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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Semaglutide: The Newest Once-Weekly GLP-1 RA for Type 2 Diabetes

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (12) ◽  
pp. 1224-1232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhianna M. Tuchscherer ◽  
Angela M. Thompson ◽  
Jennifer M. Trujillo
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Glucagon Like Peptide ◽  
Glucagon Like Peptide 1

Objective: To review efficacy and safety of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1 RA) semaglutide for type 2 diabetes (T2D). Data Sources: A literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE using the term semaglutide was completed through April 2018. A search of clinicaltrials.gov was also conducted. Study Selection and Data Extraction: English-language studies assessing the efficacy and/or safety of semaglutide were evaluated. Data Synthesis: Semaglutide is a newly approved GLP-1 RA for the treatment of T2D. Administered once weekly at a dose of 0.5 or 1 mg, it has been compared with placebo, sitagliptin, insulin glargine, a combination of oral antidiabetic therapies, and 2 GLP-1 RAs, exenatide ER and dulaglutide, and demonstrated greater efficacy compared with these therapies. Published data from studies ranging from 30 to 104 weeks duration demonstrate efficacy with decreases in hemoglobin A1C (A1C) ranging from 1.1% to 2.2%. Studies show reductions in weight from 1.4 to 6.5 kg. Semaglutide demonstrated a reduction in the composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke compared with placebo in patients at high risk of CV events (hazard ratio = 0.74; P = 0.02). Common adverse effects include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea as seen with other GLP-1 RAs. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Semaglutide represents an attractive GLP-1 RA considering its A1C and weight reduction. It provides patient convenience and high patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Semaglutide is an appealing option for the treatment of T2D as a once-weekly GLP-1 RA with established glycemic, CV, and weight benefits.

Novel Therapies in Acute Migraine Management: Small-Molecule Calcitonin Gene-Receptor Antagonists and Serotonin 1F Receptor Agonist

2020 ◽  
pp. 106002802096357
Author(s):  
Kayla Rena Joyner ◽  
Kelsey Woods Morgan
Keyword(s):  
Receptor Antagonist ◽  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Acute Migraine ◽  
Cgrp Receptor ◽  
Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Calcitonin Gene ◽  
Cgrp Receptor Antagonists ◽  
Cgrp Receptor Antagonist

Objective To review the efficacy, safety, and cost of 3 newly approved agents—ubrogepant, lasmiditan, and rimegepant—representing 2 therapeutic classes, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist and serotonin 1F (5-HT1F) agonists, for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura. Data Sources The Institute of Health US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trials, PubMed, and Cochrane databases were queried. Abstracts, journal articles, and other relevant sources published or present were reviewed. Search terms included the following: ubrogepant, MK-1602, Ubrelvy®, rimegepant, Nurtec®, BHV-3000, BMS-927711, lasmiditan, Reyvow®, LY573144. Study Selection and Data Extraction Relevant English-language articles from June 30, 2010, to August 31, 2020, were evaluated and included in the narrative. Data Synthesis CGRP receptor antagonists, ubrogepant and rimegepant, achieved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the most bothersome migraine symptom (MBS) at 2 hours. Both agents were well tolerated, with adverse effects similar to placebo. Lasmiditan, a 5-HT1F receptor antagonist, also improved 2-hour pain freedom and freedom from the MBS at 2 hours. Lasmiditan is associated with dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, nausea, fatigue, and lethargy. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice Ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan represent a new and exciting chapter in acute migraine therapy. To date, no head-to-head studies have compared these agents with the triptans. Ubrogepant and lasmiditan are effective in triptan nonresponders. None of the 3 agents is contraindicated in cardiovascular disease, unlike the triptans. Conclusions Based on available data, ubrogepant, rimegepant, and lasmiditan should be reserved as second-line therapy and may be safe in patients with cardiovascular risk. Lasmiditan’s adverse effect profile may limit its use.

scholarly journals The Role of Pharmacists in Managing Adverse Events Related to Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Medina ◽  
Kate D. Jeffers ◽  
Van A. Trinh ◽  
R. Donald Harvey
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
English Language ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Language Studies ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Life Threatening

Objective: To provide an overview of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy-associated immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and their management, focusing on the key responsibilities for pharmacists in recognizing, distinguishing, and treating irAEs and in educating patients about irAEs and their management. Data Sources: Literature published from January 2000 to March 2018 available from online sources. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Relevant English-language studies, guidelines, and articles. Data Synthesis: ICI therapies have been approved for the treatment of several cancers as single-agent therapies, combined ICI therapies, or in combination with other agents. ICI therapies increase the activity of the immune system and consequently can have autoimmune-like adverse effects that are often termed irAEs. irAE management can be challenging as irAEs can vary in their frequency and severity among patients, according to the specific agent, and can occur at any time during treatment or after therapy discontinuation. Additionally, for patients treated with ICI therapies in combination with other therapies, ICI-associated irAEs must be distinguished from adverse events associated with chemotherapy or targeted therapies, which often require different management. Pharmacists can provide essential support to diagnose and manage irAEs. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: Early and accurate diagnosis and prompt management of irAEs by pharmacists are critical to reduce the risk of severe or life-threatening complications and prevent premature ICI discontinuation. Conclusions: Pharmacists have a key role in the recognition, monitoring, and management of irAEs and in educating patients about irAEs associated with ICI therapies and the agents used to manage them.

Lead in Mineral or Multivitamin-Multimineral Products

2021 ◽  
pp. 106002802110233
Author(s):  
C. Michael White
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Reference Level ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Zinc Supplements ◽  
Average Lead ◽  
Year 2000

Objective Assess the current daily interim reference level of lead and the amount contained in current mineral and multivitamin-multimineral (MVM) products. Data Sources PubMed search from 1980 to May 15, 2021, limited to the English language, via the search strategy ((mineral OR multivitamin OR calcium OR iron OR magnesium OR copper OR zinc OR chromium OR selenium) AND (heavy metals OR Pb OR lead)). Study Selection and Data Extraction Narrative review of studies assessing lead content in mineral or MVM products. Data Synthesis Products containing different calcium forms (dolomite, bone meal, natural carbonate) have historically had higher lead levels than others (refined carbonate, lactate, gluconate, acetate, sevelamer), but the gap has closed considerably since the year 2000. Although only limited assessments of magnesium and zinc supplements have been conducted, no alarming average lead amounts were found. MVM products assessed since 2007 had low median or mean lead concentrations. However, large interproduct differences exist, with many products having very little lead and some products having concerning amounts. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice It is difficult for pharmacists and consumers to know the amount of lead in an actual product unless it is tested in an independent third-party lab. The United States Pharmacopeia and NSF International will provide a seal on the products stating that the products have a low level of lead, but even so, children could receive more lead than the Food and Drug Administration’s Interim Reference Level. Conclusions The threat from lead exposure in mineral and MVM products have diminsihed considerably over time but some products can still have excessive amounts. Without third-party testing, it is difficult for clinicians and consumers to know which outlier products to avoid.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document