Advances in the treatment of hereditary transthyretin amyloidosis: A review

Introduction: Amyloid transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR) is a progressive and often fatal disease caused by the buildup of mutated (hereditary ATTR [hATTR]; also known as ATTR variant [ATTRv]) or normal transthyretin (wild-type ATTR) throughout the body. Two new therapies-inotersen, an antisense oligonucleotide therapy, and patisiran, an RNA interference therapy-received marketing authorization and represent a significant advance in the treatment of amyloidosis. Herein, we describe the clinical presentation of ATTR, commonly used procedures in its diagnosis, and current treatment landscape for ATTR, with a focus on hATTR. Methods: A PubMed search from 2008 to September 2018 was conducted to review the literature on ATTR. Results: Until recently, there have been few treatment options for polyneuropathy of hATTR. Inotersen and patisiran substantially reduce the amyloidogenic precursor protein transthyretin and have demonstrated efficacy in patients with early- and late-stage disease and in slowing or improving neuropathy progression. In contrast, established therapies, such as liver transplantation, typically reserved for patients with early-stage disease, and tafamidis, indicated for the treatment of early-stage disease in Europe, or diflunisal, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is used off-label, are associated with side effects and/or unclear efficacy in certain patient populations. Thus, inotersen and patisiran are positioned to be the preferred therapeutic modalities. Conclusions: Important differences between inotersen and patisiran, including formulation, dosing, requirements for premedications, and safety monitoring, require an understanding and knowledge of each treatment for informed decision making.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Akathisia and Newer Second‐Generation Antipsychotic Drugs: A Review of Current Evidence

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155998/1/phar2404_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155998/2/phar2404.pd

Safety and Efficacy of Combining Sunitinib with Bevacizumab + Paclitaxel/Carboplatin in Non-small Cell Lung Cancer

Bevacizumab (B) improves survival of patients with metastatic, nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. Based on encouraging results from preclinical studies combining B with sunitinib (S), a phase II, randomized, open-label study (Study Assessing the Blockade of both VEGF Receptor and ligand to enhance Efficacy in Lung) was initiated to assess clinical outcomes of adding S to paclitaxel (P)/carboplatin (C) + B (PCB) for first-line treatment of locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.Study enrollment was to occur in three phases. In the first phase, patients received PC + B (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks), ±S (25 mg daily, 2 weeks on, 1 week off). If tolerated, the second phase would include a third cohort receiving 37.5 mg S. The third phase would consist of PCB ± highest tolerable dose S.Between March 2007 and January 2008, 26 patients were randomized to receive PCB and 30 to PCB + S 25 mg. Because of poor tolerability, none of the patients were escalated to 37.5 mg S. Median treatment duration was 10.3 weeks for PCB and 6.0 weeks for PCB + S. Thirty-five percent of patients on PCB + S required S dose reduction, 52% required S treatment interruption, and 59% discontinued S because of adverse events, most frequently hematologic events (neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, and leukopenia) and fatigue. Patients receiving PCB + S required more B interruptions (38% versus 19% for PCB) and discontinuation (52% versus 35%) because of adverse events. Survival data were limited by small sample sizes and limited treatment duration. Overall survival was not mature at time of analysis: median 6.6 months for PCB + S and not reached for PCB. Two out of 25 efficacy-evaluable patients randomized to the PCB + S cohort had confirmed partial responses, compared with 5 of 19 randomized to the PCB cohort.The addition of S to PCB was not well tolerated because of toxicities. This combination should not be studied further at these doses and schedules

The potential savings of using thiazides as the first choice antihypertensive drug: cost-minimisation analysis

BACKGROUND: All clinical practice guidelines recommend thiazides as a first-choice drug for the management of uncomplicated hypertension. Thiazides are also the lowest priced antihypertensive drugs. Despite this, the use of thiazides is much lower than that of other drug-classes. We wanted to estimate the potential for savings if thiazides were used as the first choice drug for the management of uncomplicated hypertension. METHODS: For six countries (Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the UK and the US) we estimated the number of people that are being treated for hypertension, and the proportion of them that are suitable candidates for thiazide-therapy. By comparing this estimate with thiazide prescribing, we calculated the number of people that could switch from more expensive medication to thiazides. This enabled us to estimate the potential drug-cost savings. The analysis was based on findings from epidemiological studies and drug trials, and data on sales and prescribing provided by IMS for the year 2000. RESULTS: For Canada, France, Germany, Norway, the UK and the US the estimated potential annual savings were US$13.8 million, US$37.4 million, US$72.2 million, US$10.7 million, US$119.7 million and US$433.6 million, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Millions of dollars could be saved each year if thiazides were prescribed for hypertension in place of more expensive drugs. Our calculations are based on conservative assumptions. The potential for savings is likely considerably higher and may be more than US$1 billion per year in the US