Patient Preferences for Endometriosis Pain Treatments in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify patient preferences for endometriosis-associated pain treatments and risk tolerance in exchange for pain reduction and to explore whether preferences vary on the basis of patient characteristics. METHODS: US women with a self-reported physician diagnosis of endometriosis and moderate to severe dysmenorrhea and nonmenstrual pelvic pain (NMPP) completed an online discrete choice experiment survey. Each choice question had a pair of hypothetical treatments characterized by attributes with varying levels: improvements in severe dysmenorrhea, severe NMPP, and severe dyspareunia; mode of administration; and treatment-related risks of pregnancy-related problems, bone fracture later in life, and moderate to severe hot flashes. A random-parameters logit model was used to quantify preferences and the attributes' conditional relative importance. RESULTS: A total of 250 women (mean age 34 years) completed the survey. The conditional relative importance of attributes was 3.66 for risk of moderate to severe hot flashes among respondents with and 3.58 among respondents without experience with moderate to severe hot flashes; 1.70, 1.49, and 1.48 for improvements in dyspareunia, NMPP, and dysmenorrhea, respectively; 0.60 for risk of pregnancy-related problems; 0.53 for mode of administration; and 0.49 for bone fracture risk. Preference weights for bone fracture risk levels were not statistically significantly different. In exchange for a greater improvement in dysmenorrhea from severe to mild (vs moderate), respondents without a history of hot flashes accepted a greater increase in the risk of moderate to severe hot flashes (38%) than did respondents with this history (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Respondents placed the greatest weight on risk of hot flashes, followed by improvements in dyspareunia, NMPP, dysmenorrhea. Bone fracture risk did not drive preferences.

Effect of sibutramine on cardiovascular outcomes in overweight and obese subjects.

BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of sibutramine treatment on the rates of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular death among subjects at high cardiovascular risk have not been established. METHODS: We enrolled in our study 10,744 overweight or obese subjects, 55 years of age or older, with preexisting cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, or both to assess the cardiovascular consequences of weight management with and without sibutramine in subjects at high risk for cardiovascular events. All the subjects received sibutramine in addition to participating in a weight-management program during a 6-week, single-blind, lead-in period, after which 9804 subjects underwent random assignment in a double-blind fashion to sibutramine (4906 subjects) or placebo (4898 subjects). The primary end point was the time from randomization to the first occurrence of a primary outcome event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or cardiovascular death). RESULTS: The mean duration of treatment was 3.4 years. The mean weight loss during the lead-in period was 2.6 kg; after randomization, the subjects in the sibutramine group achieved and maintained further weight reduction (mean, 1.7 kg). The mean blood pressure decreased in both groups, with greater reductions in the placebo group than in the sibutramine group (mean difference, 1.2/1.4 mm Hg). The risk of a primary outcome event was 11.4% in the sibutramine group as compared with 10.0% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.31; P=0.02). The rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke were 4.1% and 2.6% in the sibutramine group and 3.2% and 1.9% in the placebo group, respectively (hazard ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.57; P=0.02; hazard ratio for nonfatal stroke, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.77; P=0.03). The rates of cardiovascular death and death from any cause were not increased. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects with preexisting cardiovascular conditions who were receiving long-term sibutramine treatment had an increased risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke but not of cardiovascular death or death from any cause. (Funded by Abbott; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00234832.)

Risk Minimization of Antibody-Drug Conjugates in Oncology: A Review.

Antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) are new treatment options for certain cancers, especially those in advanced states with limited treatment options. Their unique design provides targeted therapy with toxins that otherwise would not be available, but they manifest toxicities that require risk minimization interventions to optimize their tolerability. We summarize selected toxicities for ADCs that have been approved through the end of 2020 and three investigational ADCs, which include both payload and linker, as described in the US Prescribing Information, the European Summary of Product Characteristics, and study protocols. These toxicities include peripheral neuropathy; pulmonary, skin, hepatic, and ocular toxicities; hyperglycemia; left ventricular dysfunction; and fluid-related events. We also review the risk minimization approaches to managing these toxicities as described in the product labels and study protocols. Our general observation suggests that the selected toxicities of the approved ADCs are primarily associated with off-target effects of the drug payloads. We also observed that the risk minimization approaches used to manage the selected toxicities are similar across product labels and study protocols. ADCs provide a unique treatment approach that is currently focused on advanced or refractory cancers. The risk minimization approaches for the selected toxicities for the approved ADCs per product label, or the study protocol for those in clinical investigation, are similar to those of standard chemotherapy agents and other pharmaceutical agents for the treatment of advanced malignancies. These risk minimization measures align with standard medical practice and are likely familiar to and feasible for physicians who prescribe for, and to other healthcare practitioners who care for, patients treated with ADCs.

Effects of sibutramine treatment in obese adolescents: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Increased prevalence of adolescent obesity requires effective treatment options beyond behavior therapy. OBJECTIVE: To see whether sibutramine reduced weight more than placebo in obese adolescents who were receiving a behavior therapy program. DESIGN: 12-month, 3:1 randomized, double-blind trial conducted from July 2000 to February 2002. SETTING: 33 U.S. outpatient clinics. PARTICIPANTS: 498 participants 12 to 16 years of age with a body mass index (BMI) that was at least 2 units more than the U.S. weighted mean of the 95th percentile based on age and sex, to the upper limit of 44 kg/m2. INTERVENTIONS: Site-specific behavior therapy plus 10 mg of sibutramine or placebo. Blinded study medication dose was uptitrated to 15 mg or placebo at month 6 if initial BMI was not reduced by 10%. MEASUREMENTS: Body mass index, waist circumference, body weight, fasting lipid and glycemic variables, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of patients in the sibutramine group and 62% of patients in the placebo group completed the study. The estimated mean treatment group difference at month 12 (linear mixed-effects model) favored sibutramine for change from baseline in BMI (-2.9 kg/m2 [95% CI, -3.5 to -2.2 kg/m2]) and body weight (-8.4 kg [CI, -9.7 to -7.2 kg]) (P < 0.001 for both). The sibutramine group had greater improvements in triglyceride levels, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, insulin levels, and insulin sensitivity (P < or = 0.001 for all). The rate of tachycardia was greater with sibutramine vs. placebo (12.5% vs. 6.2%; difference, 6.3 percentage points [CI, 1.0 to 11.7 percentage points]) but did not lead to increased withdrawal (2.4% vs. 1.5%; difference, 0.9 percentage point [CI, -1.7 to 3.5 percentage points]). LIMITATIONS: The 1-year study duration precluded assessment of long-term weight maintenance and putative health benefits and harms, and 24% and 38% of the sibutramine and placebo groups, respectively, did not complete follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Sibutramine added to a behavior therapy program reduced BMI and body weight more than placebo and improved the profile of several metabolic risk factors in obese adolescents.

Clinical assessment of pain, tolerability, and preference of an autoinjection pen versus a prefilled syringe for patient self-administration of the fully human, monoclonal antibody adalimumab: the TOUCH trial.

BACKGROUND: Adalimumab is a therapeutic monoclonal antibody for SC administration by 2 single-use injection devices providing bioequivalent amounts of adalimumab: a ready-to-use, prefilled syringe and an integrated, disposable delivery system, the autoinjection Pen. Although pens have been shown to be preferred over syringes by patients requiring long-term SC administration of medications, there are no data on preference and pain in the use of biologics in patients with chronic inflammatory diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess injection-site pain, tolerability, and patient preference of 2 delivery systems of adalimumab. METHODS: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis were enrolled in a Phase II, multicenter, open-label, single-arm, sequential trial. Patients self-administered a standard dose of adalimumab 40 mg SC every other week at each of 3 monitored clinical visits: visit 1 (syringe), visits 2 and 3 (Pen). At each visit, patients rated their pain on an 11-point scale (0 = none to 10 = pain as bad as it could be) immediately after injection and 15-30 minutes after injection and provided their impressions of and preferences for each delivery system. Safety events were recorded throughout the study and 70 days after final study dose. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were enrolled in the trial and completed all 3 visits (32 women, 20 men; mean [SD] age, 53.8 [12.1] years). Forty (76.9%) patients reported that the Pen was less painful than the syringe, 4 (7.7%) patients found the syringe to be less painful, and 8 (15.4%) patients had no preference. Patients had statistically significant reductions in injection-pain scores from visit 1 to visit 2 and from visit 1 to visit 3. No new safety signals or apparent differences regarding tolerability between the syringe and Pen were observed. In addition, 46 (88.5%) patients preferred the Pen, 3 (5.8%) preferred the syringe, and 3 (5.8%) had no preference. Overall, patients evaluated the Pen as easier to use (94.2%), more convenient (92.3%), requiring less time to inject (82.7%), and safer (88.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients experienced less pain self-administering adalimumab via the Pen and preferred it versus the syringe. Further, patients perceived the Pen to be easier to use and more convenient. Both delivery systems were generally well tolerated.

Forty-eight-week evaluation of lopinavir/ritonavir, a new protease inhibitor, in human immunodeficiency virus-infected children.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir/ritonavir has demonstrated antiviral activity in the HIV-infected adult. SUBJECTS: The objective of this study was to investigate a liquid coformulation of lopinavir/ritonavir, in combination with reverse transcriptase inhibitors, in HIV-infected children. METHODS: One hundred antiretroviral (ARV)-naive and ARV-experienced, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-naive children between 6 months and 12 years of age participated in this Phase I/II, open label, multicenter trial. Subjects initially received either 230/57.5 mg/m(2) or 300/75 mg/m(2) lopinavir/ritonavir twice daily; ARV-naive subjects also received stavudine and lamivudine, whereas ARV-experienced subjects also received nevirapine and one or two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Lopinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy were evaluated. RESULTS: All subjects were escalated to the 300/75 mg/m(2) twice daily dose based on results from an interim pharmacokinetic and safety evaluation. The pharmacokinetics of lopinavir did not appear to be dependent on age when dosing was based on body surface area but were decreased on coadministration with nevirapine. Overall 79% of subjects had HIV RNA levels <400 copies/ml at Week 48 (intent-to-treat: missing = failure). Mean increases in absolute and relative (percent) CD4 counts from baseline to Week 48 were observed in both ARV-naive subjects (404 cells/mm(3); 10.3%) and ARV-experienced subjects (284 cells/mm(3); 5.9%). Only one subject prematurely discontinued the study because of a study drug-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: The liquid coformulation of lopinavir/ritonavir demonstrated durable antiviral activity and was safe and well-tolerated after 48 weeks of treatment in HIV-infected children.