Diagnostic value of iron indices in hemodialysis patients receiving epoetin.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency remains a common cause of hyporesponsiveness to epoetin in hemodialysis patients. However, considerable controversy exists regarding the best strategies for diagnosis and treatment. METHODS: As part of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of intravenous versus subcutaneous administration of epoetin, we made monthly determinations of serum iron, total iron binding capacity, percentage transferrin saturation, and serum ferritin. If a patient had serum ferritin <100 ng/mL or the combination of serum ferritin <400 ng/mL and a transferrin saturation <20%, he/she received parenteral iron, given as iron dextran 100 mg at ten consecutive dialysis sessions. We analyzed parenteral iron use during the trial, the effect of its administration on iron indices and epoetin dose, and the ability of the iron indices to predict a reduction in epoetin dose in response to parenteral iron administration. RESULTS: Eighty-seven percent of the 208 patients required parenteral iron to maintain adequate iron stores at an average dose of 1516 mg over 41.7 weeks, or 36 mg/week. Only two of 180 patients experienced serious reactions to intravenous iron administration. Two thirds of the patients receiving parenteral iron had a decrease in their epoetin requirement of at least 30 U/kg/week compared with 29% of patients who did not receive iron (P = 0.004). The average dose decrease 12 weeks after initiating iron therapy was 1763 U/week. A serum ferritin <200 ng/mL had the best positive predictive value (76%) for predicting a response to parenteral iron administration, but it still had limited clinical utility. CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency commonly develops during epoetin therapy, and parenteral iron administration may result in a clinically significant reduction in epoetin dose. The use of transferrin saturation or serum ferritin as an indicator for parenteral iron administration has limited utility.

Gemfibrozil for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in men with low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Although it is generally accepted that lowering elevated serum levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients with coronary heart disease is beneficial, there are few data to guide decisions about therapy for patients whose primary lipid abnormality is a low level of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind trial comparing gemfibrozil (1200 mg per day) with placebo in 2531 men with coronary heart disease, an HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.0 mmol per liter) or less, and an LDL cholesterol level of 140 mg per deciliter (3.6 mmol per liter) or less. The primary study outcome was nonfatal myocardial infarction or death from coronary causes. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 5.1 years. At one year, the mean HDL cholesterol level was 6 percent higher, the mean triglyceride level was 31 percent lower, and the mean total cholesterol level was 4 percent lower in the gemfibrozil group than in the placebo group. LDL cholesterol levels did not differ significantly between the groups. A primary event occurred in 275 of the 1267 patients assigned to placebo (21.7 percent) and in 219 of the 1264 patients assigned to gemfibrozil (17.3 percent). The overall reduction in the risk of an event was 4.4 percentage points, and the reduction in relative risk was 22 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 7 to 35 percent; P=0.006). We observed a 24 percent reduction in the combined outcome of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and stroke (P< 0.001). There were no significant differences in the rates of coronary revascularization, hospitalization for unstable angina, death from any cause, and cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Gemfibrozil therapy resulted in a significant reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease whose primary lipid abnormality was a low HDL cholesterol level. The findings suggest that the rate of coronary events is reduced by raising HDL cholesterol levels and lowering levels of triglycerides without lowering LDL cholesterol levels.

Subcutaneous compared with intravenous epoetin in patients receiving hemodialysis. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Erythropoietin in Hemodialysis Patients.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have suggested that if recombinant human erythropoietin (epoetin) is administered subcutaneously rather than intravenously, a lower dose may be sufficient to maintain the hematocrit at a given level. METHODS: In a randomized, unblinded trial conducted at 24 hemodialysis units at Veterans Affairs medical centers, we assigned 208 patients who were receiving long-term hemodialysis and epoetin therapy to treatment with either subcutaneous or intravenous epoetin. The dose was initially reduced until the hematocrit was below 30 percent and then was gradually increased to a level that would maintain the hematocrit in the range of 30 to 33 percent for 26 weeks. We compared the average doses in the 26-week maintenance phase and the discomfort associated with the two routes of administration. RESULTS: For the 107 patients treated by the subcutaneous route, the average weekly dose of epoetin during the maintenance phase was 32 percent less than that for the 101 patients treated by the intravenous route (mean [+/-SD], 95.1+/-75.0 vs. 140.3+/-88.5 U per kilogram of body weight per week; P<0.001). Only one patient in the subcutaneous-therapy group withdrew from the study because of pain at the injection site, and 86 percent rated the pain associated with subcutaneous administration as ranging from absent to mild. CONCLUSIONS: In patients receiving hemodialysis, subcutaneous administration of epoetin can maintain the hematocrit in a desired target range, with an average weekly dose of epoetin that is lower than with intravenous administration.

Cardiovascular diseases in women: an equal opportunity killer.

Despite the public perception that heart disease primarily affects men, as women age, their risk equals and eventually outpaces that of men. Gender-specific differences in cardiovascular diseases have been reported related to onset, diagnosis, therapy, pharmacokinetics, adverse drug reactions, and mortality rates, but most of these differences are unexplained. Research in coronary heart disease has been performed almost exclusively in men, but the findings have been used to set standards for both sexes. Studies suggest a 50% reduction in heart disease risk among women receiving postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy.

Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis in granulocytopenic patients with acute leukemia: evaluation of serum antibiotic levels in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study.

Despite widespread use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMZ) for prophylaxis in neutropenic patients, questions remain regarding its efficacy, toxicity, the risk of selection of resistant isolates, and the relation of its activity to selective decolonization vs. the attainment of direct inhibitory levels within blood and tissues. We evaluated the effect of TMP-SMZ (160/800 mg orally every 12 hours) in 42 adult granulocytopenic patients (< 100 absolute neutrophils/mm3, mean duration 13.3 days) undergoing chemotherapy for acute leukemia at 11 participating Veterans Administration Medical Centers in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. No significant differences in survival, frequency of bacteremia, overall infections, use of systemic antimicrobial therapy, or adverse effects, including myelosuppression, were observed between patients receiving TMP-SMZ vs. those receiving placebo. All patients acquired trimethoprim-resistant organisms. Concentrations of trimethoprim in serum were significantly lower before febrile episodes than when patients were afebrile. These results suggest that the purported activity of TMP-SMZ may be related to the serum concentration achieved. Moreover, the results highlight the need for additional study of the value of antibiotic prophylaxis in neutropenic patients.

Rationale and design of the Department of Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial (HIT) for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease in men with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and desirable low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Although a large body of epidemiologic evidence suggests that low levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol are strongly associated with an increased risk of coronary artery disease (CAD), no large-scale clinical trials focusing on this association have been reported. This report describes the rationale and design of the Department of Veterans Affairs HDL Intervention Trial (HIT), a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial designed to determine whether lipid therapy reduces the combined incidence of CAD death and nonfatal myocardial infarction in men with established CAD who have low levels of HDL cholesterol with "desirable" levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Twenty-five hundred men with CAD and HDL cholesterol < or = 40 mg/dl, LDL cholesterol < or = 140 mg/dl, and triglycerides < or = 300 mg/dl are being recruited at 20 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers, randomized to either gemfibrozil or placebo, and followed in a double-blind manner for an average of 6 years. In this population, gemfibrozil is expected to increase HDL cholesterol by 10 to 15%, have a negligible effect on LDL cholesterol, and lower triglycerides by 30 to 40%. Because an estimated 20 to 30% of patients with CAD have a low HDL cholesterol as their primary lipid abnormality, the results of this trial are expected to have far-reaching clinical implications.

The investigator-sponsored IND in clinical trials.

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that clinical investigations conducted in the United States involving unapproved drugs be done under an Investigational New Drug Application (IND). INDs are often sponsored by pharmaceutical firms or noncommercial research institutions. Most INDs, however, are sponsored by individual researchers. Since the procedures for filing an IND may not be well understood, this article seeks to clarify these procedures. Specifically, this article describes a "Sponsor-Investigator IND," the conditions under which one is required, and the possible advantages of filing one. The information presented aids the investigator in determining whether an IND need be submitted. The authors have developed an IND workbook that can be used to organize and present the IND application in a form likely to facilitate expeditious review and approval by the FDA. The authors have also developed IND guidelines to assist investigators in preparing, submitting, and maintaining an IND. Obligations and responsibilities of both sponsors and investigators are discussed.