11 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
Fluoroquinolone Efficacy against Tuberculosis Is Driven by Penetration into Lesions and Activity against Resident Bacterial Populations.
Fluoroquinolones represent the pillar of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) treatment, with moxifloxacin, levofloxacin, or gatifloxacin being prescribed to MDR-TB patients. Recently, several clinical trials of "universal" drug regimens, aiming to treat drug-susceptible and drug-resistant TB, have included a fluoroquinolone. In the absence of clinical data comparing their side-by-side efficacies in controlled MDR-TB trials, a pharmacological rationale is needed to guide the selection of the most efficacious fluoroquinolone. The present studies were designed to test the hypothesis that fluoroquinolone concentrations (pharmacokinetics) and activity (pharmacodynamics) at the site of infection are better predictors of efficacy than the plasma concentrations and potency measured in standard growth inhibition assays and are better suited to determinations of whether one of the fluoroquinolones outperforms the others in rabbits with active TB. We first measured the penetration of these fluoroquinolones in lung lesion compartments, and their potency against bacterial populations that reside in each compartment, to compute lesion-centric pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) parameters. PK modeling methods were used to quantify drug penetration from plasma to tissues at human-equivalent doses. On the basis of these metrics, moxifloxacin emerged with a clear advantage, whereas plasma-based PK/PD favored levofloxacin (the ranges of the plasma AUC/MIC ratio [i.e., the area under the concentration-time curve over 24 h in the steady state divided by the MIC] are 46 to 86 for moxifloxacin and 74 to 258 for levofloxacin). A comparative efficacy trial in the rabbit model of active TB demonstrated the superiority of moxifloxacin in reducing bacterial burden at the lesion level and in sterilizing cellular and necrotic lesions. Collectively, these results show that PK/PD data obtained at the site of infection represent an adequate predictor of drug efficacy against TB and constitute the baseline required to explore synergies, antagonism, and drug-drug interactions in fluoroquinolone-containing regimens
Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events
Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.)
Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data
Background:
General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care.
Methods:
For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered.
Findings:
Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p<0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low.
Interpretation:
Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons