Screening study of anti-emetics to improve GDF15-induced malaise and anorexia: Implications for emesis control.

Considerable preclinical and clinical attention has focused on the food intake and body weight suppressive effects of growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF15) and its elevated blood levels as a consequence of disease states and disease treatment therapeutics. We have previously reported that exogenous administration of GDF15 induces anorexia through nausea and emesis in multiple species. Importantly, GDF15 signaling as a meditator of chemotherapy-induced anorexia and emesis has recently been demonstrated in both murine and nonhuman primate models. The mechanism, however, by which GDF15 induces malaise and the utility of existing therapeutic targets to counteract its effects remain largely unknown. Using a dose of GDF15 that mimics stimulated levels following chemotherapy administration and reliably induces malaise, we sought to screen anti-emetics that represent distinct pharmacotherapeutic classes hypothesized to reduce GDF15-induced effects in rats. Strikingly, our results showed that none of the tested compounds were effective at preventing GDF15-induced malaise. These results illustrate the complexity of GDF15 signaling mechanism and may have important implications for medical conditions characterized by elevated GDF15 levels and incomplete symptom control, such as chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

Costs of adalimumab versus infliximab as first-line biological therapy for luminal Crohn's disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Randomised controlled trials demonstrate that the anti-tumour necrosis factor-α (anti-TNFα) therapies infliximab and adalimumab are effective in inducing remission and preventing relapse of Crohn's disease (CD). As few studies have compared costs and efficacy of these two drugs directly, we examined this issue. METHODS: Data were collected for patients receiving either drug as first-line anti-TNFα for CD. Patients were matched as closely as possible on age, gender, weight, height, and date of commencement of therapy. Response to induction therapy was assessed at 12weeks, and sustained clinical benefit at last point of follow-up. Resource data were collected for all patients until study end, with National Health Services reference costs applied to calculate the total cost per patient with adalimumab compared with infliximab. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients had been treated with adalimumab as first-line anti-TNFα since 2010. We matched an identical number of infliximab patients. Demographic data were similar between the two groups. Costs were significantly lower with adalimumab (£6692.95 less per patient (95% confidence interval £1816.61-£11569.29)), which was largely driven by the drug costs and drug administration costs associated with infliximab. Twenty-nine (80.6%) patients responded to induction therapy with both drugs, and 22 (61.1%) achieved glucocorticosteroid-free sustained clinical benefit with either drug at last point of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Costs of infliximab used as first-line anti-TNFα therapy are greater, which may have implications for selection. Clinical outcomes appeared comparable, although power to detect a statistically significant difference would be limited.