The economic pressures for biosimilar drug use in cancer medicine

The main rationale for using biosimilar drugs is for cost saving. The market development for biosimilar drugs will therefore depend on the degree to which cost saving measures are required by nations, medical insurers and individuals and the absolute savings that could be gained by switching from original drugs. This paper is designed to discover the degree to which financial constraints will drive future health spending and to discover if legal or safety issues could impact on any trend. A structured literature search was performed for papers and documents to 27 August 2011. Where multiple sources of data were available on a topic, data from papers and reports by multinational or national bodies were used in preference to data from regions or individual hospitals. Almost all health systems face current significant cost pressures. The twin driver of increasing cancer prevalence as populations age and cancer medicine costs rising faster than inflation places oncology as the most significant single cost problem. For some countries, this is predicted to make medicine unaffordable within a decade. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a cost-control measure. Biosimilar introduction into the EU has already forced prices down, both the price of biosimilar drugs and competitive price reductions in originator drugs. Compound annual growth rates of use have been predicted at 65.8% per year. Most developed countries have planned to embrace biosimilar use as a major cost-control measure. Only legal blocks and safety concerns are likely to act against this trend. For centralised healthcare systems, and those with a strong tradition of generic medicine use, biosimilar use will clearly rise with predictions of more than 80% of prescriptions of some biologic drugs within 1 year of market entry in the USA. Delaying the implementation of such programmes however risks a real crisis in healthcare delivery for many countries and hospitals that few can now afford

Who wants a slimmer body? The relationship between body weight status, education level and body shape dissatisfaction among young adults in Hong Kong

Background: Body shape dissatisfaction has been thought to have an indispensable impact on weight control behaviors. We investigated the prevalence of body shape dissatisfaction (BSD) and explored its association with weight status, education level and other determinants among young adults in Hong Kong. Methods. Information on anthropometry, BSD, and socio-demographics was collected from a random sample of 1205 young adults (611 men and 594 women) aged 18-27 in a community-based household survey. BSD was defined as a discrepancy between current and ideal body shape based on a figure rating scale. Cross-tabulations, homogeneity tests and logistic regression models were applied. Results: The percentages of underweight men and women were 16.5% and 34.9% respectively, and the corresponding percentages of being overweight or obese were 26.7% and 13.2% for men and women respectively. Three-quarters of young adults had BSD. Among women, 30.9% of those underweight and 75.5% of those with normal weight desired a slimmer body shape. Overweight men and underweight women with lower education level were more likely to have a mismatch between weight status and BSD than those with higher education level. After controlling for other determinants, underweight women were found to have a higher likelihood to maintain their current body shapes than other women. Men were found to be less likely to have a mismatch between weight status and BSD than women. Conclusions: Overweight and obesity in men and underweight in women were prevalent among Hong Kong young adults. Inappropriate body shape desire might predispose individuals to unhealthy weight loss or gain behaviors. Careful consideration of actual weight status in body shape desire is needed in health promotion and education, especially for underweight and normal weight women and those with a low education level. © 2011 Cheung et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.published_or_final_versio

Mapping Peptidergic Cells in Drosophila: Where DIMM Fits In

The bHLH transcription factor DIMMED has been associated with the differentiation of peptidergic cells in Drosophila. However, whether all Drosophila peptidergic cells express DIMM, and the extent to which all DIMM cells are peptidergic, have not been determined. To address these issues, we have mapped DIMM expression in the central nervous system (CNS) and periphery in the late larval stage Drosophila. At 100 hr after egg-laying, DIMM immunosignals are largely congruent with a dimm-promoter reporter (c929-GAL4) and they present a stereotyped pattern of 306 CNS cells and 52 peripheral cells. We assigned positional values for all DIMM CNS cells with respect to reference gene expression patterns, or to patterns of secondary neuroblast lineages. We could assign provisional peptide identities to 68% of DIMM-expressing CNS cells (207/306) and to 73% of DIMM-expressing peripheral cells (38/52) using a panel of 24 markers for Drosophila neuropeptide genes. Furthermore, we found that DIMM co-expression was a prevalent feature within single neuropeptide marker expression patterns. Of the 24 CNS neuropeptide gene patterns we studied, six patterns are >90% DIMM-positive, while 16 of 22 patterns are >40% DIMM-positive. Thus most or all DIMM cells in Drosophila appear to be peptidergic, and many but not all peptidergic cells express DIMM. The co-incidence of DIMM-expression among peptidergic cells is best explained by a hypothesis that DIMM promotes a specific neurosecretory phenotype we term LEAP. LEAP denotes Large cells that display Episodic release of Amidated Peptides

New anti-epileptic drugs for the 21st century.

Prior to 1993, there were only six major drugs available in the US for the treatment of patients with epilepsy. These included phenobarbital (PB), phenytoin (PHT), carbamazepine (CBZ), primidone (PRIM), valproic acid/sodium valproate (VPA) and ethosuximide (ESX). Of these drugs, VPA has the broadest spectrum of activity and ESX the most limited. Despite these six agents, as well as several secondary drugs, it is estimated that over 30% of patients have inadequate seizure control, while others, whose disease is adequately controlled, suffer from bothersome adverse events (AEs). Since 1993, ten new drugs have entered the worldwide market (not all in the US). Those released include felbamate (FBM), gabapentin (GBP), lamotrigine (LTG), topiramate (TPM), tiagabine (TGB), oxcarbazepine (OXC), levetiracetam (LVT), zonisamide (ZNS), clobazam (CLB) and vigabatrin (VGB). The purpose of this article is to review each of the above drugs, looking at efficacy, safety, tolerability and where they may play a role in the current treatment of epilepsy

Abnormal Wada and neuropsychological testing results due to topiramate therapy.

A 46-year-old man experienced intractable seizures since childhood. Due to lack of response to antiepilepsy drugs (AEDs), he underwent a surgical evaluation that was consistent with seizure onset in the left medial temporal lobe. While on topiramate and carbamazepine, his preoperative neuropsychological scores and sodium amytal (Wada) scores were low and may have excluded him from surgery. Repeat testing on lamotrigine and carbamazepine showed improvement in his scores, allowing him to undergo surgery. Physicians must therefore be cautious in evaluating such test scores while a patient is on topiramate

Effect of divalproex-lamotrigine combination therapy in frontal lobe seizures.

CONTEXT: Patients with intractable frontal lobe seizures represent a difficult subclass of patients with epilepsy. When medications fail, surgical outcomes typically have not been as successful as medial temporal lobe resections. The combination therapy of valproic acid (divalproex sodium) and lamotrigine has shown promising results in patients with uncontrolled seizures. OBJECTIVE: To determine outcome in patients with intractable frontal lobe seizures who were treated with the combination of divalproex and lamotrigine. DESIGN: A nonrandomized, open-label, add-on trial. SETTING: Outpatients evaluated and treated at a tertiary care referral facility. PATIENTS: Twenty-one patients between 16 and 65 years old were studied. Patients were required to have failed at least 3 prior trials with antiepilepsy drugs. Criteria for frontal lobe onset included 1 or more of the following: frontal lesion on scan, positive ictal single-photon emission computed tomographic scan, symptoms consistent with frontal lobe onset, or an electroencephalogram (surface or invasive) consistent with frontal lobe onset. INTERVENTION: Patients were treated with divalproex-lamotrigine combination therapy for 1 year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measured was seizure reduction. Safety and tolerability were also evaluated. RESULTS: Four patients discontinued therapy. Ten of the remaining 17 became completely free of seizures. Two rashes occurred, but did not lead to discontinuation of therapy. The most common adverse events were tremor and weight gain. CONCLUSION: Divalproex-lamotrigine combination therapy is a reasonable alternative in intractable frontal lobe epilepsy