Chemotherapeutics in the treatment of multiple sclerosis

The likely pathogenic mechanisms of multiple sclerosis (MS) provide a sound rationale for investigating the efficacy of drugs possessing immunosuppressive or immunomodulatory properties. With proven efficacy, safety and tolerability, interferon beta formulations and glatiramer acetate have become the mainstay of initial treatment for patients with relapsing forms of MS. More recently, natalizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) against the cellular adhesion molecule α4-integrin, has been employed for patients with an inadequate response or lack of tolerability to an alternate MS therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with severe disease. Various agents initially developed for oncological indications, either as chemotherapeutics or mAbs, may also have current or future uses in MS treatment. Mitoxantrone is currently the only chemotherapeutic agent approved for treatment of MS in the United States, while in parts of Europe azathioprine is approved and widely used for MS treatment. Other chemotherapeutics that have been tested in MS to date include cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, cladribine, and the mAbs alemtuzumab and rituximab. While there has been varying evidence of efficacy for these compounds, each appears to be associated with serious risks that require careful consideration and management. Given the risks that have been demonstrated for available chemotherapeutic agents and while long-term postmarketing safety data are still not available for those agents in development, it seems prudent to carefully assess the possible use of chemotherapeutics in the treatment of MS. A thorough risk–benefit analysis is becoming increasingly important in the assessment of therapeutic options for this disabling disease

A call for transplant stewardship: The need for expanded evidence‐based evaluation of induction and biologic‐based cost‐saving strategies in kidney transplantation and beyond

Rising expenditures threaten healthcare sustainability. While transplant programs are typically considered profitable, transplant medications are expensive and frequently targeted for cost savings. This review aims to summarize available literature supporting cost‐containment strategies used in solid organ transplant. Despite widespread use of these tactics, we found the available evidence to be fairly low quality. Strategies mainly focus on induction, particularly rabbit antithymocyte globulin (rATG), given its significant cost and the lack of consensus surrounding dosing. While there is higher‐quality evidence for high single‐dose rATG, and dose‐rounding protocols to reduce waste are likely low risk, more aggressive strategies, such as dosing rATG by CD3+ target‐attainment or on ideal‐body‐weight, have less robust support and did not always attain similar efficacy outcomes. Extrapolation of induction dosing strategies to rejection treatment is not supported by any currently available literature. Cost‐saving strategies for supportive therapies, such as IVIG and rituximab also have minimal literature support. Deferral of high‐cost agents to the outpatient arena is associated with minimal risk and increases reimbursement, although may increase complexity and cost‐burden for patients and infusion centers. The available evidence highlights the need for evaluation of unique patient‐specific clinical scenarios and optimization of therapies, rather than simple blanket application of cost‐saving initiatives in the transplant population.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170795/1/ctr14372_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170795/2/ctr14372.pd