Mipomersen sodium: first global approval.

Mipomersen sodium (Kynamro™) (henceforth mipomersen) is a second-generation antisense oligonucleotide inhibitor of apolipoprotein B-100, which is the main structural component of atherogenic lipid particles. Mipomersen is administered via subcutaneous injection and is indicated as adjunctive treatment for homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH). The drug was developed by Isis Pharmaceuticals, which now collaborates with Genzyme Corporation for on-going development and product marketing. Multinational phase III trials of mipomersen as adjunctive therapy were completed in patients with HoFH, severe FH, heterozygous FH (HeFH) with coronary artery disease (CAD), and in those with hypercholesterolaemia at high risk of CAD. Mipomersen 200 mg once weekly has been approved in the USA as an adjunct to lipid-lowering medications and diet in HoFH patients and is undergoing regulatory review in the EU for the same indication. Genzyme is also conducting a multinational phase III, open-label extension study to evaluate long-term treatment in HoFH and HeFH patients, as well as a multinational trial to evaluate a three-times-per-week mipomersen regimen in patients with severe FH. This article summarises the milestones in the development of once-weekly, subcutaneous mipomersen leading to this first approval.

Once-daily memantine: a guide to its use in moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease in the EU.

In the EU, once-daily memantine 20 mg (Axura(®), Ebixa(®)) is an option for the management of patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease (AD). In pooled clinical trials and studies in the clinical practice setting, memantine 20 mg/day improved cognition, functional ability and behavioural symptoms in this patient population. The beneficial effects of memantine are associated with delays in the need for full-time care, which were predicted to result in cost savings relative to standard care in recent cost-utility analyses in patients with moderate to severe AD conducted in EU countries. Memantine is well tolerated, with an adverse event profile that is similar to that with placebo.

Dabigatran etexilate: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation.

This article provides an overview of the clinical profile of oral dabigatran etexilate (Pradaxa®, Pradax™) [hereafter referred to as dabigatran] when used for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), followed by a review of cost-utility analyses of dabigatran in this patient population. Dabigatran (110 or 150 mg twice daily) demonstrated noninferiority versus adjusted-dose warfarin with regard to the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (primary endpoint) in patients with AF in the RE-LY trial, and the 150 mg twice-daily dosage was significantly more effective than warfarin for this endpoint, as well as most other efficacy endpoints. The incidence of major bleeding was generally similar in patients receiving dabigatran 150 mg twice daily or warfarin, but was lower in patients receiving dabigatran 110 mg twice daily. With regard to other bleeding endpoints, dabigatran was generally associated with lower rates than warfarin, except for gastrointestinal major bleeding. Dabigatran (both dosages) was associated with a higher incidence of dyspepsia than warfarin. Results of modelled cost-utility analyses from several countries from the perspective of a healthcare payer over a lifetime (or 20-year) time horizon and primarily based on data from the RE-LY trial were generally consistent. All but one analysis demonstrated that twice-daily dabigatran 150 mg (or age-adjusted, sequential dosing) was cost effective with regard to the incremental cost per QALY gained relative to adjusted-dose warfarin in the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in AF patients, as the results were below generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds. In contrast, the incremental cost per QALY gained for dabigatran 110 mg twice daily versus warfarin exceeded cost-effectiveness thresholds in all studies except one. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the cost utility of dabigatran versus warfarin was generally robust to variations in the majority of parameters. However, the incremental cost per QALY gained for dabigatran versus warfarin improved when levels of international normalized ratio control in warfarin recipients decreased and when the baseline level of risk of stroke increased.

Indacaterol: a review of its use as maintenance therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Indacaterol inhalation powder (Onbrez® Breezhaler®) is a long-acting, selective ß(2)-adrenoceptor agonist that is indicated for the maintenance bronchodilator treatment of airflow obstruction in adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This article reviews the clinical efficacy and tolerability of indacaterol 150 and 300 µg once daily in adults with moderate to severe COPD, as well as reviewing indacaterol's pharmacological properties and results of a cost-utility analysis. Indacaterol has a fast onset of action after the first dose and is effective over 24 hours, allowing for once-daily administration. In short-term trials (≤21 days) in patients with COPD, once-daily indacaterol 150 or 300 µg significantly improved lung function, exercise endurance and lung hyperinflation relative to placebo. In large, longer-term clinical studies (12 weeks to 1 year) in patients with moderate to severe COPD, once-daily indacaterol 150 or 300 µg improved lung function (primary endpoint) significantly more than placebo, and improvements were significantly greater than twice-daily formoterol 12 µg or salmeterol 50 µg, and noninferior to once-daily tiotropium bromide 18 µg (all agents were administered via inhalation). Overall, indacaterol improved dyspnoea, use of rescue medication and general health status significantly more than placebo, salmeterol or tiotropium bromide, and the degree of improvement in these endpoints was similar to or greater than that achieved with formoterol. Improvements were sustained over the long term (1 year), with no evidence of tolerance. Combination therapy with indacaterol plus tiotropium bromide improved lung function, dyspnoea, rescue medication use and general health status significantly more than tiotropium bromide alone in patients with moderate to severe COPD. Indacaterol is generally well tolerated when used alone or in combination with tiotropium bromide in patients with COPD and has not been associated with any safety issues. The most common adverse event in clinical trials was COPD worsening, which occurred more commonly with placebo than indacaterol. Indacaterol was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events. In a cost-utility analysis from a German healthcare payer perspective, once-daily indacaterol 150 µg was dominant (i.e. more effective with lower total costs) to once-daily tiotropium bromide 18 µg and twice-daily salmeterol 50 µg in the treatment of patients with COPD. In conclusion, indacaterol provides a valuable option for the maintenance treatment of adults with COPD.

Ulipristal acetate: a review of its use in emergency contraception.

Ulipristal acetate (ellaOne®; ella®) is the first of a new class of selective progesterone receptor modulators, and is indicated for emergency contraception within 120 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse or contraceptive failure. The principal effect of ulipristal acetate is to inhibit or delay ovulation. This effect may result from the drug's ability to delay the onset of luteinizing hormone (LH) surge or postpone LH peak if LH surge has started, or possibly by a direct inhibitory effect on follicular rupture, when administered in the follicular phase (including just before ovulation). In clinical trials, a single oral dose of ulipristal acetate 30 mg was effective in preventing pregnancies in women requesting emergency contraception after unprotected sexual intercourse and provided sustained efficacy throughout the 120-hour postcoital period in which it is indicated. When compared with levonorgestrel in well designed noninferiority trials, it was no less effective in preventing pregnancies when administered within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse, but was more effective when administered later (within 72-120 hours). Results of a meta-analysis suggest that ulipristal acetate may be more effective than levonorgestrel from day 1 and throughout the entire 5-day period following unprotected sexual intercourse. Ulipristal acetate is generally well tolerated, with a similar tolerability profile to that of levonorgestrel. In general, the onset of menses is delayed by 2-3 days following treatment. Although, ulipristal acetate is more expensive than levonorgestrel, it may represent a cost-effective alternative to levonorgestrel for women requesting emergency contraception within 120 hours of unprotected intercourse. Thus, ulipristal acetate provides effective, sustained and well tolerated emergency contraception when taken within 120 hours of unprotected sexual intercourse, thereby offering an extended treatment window compared with levonorgestrel, which should be administered within 72 hours.

Fondaparinux: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome.

Fondaparinux (Arixtra) is an anticoagulant that selectively inhibits activated factor X, thereby interrupting the blood coagulation cascade. In OASIS-5, a large pivotal trial in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), subcutaneous fondaparinux 2.5 mg once daily was noninferior to subcutaneous enoxaparin 1 mg/kg twice daily (both agents were administered over a mean of about 5 days in combination with antiplatelet therapy) in reducing death or ischaemic events at 9 days, and the efficacy was maintained for up to 6 months (study end). However, fondaparinux was associated with a significantly lower rate of bleeding than enoxaparin in the first 9 days, and at 3 and 6 months. This lower rate of bleeding led to lower long-term mortality and morbidity with fondaparinux than with enoxaparin. In modelled cost-utility analyses conducted from a healthcare payer perspective in Spain, France and the US with a lifetime horizon, fondaparinux once daily was predicted to be cost effective relative to enoxaparin twice daily with regard to the incremental cost per QALY gained. In Spain and the US, fondaparinux dominated enoxaparin (i.e. was less costly and more effective) and, in the French analysis, the incremental cost per QALY gained with fondaparinux versus enoxaparin was well within recommended thresholds. Results of short-term (6-month) cost analyses in the US and France also favoured fondaparinux over enoxaparin. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that base-case conclusions were robust over a range of parameter estimates and assumptions, including plausible variations in baseline risk of a cardiac event or baseline risk of bleeding. In conclusion, in patients with NSTE-ACS receiving antiplatelet therapy, fondaparinux was cost effective relative to enoxaparin in cost-utility analyses in Europe and the US. This cost advantage primarily reflects the lower rate of bleeding with fondaparinux than with enoxaparin and the lower rate of mortality and morbidity over the long term.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate: a review of its use in asthma.

Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate (Seretide/Advair Diskus [dry powder inhaler] or Seretide/Advair inhalation aerosol [metered-dose inhaler]) is a fixed-dose combination inhalation agent containing a long-acting beta2-adrenoceptor agonist (LABA) plus a corticosteroid. In patients with symptomatic asthma, twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate maintenance therapy improves lung function and asthma symptoms to a greater extent than monotherapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), such as fluticasone propionate, oral montelukast with or without fluticasone propionate, or sustained-release theophylline plus fluticasone propionate. The greater efficacy achieved with salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus fluticasone propionate alone was sustained for 1 year in a well designed trial. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is also associated with a corticosteroid-sparing effect. Results of studies comparing fixed dosages of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate with formoterol/budesonide in adults and adolescents are equivocal. Twice-daily salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is associated with clinically meaningful improvements from baseline in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), and improvements were greater than those reported with fluticasone propionate alone. Salmeterol/fluticasone propionate is generally well tolerated in adults, adolescents and children aged 4-11 years, and the fixed-combination inhaler ensures the appropriate use of a LABA in combination with an ICS. In cost-utility analyses in patients with uncontrolled asthma, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate compares favourably with fluticasone propionate alone or oral montelukast. Thus, salmeterol/fluticasone propionate provides an effective, well tolerated and cost-effective option for maintenance treatment in patients with asthma.

Pregabalin: in the treatment of postherpetic neuralgia.

Pregabalin is the pharmacologically active S-enantiomer of 3-aminomethyl-5-methyl-hexanoic acid. It has a similar pharmacological profile to that of its developmental predecessor gabapentin, but had greater analgesic activity in rodent models of neuropathic pain. Pregabalin is thought to act by reducing the excessive release of several excitatory neurotransmitters by binding to the alpha(2)-delta protein subunit of voltage-gated calcium channels. Oral pregabalin 150-600 mg/day, administered in two or three divided doses, was significantly more effective than placebo in relieving pain and improving pain-related sleep interference in four randomized, double-blind, multicentre studies of 4-13 weeks' duration in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN). Pregabalin achieved a faster onset of pain relief than placebo. The median times to the onset of pain relief with fixed and flexible doses of pregabalin were 1.5 and 3.5 days compared with >4 weeks with placebo. Pregabalin was generally well tolerated when titrated over 1 week to fixed dosages (maximum 600 mg/day) in clinical trials in mostly elderly PHN patients. Adverse events were usually mild to moderate in severity.

Darunavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV infection in adults.

UNLABELLED: Darunavir is an oral nonpeptidic HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) that is used, together with a low boosting dose of ritonavir, as part of an antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen in treatment-experienced and -naive patients with HIV-1 infection. Compared with early-generation PIs, boosted darunavir has a high genetic barrier to resistance and is active against multidrug-resistant HIV isolates. In clinical trials in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection receiving an optimized background regimen (OBR), twice-daily boosted darunavir was more effective than investigator-selected ritonavir-boosted control PIs (CPIs) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir. In clinical trials in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection receiving a fixed background regimen, once-daily boosted darunavir was noninferior to boosted lopinavir at 48 weeks and more effective than boosted lopinavir at 96weeks. Boosted darunavir was generally well tolerated in patients with HIV-1 infection in clinical trials. It was associated with a lower incidence of diarrhoea than CPIs or lopinavir in treatment-experienced or -naive patients, and fewer lipid abnormalities than lopinavir in treatment-naive patients. Thus, for the management of treatment-experienced or -naive patients with HIV-1 infection, a ritonavir-boosted darunavir-based ART regimen is a valuable treatment option. PHARMACOLOGICAL PROPERTIES: Darunavir is an oral nonpeptidic HIV-1 PI that selectively inhibits the cleavage of HIV gag and gag-pol polyproteins, thereby preventing viral maturation. Darunavir is highly potent against laboratory strains and clinical isolates of wild-type and multidrug-resistant HIV and has limited cytotoxicity. In an in vitro study in MT-2 cells, the potency of darunavir was greater than that of saquinavir, amprenavir, nelfinavir, indinavir, lopinavir and ritonavir. Darunavir binds with high affinity to HIV-1 protease, including multidrug-resistant proteases, and retains potency against multidrug-resistant HIV-1 strains. Although some potential may exist for cross-resistance with amprenavir, darunavir did not display cross-resistance with other PIs in vitro. In a 24-week analysis of pooled data from the POWER 1 and 2 studies in treatment-experienced patients, 11 protease mutations associated with a reduced response to boosted darunavir were identified (V11I, V32I, L33F, I47V, I50V, I54L/M, G73S, L76V, I84V and L89V). The presence of at least three darunavir resistance-associated mutations (prevalent in approximately 7-9% of treatment-experienced patients) together with a high number of protease resistance-associated mutations were required to confer darunavir resistance. In the 48-week analysis of treatment-experienced patients with virological failure in the the TITAN study, fewer in the boosted darunavir group than in the boosted lopinavir group developed additional mutations or lost susceptibility to PIs compared with baseline. In treatment-naive patients, no primary PI-resistance-associated mutations developed in patients with an available genotype at baseline and endpoint during 96 weeks of treatment with boosted darunavir or boosted lopinavir. Oral darunavir, boosted with low-dose ritonavir, is rapidly absorbed, generally reaching peak plasma concentrations within 2.5-4 hours. The bioavailability of oral darunavir is increased by about 30% when taken with food. Darunavir is primarily metabolized by the hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, primarily CYP3A. The 'boosting' dose of ritonavir acts an an inhibitor of CYP3A, thereby increasing darunavir bioavailability. Drug interactions can result when darunavir is coadministered with other drugs that are inducers or inhibitors of, or act as substrates for, CYP3A. The mean elimination half-life of boosted darunavir is approximately 15 hours. THERAPEUTIC EFFICACY: In treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection, the therapeutic efficacy of oral twice-daily darunavir 600 mg, boosted with ritonavir 100 mg, versus that of investigator selected boosted CPIs (POWER studies) or versus twice-daily boosted lopinavir (administered as a fixed dose combination of lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg) [TITAN study] has been evaluated in phase IIb and III studies. All patients received concurrent treatment with an OBR. Significantly more patients receiving boosted darunavir achieved a viral load reduction from baseline of >or=1 log(10) copies/mL (primary endpoint) than boosted CPI recipients at all timepoints, up to and including the final efficacy analysis at 144 weeks, in the combined analyses of POWER 1 and 2. The efficacy of boosted darunavir was noninferior to that of boosted lopinavir at 48 weeks, and was significantly better than boosted lopinavir at 48 and 96 weeks in the TITAN study, as determined by significantly more patients in the darunavir group than in the lopinavir group achieving a viral load of <400 copies/mL (primary endpoint). In the ARTEMIS study in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection receiving a fixed background regimen of tenofovir and emtricitabine, once-daily boosted darunavir 800 mg was noninferior to boosted lopinavir 800 mg/day at 48 weeks. At 96 weeks, boosted darunavir was found to be more effective than boosted lopinavir, as determined by significantly more patients in the darunavir group than in the lopinavir group achieving a confirmed plasma viral load of <50 copies/mL (primary endpoint). TOLERABILITY: Boosted darunavir was generally well tolerated in patients with HIV-1 infection in clinical trials, with most events being mild to moderate in severity. At 48-week analyses, the most common adverse events associated with once- or twice-daily boosted darunavir in treatment-experienced or -naive patients were diarrhoea, nausea, headache, upper respiratory tract infection and nasopharyngitis. The most common boosted darunavir-related grade 2-4 laboratory abnormalities in treatment-experienced patients included increased triglycerides and increased total cholesterol. Overall, boosted darunavir was associated with less diarrhoea than CPIs or boosted lopinavir in treatment-experienced and -naive patients, and a lower incidence of grade 2-4 elevations in triglycerides and total cholesterol than boosted lopinavir in treatment-naive patients. Treatment discontinuation because of adverse events occurred in 3% of boosted darunavir recipients and 7% of boosted lopinavir recipients during 48 weeks of therapy in treatment-naive patients. PHARMACOECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS: Healthcare costs in the UK and US were estimated to be lower with boosted darunavir than with investigator-selected CPIs in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in two 1-year cost analyses conducted from the perspective of a healthcare provider and using predicted costs based on CD4+ cell counts and clinical data from the POWER studies. The higher acquisition cost of boosted darunavir compared with CPIs was more than offset by the better efficacy of darunavir. In modelled cost-effectiveness analyses, boosted darunavir was predicted to be cost effective compared with other boosted CPIs in heavily pretreated adults from a healthcare payer perspective in Europe and from a societal perspective in the US. In a further model of a subgroup of patients with at least one primary International AIDS Society-USA PI mutation, boosted darunavir was predicted to be cost effective compared with boosted lopinavir from a healthcare payer perspective in Europe. The incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year gained were within commonly accepted thresholds in all cost-effectiveness analyses.

Trastuzumab: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in early breast cancer.

Trastuzumab (Herceptin) is a monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of breast cancer that overexpresses human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Well designed clinical trials in women with early breast cancer have demonstrated that 1 years' therapy with adjuvant intravenous trastuzumab (a loading dose followed by 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 2 mg/kg weekly) significantly improves disease-free survival and overall survival compared with observation (subsequent to chemotherapy) or chemotherapy alone in women with HER2-positive disease. In the HERA trial, disease-free survival was estimated to improve by 6.3% at 3 years in the trastuzumab group compared with the observation group. Trastuzumab is generally well tolerated. The most common adverse events are infusion-related symptoms, such as fever and chills, which usually occur with administration of the first dose. Cardiotoxicity occurs in a small proportion of patients receiving trastuzumab, particularly when coadministered with anthracyclines, and cardiac assessment is recommended for all patients at baseline and at 3-monthly intervals. In modelled cost-effectiveness analyses based on data from clinical trials in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant trastuzumab was predicted to be cost effective from a healthcare payer or societal perspective in several countries. Incremental costs per QALY or life-year gained with trastuzumab administered subsequent to or concurrent with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone were consistently within accepted local thresholds for cost effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that these results remained generally robust to plausible changes in key model assumptions. In conclusion, in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, the addition of adjuvant trastuzumab is clinically effective in improving disease-free survival. Available pharmacoeconomic data from several countries, despite some inherent limitations, support the use of adjuvant trastuzumab for 1 year as a cost-effective treatment relative to chemotherapy alone in this patient population.

Amlodipine/atorvastatin fixed-dose combination: a review of its use in the prevention of cardiovascular disease and in the treatment of hypertension and dyslipidemia.

Amlodipine/atorvastatin (Caduet) is a once-daily fixed-dose combination of the dihydropyridine calcium channel antagonist amlodipine and the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor atorvastatin. In Europe, the combination is indicated for the prevention of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with three concomitant cardiovascular risk factors and, in the US, it is indicated for the management of hypertension and dyslipidemia in patients for whom treatment with both agents is appropriate. In clinical trials, the fixed-dose combination of amlodipine/atorvastatin effectively managed two important risk factors simultaneously in hypertensive patients at risk of cardiovascular disease or in those with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia. The combination is bioequivalent to amlodipine and atorvastatin given alone and does not modify the efficacy of either single agent. Amlodipine/atorvastatin is generally well tolerated, with a tolerability profile consistent with that of each single agent. Compared with the coadministration of each single agent, the convenience of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin has the potential to improve patient adherence and the management of cardiovascular risk in selected patients, thereby improving clinical outcomes.

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

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

Imatinib: a review of its use in chronic myeloid leukaemia.

Imatinib (Gleevec, Glivec) is a synthetic tyrosine kinase inhibitor used in the treatment of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML). It is specifically designed to inhibit the breakpoint cluster region (BCR)-Abelson (ABL) fusion protein that results from the chromosomal abnormality known as the Philadelphia chromosome. CML is characterised by this abnormality, which leads to abnormalities of the peripheral blood and bone marrow including an increase in the number of granular leukocytes. Imatinib is approved in numerous countries worldwide for the treatment of newly diagnosed Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph+) chronic-phase CML, Ph+ accelerated-phase or blast-crisis CML, and in patients with Ph+ chronic-phase CML who have failed to respond to interferon-alpha therapy. It is also indicated in paediatric patients with newly diagnosed Ph+ chronic-phase CML, in accelerated-phase or blast-crisis CML, or in chronic-phase CML after failure of interferon-alpha therapy or when the disease has recurred after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Approved indications, however, may vary by country. Imatinib is effective and generally well tolerated in patients with Ph+ CML. In patients with newly diagnosed chronic-phase CML, imatinib was more effective than interferon-alpha plus cytarabine in preventing progression of the disease and in achieving haematological and cytogenetic responses. Overall survival rates remain high after 5 years of follow-up, and historical comparisons with other treatments demonstrate improved overall survival with imatinib in the long term. Patients with accelerated-phase or blast-crisis CML, or those who have not responded to prior interferon-alpha therapy also benefit from imatinib treatment. Some patients become resistant or intolerant to imatinib therapy; management strategies to overcome these problems include dosage adjustment, other treatments, or combination therapy with imatinib and other agents. Allogeneic HSCT is currently the only potentially curative treatment, but it is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality and is not suitable for all patients. The introduction of imatinib has had a marked impact on outcomes in patients with CML. It remains a valuable treatment for all stages of the disease, especially initial treatment of newly diagnosed Ph+ chronic-phase CML, and is endorsed by European and US treatment guidelines as a first-line option.

Intravenous droperidol: a review of its use in the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Droperidol (Dehydrobenzperidol, Dehidrobenzoperidol, Dridol, Droleptan, Inapsine) is a dopamine D(2) receptor antagonist that has been widely used in adults and children for the prevention and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) over several decades and, more recently, for the prevention of opioid-induced PONV during patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in adults. In well controlled clinical trials of patients undergoing surgery, the efficacy of single-dose intravenous (IV) droperidol in preventing PONV was similar to that of ondansetron and dexamethasone. Droperidol significantly reduced opioid-induced PONV in adults during PCA and had a morphine-sparing effect. Droperidol is generally well tolerated and the incidence of adverse effects is similar to that observed with placebo and the serotonin 5-HT(3) receptor antagonists (setrons). Guidelines recommend that, in adults, droperidol monotherapy be considered for those at moderate risk of PONV, and droperidol in combination with a setron and/or dexamethasone be considered for patients at moderate or high risk of PONV. In children with moderate or high risk of PONV, droperidol is recommended for first-line use in some countries, and second-line use in others.

Amisulpride: a review of its use in the management of schizophrenia.

Amisulpride (Solian), a substituted benzamide derivative, is a second-generation antipsychotic that preferentially binds to dopamine D2/D3 receptors in limbic rather than striatal structures. High dosages preferentially antagonise postsynaptic D2/D3 receptors, resulting in reduced dopamine transmission, and low dosages preferentially block presynaptic D2/D3 receptors, resulting in enhanced dopamine transmission. Amisulpride (200-1200 mg/day) was at least as effective as haloperidol and as effective as risperidone or olanzapine, in studies of up to 1 year in patients with schizophrenia manifesting predominantly positive symptoms. Amisulpride (50-300 mg/day) was significantly more effective than placebo in studies of up to 6 months in patients manifesting predominantly negative symptoms. Quality of life was also improved significantly more in patients receiving amisulpride than in those receiving haloperidol in 4- and 12-month studies in patients with predominantly mixed symptoms. Amisulpride was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. In patients with predominantly positive symptoms, amisulpride appeared to be better tolerated than haloperidol and was tolerated as well as risperidone and olanzapine. The incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects with amisulpride was lower than with haloperidol but was generally similar to risperidone or olanzapine. Weight gain with amisulpride was less than that with risperidone or olanzapine and, unlike these agents, amisulpride does not seem to be associated with diabetogenic effects. Plasma prolactin levels are increased during amisulpride therapy and amenorrhoea occurs in about 4% of women. The incidence of adverse events with low dosages of amisulpride (< or = 300 mg/day) in patients with predominantly negative symptoms was similar to that observed with placebo. In conclusion, oral amisulpride (200-1200 mg/day) is at least as effective as haloperidol, and as effective as risperidone or olanzapine, in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia manifesting predominantly positive symptoms. In the treatment of patients manifesting predominantly negative symptoms, low dosages of amisulpride (50-300 mg/day) are significantly more effective than placebo. Amisulpride appears to be better tolerated than haloperidol, causing a lower incidence of extrapyramidal adverse effects and an improved quality of life. Compared with risperidone or olanzapine, amisulpride is more likely to cause hyperprolactinaemia, but has a lower propensity to cause weight gain and does not seem to be associated with diabetogenic effects. Thus, amisulpride is an effective and well tolerated option for the first-line treatment of patients with acute schizophrenia as well as for those requiring long-term maintenance therapy.

Tacrolimus: a further update of its use in the management of organ transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Extensive clinical use has confirmed that tacrolimus (Prograf) is a key option for immunosuppression after transplantation. In large, prospective, randomised, multicentre trials in adults and children receiving solid organ transplants, tacrolimus was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure rates and the incidence of biopsy-proven acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. Notably, the lower incidence of rejection episodes after renal transplantation in tacrolimus recipients was reflected in improved cost effectiveness. In bone marrow transplant (BMT) recipients, the incidence of tacrolimus grade II-IV graft-versus-host disease was significantly lower with tacrolimus than cyclosporin treatment. Efficacy was maintained in renal and liver transplant recipients after total withdrawal of corticosteroid therapy from tacrolimus-based immunosuppression, with the incidence of acute rejection episodes at up to 2 years' follow-up being similar with or without corticosteroids. Tacrolimus provided effective rescue therapy in transplant recipients with persistent acute or chronic allograft rejection or drug-related toxicity associated with cyclosporin treatment. Typically, conversion to tacrolimus reversed rejection episodes and/or improved the tolerability profile, particularly in terms of reduced hyperlipidaemia. In lung transplant recipients with obliterative bronchiolitis, conversion to tacrolimus reduced the decline in and/or improved lung function in terms of forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Tolerability issues may be a factor when choosing a calcineurin inhibitor. Cyclosporin tends to be associated with a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, hirsutism, gingivitis and gum hyperplasia, whereas the incidence of some types of neurotoxicity, disturbances in glucose metabolism, diarrhoea, pruritus and alopecia may be higher with tacrolimus treatment. Renal function, as assessed by serum creatinine levels and glomerular filtration rates, was better in tacrolimus than cyclosporin recipients at up to 5 years' follow-up. CONCLUSION: Recent well designed trials have consolidated the place of tacrolimus as an important choice for primary immunosuppression in solid organ transplantation and in BMT. Notably, in adults and children receiving transplants, tacrolimus-based primary immunosuppression was at least as effective or provided better efficacy than cyclosporin microemulsion treatment in terms of patient and graft survival, treatment failure and the incidence of acute and corticosteroid-resistant rejection episodes. The reduced incidence of rejection episodes in renal transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus translated into a better cost effectiveness relative to cyclosporin microemulsion treatment. The optimal immunosuppression regimen is ultimately dependent on balancing such factors as the efficacy of the individual drugs, their tolerability, potential for drug interactions and pharmacoeconomic issues.

Propofol: a review of its use in intensive care sedation of adults.

UNLABELLED: Propofol (Diprivan) is a phenolic derivative with sedative and hypnotic properties but is unrelated to other sedative/hypnotic agents. Formulated as an oil-in-water emulsion for intravenous use, it is highly lipophilic and rapidly crosses the blood-brain barrier resulting in a rapid onset of action. Emergence from sedation is also rapid because of a fast redistribution into peripheral tissues and metabolic clearance. The depth of sedation increases in a dose-dependent manner. In well designed clinical trials in patients receiving sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) for a variety of indications, propofol provided adequate sedation for a similar proportion of time to midazolam, but the rate of recovery was faster with propofol. Even after periods of prolonged sedation (>72 hours), propofol was generally associated with a faster time to recovery than midazolam. Propofol facilitated better predictability of recovery and an improved control of the depth of sedation in response to titration than midazolam. In patients sedated following head trauma, propofol reduced or maintained intracranial pressure. Propofol is associated with generally good haemodynamic stability but induces a dose-dependent decrease in blood pressure and heart rate. Bolus administration may cause transient hypotension, and slow initial infusions are recommended in most patients. Serum triglyceride concentrations should be monitored during prolonged infusions (>3 days) because of the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia. The administration of 2% propofol can reduce this risk. Strict aseptic technique must be used during the handling of the product to prevent accidental extrinsic microbial contamination. Despite a higher acquisition cost with propofol, most studies of short-term sedation (approximately <3 days) showed that overall costs were lower with propofol than with midazolam, because a faster time to extubation reduced total ICU costs. However, as the period of sedation increased, the cost difference decreased. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of propofol in the sedation of adults in the ICU is well established, and clinical trials have demonstrated a similar quality of sedation to midazolam. Because of a rapid distribution and clearance, the duration of action of propofol is short and recovery is rapid. Emergence from sedation is more rapid with propofol than with midazolam, even after long-term administration (>72 hours), which enables better control of the depth of sedation in response to titration and more predictable recovery times. Thus, for the ICU sedation of adults in a variety of clinical settings, propofol provides effective sedation with a more rapid and predictable emergence time than midazolam.

The sirolimus-eluting stent: a review of its use in the treatment of coronary artery disease.

UNLABELLED: The sirolimus-eluting stent (CYPHER( trade mark )) is a metal stent coated with 140 micro g/cm(2) of sirolimus blended with synthetic polymers. After stent implantation, sirolimus is slowly released causing localized cytostatic inhibition of proliferation of vascular smooth muscle cells in the peri-stent arterial wall over a period of about 1 month. Only minimal amounts of sirolimus enter the bloodstream and these appear to be insufficient to be of clinical relevance. In clinical trials that evaluated single de novo lesions and in-stent restenosis in patients with coronary artery disease, the sirolimus-eluting stent was associated with minimal neointimal hyperplasia. In four randomized trials in de novo lesions, sirolimus eluting stents produced a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) than that observed in patients with uncoated stents, during periods of up to 2 years (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). The lower incidence of MACE was mostly due to a reduced requirement for repeat target vessel revascularization. At angiographic follow-up at periods of up to 8 months, late luminal loss was significantly smaller in the sirolimus-eluting stent groups than in the uncoated-stent groups (p < 0.001 in all studies). The sirolimus-eluting stent was well tolerated in clinical trials of up to 3 years' follow-up. Because minimal blood levels of sirolimus are achieved, systemic adverse effects appear to be avoided. To date, there has been no evidence of any potential adverse effects resulting from the polymer coating or local drug toxicity. As yet, there is no evidence of an increased risk of subacute or late thrombosis, or aneurysm formation with the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the uncoated stent. Long-term follow-up is needed to fully assess these theoretical concerns. Cost-effectiveness analyses over 12 months demonstrated a cost advantage for the sirolimus-eluting stent compared with an uncoated stent because of a reduced requirement for repeat target vessel revascularizations. CONCLUSION: Initial clinical trials with the sirolimus-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions have shown a significantly reduced incidence of MACE and of restenosis compared with a standard stent. Efficacy appears to be maintained throughout follow-up periods of up to 2 years in randomized trials, and to date, systemic or local adverse effects have been avoided. If efficacy and tolerability are consistently demonstrated over the long term, the sirolimus-eluting stent will be a major advance in the control of in-stent restenosis.