Drug dosing during pregnancy—opportunities for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models

Drugs can have harmful effects on the embryo or the fetus at any point during pregnancy. Not all the damaging effects of intrauterine exposure to drugs are obvious at birth, some may only manifest later in life. Thus, drugs should be prescribed in pregnancy only if the expected benefit to the mother is thought to be greater than the risk to the fetus. Dosing of drugs during pregnancy is often empirically determined and based upon evidence from studies of non-pregnant subjects, which may lead to suboptimal dosing, particularly during the third trimester. This review collates examples of drugs with known recommendations for dose adjustment during pregnancy, in addition to providing an example of the potential use of PBPK models in dose adjustment recommendation during pregnancy within the context of drug-drug interactions. For many drugs, such as antidepressants and antiretroviral drugs, dose adjustment has been recommended based on pharmacokinetic studies demonstrating a reduction in drug concentrations. However, there is relatively limited (and sometimes inconsistent) information regarding the clinical impact of these pharmacokinetic changes during pregnancy and the effect of subsequent dose adjustments. Examples of using pregnancy PBPK models to predict feto-maternal drug exposures and their applications to facilitate and guide dose assessment throughout gestation are discussed

ACCF/AHA methodology for the development of quality measures for cardiovascular technology: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures

Consistent with the growing national focus on healthcare quality, the American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have taken a leadership role over the past decade in developing measures of the quality of cardiovascular care by convening a joint ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures. The Task Force is charged with identifying the clinical topics appropriate for the development of performance measures and with assembling writing committees composed of clinical and methodological experts in collaboration with appropriate subspecialty societies. The Task Force has also created methodology documents that offer guidance in the development of process, outcome, composite, and efficiency measures. Cardiovascular performance measures using existing ACCF/AHA methodology are based on Class I or Class III guidelines recommendations, usually with Level A evidence. These performance measures, based on evidence-based ACCF/AHA guidelines, remain the most rigorous quality measures for both internal quality improvement and public reporting. However, many of the tools for diagnosis and treatment of cardiovascular disease involve advanced technologies, such as cardiac imaging, for which there are often no underlying guideline documents. Because these technologies affect the quality of cardiovascular care and also have the potential to contribute to cardiovascular health expenditures, there is a need for more critical assessment of the use of technology, including the development of quality and performance measures in areas in which guideline recommendations are absent. The evaluation of quality in the use of cardiovascular technologies requires consideration of multiple parameters that differ from other healthcare processes. The present document describes methodology for development of 2 new classes of quality measures in these situations, appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures. Appropriate use measures are based on specific indications, processes, or parameters of care for which high level of evidence data and Class I or Class III guideline recommendations may be lacking but are addressed in ACCF appropriate use criteria documents. Structure/safety measures represent measures developed to address structural aspects of the use of healthcare technology (e.g., laboratory accreditation, personnel training, and credentialing) or quality issues related to patient safety when there are neither guidelines recommendations nor appropriate use criteria. Although the strength of evidence for appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures may not be as strong as that for formal performance measures, they are quality measures that are otherwise rigorously developed, reviewed, tested, and approved in the same manner as ACCF/AHA performance measures. The ultimate goal of the present document is to provide direction in defining and measuring the appropriate use-avoiding not only underuse but also overuse and misuse-and proper application of cardiovascular technology and to describe how such appropriate use measures and structure/safety measures might be developed for the purposes of quality improvement and public reporting. It is anticipated that this effort will help focus the national dialogue on the use of cardiovascular technology and away from the current concerns about volume and cost alone to a more holistic emphasis on value

Olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in participants with hypertension and diabetes, chronic kidney disease, or chronic cardiovascular disease: a subanalysis of the multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group TRINITY study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Patients with hypertension and cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) usually require two or more antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The efficacy/safety of olmesartan (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg versus the component dual-combinations (OM 40/AML 10 mg, OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg) was evaluated in participants with diabetes, CKD, or chronic CVD in the Triple Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertensive Patients Study (TRINITY). The primary efficacy end point was least squares (LS) mean reduction from baseline in seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) at week 12. Secondary end points included LS mean reduction in SeSBP and proportion of participants achieving BP goal (<130/80 mm Hg) at week 12 (double-blind randomized period), and LS mean reduction in SeBP and BP goal achievement at week 52/early termination (open-label period).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At week 12, OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg resulted in significantly greater SeBP reductions in participants with diabetes (−37.9/22.0 mm Hg vs −28.0/17.6 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, −26.4/14.7 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and −27.6/14.8 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg), CKD (−44.3/25.5 mm Hg vs −39.5/23.8 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, −25.3/17.0 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and −33.4/20.6 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg), and chronic CVD (−37.8/20.6 mm Hg vs −31.7/18.2 mm Hg for OM 40/AML 10 mg, −30.9/17.1 mm Hg for OM 40/HCTZ 25 mg, and −27.5/16.1 mm Hg for AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg) (<it>P</it><0.05 for all subgroups vs dual-component treatments). BP goal achievement was greater for participants receiving triple-combination treatment compared with the dual-combination treatments, and was achieved in 41.1%, 55.0%, and 38.9% of participants with diabetes, CKD, and chronic CVD on OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg, respectively. At week 52, there was sustained BP lowering with the OM/AML/HCTZ regimen. Overall, the triple combination was well tolerated.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In patients with diabetes, CKD, or chronic CVD, short-term (12 weeks) and long-term treatment with OM 40/AML 10/HCTZ 25 mg was well tolerated, lowered BP more effectively, and enabled more participants to reach BP goal than the corresponding 2-component regimens.</p> <p>Trial Identification Number</p> <p>NCT00649389</p