Gastrointestinal adverse effects associated with the use of intravenous oliceridine compared with intravenous hydromorphone or fentanyl in acute pain management utilizing adjusted indirect treatment comparison methods

Background: In the absence of head-to-head comparative data from randomized controlled trials, indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) may be used to compare the relative effects of treatments versus a common comparator (either placebo or active treatment). For acute pain management, the effects of oliceridine have been compared in clinical trials to morphine but not to fentanyl or hydromorphone. Aim: To assess the comparative safety (specifically differences in the incidence of nausea, vomiting and opioid-induced respiratory depression [OIRD]) between oliceridine and relevant comparators (fentanyl and hydromorphone) through ITC analysis. Methods: A systematic literature review identified randomized clinical trials with oliceridine versus morphine and morphine versus fentanyl or hydromorphone. The ITC utilized the common active comparator, morphine, for the analysis. Results: A total of six randomized controlled trials (oliceridine - 2; hydromorphone - 3; fentanyl - 1) were identified for data to be used in the ITC analyses. The oliceridine data were reported in two studies (plastic surgery and orthopedic surgery) and were also reported in a pooled analysis. The ITC focused on nausea and vomiting due to limited data for OIRD. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone in the ITC analysis, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting requiring antiemetics compared with hydromorphone (both orthopedic surgery and pooled data), while results in plastic surgery were not statistically significant. When oliceridine was compared with hydromorphone utilizing data from Hong, the ITC only showed a trend toward reduced risk of nausea and vomiting with oliceridine that was not statistically significant across all three comparisons (orthopedic surgery, plastic surgery and combined). An ITC comparing oliceridine with a study of fentanyl utilizing the oliceridine orthopedic surgery data and combined orthopedic and plastic surgery data showed a trend toward reduced risk that was not statistically significant. Conclusion: In ITC analyses, oliceridine significantly reduced the incidence of nausea and/or vomiting or the need for antiemetics in orthopedic surgery compared with hydromorphone and a non-significant trend toward reduced risk versus fentanyl.

Characteristics of Users and New Initiators of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in Germany

Purpose

To assess patient characteristics of users and new initiators of triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in Germany.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective cohort study of patients with COPD and ≥1 prescription for single-inhaler triple therapy (SITT; fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI] or beclomethasone dipropionate/glycopyrronium bromide/formoterol [BDP/GLY/FOR]) or multiple-inhaler triple therapy (MITT), using data from the AOK PLUS German sickness fund (1 January 2015-31 December 2019). The index date was the first date of prescription for FF/UMEC/VI or BDP/GLY/FOR (SITT users), or the first date of overlap of inhaled corticosteroid, long-acting β2-agonist, and long-acting muscarinic antagonist (MITT users). Two cohorts were defined: the prevalent cohort included all identified triple therapy users; the incident cohort included patients newly initiating triple therapy for the first time (no prior use of MITT or SITT in the last 2 years). Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were assessed on the index date and during the 24-month pre-index period.

Results

In total, 18,630 patients were identified as prevalent triple therapy users (MITT: 17,945; FF/UMEC/VI: 700; BDP/GLY/FOR: 908; non-mutually exclusive) and 2932 patients were identified as incident triple therapy initiators (MITT: 2246; FF/UMEC/VI: 311; BDP/GLY/FOR: 395; non-mutually exclusive). For both the prevalent and incident cohorts, more than two-thirds of patients experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation in the preceding 24 months; in both cohorts more BDP/GLY/FOR users experienced ≥1 moderate/severe exacerbation, compared with FF/UMEC/VI and MITT users. Overall, 97.9% of prevalent triple therapy users and 86.4% of incident triple therapy initiators received maintenance treatment in the 24-month pre-index period.

Conclusion

In a real-world setting in Germany, triple therapy was most frequently used after maintenance therapy in patients with recent exacerbations, in line with current treatment recommendations.

Impact of body weight-based dosing of palonosetron and ondansetron on postoperative nausea and vomiting following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a frequent adverse effect following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. Palonosetron with a standard dosing (75 μg) schedule has been questioned due to its low efficiency in obese patients. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of the body weight-based dosing of palonosetron in managing PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

METHODS

A single-center, prospective, double-blinded randomized study was conducted between August 2021 and December 2021. Patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were prospectively recruited in the study. One hundred patients were randomly divided into palonosetron (Group P) and ondansetron (Group O). The demographic and clinical variables were recorded. The primary outcome of the study was the incidence of PONV between the two groups during the hospitalization. The secondary outcomes were the number of rescue anti-emetic and analgesic medications and the Functional Living Index-Emesis scores.

RESULTS

There were 50 patients in each group (Group P and Group O). There were significant differences in the scores of POVN, nausea, and vomiting favoring Group P. In Group P, the rate of patients using rescue anti-emetics was significantly lower. The incidence of complete response and proportion of patients with higher Functional Living Index-Emesis scores were significantly higher in patients using palonosetron.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of palonosetron significantly reduced the incidence of PONV following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. There was a significant improvement in the scores of Functional Living Index-Emesis in patients using palonosetron.

Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial)

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%.

RESULTS

A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life.

CONCLUSION

DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER

UMIN000032269.

Real-World Disease Burden and Healthcare Resource Utilization Among Patients with COPD and Asthma Using Triple Therapy (FF/UMEC/VI) in the United States

Purpose

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma are associated with chronic inflammation of the respiratory tract; despite some overlap of symptoms, they are considered separate disorders. Triple therapy is recommended for patients with COPD and asthma whose symptoms remain uncontrolled despite dual therapy. There are limited real-world studies evaluating outcomes among patients with COPD and asthma who are receiving inhaled triple therapy. This United States (US)-based real-world study aimed to evaluate clinical and economic outcomes among patients with COPD and asthma receiving single-inhaler triple therapy (fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol [FF/UMEC/VI]).

Patients and Methods

Retrospective pre-post study using claims data from the Optum Clinformatics® database. Patients with COPD and asthma were indexed on the first date of FF/UMEC/VI prescription (1 October 2017-31 March 2019). Each patient acted as their own control. Patients were required to have continuous health plan enrollment for 12 months prior to (pre-treatment) and following (post-treatment) index. Exacerbations, all-cause and COPD-related healthcare resource utilization, and costs were compared before and after FF/UMEC/VI initiation.

Results

Overall, 2743 patients were included (mean age: 71 years; 64% female). Cardiovascular disease was the most prevalent comorbidity during both the pre- and post-treatment periods (90% for both periods). There was a lower proportion of patients with ≥1 COPD exacerbation or ≥1 asthma exacerbation post-treatment versus pre-treatment (51% vs 57%, p<0.0001, and 22% vs 32%, p<0.0001, respectively). Fewer patients had ≥1 all-cause office visit post-treatment versus pre-treatment (99.3% vs 99.7%, p=0.0329); more patients had ≥1 COPD-related office visit post-treatment versus pre-treatment (89.6% vs 87.5%, p=0.0035). Total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher post-treatment versus pre-treatment ($72,809 vs $63,734, p<0.0001). The driver of increased costs appeared to be primarily non-COPD-related (COPD-related costs: post-treatment $27,779 vs pre-treatment $25,081, p=0.0062).

Conclusion

FF/UMEC/VI reduced exacerbations among patients with COPD and asthma in a real-world setting in the US.

Bayesian or frequentist: there is no question when comparing single-inhaler triple therapies via network meta-analysis. Focus on fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

OBJECTIVES

Single-inhaler triple therapies (SITTs) have never been directly compared in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cochrane recommends the Bayesian approach for indirect comparisons but a frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) reported superiority of fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) over other SITT. We assessed the most appropriate inference method for NMA characterized by between-study heterogeneity on SITT in COPD.

METHODS

Bayesian and frequentist NMA were performed on RCTs investigating the effect of SITT on exacerbations and trough forced expiratory volume in the 1st second (FEV1) in COPD.

RESULTS

The included RCTs (ETHOS, FULFIL, IMPACT, KRONOS 200812) reported significant between-study heterogeneity (I2 > 99%, p < 0.001). The Bayesian random-effect NMA provided unbiased evidence that FF/UMEC/VI was not superior to other SITT on exacerbations and trough FEV1. The frequentist fixed-effect NMA indicated that FF/UMEC/VI was significantly (p < 0.05) more effective than other SITT, although results were affected by dispersion, asymmetry, and significant risk of bias. Frequentist random-effect NMA provided effect estimates rather similar but not equal to those of Bayesian approach.

CONCLUSION

Indirect comparison should be performed via Bayesian approach instead of frequentist inference with a fixed-effect model. Claiming the superiority of a specific medication over other therapies should be confirmed by findings originating from well-designed RCTs.

Effectiveness of Palonosetron, 1-Day Dexamethasone, and Aprepitant in Patients Undergoing Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy

INTRODUCTION

Dexamethasone (DEX)-sparing strategy with 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3RA) and aprepitant (APR), as triplet antiemetic prophylaxis, is associated with poor control of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in patients receiving carboplatin (CBDCA)-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate whether using palonosetron (PALO) as a 5HT3RA provides superior control with CINV than first-generation (1st) 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with a DEX-sparing strategy.

METHODS

Pooled patient-level data from a nationwide, multicenter, and prospective observational study were analyzed to compare the incidence of CINV between patients administered PALO and 1st 5HT3RA in combination with 1-day DEX and APR.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in the incidence of CINV, pattern of CINV, or severity of nausea by type of 5HT3RA in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis with DEX-sparing strategy. In both groups, the incidence of nausea gradually increased from day 3, peaked on day 4 or 5, and then declined slowly. The visual analog scale scores in the delayed phase remained high throughout the 7-day observation period.

CONCLUSION

Careful patient selection and symptom monitoring are needed when implementing the DEX-sparing strategy in triplet antiemetic prophylaxis for patients undergoing CBDCA-based chemotherapy. Furthermore, additional strategies may be needed to achieve better control of delayed CINV.

Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy in Patients with Advanced COPD: Bayesian Modeling of the Healthcare Resource Utilization Data and Associated Costs from the IMPACT Trial

Objectives

In the IMPACT trial (NCT02164513), triple therapy with fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol (FF/UMEC/VI) showed clinical benefit compared with dual therapy with either FF/VI or UMEC/VI in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We used data from IMPACT to determine whether this translated into differences in COPD-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) costs in a United Kingdom (UK) setting.

Methods

In a within-trial analysis, individual patient data from the IMPACT intention-to-treat (ITT) population were analyzed to estimate rates of COPD-related HRU with FF/UMEC/VI, FF/VI, or UMEC/VI. A Bayesian approach was applied to address issues typically encountered with this kind of data, namely data missing due to early study withdrawal, subjects with zero reported HRU, and skewness. Rates of HRU were estimated under alternate assumptions of data being missing at random (MAR) or missing not at random (MNAR). UK-specific unit costs were then applied to estimated HRU rates to calculate treatment-specific costs.

Results

Under each MNAR scenario, per patient per year (PPPY) rates of COPD-related HRU were lowest amongst those patients who received treatment with FF/UMEC/VI compared with those receiving either FF/VI or UMEC/VI. Although absolute HRU rates and costs were typically higher for all treatment groups under MNAR scenarios versus MAR, final economic conclusions were robust to patient withdrawals.

Conclusions

PPPY rates were typically lower with FF/UMEC/VI versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI.

Characteristics of New Users of Single- and Multiple-Inhaler Triple Therapy for COPD in Primary Care in England

Purpose

Patients and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Eprenetapopt (APR-246) and Azacitidine in TP53-Mutant Myelodysplastic Syndromes

PURPOSE

Approximately 20% of patients with TP53-mutant myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) achieve complete remission (CR) with hypomethylating agents. Eprenetapopt (APR-246) is a novel, first-in-class, small molecule that restores wild-type p53 functions in TP53-mutant cells.

METHODS

This was a phase Ib/II study to determine the safety, recommended phase II dose, and efficacy of eprenetapopt administered in combination with azacitidine in patients with TP53-mutant MDS or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with 20%-30% marrow blasts (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03072043).

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients (40 MDS, 11 AML, and four MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms) with at least one TP53 mutation were treated. The overall response rate was 71% with 44% achieving CR. Of patients with MDS, 73% (n = 29) responded with 50% (n = 20) achieving CR and 58% (23/40) a cytogenetic response. The overall response rate and CR rate for patients with AML was 64% (n = 7) and 36% (n = 4), respectively. Patients with only TP53 mutations by next-generation sequencing had higher rates of CR (69% v 25%; P = .006). Responding patients had significant reductions in TP53 variant allele frequency and p53 expression by immunohistochemistry, with 21 (38%) achieving complete molecular remission (variant allele frequency < 5%). Median overall survival was 10.8 months with significant improvement in responding versus nonresponding patients by landmark analysis (14.6 v 7.5 months; P = .0005). Overall, 19/55 (35%) patients underwent allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplant, with a median overall survival of 14.7 months. Adverse events were similar to those reported for azacitidine or eprenetapopt monotherapy, with the most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events being febrile neutropenia (33%), leukopenia (29%), and neutropenia (29%).

CONCLUSION

Combination treatment with eprenetapopt and azacitidine is well-tolerated yielding high rates of clinical response and molecular remissions in patients with TP53-mutant MDS and oligoblastic AML.

[Efficacy of Antiemetic Therapy with Aprepitant, Palonosetron, and Dexamethasone in Patients Receiving Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy]

Antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is recommended for moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in several guidelines to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. There is a lack of information about the efficacy and safety of antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone in patients treated with oxaliplatin in Japan. We recruited patients with untreated colorectal cancer who underwent oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. All patients were treated with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone. The complete response and complete protection rates were analyzed. A total of 52 patients were enrolled in this clinical trial. The complete response rate overall, and in the acute and delayed phases was 92.3%, 98.1%, and 92.3%, respectively. The complete protection rate overall and in the acute and delayed phases was 73.1%, 86.5%, and 73.1%, respectively. Grade 3-4 non-hematological toxicity did not occur. Antiemetic therapy with aprepitant, palonosetron, and dexamethasone is effective and safe in patients treated with oxaliplatin.

The effect of intravenous maropitant on blood pressure in healthy awake and anesthetized dogs

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of intravenous maropitant on arterial blood pressure in healthy dogs while awake and under general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Experimental crossover study.

ANIMALS

Eight healthy adult Beagle dogs.

PROCEDURE

All dogs received maropitant (1 mg kg-1) intravenously under the following conditions: 1) awake with non-invasive blood pressure monitoring (AwNIBP), 2) awake with invasive blood pressure monitoring (AwIBP), 3) premedication with acepromazine (0.005 mg kg-1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg-1) intramuscularly followed by propofol induction and isoflurane anesthesia (GaAB), and 4) premedication with dexmedetomidine (0.005 mg kg-1) and butorphanol (0.2 mg kg-1) intramuscularly followed by propofol induction and isoflurane anesthesia (GaDB). Heart rate (HR), systolic (SAP), diastolic (DAP), and mean blood pressures (MAP) were recorded before injection of maropitant (baseline), during the first 60 seconds of injection, during the second 60 seconds of injection, at the completion of injection and every 2 minutes post injection for 18 minutes. The data were compared over time using a Generalized Linear Model with mixed effects and then with simple effect comparison with Bonferroni adjustments (p <0.05).

RESULTS

There were significant decreases from baseline in SAP in the GaAB group (p < 0.01) and in MAP and DAP in the AwIBP and GaAB (p < 0.001) groups during injection. A significant decrease in SAP (p < 0.05), DAP (p < 0.05), and MAP (p < 0.05) occurred at 16 minutes post injection in GaDB group. There was also a significant increase in HR in the AwIBP group (p < 0.01) during injection. Clinically significant hypotension occurred in the GaAB group with a mean MAP at 54 ± 6 mmHg during injection.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous maropitant administration significantly decreases arterial blood pressure during inhalant anesthesia. Patients premedicated with acepromazine prior to isoflurane anesthesia may develop clinically significant hypotension.

Pharmacokinetics of maropitant citrate in New Zealand White rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus)

OBJECTIVE

To determine the pharmacokinetics and adverse effects of maropitant citrate after IV and SC administration to New Zealand White rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus).

ANIMALS

11 sexually intact (3 males and 8 females) adult rabbits.

PROCEDURES

Each rabbit received maropitant citrate (1 mg/kg) IV or SC. Blood samples were collected at 9 (SC) or 10 (IV) time points over 48 hours. After a 2-week washout period, rabbits received maropitant by the alternate administration route. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. Body weight, food and water consumption, injection site, mentation, and urine and fecal output were monitored.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD maximum concentration after SC administration was 14.4 ± 10.9 ng/mL and was detected at 1.25 ± 0.89 hours. Terminal half-life after IV and SC administration was 10.4 ± 1.6 hours and 13.1 ± 2.44 hours, respectively. Bioavailability after SC administration was 58.9 ± 13.3%. Plasma concentration at 24 hours was 2.87 ± 1.69 ng/mL after IV administration and 3.4 ± 1.2 ng/mL after SC administration. Four rabbits developed local dermal reactions at the injection site after SC injection. Increased fecal production was detected on the day of treatment and 1 day after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Plasma concentrations of rabbits 24 hours after SC and IV administration of maropitant citrate (1 mg/kg) were similar to those of dogs at 24 hours. Reactions at the SC injection site were the most common adverse effect detected. Increased fecal output may suggest an effect on gastrointestinal motility. Additional pharmacodynamic and multidose studies are needed.

Cost-Effectiveness Of Once-Daily Single-Inhaler Triple Therapy In COPD: The IMPACT Trial

Background

We assessed the cost-effectiveness of single-inhaler fluticasone furoate (FF)/umeclidinium (UMEC)/vilanterol (VI) versus FF/VI or UMEC/VI from a Canadian public healthcare perspective, incorporating data from the IMPACT trial in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (NCT02164513).

Methods

Baseline inputs and treatment effects from IMPACT were populated into the validated GALAXY-COPD disease progression model. Canadian unit costs and drug costs (Canadian dollars [C$], 2017) were applied to healthcare resource utilization and treatments. Future costs and health outcomes were discounted at 1.5% annually. Analyses were probabilistic, and outputs included exacerbation rates, costs, and life years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained.

Results

Compared with FF/VI and UMEC/VI over a lifetime horizon, the analyses predicted that treatment with FF/UMEC/VI resulted in fewer moderate and severe exacerbations, more LYs and more QALYs gained, with a small incremental cost. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per QALY gained was C$18,989 (95% confidence interval [CI]: C$14,665, C$25,753) versus FF/VI and C$13,776 (95% CI: C$9787, C$19,448) versus UMEC/VI. FF/UMEC/VI remained cost-effective versus both FF/VI and UMEC/VI in all sensitivity analyses, including in scenario analyses that considered different intervention and comparator discontinuation rates, and treatment effects for subsequent therapy.

Conclusion

Treatment with FF/UMEC/VI was predicted to improve outcomes and be a cost-effective treatment option for patients with symptomatic COPD and a history of exacerbations compared with FF/VI or UMEC/VI, in Canada.

Evaluation of rescue medication use and medication adherence receiving umeclidinium/vilanterol versus tiotropium bromide/olodaterol

Background

This was the first real-world head-to-head study comparing inhaled long-acting muscarinic antagonist/long-acting β2-agonist fixed-dose combination treatments as maintenance therapy.

Methods

Retrospective observational study including commercial, Medicare Advantage with Part D or Part D-only enrollees aged ≥40 years from the Optum Research Database. Patients initiated umeclidinium/vilanterol (UMEC/VI) or tiotropium bromide/olodaterol (TIO/OLO) between June 1, 2015 and November 30, 2016 (index date) with 12 months of pre- and post-index continuous enrollment. Outcomes were modeled following the inverse probability of treatment weighting. The primary endpoint, rescue medication use, was modeled using weighted ordinary least squares regression with bootstrapped variance estimation. Intent-to-treat analysis evaluated non-inferiority and superiority of UMEC/VI to TIO/OLO with thresholds of 0.30 and 0 units, respectively. On-treatment sensitivity analysis evaluated the superiority of UMEC/VI to TIO/OLO for rescue medication use. The secondary endpoint, medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC]≥80%), was evaluated using weighted logistic regression. Post hoc weighted Cox proportional hazards regression analysis evaluated escalation to multiple inhaler triple therapy (MITT).

Results

The study population included 14,324 patients; 9549 initiated UMEC/VI and 4775 initiated TIO/OLO. During the 12-month post-index period, UMEC/VI initiators used 0.16 fewer adjusted mean units of rescue medication than TIO/OLO initiators (95% CI: -0.28, -0.04), meeting pre-specified non-inferiority (P<0.001) and superiority (P=0.005) criteria; the on-treatment sensitivity analysis for superiority was not statistically significant. Significantly more UMEC/VI than TIO/OLO initiators (28.6% vs 22.7%; P<0.001) achieved a clinically meaningful level (PDC≥80%) of medication adherence. The adjusted risk of escalation to MITT was similar between treatment groups (HR=0.93; 95% CI: 0.81, 1.06; P=0.268).

Conclusion

UMEC/VI was superior to TIO/OLO for rescue medication use and UMEC/VI initiators had better medication adherence than TIO/OLO initiators. This study supports findings from a head-to-head trial that demonstrated significant, clinically meaningful improvements in lung function with UMEC/VI versus TIO/OLO.

Evidence-based review of data on the combination inhaler umeclidinium/vilanterol in patients with COPD

The use of inhaled, fixed-dose, long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) combined with long-acting, beta2-adrenergic receptor agonists (LABA) has become a mainstay in the maintenance treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). One of the fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations is the dry powder inhaler (DPI) of umeclidinium bromide (UMEC) and vilanterol trifenatate (VI) (62.5 µg/25 µg) approved for once-a-day maintenance treatment of COPD. This paper reviews the use of fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA agents focusing on the UMEC/VI DPI inhaler in the maintenance treatment of COPD. The fixed-dose combination LAMA/LABA inhaler offers a step beyond a single inhaled maintenance agent but is still a single device for the COPD patient having frequent COPD exacerbations and persistent symptoms not well controlled on one agent. Currently available clinical trials suggest that the once-a-day DPI of UMEC/VI is well-tolerated, safe and non-inferior or better than other currently available inhaled fixed-dose LAMA/LABA combinations for COPD.

Risk of Parkinson disease in Sjögren syndrome administered ineffective immunosuppressant therapies: A nationwide population-based study

To determine the incidence and risk of Parkinson disease (PD) in patients with Sjögren syndrome (SS) according to a nationwide population-based database.In total, 12,640 patients in the SS cohort and 50,560 in the non-SS cohort were enrolled from Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database from 2000 to 2010. We used the Cox multivariable proportional hazards model to determine the risk factors for PD in the SS cohort.We observed an increased incidence of PD in patients with SS, with a crude hazard ratio (HR) of 1.40 and an adjusted HR (aHR) of 1.23. The cumulative incidence of PD was 1.95% higher in the SS cohort than in the non-SS cohort. The SS cohort had an elevated HR under medication use, namely cevimeline and pilocarpine (crude HR, 1.28), hydroxychloroquine (crude HR, 1.43; aHR, 1.46), and methylprednisolone (crude HR, 2.21; aHR, 1.49). Patients receiving other non-hydroxychloroquine immunosuppressant therapies had a lower risk (aHR, 0.86) of PD. Furthermore, patients with SS aged 20 to 49 years had a 1.93-fold higher risk of PD than did those without SS (aHR, 1.93). The risk of PD was higher (aHR, 2.20) in patients with SS without comorbidities than in those with comorbidities. The aHR of PD significantly increased when the follow-up period exceeded 9 years (aHR, 1.93).We determined an increased risk of PD in patients with SS. Further investigation is warranted to determine the possible underlying mechanisms and the potential role of non-hydroxychloroquine immunosuppressants in ameliorating PD.

Preventing Clinically Important Deterioration of COPD with Addition of Umeclidinium to Inhaled Corticosteroid/Long-Acting β2-Agonist Therapy: An Integrated Post Hoc Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Assessing clinically important measures of disease progression is essential for evaluating therapeutic effects on disease stability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This analysis assessed whether providing additional bronchodilation with the long-acting muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) to patients treated with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) therapy would improve disease stability compared with ICS/LABA therapy alone.

METHODS

This integrated post hoc analysis of four 12-week, randomized, double-blind trials (NCT01772134, NCT01772147, NCT01957163, NCT02119286) compared UMEC 62.5 µg with placebo added to open-label ICS/LABA in symptomatic patients with COPD (modified Medical Research Council dyspnea scale score ≥ 2). A clinically important deterioration (CID) was defined as: a decrease from baseline of ≥ 100 mL in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), an increase from baseline of ≥ 4 units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score, or a moderate/severe exacerbation. Risk of a first CID was evaluated in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients stratified by Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) classification, exacerbation history and type of ICS/LABA therapy. Adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.

RESULTS

Overall, 1637 patients included in the ITT population received UMEC + ICS/LABA (n = 819) or placebo + ICS/LABA (n = 818). Additional bronchodilation with UMEC reduced the risk of a first CID by 45-58% in the ITT population and all subgroups analyzed compared with placebo (all p < 0.001). Improvements were observed in reducing FEV1 (69% risk reduction; p < 0.001) and exacerbation (47% risk reduction; p = 0.004) events in the ITT population. No significant reduction in risk of a SGRQ CID was observed. AE incidence was similar between treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic patients with COPD receiving ICS/LABA experience frequent deteriorations. Additional bronchodilation with UMEC significantly reduced the risk of CID and provided greater short-term stability versus continued ICS/LABA therapy in these patients.

FUNDING

GlaxoSmithKline (study number: 202067). Plain language summary available for this article.

Palonosetron is nonsuperior to ondansetron in acute phase but provides superior antiemetic control in delayed phase for pediatric patients administered highly emetogenic chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in children remains to be a major side effect despite antiemetic treatment. Palonosetron is a new generation 5-HT₃ receptor antagonists effective against acute and delayed nausea and vomiting. This study aimed to compare the therapeutic values of palonosetron and ondansetron in preventing pediatric CINV.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel controlled study was conducted in 0-18 years old cancer patients administered highly emetogenic chemotherapy, with different dosage of palonosetron or ondansetron, both followed by dexamethasone. The patients were observed for vomiting and nausea from 0 to 120 hr after chemotherapy initiation. All adverse events (AEs) during the study period were recorded. This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, number ChiCTR-TRC-14004891.

RESULTS

Between August 2014 and July 2016, 565 patients were randomly assigned to receive 5 μg/kg palonosetron (n = 185), 10 μg/kg palonosetron (n = 186), and 3 × 150 μg/kg ondansetron (n = 194), of whom 181, 185, and 189, respectively, were included in the efficacy analysis. Complete response (CR) rates during the acute phase were 69.1, 69.7, and 64.6%, respectively, in the 5 μg/kg palonosetron, 10 μg/kg palonosetron, and ondansetron groups. In the delayed phase, 10 μg/kg palonosetron (CR, 53.5%) showed superiority to 5 μg/kg palonosetron (CR, 39.8%) and ondansetron (CR, 32.8%) groups (P < 0.05). The most frequently observed drug-related AEs were nervous system disorders, mainly headache, with an incidence of 2.8, 2.2, and 2.6% in each group, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Combination of palonosetron plus dexamethasone is highly effective in controlling acute and delayed CINV, with palonosetron superior to ondansetron.

Single-inhaler triple therapy utilizing the once-daily combination of fluticasone furoate, umeclidinium and vilanterol in the management of COPD: the current evidence base and future prospects

Maintenance pharmacological treatment for stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is based on inhaled drugs, including long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMA), long-acting β2-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Inhaled pharmacological treatment can improve patients' daily symptoms and reduce decline of pulmonary function and acute exacerbation rate. Treatment with all three inhaled drug classes is reserved for selected, more severe, patients with COPD when symptoms are not sufficiently controlled by dual LABA/LAMA therapy and exacerbations are frequent. This review focuses on the role of single-inhaler triple therapy with once-daily fluticasone furoate/umeclidinium/vilanterol fixed-dose combination, which is in phase III clinical development for maintenance treatment of severe-to-very severe COPD. In this review, we summarize evidence providing the rationale for its use in COPD and discuss the gaps to be filled in this pharmacotherapeutic area.

Umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have poor quality of life, reduced survival, and accelerated decline in lung function, especially associated with acute exacerbations, leading to high healthcare costs. Long-acting bronchodilators are the mainstay of treatment for symptomatic improvement, and umeclidinium is one of the new long-acting muscarinic antagonists approved for treatment of patients with stable COPD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium bromide versus placebo for people with stable COPD.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (CAGR), ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal, and the GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Clinical Study Register, using prespecified terms, as well as the reference lists of all identified studies. Searches are current to April 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of parallel design comparing umeclidinium bromide versus placebo in people with COPD, for at least 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. If we noted significant heterogeneity in the meta-analyses, we subgrouped studies by umeclidinium dose.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies of 12 to 52 weeks' duration, involving 3798 participants with COPD. Mean age of participants ranged from 60.1 to 64.6 years; most were males with baseline mean smoking pack-years of 39.2 to 52.3. They had moderate to severe COPD and baseline mean post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV₁) ranging from 44.5% to 55.1% of predicted normal. As all studies were systematically conducted according to prespecified protocols, we assessed risk of selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases as low.Compared with those given placebo, participants in the umeclidinium group had a lesser likelihood of developing moderate exacerbations requiring a short course of steroids, antibiotics, or both (odds ratio (OR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.80; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: high), but not specifically requiring hospitalisations due to severe exacerbations (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.92; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: low). The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) to prevent an acute exacerbation requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both was 18 (95% CI 13 to 37). Quality of life was better in the umeclidinium group (mean difference (MD) -4.79, 95% CI -8.84 to -0.75; three studies, N = 1119), and these participants had a significantly higher chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least four units in St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score compared with those in the placebo group (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.82; three studies, N = 1397; GRADE: moderate). The NNTB to achieve one person with a clinically meaningful improvement was 11 (95% CI 7 to 29). The likelihood of all-cause mortality, non-fatal serious adverse events (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00; four studies, N = 1922, GRADE: moderate), and adverse events (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.31; four studies, N = 1922; GRADE: moderate) did not differ between umeclidinium and placebo groups. The umeclidinium group demonstrated significantly greater improvement in change from baseline in trough FEV₁ compared with the placebo group (MD 0.14, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.17; four studies, N = 1381; GRADE: high). Symptomatic improvement was more likely in the umeclidinium group than in the placebo group, as determined by Transitional Dyspnoea Index (TDI) focal score (MD 0.76, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.09; three studies, N = 1193), and the chance of achieving a minimal clinically important difference of at least one unit improvement was significantly higher with umeclidinium than with placebo (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; three studies, N = 1141; GRADE: high). The NNTB to attain one person with clinically important symptomatic improvement was 8 (95% CI 5 to 14). The likelihood of rescue medication usage (change from baseline in the number of puffs per day) was significantly less for the umeclidinium group than for the placebo group (MD -0.45, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.14; four studies, N = 1531).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Umeclidinium reduced acute exacerbations requiring steroids, antibiotics, or both, although no evidence suggests that it decreased the risk of hospital admission due to exacerbations. Moreover, umeclidinium demonstrated significant improvement in quality of life, lung function, and symptoms, along with lesser use of rescue medications. Studies reported no differences in adverse events, non-fatal serious adverse events, or mortality between umeclidinium and placebo groups; however, larger studies would yield a more precise estimate for these outcomes.

Palonosetron and Ramosetron Compared for Effectiveness in Preventing Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Previous randomized controlled trials have reported conflicting findings on the superiority of palonosetron over ramosetron for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Therefore, the present systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016038120) and performed to compare the efficacy of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron for preventing PONV. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness of perioperative administration of palonosetron to that of ramosetron. The primary endpoints were defined as the incidence of postoperative nausea (PON), postoperative vomiting (POV), and PONV. A total of 695 patients were included in the final analysis. Subgroup analysis was performed through administration times which were divided into two phases: the early phase of surgery and the end of surgery. Combined analysis did not show differences between palonosetron and ramosetron in the overall incidence of PON, POV or PONV. Palonosetron was more effective than ramosetron, when the administration time for the 5-HT3 receptor antagonist was during the early phase of the operation. Otherwise, ramosetron was more effective than palonosetron, when the administration time was at the end of surgery. However, the quality of evidence for each outcome was low or very low and number of included studies was small, limiting our confidence in findings.

Solifenacin for Overactive Bladder with Incontinence: Symptom Bother and Health-Related Quality of Life Outcomes

Background:

Approximately one-third of patients with overactive bladder (OAB) experience incontinence, a bothersome symptom with a clear negative effect on quality of life.

Objective:

To assess OAB patients' perceptions of improvements in symptom bother and quality of life after taking solifenacin under conditions reflecting day-today practice.

Methods:

VOLT (the VESIcare Open-Label Trial) was a prospective, open-label study in patients with OAB (defined as urgency, urge urinary incontinence, daytime frequency, or nocturia for ≥3 mo) who were treated with flexibly dosed, once-daily solifenacin for 12 weeks. This study included subjects enrolled in VOLT who, at baseline, had urge incontinence and reported incontinence as their most bothersome symptom. All patients were started on solifenacin 5 mg/day; at week 4, the dosage could be increased to 10 mg/day and at week 8 could be maintained or decreased back to 5 mg/day. Efficacy was assessed by 3 independent patient-reported outcomes: the Patient Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC) scale, a visual analog scale (VAS) for assessing individual symptoms, and the Overactive Bladder Questionnaire (OAB-q).

Results:

Of the 2205 patients in the VOLT full analysis set, 1586 (71.9%) had urge incontinence at baseline, of which 582 (36.7%) reported incontinence as their most bothersome symptom. In this cohort, mean PPBC score at baseline was 4.6 (indicating moderate-to-severe problems) and at endpoint had decreased significantly to 2.9 (very minor to some minor problems; p < 0.001). At endpoint, 80.4% of patients achieved improvement in their PPBC score. These patients reported significant improvements from baseline in urinary urgency, urge incontinence, frequency, and nocturia on the VAS (p < 0.001) and all OAB-q domains (symptom severity, coping, concern, sleep, social, health-related quality of life) at endpoint (p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

Patients reporting urge incontinence as their most bothersome OAB symptom can be expected to demonstrate significant improvements in multiple patient-related outcomes following treatment with flexibly dosed solifenacin.

A Novel Method for Studying the Pharmacokinetics of [(14) C]Umeclidinium After Application to the Axilla or Palm of Healthy Male Subjects

Umeclidinium (UMEC), a long-acting muscarinic antagonist approved for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), was investigated for primary hyperhidrosis as topical therapy. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of a single dose of [(14) C]UMEC applied to either unoccluded axilla (UA), occluded axilla (OA), or occluded palm (OP) of healthy males. After 8 h the formulation was removed. [(14) C]UMEC plasma concentrations (Cp) were quantified by accelerator mass spectrometry. Occlusion increased systemic exposure by 3.8-fold. Due to UMEC absorption-limited pharmacokinetics, Cp data from the OA were combined with intravenous data from a phase I study. The data were described by a two-compartment population model with sequential zero and first-order absorption and linear elimination. Simulated systemic exposure following q.d. doses to axilla was similar to the exposure from the inhaled therapy, suggesting that systemic safety following dermal administration can be bridged to the inhaled program, and offering the potential for a reduced number of studies and/or subjects.

Efficacy of palonosetron in postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV)-a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Palonosetron is a second-generation 5-HT3 receptor antagonist with proposed higher efficacy and sustained action for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials involving adult population undergoing elective surgery under general anesthesia comparing palonosetron to placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron were included. Data were extracted for vomiting incidence (VI), complete response (no nausea/vomiting; Complete Response [CR]), and rescue antiemetic need. This was categorized as early phase (24 hours postoperative for ramosetron and 6 hours for rest) and delayed phase (48 hours for ramosetron and 24 hours for rest). VI and CR were used as markers of drug efficacy. Any adverse effects were evaluated.

RESULTS

Twenty-two trials (4 with 3 groups) were included (comparing palonosetron to placebo in 5, ramosetron in 5, granisetron in 4, and ondansetron in 12 subgroups). Palonosetron demonstrated statistical superiority over placebo for VI and CR, both early/delayed PONV prevention. For delayed phase, palonosetron surpassed ramosetron in all 3 variables; however, none of the variables attained statistical significance during early phase. In early phase, palonosetron had better VI and CR than did granisetron; however, variables other than CR (better for palonosetron) failed to achieve statistical significance for delayed phase. All 3 outcomes were significantly better for palonosetron compared with ondansetron in delayed phase, but statistical superiority could only be demonstrated for VI in early phase. Being inconsistently documented across trials, nausea scores could not be evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Palonosetron is as safe as and more effective than placebo, ramosetron, granisetron, and ondansetron in preventing delayed PONV. For early PONV, it has higher efficacy over placebo, granisetron, and ondansetron.

Phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravenous palonosetron (PAL) in primary malignant glioma (MG) patients receiving standard radiotherapy (RT) and concomitant temozolomide (TMZ)

BACKGROUND

In malignant glioma (MG) patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) with concomitant temozolomide, chemoradiation-induced nausea and vomiting (cRINV) degrades quality of life (QoL) and reduces treatment adherence, which thereby potentially compromises cancer control.

METHODS

We conducted a 6-week phase II single-arm trial of PAL, a second-generation 5-HT3RA antiemetic, for cRINV prevention in MG patients receiving radiation therapy (RT; 54-60 Gy) and concomitant daily temozolomide (TMZ; 75 mg/m(2)/dX42d). Each week before radiation, patients received single-dose palonosetron (PAL) 0.25 mg IV (total = 6 doses). With safety/tolerability as the primary endpoint, the study was designed to differentiate between toxicity rates of 25 % (unacceptable) and 10 % (acceptable) toxicity rates. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of patients achieving cRINV complete response (CR: no emesis or rescue antiemetic) and QoL. Patients reported adverse effects in Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events diaries; recorded vomiting, nausea, and rescue medication use in diaries (which were used to assess cRINV-CR); and reported QoL 4 days/week using the Modified Functional Living Index-Emesis (M-FLIE) and Osoba nausea and vomiting/retching modules.

RESULTS

We enrolled 38 patients (mean age 59 years, 55 % female, 95 % white, 68 % used oral corticosteroids, 76 % reported low alcohol use). Four patients (10.5 %) experienced unacceptable treatment-related toxicity, defined as any grade 3, 4, or 5 non-hematologic toxicity. M-FLIE and Osoba scores showed no evidence of treatment impact on QoL. Overall, cRINV-CR rates for 6 weeks ranged from 67-79 %.

CONCLUSION

Single-dose weekly PAL is a safe and tolerable antiemetic for cRINV prevention in MG patients receiving standard RT and concomitant TMZ.

A randomized, parallel-group study to evaluate the efficacy of umeclidinium/vilanterol 62.5/25 μg on health-related quality of life in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The combination of the inhaled muscarinic antagonist umeclidinium (UMEC) with the long-acting β2-agonist vilanterol (VI) has been shown to provide significant improvements in lung function compared with UMEC, VI, or placebo (PBO) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This study was specifically designed to support these findings by assessing health-related quality of life and symptomatic outcomes in a similar population.

METHODS

This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study. Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (via ELLIPTA(®) dry powder inhaler) or PBO for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at day 84. Secondary efficacy endpoints included rescue albuterol use (puffs/day) over weeks 1-12 and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84. Adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 496 patients were included in the intent-to-treat population in the UMEC/VI (n=248) and PBO (n=248) treatment groups. UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in SGRQ total score at day 84 versus PBO (difference between treatments in SGRQ total score change from baseline: -4.03 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -6.28, -1.79]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg resulted in a statistically significant reduction in rescue albuterol use versus PBO (-0.7 puffs/day [95% CI: -1.1, -0.4]; P<0.001). UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provided a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second on day 84 versus PBO (122 mL [95% CI: 71, 172]; P<0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatments (32% and 30% of patients in the UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg and PBO groups, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrate that treatment with UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg provides clinically important improvements in SGRQ and rescue medication use versus PBO in patients with moderate-to-very-severe COPD.

Safety of long acting muscarinic antagonists: are all these drugs always and equally safe?

Inhaled bronchodilators - such as long-acting muscarinic receptor antagonists (LAMAs) - are central to the pharmacological management of symptomatic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. LAMAs are considered to be safe drugs at recommended dosages. In the present issue of the Journal safety of umeclidinium, a recently marketed LAMA, at twice the recommended dosage, has been evaluated with good results in a Japanese, COPD population. However, because muscarinic receptors are expressed not only in the lungs but also at the level of heart, digestive and urinary apparatus, the potential exists for LAMAs to cause adverse events related to stimulation of receptors in these organs. Head-to-head and post-marketing vigilance studies are required to determine the profile risk of these drugs, ultimately, and whether differences exist between currently available LAMAs.

A randomized, blinded study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of umeclidinium 62.5 μg compared with tiotropium 18 μg in patients with COPD

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonists umeclidinium (UMEC) and tiotropium (TIO) are approved once-daily maintenance therapies for COPD. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of UMEC versus TIO in COPD.

METHODS

This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, blinded, double-dummy, parallel-group, non-inferiority study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to UMEC 62.5 μg plus placebo or TIO 18 μg plus placebo. The primary end point was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at day 85 (non-inferiority margin -50 mL; per-protocol [PP] population). Other end points included weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 and 12-24 hours post-dose. Patient-reported outcomes comprised Transition Dyspnea Index score, St George's Respiratory Questionnaire total score, and COPD Assessment Test score. Adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 1,017 patients were randomized to treatment. In the PP population, 489 and 487 patients received UMEC and TIO, respectively. In the PP population, change from baseline in trough FEV1 was greater with UMEC versus TIO at day 85, meeting non-inferiority and superiority margins (difference: 59 mL; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 29-88; P<0.001). Similar results were observed in the intent-to-treat analysis of trough FEV1 at day 85 (53 mL, 95% CI: 25-81; P<0.001). Improvements in weighted mean FEV1 over 0-24 hours post-dose at day 84 were similar with UMEC and TIO but significantly greater with UMEC versus TIO over 12-24 hours post-dose (70 mL; P=0.015). Clinically meaningful improvements in Transition Dyspnea Index and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire were observed with both treatments at all time points. No differences were observed between UMEC and TIO in patient-reported outcomes. Overall incidences of adverse events were similar for UMEC and TIO.

CONCLUSION

UMEC 62.5 μg demonstrated superior efficacy to TIO 18 μg on the primary end point of trough FEV1 at day 85. Safety profiles were similar for both treatments.

Safety of an Oral Fixed Combination of Netupitant and Palonosetron (NEPA): Pooled Data From the Phase II/III Clinical Program

BACKGROUND

Standard prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) with highly emetogenic and anthracycline-cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy includes a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1RA), and corticosteroid therapy. NEPA is a fixed combination of netupitant and palonosetron. The primary objective of this analysis was to document the safety profile, including cardiac safety, of NEPA + dexamethasone in comparison with current therapies across all phase II/III trials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This pooled analysis was based on data from 3,280 patients in 4 randomized, double-blind clinical trials. Patients were categorized into 1 of 3 pooled groups on the basis of actual treatment received: NEPA + dexamethasone, palonosetron + dexamethasone, and aprepitant + ondansetron/palonosetron + dexamethasone. Safety was assessed by number and frequency of adverse events (AEs) and changes from baseline electrocardiogram measures.

RESULTS

Most patients were female and younger than 65 years of age. Demographic characteristics varied among studies and pooled groups. Frequencies of treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) and treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) were similar across groups. TEAEs were mostly mild and consistent with expected chemotherapy and disease-related AEs (hematologic events, hair loss, general weakness). TRAEs in ≥2% of patients were headache and constipation. Frequencies of cardiac TEAEs were similar across groups, with QT prolongation (1.6%), tachycardia (1.1%), and dyspnea (0.9%) the most common. Serious cardiac TEAEs were rare.

CONCLUSION

NEPA was well-tolerated, with an AE profile as expected for the regimen. Sample size, demographic characteristics, study design, chemotherapy, and antiemetic regimen differences across the four studies may have contributed to differences in frequencies of neutropenia and alopecia. Adding an NK1RA to a CINV prophylaxis regimen can improve outcomes without additional toxicity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Supportive care for cancer should ideally be efficacious, convenient, and well-tolerated. There have been concerns about cardiac safety with current antiemetic prophylactic agents, namely dolasetron and ondansetron. This pooled safety analysis demonstrates that the new oral fixed combination therapy NEPA can be safely added to an antiemetic regimen without increased toxicity.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of inhaled umeclidinium and vilanterol alone and in combination in healthy Chinese subjects: a randomized, open-label, crossover trial

Inhaled umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of inhaled UMEC with vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the US and EU. This was a randomized, open-label, three-period crossover, single- and repeat-dose study to assess the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of inhaled UMEC/VI 62.5/25 μg (delivering 55/22 μg) and UMEC/VI 125/25 μg (delivering 113/22 μg) compared with their monotherapy components (UMEC 62.5 μg, UMEC 125 μg and, VI 25 μg [delivering 55, 113, and 22 μg, respectively]) in healthy Chinese subjects (n=20). UMEC and VI were rapidly absorbed following single and repeat dosing (time to maximum plasma concentration [t_max]: UMEC = 5 min; VI = 5 min). The median t_last was 2–4 h for UMEC and 1–2 h for VI following single doses of UMEC/VI and UMEC monotherapy (both doses). UMEC reached steady-state prior to Day 10; steady-state for VI could not be assessed. UMEC accumulation following repeat dosing was 11–34% based on C_max and 19–59% based on area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 2 h (AUC_(0-2)). VI accumulation following repeat dosing was 25–66% based on C_max and 17–43% based on AUC_(0-2). The evidence was not sufficient to suggest that systemic exposure was substantially different between UMEC/VI combination therapy and the constituent monotherapies following single or repeat dosing. Following both single- and repeat-dose administration, the inter-subject coefficient of variation for all UMEC PK parameter estimates ranged from 12% to 165% for all treatments, indicating a wide range of variability in inhaled PK parameters. Twelve subjects experienced ≥1 adverse event (AE). Six subjects experienced ≥1 treatment-related AE; the most commonly reported treatment-related AE was chest discomfort (n=3 [15%]). No clinically important changes in vital signs or electrocardiogram parameters were reported. These data suggest that single- and repeat-dose administration of UMEC/VI combination therapy in healthy Chinese subjects did not result in substantial differences in systemic exposure compared with UMEC and VI as monotherapies.

[PROSPECTS FOR THE TREATMENT OF IDIOPATHIC AND NEUROGENIC OVERACTIVE BLADDER]

Overactive bladder (OAB) is a common problem in modern population. The main line of medical treatment of this condition is the use of M-cholinoblockers. Solifenacin has shown high selectivity for the bladder in preclinical studies. Data on the efficacy and safety of high-dose (10 mg/day) of solifenacin are insufficient. The study was aimed to the comparative evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of solifenacin at a dose of 5 and 10 mg/day. The study included 28 patients (17 women and 11 men), mean age was 41.3±6.7 years. All patients were divided into two groups. In Group 1 included 12 patients with idiopathic overactive bladder, the Group 2 (n=16) - with neurogenic overactive bladder. Depending on the effect obtained, in some patients the dose was increased to 10 mg/day 1 month after starting treatment. The duration of treatment was 12 weeks. Application of solifenacin at a dose of 5 mg in patients with overactive bladder significantly reduces the severity of symptoms. Increasing the dose was required in 3 (25%) patients with idiopathic OAB and in 10 (62.5%) - with neurogenic OAB. Patients unsatisfied by therapy with solifenacin 5 mg/ day initially had more severe symptoms of the disease - significantly more urgency frequency, incontinence episodes, and nocturia. The use of high doses of solifenacin increased the effectiveness of treatment. Statistical significance was achieved for all parameters evaluated. Against the background of increasing doses, the number ofadverse effects may increase, but within a month of therapy in most cases they are reduced.

A comparative study on the efficacy of solifenacin succinate in patients with urinary frequency with or without urgency

Objectives

Patients with overactive bladder (OAB) often have trouble perceiving urgency because of difficulties in distinguishing between urgency and desire to void. Empirical antimuscarinic treatment of patients with frequency only may be reasonable if conservative management has failed. We compared the efficacy of solifenacin in patients with frequency with or without urgency.

Materials and Methods

This multicenter, 12-week, open-label, comparative, non-inferiority clinical trial assessed whether the solifenacin efficacy for frequency without urgency is non-inferior to its efficacy for frequency with urgency. All patients had micturition frequency ≥8 voids/day with or without urgency. Primary efficacy variable: daily frequency change at 12 weeks relative to baseline. Secondary efficacy variables: change at 12 weeks relative to baseline in Patients' Perception of Bladder Condition (PPBC), OAB Symptom Score (OABSS), and Benefit, Satisfaction, Willingness to continue (BSW) questionnaire.

Results

Of the 286 enrolled patients, 240 (83.9%) completed the study (without urgency n = 115; with urgency n = 125). Full dataset analysis revealed that the groups without and with urgency exhibited significant reductions in daily micturition frequency of −2.49±0.35 (mean ± standard error) and −2.63±0.37, respectively. The lower limit of the 95% two-sided CI of the comparison of the two group means was −1.14, which is smaller than the −0.8 margin of clinical equivalence. The two groups did not differ in improvement in PPBC, OABSS, or BSW scores. Both tolerated the treatment well.

Conclusions

It was not possible to verify that the solifenacin efficacy for frequency alone was non-inferior to its efficacy for OAB. Nevertheless, solifenacin tended to be effective for frequency regardless of urgency.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00979472

[Pharmacoeconomic study of using solifenacin for the treatment of urge urinary incontinence in patients with overactive bladder syndrome]

Overactive bladder syndrome (OAB), accompanied by incontinence, is a relatively common disease. Currently, in the Russian Federation, unfortunately, management of patients with OAB includes the recommendations for symptomatic use of incontinence pads without pharmacotherapy. Along with this, the market is represented by a number of drugs that can reduce the occurrence of adverse symptoms associated with OAB syndrome. This study presents the pharmacoeconomic analysis of use of solifenacin for the treatment of patients with the OAB syndrome in Russia. Based on previous clinical studies, formal mathematical model for the development of OAB have been suggested, taking into account the concomitant symptoms (urinary incontinence), and complications (urinary tract infections, skin infections, depression and fractures). The model considers the direct medical and non-medical costs, as well as indirect social costs, arising from the traditional management of patients with OAB syndrome (no medication) and the use of solifenacin. As a result, it was found that the use of solifenacin is economically feasible option for the management of patients with OAB within 1 year, the difference in costs between these strategies per patient is 2,385 rubles. The use of solifenacin ceases to be a resource-saving if the cost of incontinence pads will reduced by more than half of the basic price included in the calculations, or if the effectiveness of solifenacin would be 15% lower than the value used in the basic model.

Safety and tolerability of once-daily umeclidinium/vilanterol 125/25 mcg and umeclidinium 125 mcg in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: results from a 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

The long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) umeclidinium (UMEC) and the combination of UMEC with the long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) vilanterol (UMEC/VI) are approved maintenance treatments for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in the US and EU. They are not indicated for the treatment of asthma.

METHODS

In this 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group safety study (GSK study DB2113359; NCT01316887), patients were randomized 2:2:1 to UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg, UMEC 125 mcg, or placebo. Study endpoints included adverse events (AEs), clinical chemistry and hematology parameters, vital signs, 12-lead, and 24-hour Holter electrocardiograms. COPD exacerbations and rescue medication use were assessed as safety parameters; lung function was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The incidence of on-treatment AEs, serious AEs (SAEs), and drug-related AEs was similar between treatment groups (AEs: 52-58%; SAEs: 6-7%; drug-related AEs: 12-13%). Headache was the most common AE in each treatment group (8-11%). AEs associated with the LAMA and LABA pharmacologic classes occurred at a low incidence across treatment groups. No clinically meaningful effects on vital signs or laboratory assessments were reported for active treatments versus placebo. The incidences of atrial arrhythmias with UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg were similar to placebo; for UMEC 125 mcg, the incidences of ectopic supraventricular beats, sustained supraventricular tachycardia, and ectopic supraventricular rhythm were ≥2% greater than placebo. With active treatments, COPD exacerbations were fewer (13-15% of patients reporting ≥1 exacerbation) and on average less rescue medication was required (1.6-2.2 puffs/day) versus placebo (24% reporting ≥1 exacerbation, 2.6 puffs/day). Both active treatments improved lung function versus placebo.

CONCLUSION

UMEC/VI 125/25 mcg and UMEC 125 mcg were well tolerated over 12 months in patients with COPD.

A phase III study evaluating the safety and efficacy of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting over repeated cycles of chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Safe, effective and convenient antiemetic regimens that preserve benefit over repeated cycles are needed for optimal supportive care during cancer treatment. NEPA, an oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA), and palonosetron (PALO), a distinct 5-HT3 RA, was shown to be superior to PALO in preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting after a single cycle of highly (HEC) or moderately (MEC) emetogenic chemotherapy in recent trials. This study was designed primarily to assess the safety but also to evaluate the efficacy of NEPA over multiple cycles of HEC and MEC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multinational, double-blind, randomized phase III study (NCT01376297) in 413 chemotherapy-naïve patients evaluated a single oral dose of NEPA (NETU 300 mg + PALO 0.50 mg) given on day 1 with oral dexamethasone (DEX). An oral 3-day aprepitant (APR) regimen + PALO + DEX was included as a control (3:1 NEPA:APR randomization). In HEC, DEX was administered on days 1-4 and in MEC on day 1. Safety was assessed primarily by adverse events (AEs), including cardiac AEs; efficacy by complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue).

RESULTS

Patients completed 1961 total chemotherapy cycles (76% MEC, 24% HEC) with 75% completing ≥4 cycles. The incidence/type of AEs was comparable for both groups. Most frequent NEPA-related AEs included constipation (3.6%) and headache (1.0%); there was no indication of increasing AEs over multiple cycles. The majority of AEs were mild/moderate and there were no cardiac safety concerns based on AEs and electrocardiograms. The overall (0-120 h) CR rates in cycle 1 were 81% and 76% for NEPA and APR + PALO, respectively, and antiemetic efficacy was maintained over repeated cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA, a convenient single oral dose antiemetic targeting dual pathways, was safe, well tolerated and highly effective over multiple cycles of HEC/MEC.

Comparison of the discontinuation rates and side-effect profiles of pilocarpine and cevimeline for xerostomia in primary Sjögren's syndrome

OBJECTIVES

There are currently no head-to-head comparisons of sialagogues for Primary Sjögren's syndrome (pSS). We compared the tolerability and side effect profile of pilocarpine and cevimeline in patients with pSS and determined clinical, laboratory and pathological variables associated with therapeutic failure.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the use of pilocarpine and cevimeline in 118 patients with pSS who fulfilled the 2002 American European Consensus Group criteria in a University-based setting. Clinical, laboratory and pathological baseline variables were collected. Failure of therapy was defined as the clinician or patient's decision to stop treatment either due to lack of efficacy or side effects.

RESULTS

Cevimeline was associated with lower failure rates compared to pilocarpine among first-time users: 27% vs. 47% (p=0.02), and all users: 32% vs. 61% (p<0.001). Severe sweating was the most frequent side effect leading to cessation of therapy and occurred more frequently in pilocarpine (25%) than cevimeline (11%) users (p=0.02). Patients who previously failed one secretagogue were less likely to discontinue treatment with the other agent, 52% of first-time users vs. 27% of second-time users (p=0.004). Only ANA positivity was associated with failure: [59% vs. 38%] (p=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

pSS patients were more likely to continue cevimeline than pilocarpine long-term due to fewer reported side effects with cevimeline. Therapeutic failure of one secretagogue did not predict similar results with the other since second time users were more likely to continue long-term treatment.

Efficacy and safety of NEPA, an oral combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following highly emetogenic chemotherapy: a randomized dose-ranging pivotal study

BACKGROUND

NEPA is a novel oral fixed-dose combination of netupitant (NETU), a new highly selective neurokinin-1 (NK1) receptor antagonist (RA) and palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-hydroxytryptamine type 3 (5-HT3) RA. This study was designed to determine the appropriate clinical dose of NETU to combine with PALO for evaluation in the phase 3 NEPA program.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, parallel group study in 694 chemotherapy naïve patients undergoing cisplatin-based chemotherapy for solid tumors compared three different oral doses of NETU (100, 200, and 300 mg) + PALO 0.50 mg with oral PALO 0.50 mg, all given on day 1. A standard 3-day aprepitant (APR) + IV ondansetron (OND) 32 mg regimen was included as an exploratory arm. All patients received oral dexamethasone on days 1-4. The primary efficacy endpoint was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the overall (0-120 h) phase.

RESULTS

All NEPA doses showed superior overall CR rates compared with PALO (87.4%, 87.6%, and 89.6% for NEPA100, NEPA200, and NEPA300, respectively versus 76.5% PALO; P < 0.050) with the highest NEPA300 dose studied showing an incremental benefit over lower NEPA doses for all efficacy endpoints. NEPA300 was significantly more effective than PALO and numerically better than APR + OND for all secondary efficacy endpoints of no emesis, no significant nausea, and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea) rates during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (25-120 h), and overall phases. Adverse events were comparable across groups with no dose response. The percent of patients developing electrocardiogram changes was also comparable.

CONCLUSIONS

Each NEPA dose provided superior prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) compared with PALO following highly emetogenic chemotherapy; however, NEPA300 was the best dose studied, with an advantage over lower doses for all efficacy endpoints. The combination of NETU and PALO was well tolerated with a similar safety profile to PALO and APR + OND.

A randomized phase III study evaluating the efficacy and safety of NEPA, a fixed-dose combination of netupitant and palonosetron, for prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Antiemetic guidelines recommend co-administration of agents that target multiple molecular pathways involved in emesis to maximize prevention and control of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). NEPA is a new oral fixed-dose combination of 300 mg netupitant, a highly selective NK1 receptor antagonist (RA) and 0.50 mg palonosetron (PALO), a pharmacologically and clinically distinct 5-HT3 RA, which targets dual antiemetic pathways.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multinational, randomized, double-blind, parallel group phase III study (NCT01339260) in 1455 chemotherapy-naïve patients receiving moderately emetogenic (anthracycline-cyclophosphamide) chemotherapy evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single oral dose of NEPA versus a single oral dose (0.50 mg) of PALO. All patients also received oral dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1 only (12 mg in the NEPA arm and 20 mg in the PALO arm). The primary efficacy end point was complete response (CR: no emesis, no rescue medication) during the delayed (25-120 h) phase in cycle 1.

RESULTS

The percentage of patients with CR during the delayed phase was significantly higher in the NEPA group compared with the PALO group (76.9% versus 69.5%; P = 0.001), as were the percentages in the overall (0-120 h) (74.3% versus 66.6%; P = 0.001) and acute (0-24 h) (88.4% versus 85.0%; P = 0.047) phases. NEPA was also superior to PALO during the delayed and overall phases for all secondary efficacy end points of no emesis, no significant nausea and complete protection (CR plus no significant nausea). NEPA was well tolerated with a similar safety profile as PALO.

CONCLUSIONS

NEPA plus a single dose of DEX was superior to PALO plus DEX in preventing CINV following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in acute, delayed and overall phases of observation. As a fixed-dose antiemetic drug combination, NEPA along with a single dose of DEX on day 1 offers guideline-based prophylaxis with a convenient, single-day treatment.

Therapeutic benefit in patients switching tolterodine to other novel antimuscarinic agents

OBJECTIVES

To explore in the daily clinical practice setting that antimuscarinic, Fesoterodine or Solifenacin, provides a greater clinical benefit after changing their prior Overactive Bladder (OAB) therapy with tolterodine extended-release (ER) to other novel antimuscarinic agents.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A post-hoc analysis of data from an observational multicenter, cross-sectional, retrospective study. Adult patients of both sexes, with OAB and OAB-V8 score≥8, who switched to fesoterodine or solifenacin within the 3-4 months before study visit from their prior tolterodine-ER-based therapy due to poor response were included. 92 patients were selected for each treatment group, matched (1:1) according to conditioned probability using the propensity score. Benefit of treatment change perceived by the physician and patient was evaluated by means of the Clinical Global Impression of Improvement subscale (CGI-I) and Treatment Benefit Scale (TBS), respectively. Degree of worry, bother and interference with daily living activities due to urinary symptoms, level of satisfaction, and preference for current treatment were also assessed.

RESULTS

Fesoterodine provided a significantly greater improvement than solifenacina in terms of therapeutic benefit perceived by the physician according to ICG-I. 96.7% of the patients on fesoterodine treatment vs. 81.6% of the solifenacin group showed a score of improvement in TBS (P<.05). Fesoterodine was also better rated than solifenacin with regard to satisfaction and preference for the new treatment (93.4 vs. 78.2% P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In daily clinical practice the switch from tolterodine LP to fesoterodine seems to provide greater benefits both from the physician's and the patient's point of view compared with those provided by solifenacin.

Randomized pharmacokinetic study comparing subcutaneous and intravenous palonosetron in cancer patients treated with platinum based chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Palonosetron is a potent second generation 5- hydroxytryptamine-3 selective antagonist which can be administered by either intravenous (IV) or oral routes, but subcutaneous (SC) administration of palonosetron has never been studied, even though it could have useful clinical applications. In this study, we evaluate the bioavailability of SC palonosetron.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients treated with platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized to receive SC or IV palonosetron, followed by the alternative route in a crossover manner, during the first two cycles of chemotherapy. Blood samples were collected at baseline and 10, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 minutes and 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h after palonosetron administration. Urine was collected during 12 hours following palonosetron. We compared pharmacokinetic parameters including AUC0-24h, t1/2, and Cmax observed with each route of administration by analysis of variance (ANOVA).

RESULTS

From October 2009 to July 2010, 25 evaluable patients were included. AUC0-24h for IV and SC palonosetron were respectively 14.1 and 12.7 ng × h/ml (p=0.160). Bioavalability of SC palonosetron was 118% (95% IC: 69-168). Cmax was lower with SC than with IV route and was reached 15 minutes following SC administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Palonosetron bioavailability was similar when administered by either SC or IV route. This new route of administration might be specially useful for outpatient management of emesis and for administration of oral chemotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01046240.

[Effects of penehyclidine inhalation on postoperative pulmonary complications of elderly patients after long-duration surgery]

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effects of penehyclidine inhalation on the incidence of pulmonary complications in elderly patients after long-duration surgery.

METHODS

For this prospective, double-blind and randomized controlled trial, 90 elderly patients undergoing long-duration surgery ( ≥ 3 hours) under general anesthesia and transferred into intensive care unit (ICU) of Peking University First Hospital during February 14, 2012 to September 13, 2012 were enrolled. After extubation, they were randomized into 3 groups to receive an inhalation of penehyclidine hydrochloride, ipratropium bromide or normal saline for 3 consecutive days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of pulmonary complications within 6 days post-extubation.

RESULTS

The incidence of bronchospasm was 3.3%, 3.2% and 20.7% respectively. And the rate of aminophylline use was 0,0 and 10.3% respectively (P = 0.025 and P = 0.038); the airway tract spasm-free duration within 6 days after extubation was 5.8 (5.5-6.2), 5.8 (5.5-6.2) and 5.3 (4.8-5.9) days (P = 0.028); the overall incidence of pulmonary complications was 70.0%, 71.0% and 75.9% (P = 0.865).

CONCLUSIONS

For elderly patients after long-duration surgery, a prophylactic atomizing inhalation of penehyclidine decreases the incidence of bronchospasm and the rate of aminophylline use after extubation.However, the overall incidence of pulmonary complications has no change.

[Treatment of overactive bladder in older women increased doses of antimuscarinic drugs safe and effective alternative to existing methods]

The study included 95 female patients of 65 to 74 years (average age 67,1 years), who previously (more than 6 months before this study) took a course of monotherapy with hydrochloride trospium in higher dosages with unstable or weak effect. In this study, all patients were divided into three groups and were treated with two antimuscarinic drugs. The majority of older women suffering from OAB and treatment-resistant taking one antimuscarinic drug in high doses showed a significant positive progress in a state by adding a second antimuscarinic agent. The received side effects do not exceed thereof in comparison with treatment with a single drug.

[Itching: differential diagnosis and therapy]

The lecture deals with the differential diagnosis and treatment of diseases accompanied by itching. It considers the major components of its pathogenesis, which are important to provide a rationale for its therapy. Particular emphasis is laid on the analysis of the most common classifications of the causes of itching, which take into account both pathogenetic and clinical parameters. The main differentially diagnostic signs of dermal and nondermal diseases attended by itching are given. Antihistamines among the agents intended for itching therapy are considered in detail. The efficacy and safety of first- and second-generation antihistamines, including quinuclidine derivatives, are comparatively analyzed.

WITHDRAWN: Serotonin receptor antagonists for highly emetogenic chemotherapy in adults

This review is now out of date although it is correct as of the date of publication. The latest version of this review (available in ‘Other versions’ tab on The Cochrane Library) may still be useful to readers.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.