. Four randomised, double-blind trials have been carried out in 4873 patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis. In 2 of these studies, the primary end-point of vertebral fracture incidence was reduced by risedronate 5mg once daily by up to 65 and 49% relative to placebo after 1 and 3 years, respectively. Across all 4 trials, risedronate improved lumbar spine, femoral neck and femoral trochanter bone mineral density (BMD) statistically significantly relative to placebo. The drug also prevented bone loss in a study in 383 women with recent menopause, and reduced the risk of hip fracture in elderly women with confirmed osteoporosis in a trial involving a total of 9331 patients. Risedronate 5 mg/day plus estrogen has been shown to be superior to estrogen alone in a 12-month double-blind study in 524 women with at least 1-year's history of menopause. Two randomised, double-blind and placebo-controlled 12-month studies in a total of 518 patients have shown risedronate 5 mg/day to prevent or reverse bone loss in patients receiving glucocorticoid therapy. Risedronate 30 mg/day was associated with statistically significant reductions in mean serum levels of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) in noncomparative studies in patients with Paget's disease. ALP normalisation rates ranged from 53.8 to 65% across two 84-day treatment cycles in 2 of these trials in 180 patients. In a randomised, double-blind study in 123 patients, risedronate 30 mg/day for 2 months evoked significantly greater serum ALP responses than etidronate 400 mg/day for 6 months. The overall tolerability profile of risedronate was similar to that of placebo in clinical studies, with no evidence of acute-phase reactions or mineralisation defects, or excess incidence of upper GI lesions, in patients receiving the drug. Conclusions: Risedronate is an effective and well tolerated novel bisphosphonate that is suitable for first-line therapy in Paget's disease. The rapid and sustained reductions in vertebral fracture incidence and BMD changes seen in patients with postmenopausal and glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis indicate the drug to be a valuable treatment option with first-line potential, particularly in patients for whom hormonal therapy is inappropriate. The effects of the drug on hip fracture incidence in elderly women with confirmed osteoporosis point to a particular role in older patients, or those with more advanced disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alzheimer’s disease is associated with a large cost burden, of which institutionalised care constitutes a major component. Therefore, the decision to move a patient from the community to institutionalised care is associated with a significant increase in direct costs. About three-quarters of patients with Alzheimer’s disease are admitted to a nursing home within 5 years of diagnosis. Unpaid or informal caregiver time is another large cost in Alzheimer’s disease, especially for patients cared for in the community; informal care can account for up to three-quarters of healthcare costs in non-institutionalised patients. Several cholinesterase inhibitors, of which rivastigmine is one, are available for the treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. By improving cognitive function and slowing the rate of cognitive decline, cholinesterase inhibitor therapy may reduce a significant part of the economic burden of the disease by delaying the move to institutionalised care. In the absence of prospective long term data which focus on pharmacoeconomic end-points, modelling techniques have been used to extrapolate clinical data available for some cholinesterase inhibitors, including rivastigmine. Four economic analyses, based on a single model of cognitive decline, have been performed with rivastigmine from the perspective of the provider or society. All show that rivastigmine therapy (excluding drug-related costs) is associated with cost savings in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease by delaying the time to institutionalisation. If the acquisition cost of the drug was factored in, the cost savings completely or partially offset treatment costs. The magnitude of the cost savings increased as the time horizon increased (up to 2 years). The largest savings were realised in patients with mild disease over a 2-year time-frame, suggesting that treatment should be initiated early from an economic viewpoint. Pharmacoeonomic data comparing different cholinesterase inhibitors are, as yet, unavailable. Conclusion: Pharmacoeconomic analyses, based on modelled data excluding drug costs, indicate that rivastigmine completely or partially offsets the costs of treatment by delaying cognitive decline and the time to institutionalisation in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. From a societal perspective, cost savings are realised if the drug is introduced early in the disease. Additional benefits offered by rivastigmine on behavioural symptoms, which may reduce caregiver burden, have yet to be investigated from a pharmacoeconomic perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Calcipotriol, a vitamin D analog, acts not only to inhibit cell proliferation and enhance cell differentiation in the skin of patients with psoriasis, but also appears to have effects on immunologic markers that are thought to play a role in the etiology of the disease. In several well designed, short term studies in adults, calcipotriol ointment 50 µg/g twice daily provided similar or superior efficacy to several other antipsoriatic agents in adult patients with mild to moderate psoriasis. In patients with nonscalp psoriasis, the drug provided superior efficacy to twice daily placebo (vehicle ointment), twice daily fluocinonide 500 µg/g, once daily tacalcitol 4 µg/g and twice daily coal tar 5% plus allantoin 2% and hydrocortisone 0.5%. Furthermore, calcipotriol therapy generally provided superior efficacy to twice daily betamethasone valerate 1 to 1.2 mg/g or once daily dithranol 1 to 20 mg/g, and similar efficacy to twice daily betamethasone dipropionate plus salicylic acid or once daily maxacalcitol 6 to 50 µg/g. Limited data indicated that calcipotriol ointment 50 µg/g also improved overall disease severity in children. In combination with other antipsoriatic agents [acitretin, cyclosporine, betamethasone valerate, halobetasol (ulobetasol)], ultraviolet B or psoralen ultraviolet A (PUVA) phototherapy, calcipotriol ointment 50 µg/g twice daily improved the beneficial effects of these drugs on overall disease severity in adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Furthermore, in separate trials, calcipotriol combination therapy reduced the dosage of acitretin required to achieve clearance of psoriasis and the duration of PUVA and dosage of UVA phototherapy, potentially improving the benefit/risk ratio for these other antipsoriatic treatments. Calcipotriol was generally well tolerated in short and long term studies in adult patients, with the majority of adverse events being mild to moderate in intensity and transient. The most common adverse events associated with calcipotriol therapy were dermatologic in nature and included lesional or perilesional irritations, face and scalp irritations, worsening of psoriasis and miscellaneous dermatologic events. Notably, there have been very few reports of patients developing hypercalcemia or hypercalciuria during calcipotriol therapy, with most occurring in patients who exceeded the recommended dosage of 100 g/week. Although data in children are limited, the drug was well tolerated with the nature and incidence of adverse effects similar to those observed in adult patients. Conclusions: Extensive clinical experience, along with several short and long term clinical trials, has shown calcipotriol ointment to be an effective and well tolerated topical agent in adult patients with psoriasis. In addition, calcipotriol ointment proved beneficial in combination with other topical, phototherapy or systemic antipsoriatic treatments, reducing the dosage and/or duration of some of these treatments and potentially improving their benefit/risk ratio. Calcipotriol ointment is valuable as a first- or second-line therapy option for the management of mild to moderate psoriasis and in combination with other antipsoriatic agents for more severe psoriasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Unlabelled: Oxcarbazepine (10,11-dihydro-10-oxo-5H-dibenz[b,f]azepine-5-carboxamide) is a 10-keto analogue of carbamazepine with anticonvulsant activity. In newly diagnosed adult patients, oxcarbazepine monotherapy is as effective as phenytoin and vaiproic acid at reducing generalised tonic-clonic and partial seizure frequency. Furthermore, oxcarbazepine 2400 mg/day as monotherapy has also proved effective in the treatment of refractory partial seizures in adult patients. Oxcarbazepine 600, 1200 and 2400 mg/day as adjunctive therapy significantly reduced seizure frequency compared with placebo in 692 patients with refractory partial seizures. The efficacy of oxcarbazepine monotherapy is similar to that of phenytoin in the treatment of children and adolescents with newly diagnosed partial or generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Additionally, adjunctive therapy with oxcarbazepine was significantly more effective than placebo at reducing seizure frequency in children and adolescents with refractory partial seizures. The most commonly reported adverse events associated with oxcarbazepine monotherapy and/or adjunctive therapy in adults and/or children are somnolence, dizziness, headache, nausea and vomiting. Oxcarbazepine monotherapy is better tolerated than phenytoin (in both adults and children) and valproic acid (in adults), and although 75 to 90% of adult patients in 5 recent monotherapy studies reported adverse events while receiving oxcarbazepine, <8% withdrew from treatment because of them. Acute hyponatraemia, although usually asymptomatic, develops in 2.7% of patients treated with oxcarbazepine. Adverse events most likely to resolve upon switching to oxcarbazepine therapy from treatment with carbamazepine are undetermined skin reactions (rashes, pruritus, eczema), allergic reactions and a combination of malaise, dizziness and headache. Although oxcarbazepine does have a clinically significant interaction with some drugs (e.g. phenytoin and oral contraceptives), it has a lower propensity for interactions than older antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) because its major metabolic pathway is mediated by noninducible enzymes.Conclusion: Oxcarbazepine as monotherapy is a viable alternative to established AEDs in the treatment of partial and generalised tonic-clonic seizures in adults and children. Furthermore, it is also effective as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of refractory partial seizures in both age groups. In addition, the drug is tolerated better than the older, established AEDs, and has a lower potential for drug interactions. These attributes make oxcarbazepine an effective component in the initial treatment of newly diagnosed partial and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, and also as an adjunct for medically intractable partial seizures in both adults and children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zafirlukast is a selective and competitive orally administered inhibitor of the cysteinyl leukotrienes LTC, LTD and LTE. The drug is indicated for the prophylaxis and treatment of chronic asthma, and has been developed in response to mounting evidence indicating the importance of the cysteinyl leukotrienes in the pathogenesis of this disorder. The efficacy of zafirlukast 20mg twice daily has been shown in double-blind placebo-controlled studies of up to 13 weeks' duration in patients aged ≥12 years. Zafirlukast was consistently superior to placebo in improving objective measures of lung function and subjective measures such as symptom scores and use of as-required bronchodilator therapy. This dosage is also as effective when added to low-dosage inhaled corticosteroid therapy as doubling of corticosteroid dosages. Recent studies indicate superior efficacy over zafirlukast of twice-daily inhaled fluticasone propionate 88µg or salmeterol 42µg, although zafirlukast was nevertheless associated with clinical improvement. Data also show zafirlukast 40mg to be of similar efficacy to pranlukast 225mg (both twice daily). Overall, preliminary pharmacoeconomic data suggest that healthcare costs are reduced by zafirlukast therapy, although superior cost effectiveness has been reported with inhaled fluticasone propionate, and further studies are needed. Data are available to show improvements in patient-rated quality of life, and preference for and high rates of compliance with zafirlukast. In clinical trials, zafirlukast has shown an adverse event profile similar to that of placebo. Isolated reports of hepatic dysfunction in a small number of individuals receiving the drug have been received, and recommendations for monitoring of patients are in place. Although no causal relationship has been established between zafirlukast and Churg-Strauss Syndrome, patients undergoing corticosteroid dosage reductions require careful surveillance. Conclusions: zafirlukast is an effective and well tolerated agent for preventive monotherapy in mild to moderate persistent asthma. Emerging data indicate benefit of the drug when added to low-dosage inhaled corticosteroids and show that it may be a viable alternative to inhaled adjunctive treatments and increased corticosteroid dosages in some patients. Although inhaled fluticasone propionate and salmeterol have been associated with greater clinical improvement than zafirlukast in clinical studies, compliance considerations and the confirmed clinical efficacy relative to placebo of the drug denote zafirlukast as an effective alternative in treatment programmes based on individualised therapy. As experience with zafirlukast accumulates, it is expected that the drug will be positioned more definitively in national and international treatment guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fluoxetine is a potent and selective inhibitor of neuronal serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) reuptake. Fluoxetine reduces food, energy and carbohydrate intake and increases resting energy expenditure, which may account for the moderate and transient bodyweight loss observed with its use. Glucose tolerance and/or hypoglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus improve with fluoxetine therapy. The ability of fluoxetine to inhibit cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes (CYP2D6, CYP2C and CYP3A4), is potentially important for patients with physical illness who may be taking multiple concomitant medications. Fluoxetine was more effective than placebo in 2 double-blind, randomised trials, and according to limited data appears to be equally effective compared with other SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), in the treatment of depression in patients with HIV/AIDS. The efficacy of fluoxetine is also superior to that of placebo in the treatment of depression in patients with diabetes mellitus and stroke as shown in double-blind randomised trials, although its efficacy relative to that of nortriptyline in stroke is uncertain. Fluoxetine had similar efficacy to that of desipramine in patients with cancer, with improved Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and quality-of-life scores from baseline; however, the drug was not more effective than placebo in a double-blind randomised trial. Medically healthy individuals tolerate fluoxetine well. Like other SSRIs, fluoxetine lacks the anticholinergic, cardiovascular, sedative and weight-increasing properties of TCAs, and is safer in overdose than TCAs and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. Rates of sexual dysfunction and suicidal ideation with fluoxetine appear similar to those seen with other SSRIs. Conclusion: Fluoxetine has shown superior efficacy compared with placebo in the treatment of depression in patients with HIV/AIDS, diabetes mellitus or stroke; however, it has not significantly improved depressive symptoms versus placebo in patients with cancer. The efficacy of fluoxetine appears similar to that of desipramine in patients with stroke, cancer or HIV, and is similar to that of sertraline or paroxetine in patients with HIV/AIDS; comparisons with nortriptyline give equivocal results. The potential for drug interactions with fluoxetine use should be carefully considered because most patients with comorbid physical illness will be receiving multiple comedications. Although fluoxetine has proved effective as an antidepressant in this population in several clinical trials, its drug interaction profile and long half-life are a potential limitation, and these properties should be carefully considered in relation to the status of each patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

▴ Current evidence suggests that the addition of the long acting inhaled β-agonist formoterol to low or moderate doses of the inhaled corticosteroid budesonide is effective in improving lung function and reducing the incidence of asthma exacerbations. ▴ Concurrent use of budesonide with formoterol does not result in any untoward interaction that affects the pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic profiles of the individual drugs, or their adverse effect profiles. ▴ The administration of combined budesonide/ formoterol is effective in improving morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates in adults with persistent asthma. Control of asthma symptoms is also significantly improved. ▴ In children aged 4 to 17 years, combined budesonide/ formoterol is effective in increasing both morning and evening peak expiratory flow rates and significantly improving forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV). ▴ The most commonly encountered adverse effects in clinical trials with combination budesonide/ formoterol therapy have been respiratory infection, pharyngitis and coughing. No adverse effects on pulse rate, blood pressure or serum potassium have been reported with combination therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and places a large burden on medical and economic resources, particularly if hospitalization is required. Indeed, it has been estimated that annual costs of inpatient treatment of patients with CAP currently exceed $US6 billion in the US; a large proportion of this cost is directly related to the duration of hospital stay. Initial antibacterial therapy for CAP is usually empirical, as culture and antibacterial sensitivity test results are rarely available at initial diagnosis. Importantly, treatment must be initiated promptly to achieve the best patient outcome thereby potentially reducing healthcare costs, largely as a result of a decrease in hospitalisation. Any agent selected for empirical therapy should have good activity against pathogens associated with CAP, a favorable tolerability profile and be administered in a simple dosage regimen for good compliance. Streptococcus pneumoniae remains the most common causative pathogen in nonsevere and severe CAP, although the incidence of this organism varies widely. S. pneumoniae strains with decreased susceptibility to penicillin have become increasingly prevalent over the past 30 years and are now a serious problem worldwide. In addition, an increase in the prevalence of pneumococci resistant to macrolides has been observed in Europe over recent years. Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae are among the most common atypical pathogens isolated from patients with CAP. Haemophilus influenzae, Staphylococcus aureus and Moraxella catarrhalis are less commonly identified as causative organisms. Because the spectrum of antibacterial activity of levofloxacin includes the pathogens associated with CAP, including penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae, it is included in US guidelines as an option for the empirical therapy of patients with mild or more severe disease. Levofloxacin is recommended for the initial treatment of outpatients and inpatients with suspected penicillin-resistant S. pneumoniae infection and is particularly useful in geographical areas where there is a high incidence of drug-resistant pneumococci. Nevertheless, β-lactam antibacterial agents, in particular penicillin, remain agents of first choice for the treatment of CAP (caused by penicillin-susceptible pathogens) in many European countries. Levofloxacin monotherapy shows good efficacy in the treatment of patients with CAP and is generally well tolerated. Phototoxicity has been infrequently reported with levofloxacin (incidence 0.03% in 1 study) and occurs less commonly than with sparfloxacin (reported incidence 8%). In addition, the drug has a pharmacokinetic profile that allows a simple administration schedule and offers the potential for intravenous to oral sequential therapy. In randomized comparative trials, intravenous or oral levofloxacin was more effective than intravenous ceftriaxone and/or oral cefuroxime axetil, at least as effective as azithromycin plus ceftriaxone and similar in efficacy to both amoxicillin/clavulanic acid and gatifloxacin. Data comparing the efficacy of levofloxacin with other newer fluoroquinolones, such as moxifloxacin, are as yet unavailable. Levofloxacin was also a beneficial treatment for CAP from a pharmacoeconomic perspective. A critical pathway that used levofloxacin for the treatment of patients with CAP led to a decrease in healthcare resource costs compared with conventional management in a randomized controlled trial conducted in Canada. As a treatment for CAP, levofloxacin was less costly than intravenous ceftriaxone and was more cost effective than cefuroxime plus erythromycin, or ceftriaxone or ciprofloxacin. Conclusions: Levofloxacin monotherapy is efficacious and shows pharmacoeconomic benefits when used as empirical treatment for adult patients with CAP. The drug has a broad spectrum of antibacterial activity, is administered in a simple dosage regimen and offers the potential for intravenous to oral sequential therapy; it is also well tolerated and is an option for patients allergic to penicillin or macrolides. Levofloxacin has a particularly useful role in the empirical treatment of patients with infections caused by S. pneumoniae in geographical areas where penicillin-resistant strains of pneumococci are prevalent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The virological/immunological efficacy of amprenavir-containing combination regimens has been evaluated in a small number of clinical trials in patients with HIV infection. Amprenavir plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) was more effective than 2 NRTIs (in treatment-naive patients) or amprenavir monotherapy (in treatment-naive or -experienced patients) in double-blind trials. In the only direct comparison with another protease inhibitor as part of triple therapy, amprenavir was less effective than indinavir in treatment-experienced (protease inhibitor-naive) patients. Amprenavir was as effective as other protease inhibitors when given with abacavir in a small nonblind trial. Amprenavir is generally well tolerated (most events are mild or moderate). GI disturbance and rash are the principal treatment-limiting effects. Preclinical data suggest that amprenavir may have a low potential for metabolic disturbances (e.g. lipodystrophy, fat redistribution); such effects have been infrequent in patients treated to date, but longer term experience is needed. I50V is the major HIV protease substitution associated with amprenavir resistance; this mutation is not seen in isolates from patients receiving other available protease inhibitors. Amprenavir-resistant isolates evaluated to date showed no significant cross-resistance to most other protease inhibitors, although some cross-resistance to ritonavir was noted. Many isolates from patients previously treated with other protease inhibitors are susceptible to amprenavir. Amprenavir offers the convenience of twice-daily administration with no food-timing or fluid restrictions, but this may be offset by the large number and size of the capsules. However, pharmacokinetic data support the use of coadministration of amprenavir and ritonavir at reduced dosages, thereby allowing a reduction in the number of amprenavir capsules. Conclusions: Amprenavir-containing combination regimens have shown virological efficacy, and have generally been well tolerated, in patients with HIV infection (primarily treatment-naive or protease inhibitor-naive). The limited number of studies available and the absence of well controlled comparisons with other triple therapies limits the conclusions that can be drawn at present. The clinical value of amprenavir for patients with isolates which are resistant to other protease inhibitors but sensitive to amprenavir, and in treatment-experienced patients in general, requires further investigation. Further evaluation of the amprenavir/ritonavir combination is awaited with interest. Like other members of its class, amprenavir has a particular profile of tolerability, resistance and administration characteristics which should be carefully considered in relation to the needs of individual patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Currently, acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitors are the most promising class of drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Galantamine is a reversible, competitive, tertiary alkaloid AChE inhibitor. The drug is selective for AChE rather than butyrylcholinesterase. In addition to inhibition of AChE galantamine interacts allosterically with nicotinic acetylcholine receptors to potentiate the action of agonists at these receptors. Recipients of galantamine 16 or 24 mg/day achieved significant improvements in cognitive and global symptoms relative to placebo recipients in large (n = 285 to 978 patients with mild to moderate AD) well-designed trials of 3 to 6 months' duration. Galantamine also improved activities of daily living in these patients and significantly reduced the requirement for caregiver assistance with activities of daily living. Moreover, galantamine recipients achieved significantly better outcomes on behavioural symptoms than placebo recipients. In a long term study (12 months), galantamine 24 mg/day slowed the progression of symptoms of the disease and maintained cognitive function and activities of daily living in patients with mild to moderate AD. Galantamine was generally well tolerated with the majority of adverse events being mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Predictably, adverse events were cholinergic in nature and generally related to the gastrointestinal system. These effects were reduced in patients receiving the recommended dose escalation regimen. Galantamine had no clinically relevant effects on vital signs, haematological or biochemical laboratory parameters and, importantly, there were no reports of hepatotoxicity. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar between galantamine (8 to 32 mg/day) and placebo groups (6 to 16% of patients across all treatment groups). Conclusions: Galantamine is an effective well tolerated symptomatic treatment for AD which improves cognition, function and activities of daily living in the short term (up to 6 months) in patients with mild to moderate AD. In addition, it delays the development of behavioural disturbances and psychiatric symptoms, and reduces caregiver burden (as measured by caregiver time). In the long term (up to 1 year), galantamine maintains cognition and activities of daily living. Adverse events associated with galantamine are mainly cholinergic, usually mild to moderate in intensity and transient. Galantamine has been evaluated in several large well-designed studies and, given the relative lack of established treatment options, it may be considered as one of the first-line pharmacological treatments in patients with mild to moderate AD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nicorandil is a drug with both nitrate-like and ATP-sensitive potassium-channel (K) activating properties. By virtue of this dual mechanism of action, the drug acts as a balanced coronary and peripheral vasodilator and reduces both preload and afterload. The K channel has been shown to be involved in the phenomenon of myocardial preconditioning, and studies in animal models of ischaemia-reperfusion-induced myocardial stunning or infarction indicate that nicorandil has cardio- protective effects. Studies in patients undergoing percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) have shown that the administration of nicorandil reduces ST-segment elevation during ischaemia. Nicorandil significantly improved the results of exercise tolerance tests versus baseline in patients with stable effort angina pectoris in early noncomparative trials. The drug also improved the results of exercise tolerance tests relative to placebo in early randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. In randomised, double-blind comparative studies in patients with angina pectoris, nicorandil has demonstrated equivalent efficacy, as measured by exercise tolerance testing, to isosorbide di- and mononitrate, metoprolol, propranolol, atenolol, diltiazem, amlodipine and nifedipine. The effects of nicorandil on various aspects of myocardial recovery from ischaemic damage caused by acute myocardial infarction have been investigated in the short term. Regional left ventricular (LV) wall motion, a marker of myocardial function, was significantly improved in nicorandil recipients relative to control. The main adverse event associated with nicorandil as treatment for angina pectoris is headache. This can be minimised by commencing nicorandil at a low dose in patients prone to headache. There have been infrequent case reports of mouth ulcers in patients receiving nicorandil; causality has not been conclusively established, but product prescribing information indicates that an alternative treatment should be considered if persistent aphthous or severe mouth ulceration occurs. Thus, nicorandil remains a useful background therapy for patients with angina pectoris. The drug has also demonstrated potential cardioprotective effects when used as part of an intervention strategy directly after acute myocardial infarction in high-risk patients. Further large scale longer term studies of nicorandil in this latter indication are awaited with interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Desirudin, a recombinant hirudin used in the prevention and management of thromboembolic disease, is a thrombin inhibitor which binds directly and with high affinity to clot-bound and fluid phase thrombin. As a prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip replacement surgery, desirudin was significantly more effective in reducing the incidence of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than either unfractionated or low molecular weight heparin. However, results in patients with acute coronary syndromes are less conclusive. A significant reduction with desirudin compared with heparin in the incidence of death or non-fatal (re)infarction at 24 hours in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) was reported in the GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) IIb trial but not in the TIMI (Thrombolysis and Thrombin Inhibition in Myocardial Infarction) 9B trial. Despite the early reduction shown in GUSTO IIb, desirudin was not associated with an improved long term clinical benefit at 30 days compared with heparin. Similar results were seen in patients with unstable angina/non-Q-wave MI enrolled in the GUSTO IIb trial. In addition, desirudin and heparin showed similar efficacy in preventing restenosis 30 weeks after coronary angioplasty for unstable angina, despite desirudin being associated with a significant reduction in the rate of cardiac events within the first 96 hours. Desirudin is as well tolerated as heparin with a similar incidence of moderate and severe bleeding, intracranial haemorrhage or stroke reported when trialled in the prevention of DVT associated with hip replacement surgery or the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. However, in the GUSTO IIb trial a significantly higher incidence of transfusions was observed in patients with unstable angina/ non-Q-wave MI. Conclusions: Desirudin is clearly more effective than heparin in the prevention of DVT in patients undergoing elective hip replacement, although cost factors may influence its ultimate place in therapy. In the treatment of acute coronary syndromes the role of desirudin is less certain; however, it may be useful for patients in whom heparin therapy is not a viable option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]