Medical, Political, and Economic Considerations for the Use of MAC for Endoscopic Sedation: Big Price, Little Justification?

The last few decades of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy have seen phenomenal growth. In many aspects, GI endoscopy has led the field of nonsurgical interventional medicine. In many aspects, this growth is facilitated by advancements in sedation-both drugs and techniques. Unfortunately, the topic of GI endoscopy sedation is also mired in many controversies, mainly emanating from the cost of anesthesia providers. While no one debates their role in the majority of advanced endoscopic procedures, the practice of universal propofol sedation in the USA, delivered by anesthesia providers, needs a closer look. In this review, medical, political, and economic considerations of this important topic are discussed in a very frank and honest way. While such ubiquitous propofol use has increased satisfaction of both patients and gastroenterologists, there is little justification. More importantly, going by the evidence, there is even less justification for the mandated anesthesia providers use for such delivery. Unfortunately, the FDA could not be convinced otherwise. The new drug fospropofol met the same fate. Approval of SEDASYS®, the first computer-assisted personalized sedation system, was a step in the right direction, nevertheless an insufficient step that failed to takeoff. As a result, in spite of years of research and efforts of many august societies, the logjam of balancing cost and justification of propofol sedation has continued. We hope that recent approval of remimazolam, a novel benzodiazepine, and potential approval of oliceridine, a novel short-acting opioid, might be able to contain the cost without compromising the quality of sedation.

Clinical Bioavailability of the Novel BACE1 Inhibitor Lanabecestat (AZD3293): Assessment of Tablet Formulations Versus an Oral Solution and the Impact of Gastric pH on Pharmacokinetics.

The relative bioavailability of lanabecestat administered as 2 tablet formulations versus an oral solution was investigated. This phase 1 single-center, open-label, randomized, 3-period crossover study involved healthy male and nonfertile female subjects aged 18-55 years (NCT02039180). Subjects received a single 50-mg lanabecestat dose as solution, tablet A, or tablet B on day 1 of each crossover period; 14 of 16 subjects completed the study. Relative bioavailability based on plasma lanabecestat AUC0-∞ (area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve from zero to infinity) geometric mean ratio versus oral solution (primary variable) was: tablet A, 1.052 (90% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.106); tablet B, 1.040 (0.989-1.093). These 90%CIs for geometric mean ratios are within accepted standard bioequivalence boundaries for all other pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters for both lanabecestat and metabolite (AZ13569724). All 3 formulations had similar plasma lanabecestat concentration-time profiles. Six adverse events were reported by 6 subjects (37.5%, all mild). GastroPlus modeling predicted a negligible impact of gastric pH changes on systemic PK (up to pH 7.4). Both tablet formulations fall within standard accepted bioequivalence criteria versus the oral solution. A single 50-mg lanabecestat dose was well tolerated as a solution or tablet formulation in this population.

[The assessment of the effectiveness of fenspiride (erespal) for the combined treatment of the patients presenting with exudative otitis media].

The objective of the present work was to estimate the effectiveness and safety of combined anti-inflammatory therapy of exudative otitis media with the use of fenspiride (erespal). The study included 75 patients of whom 35 (group 1) were given standard therapy supplemented by erespal (80 mg thrice daily); the remaining patients receiving standard therapy alone formed group 2 (control). The patients treated with erespal reported the subjective improvement of hearing and reduced congestion on days 7 - 8. Similar changes in group 2 occurred on day 10. It is concluded that the use of erespal for the combined treatment of the patients presenting with exudative otitis media reduces the duration of hospital stay, accelerates recovery, and promotes rapid normalization of hearing.

Assessment of the antimalarial potential of tetraoxane WR 148999.

The antimalarial peroxide, dispiro-1,2,4,5-tetraoxane WR 148999, was synergistic with chloroquine, quinine, mefloquine, and artemisinin against both D6 and W2 clones of Plasmodium falciparum. In consideration of the contrasting antagonism between artemisinin and chloroquine, these drug combination data imply that WR 148999 and artemisinin may not share a common mechanism of action. For Plasmodium berghei-infected mice given oral, subcutaneous, and intraperitoneal doses of WR 148999 ranging from 2 to 1024 mg/kg in the Thompson test, median survival times were 8.8, 11.8, and 27.5 days, respectively, compared to 8 days for control animals. Using subcutaneous administration, WR 148999 had a considerably longer duration of action than did artemisinin against P. berghei. WR 148999 did not significantly inhibit cytochrome P450 isozymes CYP 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, 2E1, or 3A4 (IC50 >500 microM) but did inhibit CYP 1A2 with an IC50 value of 36 microM, suggesting that WR 148999 may be metabolized by the latter CYP isozyme. These results combined with previous observations that formulation strategies and incorporation of polar functional groups in a series of WR 148999 analogs both failed to enhance tetraoxane oral antimalarial activity suggest that oral bioavailability of tetraoxane WR 148999 is more likely a function of extensive first-pass metabolism rather than solubility-limited dissolution.