scholarly journals Cobicistat Versus Ritonavir: Similar Pharmacokinetic Enhancers But Some Important Differences

2017 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 1008-1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Tseng ◽  
Christine A. Hughes ◽  
Janet Wu ◽  
Jason Seet ◽  
Elizabeth J. Phillips
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Therapeutic Index ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Properties ◽  
Medication Dose ◽  
Concomitant Medications ◽  
Potential Interactions

Objective: To describe properties of cobicistat and ritonavir; compare boosting data with atazanavir, darunavir, and elvitegravir; and summarize antiretroviral and comedication interaction studies, with a focus on similarities and differences between ritonavir and cobicistat. Considerations when switching from one booster to another are discussed. Data Sources: A literature search of MEDLINE was performed (1985 to April 2017) using the following search terms: cobicistat, ritonavir, pharmacokinetic, drug interactions, booster, pharmacokinetic enhancer, HIV, antiretrovirals. Abstracts from conferences, article bibliographies, and product monographs were reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English-language studies or those conducted in humans were considered. Data Synthesis: Similar exposures of elvitegravir, darunavir, and atazanavir are achieved when combined with cobicistat or ritonavir. Cobicistat may not be as potent a CYP3A4 inhibitor as ritonavir in the presence of a concomitant inducer. Ritonavir induces CYP1A2, 2B6, 2C9, 2C19, and uridine 5′-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase, whereas cobicistat does not. Therefore, recommendations for cobicistat with comedications that are extrapolated from studies using ritonavir may not be valid. Pharmacokinetic properties of the boosted antiretroviral can also affect interaction outcome with comedications. Problems can arise when switching patients from ritonavir to cobicistat regimens, particularly with medications that have a narrow therapeutic index such as warfarin. Conclusions: When assessing and managing potential interactions with ritonavir- or cobicistat-based regimens, clinicians need to be aware of important differences and distinctions between these agents. This is especially important for patients with multiple comorbidities and concomitant medications. Additional monitoring or medication dose adjustments may be needed when switching from one booster to another.

Intranasal Glucagon: A New Way to Treat Hypoglycemic Emergencies

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (8) ◽  
pp. 780-787
Author(s):  
Rachel N. Lowe ◽  
Jennifer M. Trujillo
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Free Treatment ◽  
Patients With Diabetes ◽  
Data Source

Objective: To review the safety, efficacy, and administration of intranasal (IN) glucagon for the management of hypoglycemia. Data Source: A literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE (1995 to November 2019) using the terms intranasal glucagon, nasal glucagon, glucagon, hypoglycemia treatment, and hypoglycemia management was completed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: English-language studies evaluating IN glucagon were evaluated. Data Synthesis: IN glucagon is a newly approved product for the treatment of hypoglycemia in patients with diabetes, 4 years and older. Administered as a 3-mg dose, it was shown to be noninferior to intramuscular (IM) glucagon. In comparison trials, more than 98% of hypoglycemic events were treated successfully with IN glucagon in both pediatric and adult patients. In simulated and real-world studies, IN glucagon was administered in less than a minute for the majority of scenarios. IM glucagon took longer to administer, ranging from 1 to 4 minutes, and often, patients did not receive the intended full dose. Nausea and vomiting, known adverse events for glucagon, as well as local adverse events were most commonly reported with IN glucagon. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: IN glucagon is safe, effective, easy to use, and does not require reconstitution prior to use, which can lead to faster delivery in a severe hypoglycemic event. It does not require age- or weight-based dosing. This delivery method offers an option for someone who fears needles or is uncomfortable with injections. Conclusion: IN glucagon is a safe, effective, easy to use, needle-free treatment option for severe hypoglycemia.

Evolution of Equations for Estimating Renal Function and Their Application to the Dosing of New Antimicrobials

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (5) ◽  
pp. 496-503
Author(s):  
Alison K. Lew ◽  
Ryan L. Crass ◽  
Gregory Eschenauer
Keyword(s):  
Dose Adjustment ◽  
English Language ◽  
Antimicrobial Agents ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
New Era ◽  
Mdrd Equation ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
Literature Searches ◽  
Study Selection

Objective: To address the background and rationale for the recent introduction of the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation for renal dose adjustment of antimicrobials and to provide recommendations for pharmacists dosing new antimicrobial agents. Data Sources: Comprehensive MEDLINE and EMBASE literature searches (from August 2018 to October 2019) were performed. Search terms included creatinine clearance, Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, and glomerular filtration rate and a subsequent search included the preceding terms AND antimicrobials OR antibiotics. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Available English-language studies on the derivation and/or use of the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) and MDRD study equation were evaluated as well as those that specifically discussed their use for dosing antimicrobial agents. Data Synthesis: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of delafloxacin and meropenem-vaborbactam in 2017 ushered in a new era in renal dosing of antibiotics, in that both agents are recommended to be dosed by the MDRD equation. Studies demonstrate that the CG and MDRD equations can result in discrepant dosing recommendations. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: The renal estimation equation recommended in a new antibiotic label should dictate the dosing of that medication. It is noteworthy that these equations are not interchangeable. Conclusion: Recently approved antimicrobials utilizing the MDRD equation for renal dose adjustment will be interspersed with old and new antimicrobials utilizing the CG equation because of lack of singular guidance by the FDA. This requires pharmacists to be vigilant in evaluating drug labels to determine which equation is recommended and to understand the differences, strengths, and limitations of each equation.

Dexrazoxane: A New Cardioprotective Agent

1998 ◽  
Vol 14 (5) ◽  
pp. 182-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beverly D Abbott ◽  
Cindy M Ippoliti
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
English Language ◽  
Bolus Dose ◽  
Cardiac Tissue ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective: To review the literature discussing the use of dexrazoxane (e.g., Zinecard, ICRF-187) to prevent doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity. Data Sources: Pertinent English-language reports of studies in humans were retrieved from a MEDLINE search (January 1980-January 1997); search terms included chelating agents, razoxane, dexrazoxane, Zinecard, ICRF-187, ADR-529, and ICRF-159. Study Selection: Representative articles discussing the chemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, dosing, and administration of dexrazoxane and those discussing clinical trials were selected. Data Extraction: Data were extracted and analyzed if the information was relevant and consistent. Studies were selected for review in the text on the basis of study design and clinical end points. Data Synthesis: Dexrazoxane is a chemoprotective agent developed to prevent cardiac tissue toxicity. Dexrazoxane exerts a cardioprotective effect with some clinically significant toxicities; it may also interfere with the antitumor activity of doxorubicin. Until there are sufficient data to support its use in first-line supportive care therapy, dexrazoxane should be reserved for use in patients responding to doxorubicin-based chemotherapy but who have risk factors for cardiac toxicity or have received a cumulative doxorubicin bolus dose of 300 mg/m2. Conclusions: The management of doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity has led to the development of supportive care drugs that specifically counteract the dose-limiting toxicities. Dexrazoxane may not completely eliminate the concern about doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity, but it may open new avenues for continuing doxorubicin-based chemotherapy.

Stiripentol: A Novel Antiseizure Medication for the Management of Dravet Syndrome

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (11) ◽  
pp. 1136-1144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcia L. Buck ◽  
Howard P. Goodkin
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
The United States ◽  
Dravet Syndrome ◽  
Pathogenic Variants ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Refractory Seizures

Objective: To describe the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of stiripentol in the treatment of refractory seizures in patients with Dravet syndrome. Data Sources: A search of the English language literature was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE (1978 to April 2019) with the search terms stiripentol, Dravet syndrome, and refractory epilepsy. Other resources included article bibliographies, prescribing information, and relevant trials at https://clinicaltrials.gov/ . Study Selection and Data Extraction: All phase 1, 2, or 3 trials; observational studies; and retrospective studies were analyzed. Data Synthesis: In controlled studies, stiripentol has been shown to reduce seizure frequency by 50% or more in 40% to 70% of patients with Dravet syndrome. Reductions in seizure duration and episodes of status epilepticus have also been documented. Common adverse effects include somnolence and anorexia. Stiripentol inhibits the metabolism of clobazam and valproate, often requiring dose adjustment. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Stiripentol, a direct allosteric modulator of GABAA receptors, offers a novel approach to treatment in patients with Dravet syndrome, both with and without pathogenic variants of the sodium channel α-1 subunit gene, and potentially other refractory seizures. Although available outside the United States for a decade, it was only recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for patients 2 years of age and older with Dravet syndrome taking clobazam. Conclusions: Stiripentol is an effective adjunctive therapy for reducing the frequency and duration of refractory seizures in patients with Dravet syndrome. Its role in the treatment of other refractory epilepsies requires further study.

Lasmiditan: Acute Migraine Treatment Without Vasoconstriction. A Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 875512252110246
Author(s):  
Juliana K Beauchene ◽  
Terri L Levien
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Common Side Effect ◽  
Migraine Treatment ◽  
Acute Migraine ◽  
Oral Tablet ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Acute Migraine Treatment

Objective: To review the efficacy and safety of the newly Food and Drug Administration approved drug lasmiditan, and its place in therapy in the treatment of acute migraine attacks. Data Sources: A literature search of Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar was preformed (September 1999 to May 2021) using the following search terms: acute migraine treatment, triptans, lasmiditan, Reyvow, Rimegepant, Nurtec, Ubrogepant, Ubrelvy, migraine, vasoconstriction, and cardiovascular risk. Product labeling, https://www.clinicaltriasl.gov , and product monographs were also reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English-language studies were considered. Data Synthesis: Lasmiditan is the first in its class approved for acute migraine treatment. Lasmiditan exerts its therapeutic effect through agonism at the 5-HT1F receptor, which has been shown to produce no vasoconstriction in preclinical models. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: It is both scientifically and clinically relevant to review lasmiditan and determine the value of an acute migraine drug that does not induce vasoconstriction. Patients with preexisting cardiovascular conditions for which current migraine therapy is contraindicated may benefit from therapeutic use of lasmiditan. However, the potential cardiovascular benefit needs to be weighed against the increased central nervous system risks observed with lasmiditan. Conclusions: Lasmiditan is an oral tablet drug that is used for acute migraine abortive treatment and data suggest that it does not induce vasoconstriction, a common side effect often observed with the current first-line abortive migraine treatment drug class, triptans. This is especially important in acute migraine patients with cardiovascular risk factors in which triptan use is contraindicated.

Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Lemborexant, a Dual Receptor Orexin Antagonist (DORA), in the Treatment of Adults With Insomnia Disorder

2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110084
Author(s):  
Kristin Waters
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Pharmacological Treatment ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Insomnia Disorder ◽  
Study Selection

Objective To provide an overview of the efficacy and safety of lemborexant in the treatment of insomnia disorder by assessing the currently available literature. Data Sources A literature search of PubMed was performed (2010 to March 2021) using the following search terms: lemborexant, sleep, orexin Study Selection and Data Extraction All relevant English-language studies were reviewed and considered, with a focus on phase 3 trials. Data Synthesis The efficacy and safety of lemborexant in the treatment of insomnia disorder in adults was demonstrated in 2 phase 3 trials. Lemborexant significantly reduced latency to persistent sleep compared with placebo. The first study also demonstrated a significant reduction compared with the active control zolpidem ER. Somnolence and headache were relatively common, but the marked adverse effects associated with other medications commonly used to treat insomnia, such as cognitive and psychomotor impairment and complex sleep-related behaviors, were not observed. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice Although nonpharmacological therapy is considered first-line treatment for insomnia disorder, pharmacological treatment is most commonly utilized. Lemborexant is a viable pharmacological treatment option for patients who are unable to tolerate the adverse effects associated with the most commonly prescribed medications for insomnia, such as benzodiazepines and sedative-hypnotics (Z drugs). This is especially true for geriatric patients, who may be more sensitive to these adverse effects. Conclusion Lemborexant can be recommended to treat insomnia disorder when pharmacological treatment is warranted. It has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials and is likely better tolerated than most currently available treatment options.

Lefamulin: The First Systemic Pleuromutilin Antibiotic

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (12) ◽  
pp. 1203-1214
Author(s):  
Elias B. Chahine ◽  
Allana J. Sucher
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Oral Formulation ◽  
Outpatient Setting ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Injection Site Reactions ◽  
Alternative Option ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Enzyme Elevation

Objective: To review the pharmacology, microbiology, efficacy, and safety of lefamulin. Data Sources: A literature search was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar (2010 to end-April 2020) with the search terms BC-3781 and lefamulin. Other resources included abstracts presented at recent conferences, prescribing information, and the manufacturer’s and Food and Drug Administration websites. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All relevant English-language articles of studies assessing the efficacy and safety of lefamulin were included. Data Synthesis: Lefamulin is a pleuromutilin antibiotic with activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and atypical bacteria. Lefamulin, given at the dose of 150 mg intravenously or 600 mg orally on an empty stomach every 12 hours for 5 to 7 days, was proven noninferior to moxifloxacin for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP). Common adverse reactions include injection site reactions, hepatic enzyme elevation, gastrointestinal upset, hypokalemia, insomnia, and headache. Lefamulin is associated with QT prolongation, and concomitant use with CYP3A substrates that prolong the QT interval is contraindicated. Lefamulin may cause fetal harm. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Lefamulin is a novel antibiotic with a unique mechanism of action. It represents an alternative option to β-lactams and macrolides in the treatment of adults with CABP and an alternative option to amoxicillin and doxycycline in the outpatient setting given the rise in resistance to macrolides and safety concerns with fluoroquinolones. Nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may limit the tolerability of the oral formulation. Conclusions: Lefamulin is the first systemic pleuromutilin antibiotic that has proven safe and effective for adults with CABP.

Novel Use of Ranolazine as an Antiarrhythmic Agent in Atrial Fibrillation

2016 ◽  
Vol 51 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Michael White ◽  
Elaine Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Standard Therapy ◽  
English Language ◽  
Antiarrhythmic Drugs ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Intravenous Amiodarone

Objective: To review the limitations of current antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation (AF) and discuss the rationale and clinical trials supporting the use of ranolazine in AF. Data Sources: MEDLINE was searched from 1980 to September 2016 using the terms ranolazine, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery bypass grafting, and valve surgery. Study Selection and Data Extraction: English-language studies and reviews assessing antiarrhythmic drugs, including ranolazine, were incorporated. Data Synthesis: The use of ranolazine monotherapy has been evaluated in 2 clinical trials. In the RAFFAELLO trial, higher doses of ranolazine showed a trend toward lower AF recurrence versus placebo ( P = 0.053), but further evidence is needed to support its use as a sole therapeutic agent. Ranolazine has shown utility in a limited number of studies as an adjunctive agent, which is critical for those in whom standard therapy is inadequate or the adverse event profile precludes optimized standard therapy. In the HARMONY trial, ranolazine 750 mg and dronedarone 225 mg twice daily reduced the AF burden by 59.1% from baseline ( P = 0.008 vs placebo). In a trial by Koskinas and colleagues, patients receiving ranolazine 1500 mg once and intravenous amiodarone had a higher conversion rate than those receiving amiodarone alone ( P = 0.024). There are also promising studies for the prevention and treatment of post–cardiothoracic surgery AF, which require further investigation. Conclusions: Ranolazine’s pharmacological properties and available evidence suggest potential for its use in AF.

A Review of β-Lactam–Associated Neutropenia and Implications for Cross-reactivity

2020 ◽  
pp. 106002802097564
Author(s):  
Christo Cimino ◽  
Ban M. Allos ◽  
Elizabeth J. Phillips
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Alternative Therapy ◽  
Cross Reactivity ◽  
Drug Induced ◽  
Disease States ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Frequency Of Use ◽  
Direct Substitution

Objective: To review the incidence, management, and current understanding of the pathophysiology of β-lactam–induced neutropenia and to critically evaluate the practicality and safety of direct substitution to an alternative β-lactam in the setting of this reaction. Data Sources: A literature analysis using the PubMed and Ovid search engines (July 1968 to October 2020) was performed using the search terms neutropenia, leukopenia, β-lactam, nonchemotherapy, agranulocytosis, and G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor). Study Selection and Data Extraction: The included English-language studies evaluated the incidence, mechanism, and/or management of β-lactam–induced neutropenia in pediatric or adult patients. Data Synthesis: Drug-induced neutropenia is a well-documented adverse reaction of β-lactam antibiotics, with an incidence of approximately 10% following at least 2 weeks of intravenous therapy. However, multiple gaps in knowledge remain in the mechanism of pathophysiology and optimal management of this reaction. Both direct toxic and immune-mediated mechanisms have been implicated. Although the cornerstone of management includes cessation of the offending agent, controversy exists on the appropriateness of direct substitution or future use of an alternative β-lactam. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Given the frequency of use and superiority of β-lactams over alternative therapy for several infectious disease states, practical recommendations are needed on the management and safe use of β-lactams following β-lactam–induced neutropenia. Conclusion: Future use of β-lactams with differing R1 side chains, particularly those from a separate class, should not be deemed contraindicated following β-lactam–induced neutropenia and may be considered when indicated, with close laboratory monitoring.

Vasopressin in Cardiac Arrest

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (10) ◽  
pp. 1687-1692 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sheri L Koshman ◽  
Peter J Zed ◽  
Riyad B Abu-Laban
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Arrest ◽  
Hospital Discharge ◽  
Statistical Power ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Spontaneous Circulation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Successful Resuscitation ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Study Selection

Objective: To review the efficacy and safety of vasopressin in cardiac arrest. Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched (all to June 2005) for full-text English-language publications describing trials in humans. Search terms were vasopressin, epinephrine, adrenaline, heart arrest, cardiac arrest, and clinical trial. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Prospective, randomized, controlled trials that evaluated efficacy or safety endpoints of vasopressin in the management of cardiac arrest were included. Efficacy outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, successful resuscitation, survival to hospital admission, 2hour survival, and survival to hospital discharge. Safety outcomes were as defined by each trial. Data Synthesis: Three prospective trials were identified and included in this review. Vasopressin does not appear to offer any therapeutic advantage compared with epinephrine in the treatment of both in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, regardless of the presenting arrest rhythm. Although there is a suggestion that vasopressin may be effective in treatment of asystole, the evidence for this arises from a subgroup analysis that should be viewed as hypothesis generating. There are limited data describing the safety of vasopressin in cardiac arrest. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence for the use of vasopressin in cardiac arrest is indeterminate. Given the similarly equivocal evidence of efficacy for epinephrine, either drug could be considered the first-line agent in cardiac arrest. Placebo-controlled studies with appropriate statistical power are warranted to evaluate meaningful clinical outcomes, such as survival to hospital discharge. Further evaluation of the role of vasopressin in asystolic cardiac arrest and its use in combination with epinephrine is also justified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document