Oxcarbazepine – place in the treatment of epilepsy

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-101
Author(s):  
Marcin Kopka

Oxcarbazepine is recommended for the first line treatment of focal seizures in monotherapy and add-on therapy in both children and adults. It is well tolerated and less frequently interacts with other drugs, possible side effects less often lead to the cessation of the therapy. An important feature of the drug is a positive effect on the sexual sphere of patients and a presumed positive effect on reducing depressive symptoms.

Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 5571-5571
Author(s):  
Jesus D Gonzalez-Lugo ◽  
Ana Acuna-Villaorduna ◽  
Joshua Heisler ◽  
Niyati Goradia ◽  
Daniel Cole ◽  
...  

Introduction: Multiple Myeloma (MM) is a disease of the elderly; with approximately two-thirds of cases diagnosed at ages older than 65 years. However, this population has been underrepresented in clinical trials. Hence, there are no evidence-based guidelines to select the most appropriate treatment that would balance effectiveness against risk for side effects in the real world. Currently, guidelines advise that doublet regimens should be considered for frail, elderly patients; but more detailed recommendations are lacking. This study aims to describe treatment patterns in older patients with MM and compare treatment response and side effects between doublet and triplet regimens. Methods: Patients diagnosed with MM at 70 years or older and treated at Montefiore Medical Center between 2000 and 2017 were identified using Clinical Looking Glass, an institutional software tool. Recipients of autologous stem cell transplant were excluded. We collected demographic data and calculated comorbidity burden based on the age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Laboratory parameters included cell blood counts, renal function, serum-protein electrophoresis and free kappa/lambda ratio pre and post first-line treatment. Treatment was categorized into doublet [bortezomib/dexamethasone (VD) and lenalidomide/dexamethasone (RD)] or triplet regimens [lenalidomide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (RVD) and cyclophosphamide/bortezomib/dexamethasone (CyborD)]. Disease response was reported as VGPR, PR, SD or PD using pre-established criteria. Side effects included cytopenias, diarrhea, thrombosis and peripheral neuropathy. Clinical and laboratory data were obtained by manual chart review. Event-free survival was defined as time to treatment change, death or disease progression. Data were analyzed by treatment group using Stata 14.1 Results: A total of 97 patients were included, of whom 46 (47.4%) were males, 47 (48.5%) were Non-Hispanic Black and 23 (23.7%) were Hispanic. Median age at diagnosis was 77 years (range: 70-90). Median baseline hemoglobin was 9.4 (8.5-10.5) and 14 (16.1%) had grade 3/4 anemia. Baseline thrombocytopenia and neutropenia of any grade were less common (18.4% and 17.7%, respectively) and 11 patients (20%) had GFR ≤30. Treatment regimens included VD (51, 52.6%), CyborD (18, 18.6%), RD (15, 15.5%) and RVD (13, 13.4%). Overall, doublets were more commonly used than triplets (66, 68% vs 31, 32%). Baseline characteristics were similar among treatment regimen groups. There was no difference in treatment selection among patients with baseline anemia or baseline neutropenia; however, doublets were preferred for those with underlying thrombocytopenia compared to triplets (93.8% vs 6.2%, p<0.01). Median first-line treatment duration was 4.1 months and did not differ among treatment groups (3.9 vs. 4.3 months; p=0.88 for doublets and triplets, respectively). At least a partial response was achieved in 47 cases (63.5%) and it did not differ between doublets and triplets (61.7% vs 66.7%). In general, first line treatment was changed in 50 (51.5%) patients and the change frequency was higher for triplets than doublets (71% vs 42.4%, p<0.01). Among patients that changed treatment, 17(34.7%) switched from a doublet to a triplet; 15 (30.6%) from a triplet to a doublet and 17 (34.7%) changed the regimen remaining as doublet or triplet, respectively. There was no difference in frequency of cytopenias, diarrhea, thrombosis or peripheral neuropathy among groups. Median event-free survival was longer in patients receiving doublet vs. triplet therapy, although the difference was not statistically significant (7.3 vs 4.3 months; p=0.06). Conclusions: We show a real-world experience of an inner city, elderly MM cohort, ineligible for autologous transplantation. A doublet combination and specifically the VD regimen was the treatment of choice in the majority of cases. In this cohort, triplet regimens did not show better response rates and led to treatment change more often than doublets. Among patients requiring treatment, approximately a third switched from doublet to triplet or viceversa which suggest that current evaluation of patient frailty at diagnosis is suboptimal. Despite similar frequency of side effects among groups, there was a trend towards longer event-free survival in patients receiving doublets. Larger retrospective studies are needed to confirm these results. Disclosures Verma: Janssen: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Stelexis: Equity Ownership, Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria.


2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. S551-S551
Author(s):  
J. Silva ◽  
J. Mota ◽  
P. Azevedo

IntroductionThe association venlafaxine-mirtazapine is currently known as California Rocket Fuel (CRF). Studies show advantage in terms of efficacy and rapid control of depressive symptoms compared to other associations. Venlafaxine is a selective serotonin-noradrenalin reuptake inhibitor and mirtazapine is a noradrenergic-specific serotonergic antidepressant: the result is a potent noradrenergic and serotonergic effect. Studies say that CRF should be performed only for drug-resistant depression; however, there are case reports of its use as a first line treatment, in selected patients.ObjectivesTo summarize the latest literature about this field and to present a case report.AimTo explore and critically review the controversies of venlafaxine-mirtazapine association as a first line antidepressants strategy.MethodsA brief review of the latest literature was performed, using PubMed and the keywords “venlafaxine-mirtazapine association”. A case report about a depressed woman is presented.ResultsDespite most studies are referent to its utility in drug-resistant depression, there are recent pilot studies that recommend CRF as a first line option.M., a 64-year-old woman, had her first psychiatric consultation. She had been depressed for 2 years, she lost 10 kg, had total insomnia and suicidal thoughts. CRF was started up to 150/15 mg, daily. An improvement was noticed after two weeks of treatment and the stabilization of depressive symptoms were achieved by the fourth month.ConclusionsCRF seems to be effective and useful. Patients with insomnia and weight loss may benefit from CRF as a first line option. However, more studies are needed.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.


2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lina Weiss ◽  
Kerstin Wustmann ◽  
Mariam Semmo ◽  
Markus Schwerzmann ◽  
Nasser Semmo

A sofosbuvir/ledipasvir combination is part of a first-line treatment of hepatitis C. However, in patients concurrently treated with amiodarone, cardiac side effects have been described, resulting in an official warning in 2015 by the American Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency when combining those substances. This deprived numerous hepatitis C patients with concurrent cardiovascular problems of receiving this highly effective treatment. Here we present a treatment alternative with an elbasvir/grazoprevir regimen, based on our successful treatment of a patient under concurrent amiodarone therapy. Our observations indicate that patients treated with amiodarone can finally benefit from effective antiviral therapy.


2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Upitis ◽  
Alfons Krol

Background: The treatment of recalcitrant palmoplantar and periungual warts using topical immunotherapy with diphenylcyclopropenone (DPC) was reviewed retrospectively over a seven-year period. Methods: Two hundred eleven patients were sensitized during this time. The patients consisted of 90 males and 121 females and were between 5 and 78 years old. Twenty-three patients were lost to followup. Of the remaining, 4 were undergoing treatment at the time of evaluation, 1 patient failed sensitization, and 1 patient became pregnant. Four discontinued because of side effects, 3 because of financial reasons, and 18 patients discontinued treatment prior to completing the minimum required applications (defined as 6), producing a dropout rate of 12% (25/211). Three patients had additional treatment during the course of DPC and were not included in the study. The remaining 154 patients were classified as nonresponders or responders. Results: The responders consisted of 135 individuals (87.7%) that had complete clearance of warts. Reported adverse effects were local and included with pruritus (15.6%), with blistering (7.1%), and with eczematous reactions (14.2%). The majority of the patients tolerated the treatment very well. One patient developed local impetigo. Patients had an average of 5 treatments over a 6-month period. Conclusions: Topical immunotherapy using DPC is an effective treatment option for recalcitrant warts. It should be considered as first-line treatment for warts based on its high response rate, absence of scarring, and painless application.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivienne Kahlmann ◽  
◽  
Montse Janssen Bonás ◽  
Catharina C. Moor ◽  
Coline H. M. van Moorsel ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Treatment of pulmonary sarcoidosis is recommended in case of significant symptoms, impaired or deteriorating lung function. Evidence-based treatment recommendations are limited and largely based on expert opinion. Prednisone is currently the first-choice therapy and leads to short-term improvement of lung function. Unfortunately, prednisone often has side-effects and may be associated with impaired quality of life. Methotrexate is presently considered second-line therapy, and appears to have fewer side-effects. Objective The primary objective of this trial is to investigate the effectiveness and tolerability of methotrexate as first-line therapy in patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis compared with prednisone. The primary endpoint of this study will be the change in hospital-measured Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) between baseline and 24 weeks. Secondary objectives are to gain more insights in response to therapy in individual patients by home spirometry and patient-reported outcomes. Blood biomarkers will be examined to find predictors of response to therapy, disease progression and chronicity, and to improve our understanding of the underlying disease mechanism. Methods/design In this prospective, randomized, non-blinded, multi-center, non-inferiority trial, we plan to randomize 138 treatment-naïve patients with pulmonary sarcoidosis who are about to start treatment. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either prednisone or methotrexate in a predefined schedule for 24 weeks, after which they will be followed up in regular care for up to 2 years. Regular hospital visits will include pulmonary function assessment, completion of patient-reported outcomes, and blood withdrawal. Additionally, patients will be asked to perform weekly home spirometry, and record symptoms and side-effects via a home monitoring application for 24 weeks. Discussion This study will be the first randomized controlled trial comparing first-line treatment of prednisone and methotrexate and provide valuable data on efficacy, safety, quality of life and biomarkers. If this study confirms the hypothesis that methotrexate is as effective as prednisone as first-line treatment for sarcoidosis but with fewer side-effects, this will lead to improvement in care and initiate a change in practice. Furthermore, insights into the immunological mechanisms underlying sarcoidosis pathology might reveal new therapeutic targets. Trial registration The study was registered on the 19th of March 2020 in the International Clinical Trial Registry, www.clinicaltrials.gov; ID NCT04314193.


2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditya K. Gupta ◽  
Danika C.A. Lyons

Background: Ketoconazole was the first broad-spectrum oral antifungal agent available to treat systemic and superficial mycoses. Evidence of hepatotoxicity associated with its use emerged within the first few years of its approval. Growing evidence of serious side effects including endocrine dysregulation, several drug interactions, and death led to the review of oral ketoconazole in 2011. Objective: This article chronicles the use of oral ketoconazole from its introduction to its near replacement in medicine. Conclusion: Due to its hepatotoxic side effects, oral ketoconazole was withdrawn from the European and Australian markets in 2013. The United States imposed strict relabeling requirements and restrictions for prescription, with Canada issuing a risk communication echoing these concerns. Today, oral ketoconazole is only indicated for endemic mycoses, where alternatives are not available or feasible. Meanwhile, topical ketoconazole is effective, safe, and widely prescribed for superficial mycoses, particularly as the first-line treatment for tinea versicolor.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. LBA-2-LBA-2
Author(s):  
Charlotte A Bradbury ◽  
Rosemary Greenwood ◽  
Julie Pell ◽  
Katie Breheny ◽  
Rebecca Kandiyali ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) is a rare autoimmune condition associated with bleeding risk and fatigue. Current first line ITP treatment is with high dose corticosteroids but frequent side effects, heterogeneous responses and high relapse rates are significant problems, with only 20% remaining in sustained long-term remission. In the UK, mycophenolate (MMF) is frequently used as second line treatment, with retrospective data in ITP suggesting efficacy in 50-80% of patients with good tolerability, although responses are often delayed. The FLIGHT trial aimed to test the hypothesis that MMF combined with corticosteroid is a more effective first line ITP treatment than current standard of care, corticosteroid alone. METHODS In this multicentre, UK based, open label, randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned 120 patients with ITP requiring first line treatment, to corticosteroid alone (standard care) versus combined corticosteroid and MMF (1:1 ratio). Patients &gt;16 years old, with baseline platelet count &lt;30 x109/L requiring first line treatment were eligible. Exclusions included HIV, Common Variable Immunodeficiency (CVID), pregnancy, breast feeding or an unwillingness to follow contraception advice if assigned to MMF. Dosing of corticosteroid followed international consensus guidance (either dexamethasone pulses or prednisolone initial daily dose of 1mg/kg then taper) and dosing of MMF included a strategy to taper and stop 6 months after starting treatment. The primary efficacy outcome was time from randomisation to treatment failure, defined as platelets &lt;30x109/L and a clinical need for second line treatment (included refractory and relapsed ITP). Secondary outcomes included side effects, bleeding events, and patient reported outcomes (PROM) measured at baseline, 2, 4, 6 and 12 months, by validated questionnaires (SF36v2 (Your health & wellbeing): Quality of life (QoL), FACIT-Fatigue (v4): Fatigue, FACT-Th6 (v4): Bleeding and ICECAP-A v2: QoL) RESULTS Of the 120 ITP patients consented, recruited and randomised (52.4% male, mean age 54 years, range 17-87), mean baseline platelet count was 7 x109/L and mean follow up was for 18 months (maximum follow up 24 months, minimum follow up of 12 months). Patient demographics and baseline values are shown in table 1. Significantly fewer treatment failures occurred in patients randomised to MMF as shown in figure 1 (22% [n=13 of 59] vs 44% [n=27 of 61], aHR=0.41 [0.21, 0.80], p=0.0064, and when secondary ITP patients were excluded, aHR 0.37 [0.19, 0.71] p=0.0029). There were similar rates between the groups of significant adverse events, bleeding events, rescue treatments, hospital admissions and treatment side effects including infection (n=14 in each group), neutropenia (4 patients in corticosteroid group), and gastrointestinal side effects (table 2). However, some aspects of quality of life (QoL) were worse in those patients assigned to the MMF group including physical role, physical function and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS This is the first randomised trial using MMF to treat ITP, demonstrating good efficacy and tolerability, even with the inclusion of elderly patients (27.5% were &gt;70 years, 15.8% &gt;75 years). Therefore, MMF may be considered an effective, well tolerated first line treatment option, alongside a short course of steroids, for some patients with ITP, approximately halving the risk of refractory or relapsed ITP. At final follow up, 56% of patients treated with corticosteroid alone had not required 2nd line treatment, which is higher than previous reports. It is unclear why some aspects of QoL were worse in the MMF group. This is an important reminder that disease response and patient experience may not correlate and emphasises the importance of including PROM outcomes within trials. For ITP, to date, PROMs have only been systematically evaluated in the TPO-RA randomised controlled trials. The FLIGHT trial received ethical approval from NRES Committee South West and is registered, (EudraCT Number: 2017-001171-23. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03156452). This abstract presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme (Grant Reference Number PB-PG-0815-20016). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. OffLabel Disclosure: Mycophenolate is unlicensed for ITP treatment


Blood ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 126 (23) ◽  
pp. 5103-5103
Author(s):  
Yasuhito Nannya ◽  
Nobuhiko Nakamura ◽  
Hisashi Tsurumi

Abstract Whilst maintenance therapy with rituximab has been established its role as for follicular lymphoma with high tumor burden, its clinical relevance in aggressive lymphoma still remains to be elucidated due to controversial results of previous studies. In order to address this issue, we conducted a meta-analysis targeting CD20 positive diffuse large B cell lymphoma. We collected prospective randomized trials where case cohorts were administered with single agent rituximab as maintenance therapy for responding patients (PR or better) to induction treatments with or without consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT), and were compared with control cohorts just followed with observation. Out of the 387 candidate reports, we extracted four relevant papers. Rituximab maintenance was placed as the first-line treatment scheme in three studies and second-line or later in one. The pooled estimates of the effect were calculated using random-effect model according to the method of Der Simonian-Laird with inverse variance weighting. Hazard ratio (HR) was selected as measures for responses, and risk difference (RD) for adverse effects. When HR was not available for a given study, it was estimated using methods described by Tierney et al. We assessed heterogeneity of the trial results using a chi-square test of heterogeneity and the I2 measure of inconsistency. Data of the 1546 patients of aggressive lymphoma from four studies comprising of 773 subjects each in maintenance and observation arms. Overall, rituximab maintenance had marginal impact on event-free survival (hazard ratio (HR): 0.80, 95% confidential interval (CI): 0.63 - 1.02, p=0.0719). Heterogeneity among all the trials was not statistically significant (p=0.19, I2=37.01%). To investigate the factors associated with significant impact of rituximab maintenance, we performed subset analyses according to various parameters inherent to study design of each report. No use of rituximab as part of induction treatment prior to randomization was significantly associated with better EFS in the rituximab maintenance arm (HR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.35 - 0.93, p=0.024). By contrast, rituximab maintenance had almost no impact on outcomes when patients had already received rituximab before (HR: 0.91, 95%CI: 0.73 - 1.15, p=0.437). Furthermore, rituximab maintenance had positive effect when used in the first-line treatment scheme (HR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.58 - 0.89, p=0.0026). When ASCT was not included in the treatments prior to randomization, rituximab maintenance significantly improved EFS (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.56 - 0.91, p=0.0057). In order to examine relative impact of these parameters, we conducted meta-analyses using mixed-effects model treating these parameters (ASCT in prior treatment, rituximab in prior treatment, in first-line scheme) as categorical moderators. Prior rituximab administration before randomization was the sole significant factor (beta=0.6017, p=0.0253). Notably, in this model, residual heterogeneity disappeared almost completely (I2=0.0%, test for residual heterogeneity p=0.62), suggesting that the three parameters representing the difference of study design accounts for almost all of variety in effect-sizes among them. This suggests that rituximab included in induction therapy is sufficient to exert its role for responding aggressive lymphoma. Rituximab maintenance was associated with neutropenia (RD: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01 - 0.12) and marginal increase of infection (RD: 0.14, 95% CI: -0.08 - 0.36). In conclusion, rituximab maintenance was not associated with better EFS in overall subjects. It has positive effect on EFS only when rituximab was not used in the induction therapy, which is a rare situation nowadays, negating practical usefulness of adding rituximab maintenance for aggressive lymphoma. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Tsurumi: Chugai Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document