Medication Options and Clinical Strategies for Treating Tardive Dyskinesia.

Valbenazine and deutetrabenazine are FDA-approved as treatment for tardive dyskinesia (TD). Both medications are vesicular monoamine transporter type 2 (VMAT2) inhibitors, and both are effective for reducing TD symptoms. Clinicians need to be aware of the adverse effects of valbenazine and deutetrabenazine, as well as other key differences between the two, in order to individualize treatment. Using the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale assists clinicians in assessing progress for each patient. Treating TD effectively with these new medications will reduce the burden of the condition for patients.

FV-100 versus valacyclovir for the prevention of post-herpetic neuralgia and the treatment of acute herpes zoster-associated pain: A randomized-controlled trial.

This prospective, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study compared the efficacy and safety of FV-100 with valacyclovir for reducing pain associated with acute herpes zoster (HZ). Patients, ≥50 years of age, diagnosed with HZ within 72 h of lesion appearance who had HZ-associated pain, were randomized 1:1:1 to a 7-day course of either FV-100 200 mg QD (n = 117), FV-100 400 mg QD (n = 116), or valacyclovir 1000 mg TID (n =117). Efficacy was evaluated on the basis of the burden of illness (BOI; Zoster Brief Pain Inventory scores); incidence and duration of clinically significant pain (CSP); pain scores; incidence and severity of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN); and times to full lesion crusting and to lesion healing. Safety was evaluated on the basis of adverse event (AE)/SAE profiles, changes in laboratory and vital signs values, and results of electrocardiograms. The burden of illness scores for pain through 30 days were 114.5, 110.3, and 118.0 for FV-100 200 mg, FV-100 400 mg, and valacyclovir 3000 mg, respectively. The incidences of PHN at 90 days for FV-100 200 mg, FV-100 400 mg, and valacyclovir 3000 mg were 17.8%, 12.4%, and 20.2%, respectively. Adverse event and SAE profiles of the two FV-100 and the valacyclovir groups were similar and no untoward signals or trends were evident. These results demonstrate a potential for FV-100 as an antiviral for the treatment of shingles that could both reduce the pain burden of the acute episode and reduce the incidence of PHN compared with available treatments.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of valacyclovir in cytomegalovirus prevention in solid organ transplantation.

Prevention of cytomegalovirus infection using antiviral prophylaxis or the pre-emptive therapy approach is an integral part of management of patients after solid organ transplantation. Regarding renal transplantation, valacyclovir is currently the only antiviral agent recommended for prophylaxis as an alternative to valganciclovir. This review article discusses studies documenting the efficacy and safety of valacyclovir prophylaxis as well as those comparing valacyclovir with other prophylactic regimens or with pre-emptive therapy. Also addressed are the economic aspects supporting the cost-effectiveness of valacyclovir prophylaxis and demonstrating lower costs compared with other cytomegalovirus preventive strategies.

Valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide: a review of its use since its introduction.

INTRODUCTION: This review focuses on the role of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) drug valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in the treatment of hypertension. Effective blood pressure control often is not achieved with monotherapy and, instead, requires combinations of drugs with different mechanisms of action to produce additive or synergistic effects. AREAS COVERED: FDC valsartan/HCTZ enhances not only efficacy for blood pressure control but also provides beneficial effects on target organs beyond that expected from arterial pressure reduction alone. Data describe key clinical trial experiences with the FDC, with particular attention to efficacy and tolerability. Literature searches of these various topics were conducted in January 2011. There is evidence of potential benefits with this combination associated with left ventricular hypertrophy, left ventricular dysfunction and renal disease. The FDC is an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and is superior to monotherapy than either drug alone. EXPERT OPINION: In addition to the benefits of each drug, valsartan/HCTZ's metabolic interactions reduce some of the negative effects of both compounds. With its increased simplicity, minimal side-effect profile and efficacy without a significant cost penalty, valsartan/HCTZ represents an excellent choice for antihypertensive therapy.

Controlled release nifedipine and valsartan combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension: the adalat CR and valsartan cost-effectiveness combination (ADVANCE-combi) study.

This study was designed to compare the clinical efficacy of two calcium channel blocker-based combination therapies with an angiotensin receptor blocker in Japanese patients with essential hypertension. A 16-week, double-blind, parallel-arm, randomized clinical trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy of controlled release nifedipine (nifedipine CR) plus valsartan vs. that of amlodipine plus valsartan. The primary endpoint was the target blood pressure achievement rate. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to nifedipine CR-based or amlodipine-based treatment groups. Patients were examined every 4 weeks to determine whether the blood pressure had reached the target level. When the target level was not achieved, the drug regimen was changed; when the target blood pressure was achieved, the same study medication was continued. A total of 505 patients were enrolled in the study (nifedipine CR group: 245 cases; amlodipine group: 260 cases). After 16 weeks of treatment, blood pressure was significantly reduced in both groups, but to a larger extent in the nifedipine CR group than in the amlodipine group (p < 0.01). The target blood pressure achievement rate was also significantly higher in the nifedipine CR group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the incidence of drug-related adverse events between the groups. These results indicate that the nifedipine CR-based combination therapy was superior to the amlodipine-based therapy for decreasing blood pressure and achieving the target blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension.

Prospective comparison of valacyclovir and oral ganciclovir for prevention of cytomegalovirus disease in high-risk renal transplant recipients.

AIMS: To compare the efficacy, costs and safety of oral ganciclovir and valacyclovir in the prophylaxis of cytomegalovirus (CMV) disease in renal transplant (RTx) recipients at high risk of CMV disease. METHODS: A total of 83 patients were prospectively randomized to 3-month treatment with either oral ganciclovir (3 g/day) or oral valacyclovir (8 g/day). A 3rd group received no prophylaxis. Forty-nine patients were considered to be at high risk of CMV disease due to D+R- serologic status, OKT3/ATG treatment and/or acute rejection within 12 months after RTx. Twenty-three high-risk patients were treated with ganciclovir (GAN group), 17 patients with valacyclovir (VAL group), and 9 patients received no prophylaxis (C group). RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the groups in their demographic characteristics, immunosuppressive protocols, D/R CMV serology, or CMV risk factors. The 12-month incidence of CMV disease was 89% in the C group compared with 9% in the GAN group and 6% in the VAL group (p < 0.001, GAN or VAL vs. C; p = 0.713, GAN vs. VAL). Treatment failure (death, graft loss, CMV disease or withdrawal from study) occurred in 17, 6, and 89% in the GAN, VAL, and C groups, respectively (p < 0.001, GAN or VAL vs. C; p = 0.285, GAN vs. VAL). The average CMV-associated costs per patient were EUR 3,161, 3,757, and 7,247 in the GAN, VAL, and C groups, respectively (p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Valacyclovir and oral ganciclovir are equally effective in the prophylaxis of CMV disease in high-risk RTx patients. Both regimens are cost-effective and help reduce CMV-associated costs by nearly 50% compared with patients without prophylaxis.