Biomedical subjects

R H Foster

Publications and source records attributed to R H Foster.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2001

Olanzapine: an updated review of its use in the management of schizophrenia.

UNLABELLED: Olanzapine, a thienobenzodiazepine derivative, is a second generation (atypical) antipsychotic agent which has proven efficacy against the positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Compared with conventional antipsychotics, it has greater affinity for serotonin 5-HT2A than for dopamine D2 receptors. In large, well controlled trials in patients with schizophrenia or related psychoses, olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day was significantly superior to haloperidol 5 to 20 mg/day in overall improvements in psychopathology rating scales and in the treatment of depressive and negative symptoms, and was comparable in effects on positive psychotic symptoms. The 1-year risk of relapse (rehospitalisation) was significantly lower with olanzapine than with haloperidol treatment. In the first double-blind comparative study (28-week) of olanzapine and risperidone, olanzapine 10 to 20 mg/day proved to be significantly more effective than risperidone 4 to 12 mg/day in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms but not on overall psychopathology symptoms. In contrast, preliminary results from an 8-week controlled study suggested risperidone 2 to 6 mg/day was superior to olanzapine 5 to 20 mg/day against positive and anxiety/depressive symptoms (p < 0.05), although consistent with the first study, both agents demonstrated similar efficacy on measures of overall psychopathology. Improvements in general cognitive function seen with olanzapine treatment in a 1-year controlled study of patients with early-phase schizophrenia, were significantly greater than changes seen with either risperidone or haloperidol. However, preliminary results from an 8-week trial showed comparable cognitive enhancing effects of olanzapine and risperidone treatment in patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Several studies indicate that olanzapine has benefits against symptoms of aggression and agitation, while other studies strongly support the effectiveness of olanzapine in the treatment of depressive symptomatology. Olanzapine is associated with significantly fewer extrapyramidal symptoms than haloperidol and risperidone. In addition, olanzapine is not associated with a risk of agranulocytosis as seen with clozapine or clinically significant hyperprolactinaemia as seen with risperidone or prolongation of the QT interval. The most common adverse effects reported with olanzapine are bodyweight gain, somnolence, dizziness, anticholinergic effects (constipation and dry mouth) and transient asymptomatic liver enzyme elevations. In comparison with haloperidol, the adverse events reported significantly more frequently with olanzapine in > or = 3.5% of patients were dry mouth, bodyweight gain and increased appetite and compared with risperidone, only bodyweight gain occurred significantly more frequently with olanzapine. The high acquisition cost of olanzapine is offset by reductions in other treatment costs (inpatient and/or outpatient services) of schizophrenia. Pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that olanzapine does not significantly increase, and may even decrease, the overall direct treatment costs of schizophrenia, compared with haloperidol. Compared with risperidone, olanzapine has also been reported to decrease overall treatment costs, despite the several-fold higher daily acquisition cost of the drug. Olanzapine treatment improves quality of life in patients with schizophrenia and related psychoses to a greater extent than haloperidol, and to broadly the same extent as risperidone. CONCLUSIONS: Olanzapine demonstrated superior antipsychotic efficacy compared with haloperidol in the treatment of acute phase schizophrenia, and in the treatment of some patients with first-episode or treatment-resistant schizophrenia. The reduced risk of adverse events and therapeutic superiority compared with haloperidol and risperidone in the treatment of negative and depressive symptoms support the choice of olanzapine as a first-line option in the management of schizophrenia in the acute phase and for the maintenance of treatment response.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2000

Tacrolimus: a further update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in the management of organ transplantation.

UNLABELLED: Tacrolimus (FK-506) is an immunosuppressant agent that acts by a variety of different mechanisms which include inhibition of calcineurin. It is used as a therapeutic alternative to cyclosporin, and therefore represents a cornerstone of immunosuppressive therapy in organ transplant recipients. Tacrolimus is now well established for primary immunosuppression in liver and kidney transplantation, and experience with its use in other types of solid organ transplantation, including heart, lung, pancreas and intestinal, as well as its use for the prevention of graft-versus-host disease in allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT), is rapidly accumulating. Large randomised nonblind multicentre studies conducted in the US and Europe in both liver and kidney transplantation showed similar patient and graft survival rates between treatment groups (although rates were numerically higher with tacrolimus- versus cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in adults with liver transplants), and a consistent statistically significant advantage for tacrolimus with respect to acute rejection rate. Chronic rejection rates were also significantly lower with tacrolimus in a large randomised liver transplantation trial, and a trend towards a lower rate of chronic rejection was noted with tacrolimus in a large multicentre renal transplantation study. In general, a similar trend in overall efficacy has been demonstrated in a number of additional clinical trials comparing tacrolimus- with cyclosporin-based immunosuppression in various types of transplantation. One notable exception is in BMT, where a large randomised trial showed significantly better 2-year patient survival with cyclosporin over tacrolimus, which was primarily attributed to patients with advanced haematological malignancies at the time of (matched sibling donor) BMT. These survival results in BMT require further elucidation. Tacrolimus has also demonstrated efficacy in various types of transplantation as rescue therapy in patients who experience persistent acute rejection (or significant adverse effect's) with cyclosporin-based therapy, whereas cyclosporin has not demonstrated a similar capacity to reverse refractory acute rejection. A corticosteroid-sparing effect has been demonstrated in several studies with tacrolimus, which may be a particularly useful consideration in children receiving transplants. The differences in the tolerability profiles of tacrolimus and cyclosporin may well be an influential factor in selecting the optimal treatment for patients undergoing organ transplantation. Although both drugs have a similar degree of nephrotoxicity, cyclosporin has a higher incidence of significant hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, hirsutism and gingival hyperplasia, while tacrolimus has a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus, some types of neurotoxicity (e.g. tremor, paraesthesia), diarrhoea and alopecia. CONCLUSION: Tacrolimus is an important therapeutic option for the optimal individualisation of immunosuppressive therapy in transplant recipients.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Levobupivacaine: a review of its pharmacology and use as a local anaesthetic.

UNLABELLED: Based on findings that the cardiotoxicity infrequently observed with racemic bupivacaine shows enantioselectivity, i.e. it is more pronounced with the R(+)-enantiomer, the S(-)-enantiomer (levobupivacaine) has been developed for clinical use as a long acting local anaesthetic. The majority of in vitro, in vivo and human pharmacodynamic studies of nerve block indicate that levobupivacaine has similar potency to bupivacaine. However, levobupivacaine had a lower risk of cardiovascular and CNS toxicity than bupivacaine in animal studies. In human volunteers, levobupivacaine had less of a negative inotropic effect and, at intravenous doses >75 mg, produced less prolongation of the QTc interval than bupivacaine. Fewer changes indicative of CNS depression on EEG were evident with levobupivacaine. Levobupivacaine is long acting with a dose-dependent duration of anaesthesia. The onset of action is < or = 15 minutes with various anaesthetic techniques. In studies of surgical anaesthesia in adults, levobupivacaine provided sensory block for up to 9 hours after epidural administration of < or = 202.5 mg, 6.5 hours after intrathecal 15 mg, and 17 hours after brachial plexus block with 2 mg/kg. Randomised, double-blind clinical studies established that the anaesthetic and/or analgesic effects of levobupivacaine were largely similar to those of bupivacaine at the same dose. Sensory block tended to be longer with levobupivacaine than bupivacaine, amounting to a difference of 23 to 45 minutes with epidural administration and approximately 2 hours with peripheral nerve block. With epidural administration, levobupivacaine produced less prolonged motor block than sensory block. This differential was not seen with peripheral nerve block. Conditions satisfactory for surgery and good pain management were achieved by use of local infiltration or peribulbar administration of levobupivacaine. Levobupivacaine was generally as effective as bupivacaine for pain management during labour, and was effective for the management of postoperative pain, especially when combined with clonidine, morphine or fentanyl. The tolerability profiles of levobupivacaine and bupivacaine were very similar in clinical trials. No clinically significant ECG abnormalities or serious CNS events occurred with the doses used. The most common adverse event associated with levobupivacaine treatment was hypotension (31%). CONCLUSIONS: Levobupivacaine is a long acting local anaesthetic with a clinical profile closely resembling that of bupivacaine. However, current preclinical safety and toxicity data show an advantage for levobupivacaine over bupivacaine. Clinical data comparing levobupivacaine with ropivacaine are needed before the role of the drug can be fully established. Excluding pharmacoeconomic considerations, levobupivacaine is an appropriate choice for use in place of bupivacaine.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Eprosartan: a review of its use in the management of hypertension.

Eprosartan is a potent and selective angiotensin II subtype 1 receptor antagonist. Results of large (n > 100) randomised double-blind studies in patients with mild, moderate or severe hypertension demonstrated that the antihypertensive efficacy of eprosartan (usually 400 to 800 mg/day as a single daily dose or in 2 divided doses) is significantly greater than that of placebo and at least as good as that of enalapril. In placebo-controlled trials, eprosartan achieved mean reductions from baseline in trough sitting systolic blood pressure of 6.3 to 15 mm Hg and in diastolic blood pressure of 4.1 to 9.7 mm Hg. Response rates associated with once daily administration of eprosartan 400 to 800 mg were approximately double those with placebo. Overall, eprosartan was well tolerated with a similar tolerability profile to that of placebo. In comparative trials, in which the incidence of persistent dry cough was evaluated as the primary end-point, enalapril was several-fold more likely to induce this adverse event than eprosartan (the difference being statistically significant regardless of study population and definition of cough). In conclusion, the angiotensin II receptor antagonist eprosartan is a well tolerated and effective antihypertensive agent that is administered once or twice daily without regard to meals. Eprosartan has a low potential for serious adverse events, and the drug has not been associated with clinically significant drug interactions. Unlike ACE inhibitors such as enalapril, eprosartan does not have a high propensity to cause persistent nonproductive cough. Thus, eprosartan represents a useful therapeutic option in the management of patients with hypertension.

Acrylates↗

PubMed2000

Mirtazapine. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in depression.

UNLABELLED: Mirtazapine is a noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressant (NaSSA). The antidepressant efficacy of mirtazapine has been established in randomised, double-blind comparative studies. Mirtazapine has generally shown similar efficacy to other antidepressants. There is evidence for a faster onset of action with mirtazapine than with the selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) on the basis of mean depression rating scale scores. Data from a long term (mean 240 days) clinical trial that was subsequently used in pharmacoeconomic analyses showed that mirtazapine was associated with significantly higher sustained remission rates and rates of discontinuation because of improvement than amitriptyline and placebo. Although differences were not statistically significant, mirtazapine had higher response rates at 6 weeks than the SSRI fluoxetine in an analysis that was also used as the basis of pharmacoeconomic studies. Mirtazapine improved quality of life to a similar extent to fluoxetine, citalopram and paroxetine in unpublished studies of 6 and 8 weeks' duration. Pooled analyses suggest that mirtazapine may be associated with greater improvement than fluoxetine and citalopram in quality of life after 2 and 4 weeks, although confirmation is required. In a decision analytical model of approximately 6 months' duration, mirtazapine was associated with a higher proportion of successfully treated patients and lower total direct costs than amitriptyline. The direct cost per successfully treated patient with mirtazapine was lower than that with amitriptyline by 33,112 Austrian schillings (S; year of costing not stated), 24,212 French francs (FF; 1995/1996 values), 13,851 Swedish kronor (SEK; 1997 values) and 553 Pounds (1997/1998 values) in Austrian, French, Swedish and UK analyses, respectively. Compared with fluoxetine, mirtazapine was associated with higher per-patient costs in all 4 countries but a higher proportion of successfully treated patients. Mirtazapine was more cost effective than fluoxetine: the direct cost per successfully treated patient was lower by S32,046 in Austria, FF25,914 in France, SEK9796 in Sweden and 327 Pounds in the UK. The additional cost of mirtazapine versus fluoxetine for each additional successfully treated patient at 6 months was S11,732, SEK17,229, 750 Pounds and FF3342 in the Austrian, Swedish, UK and French analyses, respectively. Mirtazapine was generally associated with lower indirect costs (for lost productivity of employed patients) than amitriptyline and similar indirect costs to fluoxetine in the analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Available data suggest that mirtazapine is a cost-effective alternative to amitriptyline and fluoxetine for the treatment of depression. Mirtazapine also has similar effects to SSRIs on quality of life with possibly a shorter time to onset of action, although published trial results are required to confirm these preliminary data.

Amitriptyline↗

PubMed2000

Glipizide. A review of the pharmacoeconomic implications of the extended-release formulation in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

UNLABELLED: Glipizide is a second generation sulphonylurea agent that is available in a Gastrointestinal Therapeutic System (GITS) extended-release formulation. Glipizide GITS provides more stable plasma drug concentrations than the immediate-release formulation and the once-daily regimen may optimise patient compliance. In patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, glipizide GITS is at least as effective as the immediate-release formulation of glipizide in providing glycaemic control, and may have a greater effect on fasting plasma glucose levels. Any therapeutic advantage over other antidiabetic agents remains to be established, but in a preliminary report (n = 40) glipizide GITS provided better glycaemic control and produced less fasting insulinaemia than glibenclamide (glyburide). The incidence of hypoglycaemic symptoms with glipizide GITS is low (< or = 3%). Quality of life was improved compared with baseline after 12 weeks' treatment with glipizide GITS 5 to 20 mg/day plus diet in a US double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 569 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Hyperglycaemic symptom-related distress decreased with glipizide GITS treatment, while hypoglycaemic symptom-related distress was not significantly increased compared with placebo plus diet. Quality of life during glipizide GITS treatment has not been compared with that during treatment with other antidiabetic agents. Monthly productivity losses related to absenteeism were $US91 (1995 values) per patient lower in the glipizide GITS group compared with the placebo group in the latter prospective study. Productivity parameters improved slightly or did not change significantly in the glipizide GITS group, but deteriorated in the placebo group. Differences in direct healthcare costs between groups were small and not comprehensively reported. Glipizide GITS was the least costly strategy for first-line therapy in a US cost-of-treatment model of the first 3 years after diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The total per-patient cost was $US4867 with glipizide GITS, $US5196 with metformin and $US5249 with acarbose (1996/1997 values). Monthly drug acquisition costs were lower, and glycosylated haemoglobin levels and patient compliance were improved, after formulary conversion from the immediate-release to the GITS formulation of glipizide in a US single-hospital retrospective analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Glipizide GITS produced better cost outcomes than metformin and acarbose in a model of 3 years' treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Glipizide GITS had pharmacoeconomic and quality of life advantages over diet alone in the short term, but more clinically relevant comparisons with other antidiabetic agents are needed. There are limitations to the present data, but the available pharmacoeconomic data have been favourable for glipizide GITS.

Delayed-Action Preparations↗

PubMed1999

Evidence suggesting that the angiotensin II-sensitive intracellular Ca2+ pool is reloaded from the external space in adrenal glomerulosa cells.

Adrenal glomerulosa cells prelabeled with 45Ca2+ and perifused for 10 min with 10 nM angiotensin II (AII) in a dynamic perifusion system show a biphasic response with an initial transient increase in 45Ca2+ efflux, followed by a sustained phase of increased 45Ca2+ efflux. When labeled adrenal golmerulosa cells were treated with 10 nM AII for three consecutive periods of 5 min, the transient increase in 45Ca2+ efflux was observed only in the first period. However, when 40Ca2+ was measured in the perifusate using a Ca2+-sensitive electrode coupled to the perifusion system, a transient increase in 40Ca2+ efflux was observed in each period of AII treatment. Exposing the cells to AII for 1 min, the amount of 40Ca2+ effluxed out of the cells was 58.3 +/- 8.4 nmol/10(8) cells. In contrast, when the cells were exposed to an increase in the external potassium (K+) concentration of 4 to 12 mM during 1 min of perifusion, the amount of 40Ca2+ effluxed was 16 +/- 5 nmol/10(8) cells. These results indicate that AII induces an increase in the Ca2+ concentration in a local domain outside of the plasma membrane. This Ca2+ comes from AII-induced intracellular Ca2+ depletion and may play a role in refilling intracellular Ca2+ stores.

Aldosterone↗

PubMed1999

Diclofenac/hyaluronic acid.

Topical gel containing 3% diclofenac in 2.5% hyaluronic acid (HYAL CT1101) is used for the treatment of actinic keratosis. In animal models, diclofenac in hyaluronic acid inhibited angiogenesis and induced neovascular regression in inflammatory tissue, and depleted substance P content in snout tissue. Diclofenac delivered in hyaluronic acid appears to accumulate in the epidermis of human skin in vitro and mice in vivo. Results of clinical trials indicate that topical HYAL CT1101 is effective in the treatment of actinic keratosis. A clinical cure (all lesions fully resolved) was seen in 47% of 108 patients using HYAL CT1101 compared with 19% of patients using placebo after 3 months in 1 randomised, double-blind study. Mild to moderate skin irritation has been reported in up to 72% of patients treated with HYAL CT1101 in clinical studies.

Administration, Topical↗

PubMed1999

Bivalent cholera and typhoid vaccine.

The live attenuated vaccine strains Vibrio cholerae CVD 103-HgR and Salmonella typhi Ty21a can be combined into an oral bivalent vaccine without compromising the immunogenicity of the individual vaccine strains. Seroconversion rates of 87 to 94% for Inaba vibriocidal antibodies and 72 to 91% for anti-S. typhi lipopolysaccharide antibodies (IgG or IgA) were reported in healthy European volunteers receiving a bivalent CVD 103-HgR/Ty21a vaccine-based schedule (bivalent vaccine on day 1 and monovalent Ty21a vaccine on days 3 and 5). The immunogenicity of bivalent CVD 103-HgR/Ty21a vaccine is not adversely affected by concomitant administration of mefloquine, yellow fever vaccine or oral polio vaccine. Chloroquine may reduce the immunogenicity of the CVD 103-HgR component and proguanil may reduce the immunogenicity of the Ty21a component. Bivalent CVD 103-HgR/Ty21a vaccine does not adversely affect the immunogenicity of the yellow fever YF 17D vaccine. The type, incidence and severity of adverse events seen in individuals receiving bivalent CVD 103-HgR/Ty21a vaccine-based schedules are similar to those that occur with the monovalent vaccines.

Bacterial Vaccines↗

PubMed1999

Deferiprone: a review of its clinical potential in iron overload in beta-thalassaemia major and other transfusion-dependent diseases.

UNLABELLED: Patients with beta-thalassaemia and other transfusion-dependent diseases develop iron overload from chronic blood transfusions and require regular iron chelation to prevent potentially fatal iron-related complications. The only iron chelator currently widely available is deferoxamine, which is expensive and requires prolonged subcutaneous infusion 3 to 7 times per week or daily intramuscular injections. Moreover, some patients are unable to tolerate deferoxamine and compliance with the drug is poor in many patients. Deferiprone is the most extensively studied oral iron chelator to date. Non-comparative clinical studies mostly in patients with beta-thalassaemia have demonstrated that deferiprone 75 to 100 mg/kg/day can reduce iron burden in regularly transfused iron-overloaded patients. Serum ferritin levels are generally reduced in patients with very high pretreatment levels and are frequently maintained within an acceptable range in those who are already adequately chelated. Deferiprone is not effective in all patients (some of whom show increases in serum ferritin and/or liver iron content, particularly during long term therapy). This may reflect factors such as suboptimal dosage and/or severe degree of iron overload at baseline in some instances. Although few long term comparative data are available, deferiprone at the recommended dosage of 75 mg/kg/day appears to be less effective than deferoxamine; however, compliance is superior with deferiprone, which may partly compensate for this. Deferiprone has additive, or possibly synergistic, effects on iron excretion when combined with deferoxamine. The optimum dosage and long term efficacy of deferiprone, and its effects on survival and progression of iron-related organ damage, remain to be established. The most important adverse effects in deferiprone-treated patients are arthropathy and neutropenia/agranulocytosis. Other adverse events include gastrointestinal disturbances, ALT elevation, development of antinuclear antibodies and zinc deficiency. With deferiprone, adverse effects occur mostly in heavily iron-loaded patients, whereas with deferoxamine adverse effects occur predominantly when body iron burden is lower. CONCLUSION: Deferiprone is the most promising oral iron chelator under development at present. Further studies are required to determine the best way to use this new drug. Although it appears to be less effective than deferoxamine at the recommended dosage and there are concerns regarding its tolerability, it may nevertheless offer a therapeutic alternative in the management of patients unable or unwilling to receive the latter drug. Deferipone also shows promise as an adjunct to deferoxamine therapy in patients with insufficient response and may prove useful as a maintenance treatment to interpose between treatments.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed1999

Rapacuronium bromide: a review of its use in anaesthetic practice.

UNLABELLED: Rapacuronium bromide (rapacuronium) is an aminosteroid, nondepolarising neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA). At the recommended dose for endotracheal intubation (1.5 mg/kg), an intravenous bolus of rapacuronium has a rapid onset (approximately 1.2 to 1.8 minutes) and short duration of action (10.2 to 16.5 minutes) in adults undergoing elective surgery. Rapacuronium 1.5 mg/kg produced clinically acceptable intubating conditions in 68 to 89% of these patients at about 1 minute after administration. The onset, extent and duration of action and clinical efficacy of an intubating dose of rapacuronium appeared to be similar in the general adult population, adult patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction, patients undergoing Caesarean section, and elderly, paediatric or obese adult patients. Onset time with rapacuronium 1.3 to 2.5 mg/kg (0.9 to 1.8 minutes) was similar to or slower than that with a 1 mg/kg dose of the depolarising NMBA suxamethonium chloride (0.8 to 1.2 minutes). Intubating conditions were clinically acceptable about I minute after administration in 86 to 100% of patients with rapacuronium 1.3 to 2.5 mg/kg compared with in 88 to 97% of patients with suxamethonium chloride 1 or 1.5 mg/kg. Spontaneous recovery was slower with rapacuronium than with suxamethonium chloride, but neostigmine 0.04 or 0.05 mg/kg administered 2 or 5 minutes after rapacuronium 1.3 or 1.5 mg/kg accelerated recovery. In the few available comparative clinical trials, rapacuronium 1.5 mg/kg appeared to have a more rapid onset of action than the nondepolarising NMBAs mivacurium chloride 0.25 mg/kg, rocuronium bromide 0.45 or 0.6 mg/kg or vecuronium bromide 0.07 mg/kg, and a shorter duration of action than rocuronium bromide 0.45 or 0.6 mg/kg or vecuronium bromide 0.07 mg/kg. Additional boluses (< or =3) of rapacuronium 0.5 or 0.55 mg/kg after an intubating bolus of 1.5 mg/kg provided continued skeletal muscle relaxation during short surgical procedures in adult patients. However, these patients may recover more slowly than those who receive a single bolus of the drug. Bronchospasm was the most common treatment-related adverse event with rapacuronium 0.3 to 3 mg/kg (3.4% of adult patients). Tachycardia, injection site reaction and hypotension were also reported in small proportions of patients (1.6, 1.1 and 0.9%). The overall incidence of drug-related adverse events was similar with rapacuronium 1.5 or 2.5 mg/kg or suxamethonium chloride 1 mg/kg (8 vs. 6%) but bronchospasm, tachycardia and injection site reaction tended to occur more often with rapacuronium. CONCLUSIONS: At the recommended dose of 1.5 mg/kg, the nondepolarising NMBA rapacuronium has a rapid onset and short duration of action. It may provide a nondepolarising alternative to suxamethonium chloride for endotracheal intubation. Rapacuronium may be preferred over rocuronium bromide, vecuronium bromide or mivacurium chloride in this indication.

Animals↗

PubMed1999

Olanzapine. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in schizophrenia.

UNLABELLED: Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic agent which is at least as effective as the conventional agent haloperidol and the atypical agent risperidone. Olanzapine may be superior to haloperidol in some respects, including treatment of negative symptoms. A major advantage of olanzapine over haloperidol is its lower risk of extrapyramidal symptoms. Olanzapine improves quality of life and other aspects of functioning to a greater extent than haloperidol, and improves quality of life to at least the same extent as risperidone. However, olanzapine has a high acquisition cost compared with conventional antipsychotics. Despite this, most pharmacoeconomic analyses indicate that treatment with olanzapine does not significantly increase, and may even decrease, the overall direct treatment costs of schizophrenia, compared with haloperidol. Total direct medical costs calculated from prospective resource utilisation data were lower with olanzapine than with haloperidol by $US388 (1995 values) per patient over 6 weeks and by $US55 per patient per month during 46 weeks extended treatment. In a mixed effects linear model of the same data, total costs over 1 year were $US10,301 (1996 values) per patient lower with olanzapine than haloperidol, and olanzapine was associated with 18.3 more symptom-free days per patient. Compared with risperidone, mean total direct medical costs over 28 weeks were $US493 (1995 values) per patient lower with olanzapine. In a Markov model of 5 years' treatment, olanzapine was associated with more time in a disability-free state than haloperidol at a total cost per patient that was lower by $US1539 (1995 values), 816 Pounds (1995/1996 values), 977 Dutch guilders (NLG; 1995 values) and 2296 Deutschmarks in US, UK, Dutch and German analyses, respectively. In a similar Spanish analysis, the overall total cost was higher with olanzapine, giving an incremental cost effectiveness for olanzapine of 32,516 pesetas (1995 values) per month of disability-free time gained. When risperidone was a comparator, the total cost per patient was $US1875 and NLG202 lower with olanzapine in US and Dutch analyses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The high acquisition cost of olanzapine is offset by reductions in other treatment costs in patients with schizophrenia. Compared with haloperidol, the drug improved patient outcome and quality of life, while overall direct treatment costs were generally not increased, or even decreased. Olanzapine has also been reported to decrease overall treatment costs compared with risperidone, but confirmation is required. Olanzapine is a cost-effective alternative to conventional agents for the treatment of moderately to severely ill patients with longstanding schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic Agents↗

PubMed1999

Donepezil. Pharmacoeconomic implications of therapy.

Donepezil is a specific acetylcholinesterase inhibitor that can improve symptoms in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease; cognitive function is maintained above baseline levels for up to 1 year and normal decline of cognitive function is slowed. The ability of the patient to perform daily activities and neuropsychiatric symptoms may also be improved by donepezil, but data are limited. Donepezil is not expected to alter the underlying neurodegenerative process, and the response to the drug varies between individuals. In the absence of validated instruments to measure quality of life, it is not clear how donepezil affects this parameter. In a US survey of caregivers of patients with Alzheimer's disease who were being cared for at home at the start of the 6-month study period, treatment with donepezil did not increase overall direct medical costs. The acquisition cost of the drug was balanced by reduced institutionalisation costs. Economic analyses using Markov models from the US, UK and Canada suggest that donepezil initiated in the early stages of disease may be effectively cost neutral as a result of patients remaining in a nonsevere state of disease for a longer time.

Alzheimer Disease↗

PubMed1999

Abciximab. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in percutaneous coronary revascularisation.

UNLABELLED: Abciximab is a monoclonal antibody fragment that inhibits platelet aggregation through antagonism of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa. The drug is used in conjunction with heparin and aspirin to prevent ischaemic complications associated with percutaneous coronary revascularisation in patients with coronary heart disease. Large and well designed clinical studies have shown abciximab, as an adjunct to aspirin and heparin, to reduce by around one-third to one-half the incidence of ischaemic complications within 30 days of percutaneous coronary revascularisation. Use of the drug appears advantageous in patients at high risk, and abciximab also reduces complications in patients undergoing coronary stenting, although the drug does not appear to inhibit restenotic tissue volume within stents. Longer term benefit has also been reported, with emerging 1-year data from a study in patients at all levels of risk showing reductions in a composite end-point of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or urgent repeat revascularisation. Three-year benefit has been reported in high risk patients. Meta-analysis results, and 1-year data from patients receiving stents, have shown reduced mortality with abciximab. Abciximab therapy had an incremental cost over standard therapy from a hospital perspective of $US293 per patient (1991/1992 values) over 6 months in a prospective economic substudy from a major US clinical trial of the drug in high risk patients. Abciximab was cost saving in patients with unstable angina. A mean net cost of hospitalisation of $US476 per patients (1995 costs) has been shown in a further study in patients with a broad range of levels of risk, and observational data indicate reduced duration of hospitalisation with abciximab. Cost-effectiveness data favoured abciximab with aspirin and heparin over a 6-month period in Spanish and Dutch analyses in which data from the above trial were combined with local cost data, but not in an Australian analysis. Subgroup analyses have indicated enhanced cost effectiveness in high risk patients. Available data also show clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of abciximab therapy in conjunction with coronary stent placement. CONCLUSIONS: Data indicate intravenous bolus plus 12-hour infusion regimens of abciximab to be economically viable in patients at high or low risk of ischaemic complications after percutaneous coronary revascularisation. The drug has been shown to be cost effective in patients receiving the drug in conjunction with coronary stents, and subgroup analyses indicate additional cost effectiveness in certain groups of patients at high risk of ischaemic complications (notably those with acute MI and unstable angina).

Abciximab↗

PubMed1999

Acamprosate. Pharmacoeconomic implications of therapy.

Acamprosate is thought to reduce the craving for alcohol. The drug helps to maintain abstinence in alcohol-dependent patients who have successfully undergone detoxification. Abstinence rates during 3 to 12 months' treatment with acamprosate were approximately double those with placebo in most clinical trials, although abstinence rates were generally still < 50% in patients assigned to receive acamprosate. The drug is generally well tolerated, with the most common adverse effect being diarrhoea. In a German cost-effectiveness model, a treatment programme including acamprosate was the dominant strategy, producing a lifetime cost saving of 2602 Deutschmarks (1992 to 1995 values) per additional abstinent patient compared with treatment without acamprosate. In a Belgian pharmacoeconomic model, total direct medical costs over 2 years were 21,301 Belgian francs (1997 values) per patient lower with a treatment programme including acamprosate than treatment without acamprosate in alcohol-dependent patients. The main factors in the cost savings with acamprosate in these models were reduced costs for acute hospitalisation and rehabilitation/follow-up. The results of a cost-benefit analysis that considered both direct and indirect costs for the total alcohol-dependent population in Spain were consistently in favour of acamprosate. The lifetime net benefit for acamprosate over placebo (the incremental benefit) ranged between 61,642 million and 99,069 million pesetas (1996 values) in various scenarios with 40 to 60% of patients receiving treatment.

Acamprosate↗

PubMed1998

Is ouabain produced by the adrenal gland?

1. Ouabain or a related stereoisomer, termed endogenous ouabain, has been identified in adrenal cortex tissue and culture medium from adrenocortical cells. 2. Angiotensin II and adrenocorticotropin, the main activators of aldosterone secretion from adrenal glomerulosa cells appear to increase the production of this compound. 3. The purpose of this review is to briefly discuss recent available experimental evidence suggesting that endogenous ouabain is secreted by the zona glomerulosa of the adrenal gland.

Adrenal Cortex↗

PubMed1998

Tazarotene.

Tazarotene is a topical retinoid that appears to exert its effects via retinoic acid receptors. It normalises differentiation and proliferation of keratinocytes and has an anti-inflammatory effect. Topical tazarotene 0.05% or 0.1% gel was effective in the treatment of plaque psoriasis in clinical trials and its therapeutic effect was maintained for at least 12 weeks after treatment discontinuation in some patients. In one study in patients with psoriasis, tazarotene had similar efficacy to fluocinonide in reducing plaque elevation, but not erythema. In another study, tazarotene was reported to be less effective than fluocinonide. Combination treatment with tazarotene plus a mid- or high-potency corticosteroid was more effective in the treatment of psoriasis than tazarotene alone. Topical tazarotene 0.1% gel significantly reduced lesion counts in patients with mild to moderate facial acne vulgaris. Skin irritation is a common adverse event with topical tazarotene, but it is mainly of mild to moderate severity. Tazarotene is not recommended for use in women who are, or may become, pregnant.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed1998

Abacavir.

Abacavir is a nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor that inhibits clinical isolates of HIV in vitro with a potency similar to that of zidovudine. Resistance to abacavir develops relatively slowly. Cross-resistance between abacavir and didanosine, zalcitabine or lamivudine, but not zidovudine or stavudine, has been reported in vitro. Abacavir has good oral bioavailability, as demonstrated in animals, and penetrates the CNS. Treatment with abacavir, alone or in combination with other anti-HIV agents (zidovudine, lamivudine, nevirapine, amprenavir and/or other protease inhibitors), decreased viral load and increased CD4+ cell count in patients with HIV infection. Effectiveness was maintained for at least 48 weeks. In early phase I/II trials, headache, gastrointestinal disturbances, rash, malaise, fatigue and/or asthenia were the most common adverse events reported with abacavir alone or in combination with other anti-HIV agents. Hypersensitivity reactions lead to discontinuation of therapy in 2 to 3% of patients.

Anti-HIV Agents↗