Effectiveness of Single-Tablet Combination Therapy in Improving Adherence and Persistence and the Relation to Clinical and Economic Outcomes

Background: Single-tablet combination therapies (STCTs) combine multiple drugs into one formulation, making drug administration more convenient for patients. STCTs were developed to address concerns with treatment adherence and persistence, but the impact of STCT use is not fully understood across indications. Objectives: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to examine STCT-associated outcomes across 4 evidence domains: clinical trials, real-world evidence (RWE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) studies, and economic evaluations. Methods: Four SLRs were conducted across the aforementioned domains. Included studies compared STCTs as well as fixed-dose combinations ([FDCs] of non-tablet formulations) with the equivalent active compounds and doses in loose-dose combinations (LDCs). Original research articles were included; case reports, case series, and non-English-language sources were excluded. Databases searched included EconLit, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE® ALL. Two independent reviewers assessed relevant studies and extracted data. Conflicts were resolved with a third reviewer or consensus-based discussion. Results: In all, 109 studies were identified; 27 studies were identified in more than one SLR. Treatment adherence was significantly higher in patients receiving FDCs vs LDCs in 12 of 13 RWE studies and 3 of 13 clinical trials. All 18 RWE studies reported higher persistence with FDCs. In RWE studies examining clinical outcomes (n = 17), 14 reported positive findings with FDCs, including a reduced need for add-on medication, blood pressure control, and improved hemoglobin A1C. HRQoL studies generally reported numerical improvements with STCTs or similarities between STCTs and LDCs. Economic outcomes favored STCT use. All 6 cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses found FDCs were less expensive and more efficacious than LDCs. Four budget impact models found that STCTs were associated with cost savings. Medical costs and healthcare resource use were generally lower with FDCs than with LDCs. Discussion: Evidence from RWE and economic studies strongly favored STCT use, while clinical trials and HRQoL studies primarily reported similarity between STCTs and LDCs. This may be due to clinical trial procedures aimed at maximizing adherence and HRQoL measures that are not designed to evaluate drug administration. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the value of STCTs for improving patient adherence, persistence, and clinical outcomes while also offering economic advantages.

Repurposing approved non-oncology drugs for cancer therapy: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, efficacy, and clinical prospects

Cancer poses a significant global health challenge, with predictions of increasing prevalence in the coming years due to limited prevention, late diagnosis, and inadequate success with current therapies. In addition, the high cost of new anti-cancer drugs creates barriers in meeting the medical needs of cancer patients, especially in developing countries. The lengthy and costly process of developing novel drugs further hinders drug discovery and clinical implementation. Therefore, there has been a growing interest in repurposing approved drugs for other diseases to address the urgent need for effective cancer treatments. The aim of this comprehensive review is to provide an overview of the potential of approved non-oncology drugs as therapeutic options for cancer treatment. These drugs come from various chemotherapeutic classes, including antimalarials, antibiotics, antivirals, anti-inflammatory drugs, and antifungals, and have demonstrated significant antiproliferative, pro-apoptotic, immunomodulatory, and antimetastatic properties. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify relevant studies on the repurposing of approved non-oncology drugs for cancer therapy. Various electronic databases, such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were searched using appropriate keywords. Studies focusing on the therapeutic potential, mechanisms of action, efficacy, and clinical prospects of repurposed drugs in cancer treatment were included in the analysis. The review highlights the promising outcomes of repurposing approved non-oncology drugs for cancer therapy. Drugs belonging to different therapeutic classes have demonstrated notable antitumor effects, including inhibiting cell proliferation, promoting apoptosis, modulating the immune response, and suppressing metastasis. These findings suggest the potential of these repurposed drugs as effective therapeutic approaches in cancer treatment. Repurposing approved non-oncology drugs provides a promising strategy for addressing the urgent need for effective and accessible cancer treatments. The diverse classes of repurposed drugs, with their demonstrated antiproliferative, pro-apoptotic, immunomodulatory, and antimetastatic properties, offer new avenues for cancer therapy. Further research and clinical trials are warranted to explore the full potential of these repurposed drugs and optimize their use in treating various cancer types. Repurposing approved drugs can significantly expedite the process of identifying effective treatments and improve patient outcomes in a cost-effective manner.

A randomized controlled trial evaluating the short-term efficacy of a single-administration intramuscular injection with the fixed combination of thiocolchicoside-diclofenac versus diclofenac monotherapy in patients with acute moderate-to-severe low back pain

BACKGROUND

Non-specific acute low back pain (LBP) is a common health problem that may be accompanied by muscle spasm and decreased mobility. The combination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and muscle relaxants represents an advantageous therapeutic option, however, available data on their combined use are conflicting. This prospective, randomized, single-blind, two-parallel-group trial assessed the efficacy of a single intramuscular (IM) injection of the fixed-dose combination (FDC) diclofenac (75 mg)-thiocolchicoside (4 mg/4 ml) product (test treatment) compared to diclofenac (75 mg/3 ml) alone (reference treatment) for the symptomatic relief of acute LBP. Tolerability and safety were also assessed as secondary variables.

METHODS

One hundred thirty-four patients were enrolled (safety population) and randomly allocated to the combination or single-agent regimen. Pain intensity and muscle spasm, assessed respectively by the patient-reported visual analogue scale and investigator-performed finger-to-floor distance test, were determined prior to the injection as well as 1 and 3 h post-injection in 123 patients (per-protocol population). The patients were blinded to treatment. Safety was assessed up to 24 h post-injection.

RESULTS

The test treatment was superior in both alleviating the pain intensity and reducing the finger-to-floor distance at both 1 (p < 0.01 and p = 0.023 respectively) and 3 h post-injection (p < 0.01). A higher percentage of patients experienced > 30% reduction in pain intensity at 1 and 3 h with the test treatment (p = 0.037 and p < 0.01 respectively). The corresponding VAS (SD) scores for the test treatment group were at baseline, 1 and 3 h post-injection 72.03 (± 11.72), 45.37 (± 16.28) and 31.56 (± 15.08) respectively and for the reference treatment group 65.20 (± 12.16), 48.98 (± 18.76) and 44.52 (± 17.33) respectively. No adverse effects were reported with the combination treatment, whereas two patients treated with diclofenac reported dizziness.

CONCLUSIONS

The FDC treatment is an effective and well-tolerated option for the symptomatic treatment of LBP. Clinical and patient-reported assessments confirmed that a single IM injection of FDC diclofenac-thiocolchicoside was more effective than diclofenac alone in conferring rapid and sustained improvement in mobility and pain intensity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT No: 2017-004530-29 Available at https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/ Registered 04 Dec 2017.

Fixed Dose Versus Loose Dose: Analgesic Combinations

Combinations of drugs may be fixed (two or more entities in a single product) or loose (two or more agents taken together but as individual agents) to help address multimechanistic pain. The use of opioids plus nonopioids can result in lower opioid consumption without sacrificing analgesic benefits. Drug combinations may offer additive or synergistic benefits. A variety of fixed-dose combination products are available on the market such as diclofenac plus thiocolchicoside, acetaminophen and caffeine, acetaminophen and opioid, ibuprofen and acetaminophen, tramadol and acetaminophen, and others. Fixed-dose combination products offer predictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, known adverse events, and can reduce the pill burden. However, they are limited to certain drug combinations and doses; loose dosing allows prescribers the versatility to meet individual patient requirements as well as the ability to titrate as needed. Not all drug combinations offer synergistic benefits, which depend on the drugs and their doses. Certain drugs offer dual mechanisms of action in a single molecule, such as tapentadol, and these may further be used in combination with other analgesics. New technology allows for co-crystal productions of analgesic agents which may further improve drug characteristics, such as bioavailability. Combination analgesics are important additions to the analgesic armamentarium and may offer important benefits at lower doses than monotherapy.

Efficacy and tolerability of orally administered tramadol/dexketoprofen fixed-dose combination compared to diclofenac/thiocolchicoside in acute low back pain: experience from an Italian, single-centre, observational study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of tramadol/dexketoprofen 75/25 mg (TRAM/DKP) versus diclofenac/thiocolchicoside 75/4 mg (DIC/THIO) in patients with moderate-to-severe acute low back pain (LBP).

METHODS

Single-centre, observational study in 82 adult outpatients with LBP due to disc herniation (≥4 Numerical Rating scale, NRS) who received either oral TRAM/DKP (n = 44) or intramuscular DIC/THIO (n = 38), both given every 12 h for 5 days. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in pain intensity (PI) at pre-specified post-dose time points (t day1, t day3, t day7) and compared between the two treatments. Additional endpoints, all evaluated at day 7, included: the sum of PI difference (SPID), percentage of responders in terms of PI reduction versus baseline and change from baseline in Douleur Neuropathique (DN4) score. Tolerability and safety were also assessed.

RESULTS

Both treatment groups were comparable for demographic characteristics and comorbidities. Over the 5-day treatment period and up to day 7, compared to DIC/THIO, TRAM/DKP provided a significantly greater and sustained analgesia at day 3 and day 7 (p < .0001), with a higher proportion of responders at each time point [75% versus 71.1% (p = 0.687) at day 1, 93.2% versus 73.7% at day 3 (p = .016) and 95.5% versus 71.1% at day 7 (p = .003)], higher values of SPID (770.9 ± 23.5 vs. 507.1 ± 22.6; p < .0001) and significantly greater reduction in DN4 score [-62.7 ± 25.6 vs. -39.7 ± 31.2 (p < .0001)]. Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Orally administered TRAM/DKP 75/25 mg can be a valuable and effective option in patients with acute LBP.

Overcoming cancer therapeutic bottleneck by drug repurposing

Ever present hurdles for the discovery of new drugs for cancer therapy have necessitated the development of the alternative strategy of drug repurposing, the development of old drugs for new therapeutic purposes. This strategy with a cost-effective way offers a rare opportunity for the treatment of human neoplastic disease, facilitating rapid clinical translation. With an increased understanding of the hallmarks of cancer and the development of various data-driven approaches, drug repurposing further promotes the holistic productivity of drug discovery and reasonably focuses on target-defined antineoplastic compounds. The "treasure trove" of non-oncology drugs should not be ignored since they could target not only known but also hitherto unknown vulnerabilities of cancer. Indeed, different from targeted drugs, these old generic drugs, usually used in a multi-target strategy may bring benefit to patients. In this review, aiming to demonstrate the full potential of drug repurposing, we present various promising repurposed non-oncology drugs for clinical cancer management and classify these candidates into their proposed administration for either mono- or drug combination therapy. We also summarize approaches used for drug repurposing and discuss the main barriers to its uptake.