Effect of fingolimod on health-related quality of life in paediatric patients with multiple sclerosis: results from the phase 3 PARADIGMS Study.

Background: In the PARADIGMS Study, fingolimod demonstrated superior efficacy versus interferon (IFN) ß-1a and comparable overall incidence of adverse events but slightly higher rate of serious adverse events in patients with paediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (PoMS). Here, we report the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes from PARADIGMS. Methods: Patients with PoMS (N=215; aged 10-<18 years) were randomised to once-daily oral fingolimod (N=107) or once-weekly intramuscular IFN ß-1a (N=108). HRQoL outcomes were assessed using the 23-item Pediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) scale that comprises Physical and Psychosocial Health Summary Scores (including Emotional, Social and School Functioning). A post hoc inferential analysis evaluated changes in self-reported or parent-reported PedsQL scores from baseline up to 2 years between treatment groups using an analysis of covariance model. Results: Treatment with fingolimod showed improvements versus IFN ß-1a on the PedsQL scale in both the self-reported and parent-reported Total Scale Scores (4.66 vs -1.16, p≤0.001 and 2.71 vs -1.02, p≤0.05, respectively). The proportion of patients achieving a clinically meaningful improvement in the PedsQL Total Scale Score was two times higher with fingolimod versus IFN ß-1a per the self-reported scores (47.5% vs 24.2%, p=0.001), and fingolimod was favoured versus IFN ß-1a per the parent-reported scores (37.8% vs 24.7%, p=non-significant). Group differences in self-reported Total Scale Scores in favour of fingolimod were most pronounced among patients who had ≥2 relapses in the year prior to study entry or who showed improving or stable Expanded Disability Status Scale scores during the study. Conclusion: Fingolimod improved HRQoL compared with IFN ß-1a in patients with PoMS as evidenced by the self-reported and parent-reported PedsQL scores.

The Bioequivalence Between Valsartan Oral Solution and Suspension Formulations Developed for Pediatric Use.

The bioequivalence of valsartan 160 mg oral solution compared to suspension was assessed in a single-dose, open-label, randomized, 2-period, 2-way crossover study in 82 healthy adults. The participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a single dose of the solution or suspension formulation in each of the two treatment periods. Serial blood samples for pharmacokinetic evaluation were collected up to 48 hours post-dose. The pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by noncompartmental methods and analyzed as per bioequivalence criteria of statistical analysis. The peak plasma concentration of valsartan was reached with median time of 1 and 3 hours with solution and suspension formulation, respectively. Compared to suspension formulation, the mean peak plasma concentration with solution formulation was higher by 32% (90%CI, 1.27-1.38) while the geometric mean ratios (1.09) and the associated 90%CIs (1.05-1.13) of both the areas under the concentration time-curves (from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration and from time zero to infinity) were contained in the required range of 0.80 to 1.25. No new safety signals were observed with either of the formulations.

Real-world Utilisation of the Rivastigmine Transdermal Patches Accompanying the Use of Risk Minimisation Tools in Patients with Dementia.

BACKGROUND: Transdermal patches are convenient to use, especially in Rotkreuz ZG Rotkreuz ZG patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD)-associated dementia. However, various identified risks of errors in administering the patches cannot be disregarded. Patient Reminder Cards (PRCs, included a Medication record sheet [MRS]) have been recently introduced as a risk minimisation tool to prevent incorrect patch use (IU). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of PRCs to prevent IU and to investigate the dose titration pattern of rivastigmine patches in a real-world setting. METHODS: This multinational, observational, 11-month study included patients with AD currently using rivastigmine patches (4.6 mg/day, 9.5 mg/day, 13.3 mg/day) accompanied by a caregiver. Study outcomes were IU, including multiple patch use (MPU), incorrect patch placement, other IUs, perceived usefulness of the PRCs, and titration patterns of the patches. RESULTS: Of the total 614 patients included, most were aged ≥ 65 years and had mild-to-moderate AD. Before and during the study, 27.7% and 18.0% of patients reported IU, respectively. Most patients used MRS, and 73.5% rated it 'helpful' and reported lower rates of IU than those who reported it 'not helpful' (13.9%-16.5% vs. 20.2%). Overall, 141 patients had dose titrations, with 75.8% being up-titrated from 4.6 mg/day to 9.5 mg/day after a mean duration of 58 days. Safety findings were consistent with the established profile for the rivastigmine patch. CONCLUSION: PRC was effective as a risk minimisation tool in limiting the inappropriate use of rivastigmine patches. The majority of patients requiring dose-change were up-titrated to 9.5 mg/day patches.

Temporal profile of lymphocyte counts and relationship with infections with fingolimod therapy in paediatric patients with multiple sclerosis: Results from the PARADIGMS study.

BACKGROUND: Reduction in absolute lymphocyte count (ALC) is expected with fingolimod treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of fingolimod 0.5 mg versus intramuscular interferon ß-1a (30 µg) on ALC and its relationship with infections in paediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (POMS) up to 4 years. METHODS: We assessed ALC at baseline, monthly till 3 months, and every 3 months (core phase) and with variable periodicity (extension phase) of Phase 3 PARADIGMS study (N = 215). Incidence rates (IRs) of infection-related adverse events (infAEs)/100 patient-years were analysed by on-study nadir ALC. RESULTS: With fingolimod, ALC rapidly reduced to 29.9%-34.4% of baseline values within 2 weeks and remained stable thereafter; no relevant changes observed with interferon. IRs of infAEs were 67.6 with fingolimod and 61.8 with interferon; IR ratios with respect to interferon, overall: 1.09, by nadir ALC 0.2-0.4 × 109/L: 1.13 and >0.4 × 109/L: 0.91. Three patients had a single episode of ALC <0.2 × 109/L (core phase). No opportunistic infections were observed and infection risk did not increase during the extension phase. CONCLUSION: In paediatric patients, the overall incidence of infections was comparable between fingolimod and interferon. No association was observed between nadir ALC and infections in POMS, although sample size may have been too small to rule an association.

Efficacy and Safety of 2 Fingolimod Doses vs Glatiramer Acetate for the Treatment of Patients With Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Doses of fingolimod lower than 0.5 mg per day were not investigated during the fingolimod clinical development program. Whether lower doses of fingolimod might retain efficacy with fewer safety risks remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fingolimod, 0.5 mg, and fingolimod, 0.25 mg, compared with glatiramer acetate and to assess whether these doses of fingolimod show superior efficacy to glatiramer acetate in adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. INTERVENTIONS: Fingolimod, 0.5 mg, or fingolimod, 0.25 mg, orally once per day or glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, subcutaneously once per day. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Multiple Sclerosis Study Evaluating Safety and Efficacy of Two Doses of Fingolimod Versus Copaxone (ASSESS) was a phase 3b multicenter randomized rater-blinded and dose-blinded 12-month clinical trial conducted between August 9, 2012, and April 30, 2018 (including the time required to recruit participants). A total of 1461 patients aged 18 to 65 years with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis were screened, and 1064 participants were randomized. These participants had at least 1 documented relapse during the previous year or 2 documented relapses during the previous 2 years and an Expanded Disability Status Scale score of 0 to 6 at screening. Data were analyzed between September and November 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The superiority of the fingolimod doses was tested hierarchically, with fingolimod, 0.5 mg, vs glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, tested first, followed by fingolimod, 0.25 mg, vs glatiramer acetate, 20 mg. The primary end point was the reduction in annualized relapse rate (ARR). Magnetic resonance imaging parameters, safety, and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Of 1461 adult patients screened, 1064 participants (72.8%) were randomized (mean [SD] age, 39.6 [11.0] years; 792 women [74.4%]) to 3 treatment groups: 352 participants received fingolimod, 0.5 mg, 370 participants received fingolimod, 0.25 mg, and 342 participants received glatiramer acetate, 20 mg. In total, 859 participants (80.7%) completed the study. Treatment with fingolimod, 0.5 mg, was superior to treatment with glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, in reducing ARR (40.7% relative reduction); the relative reduction with fingolimod, 0.25 mg, was 14.6%, which was not statistically significant (for fingolimod, 0.5 mg, ARR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.11-0.21; for fingolimod, 0.25 mg, ARR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.17-0.29; for glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, ARR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.20-0.34). Treatment with both fingolimod doses (0.5 mg and 0.25 mg) significantly reduced new or newly enlarging T2 and gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesions compared with treatment with glatiramer acetate. Adverse events were reported in similar proportions across treatment groups (312 participants [90.4%] in the fingolimod, 0.5 mg, group, 323 participants [88.3%] in the fingolimod, 0.25 mg, group, and 283 participants [87.3%] in the glatiramer acetate group). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Fingolimod, 0.5 mg, demonstrated superior clinical efficacy compared with glatiramer acetate, 20 mg, and had a superior benefit-risk profile compared with fingolimod, 0.25 mg, in adult participants with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01633112.

Estimating relative efficacy in acute postoperative pain: network meta-analysis is consistent with indirect comparison to placebo alone.

Network meta-analysis uses direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across them. Network meta-analysis uses more data than a series of direct comparisons with placebo, and theoretically should produce more reliable results. We used a Cochrane overview review of acute postoperative pain trials and other systematic reviews to provide data to test this hypothesis. Some 261 trials published between 1966 and 2016 included 39,753 patients examining 52 active drug and dose combinations (27,726 given active drug and 12,027 placebo), in any type of surgery (72% dental). Most trials were small; 42% of patients were in trials with arms <50 patients, and 27% in trials with arms ≥100 patients. Response to placebo in third molar extraction fell by half in studies over 30 to 40 years (171 trials, 7882 patients given placebo). Network meta-analysis and Cochrane analyses provided very similar results (average difference 0.04 number needed to treat units), with no significant difference for almost all comparisons apart from some with small patient numbers or small effect size, or both. Network meta-analysis did not detect significant differences between effective analgesics. The similarity between network meta-analysis and Cochrane indirect analyses probably arose from stringent quality criteria in trials accepted in Cochrane reviews (with consequent low risk of bias) and consistency in methods and outcomes. Network meta-analysis is a useful analytical tool that increases our confidence in estimates of efficacy of analgesics in acute postoperative pain, in this case by providing similar results.

Pharmacokinetics of single and multiple oral doses of valsartan/amlodipine (80/5 mg) in healthy Chinese subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine combination have been demonstrated for the treatment of hypertension. In China, where the prevalence of hypertension is increasing the pharmacokinetic study of valsartan, amlodipine assumes significance. The aim of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of valsartan and amlodipine following single- and multiple-dose oral administrations of valsartan/ amlodipine 80/5 mg fixed-dose combination in healthy Chinese subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an open-label, two-period (single-dose treatment followed by a multiple-dose (once-daily for 9 days), with a 7-day intertreatment washout period) study conducted in 18 subjects. Serial blood samples were collected at pre-defined time points, and the plasma concentrations of valsartan and amlodipine were measured using LC-MS/MS. Safety was evaluated after single- and multiple-dose drug administration. RESULTS: Following the single-dose oral administration of valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg, valsartan and amlodipine plasma concentrations reached peak levels at median tmax of 3 and 6 h, respectively. These concentrations declined thereafter, with mean elimination half-lives of 7.7 h (single dose) and 8.6 h (multiple dose) for valsartan, and 47 h (single dose) and 45 h (multiple dose) for amlodipine. After a 9-day multiple-dose treatment (at steady state), accumulation of valsartan and amlodipine was consistent with their half-lives. The single- and multiple-dose administration of valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg was associated with asymptomatic hypotension, consistent with the pharmacological activity of the combination of these two blood pressure-lowering drugs when co-administered in healthy subjects. CONCLUSION: The PK of valsartan and amlodipine are linear following oral administration of valsartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetic interactions between amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension.

The steady-state pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction potential between amlodipine (10 mg), valsartan (320 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ; 25 mg) was evaluated in patients with hypertension in a multicenter, multiple-dose, open-label, 4-cohort, parallel-group study. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to the dual combination of valsartan + HCTZ, amlodipine + valsartan, or amlodipine + HCTZ and nonrandomly allotted to amlodipine + valsartan + HCTZ triple combination treatment. After 6 days of treatment with a half-maximal dose of different combinations, patients were up-titrated to the maximal drug doses from day 7 through day 17. PK parameters of corresponding analytes from the triple- and dual-treatment groups were estimated on day 17 and compared. Safety and tolerability of all treatments was assessed. The C ( ssmax ) and AUC(0-τ) values of amlodipine or HCTZ remained unaffected when administered with valsartan + HCTZ or valsartan + amlodipine, respectively. On the other hand, valsartan exposure increased by 10% to 25% when coadministered with HCTZ and amlodipine, which is not considered clinically relevant. In conclusion, there were no clinically relevant PK interactions with amlodipine, valsartan, and HCTZ triple combination compared with the corresponding dual combinations. All treatments were safe and well tolerated.

Pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of single and multiple oral doses of aliskiren in healthy Chinese subjects: a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Aliskiren is the first oral direct renin inhibitor to be approved for the treatment of hypertension. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of aliskiren has been extensively characterized in Caucasian individuals; however, drug disposition, treatment response and tolerability can vary among ethnic groups, and these variations are difficult to predict. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of aliskiren in healthy Chinese subjects. METHODS: This was a randomized, single-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. On day -1, subjects were randomized to one of four cohorts (aliskiren 75, 150, 300 or 600 mg). On day 1, eight individuals in each cohort received a single dose of active treatment and two received placebo. Subjects randomized to aliskiren 300 mg received additional once-daily doses on days 5-11 to establish steady-state pharmacokinetics. Subjects receiving aliskiren 75, 150 or 600 mg (cohorts 1, 2 and 4) completed the study at the end of the 96-hour pharmacokinetic assessment period. Subjects receiving aliskiren 300 mg (cohort 3) had additional pharmacokinetic assessments on days 5-15. The study was carried out at the Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China, and included 40 healthy Chinese subjects. The main outcome measures were the pharmacokinetic parameters for aliskiren, including area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(infinity)) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)). RESULTS: Aliskiren AUC(infinity) and C(max) increased greater than proportionally across the 8-fold dose range (75-600 mg; mean AUC(infinity) 291-4726 ng x h/mL, mean C(max) 62-699 ng/mL), but a dose-proportional 2-fold increase was observed within the clinically approved dose range (150-300 mg; mean AUC(infinity) 876-1507 ng x h/mL, mean C(max) 137-271 ng/mL). CONCLUSION: At steady state, the mean AUC during the dosage interval (AUC(tau)) for aliskiren 300 mg (1532 +/- 592 ng x h/mL) was similar to the AUC(infinity) observed following a single dose. Aliskiren exhibits similar single-dose and steady-state pharmacokinetics in Chinese subjects compared with those observed in Caucasian individuals in previous studies.

Escitalopram Versus Citalopram and Sertraline: A Double-Blind Controlled, Multi-centric Trial in Indian Patients with Unipolar Major Depression.

The present randomized, double blind, parallel group, controlled, multi-centric trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram in comparison with citalopram and sertraline in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Outpatients (N=214) with an ongoing/newly diagnosed ICD-10 major depressive episode and a Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) score of > 18 were randomly assigned to citalopram, 20-40 mg/day (74 patients), escitalopram, 10-20 mg/day (69 patients) and sertraline, 50-150 mg/day (71 patients), for a 4-week double-blind treatment period, with dosage adjustment (after 2 weeks of treatment) according to the response to treatment. Clinical response was evaluated by the 17 items HAM-D and the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scales, which were recorded at baseline and at weekly intervals. Tolerability was evaluated by observed/spontaneously reported adverse changes in laboratory parameters (baseline and after 4 weeks). Response rate was defined as a decrease in HAM-D score by 50% from baseline and remission rate was defined as a HAM-D score of < 8. Response rate at the end of two week were 58% for escitalopram (10mg/day), 49% for citalopram (20mg/day) and 52% for sertraline (50-100mg/day). Response rate at the end of four week were 90% for escitalopram (10-20mg/day), 86% for citalopram (20-40mg/day) and 97% for sertraline (100-150mg/day). The Remission rates at the end of four weeks were 74% for escitalopram, 65% for citalopram and 77% for sertraline. Adverse experiences were reported by 45% of patients in escitalopram group, 58% patients in citalopram and 56% patients in the sertraline group. Additionally, there were lesser dropouts and lesser requirement for dose escalation in escitalopram than in citalopram and sertraline group. In conclusion Escitalopram, the Senantiomer of the citalopram is a safe and effective antidepressant in the Indian population. It has potentially superior efficacy than citalopram and a comparable efficacy to sertraline with fewer side effects than both citalopram and sertraline.