A Comparative Study on the Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Combination Therapy with CDK 4/6 Inhibitor and AI Versus AI Monotherapy in HR+/HER type2- Advanced Breast Cancer: Updated Meta-analysis

Objective@#The aim of the study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between combination of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and AIs alone in patients with hormone receptor+/human epidermal growth factor receptor type2-(HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. @*Methods@#Published clinical studies were identified through electronic database searches until February 2019. Literature qualities were assessed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Checklist. Key endpoints of efficacy were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit (CB). Endpoints of safety were adverse events (AEs) (neutropenia, leukopenia, any grade 3/ 4 AEs, and serious AEs) and on-treatment death. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. @*Results@#The selected five studies were evaluated as “good” in quality assessment. Compared to AIs alone, the combination therapy significantly improved PFS (pooled hazard ratio=0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.62), ORR (odds ratio=1.78; 95% CI=1.49-2.13), and CB (odds ratio=1.86; 95% CI=1.51-2.28). The prevalence of AEs was significantly higher in the combination group than in the AIs alone group. On-treatment death was greater in the combination group than in the AIs alone group, although insignificant. @*Conclusion@#The combination therapy of CDK4/6 inhibitors with AIs was more effective for the treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer, but less safe than AIs alone. The combination therapy should be effectively managed through patient monitoring, and further studies are needed to reduce AEs in the combination therapy of CDK4/6 inhibitors with AIs.

A Comparative Study on the Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Combination Therapy with CDK 4/6 Inhibitor and AI Versus AI Monotherapy in HR+/HER type2- Advanced Breast Cancer: Updated Meta-analysis

Objective@#The aim of the study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between combination of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and AIs alone in patients with hormone receptor+/human epidermal growth factor receptor type2-(HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer. @*Methods@#Published clinical studies were identified through electronic database searches until February 2019. Literature qualities were assessed by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Checklist. Key endpoints of efficacy were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and clinical benefit (CB). Endpoints of safety were adverse events (AEs) (neutropenia, leukopenia, any grade 3/ 4 AEs, and serious AEs) and on-treatment death. Meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.3 software. @*Results@#The selected five studies were evaluated as “good” in quality assessment. Compared to AIs alone, the combination therapy significantly improved PFS (pooled hazard ratio=0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.62), ORR (odds ratio=1.78; 95% CI=1.49-2.13), and CB (odds ratio=1.86; 95% CI=1.51-2.28). The prevalence of AEs was significantly higher in the combination group than in the AIs alone group. On-treatment death was greater in the combination group than in the AIs alone group, although insignificant. @*Conclusion@#The combination therapy of CDK4/6 inhibitors with AIs was more effective for the treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer, but less safe than AIs alone. The combination therapy should be effectively managed through patient monitoring, and further studies are needed to reduce AEs in the combination therapy of CDK4/6 inhibitors with AIs.

A Comparison of International Guidelines for Pediatric Asthma Pharmacotherapy

OBJECTIVE: International institutes such as Global institute for Asthma(GINA), KAAACI(Republic of Korea), NHLBI(USA), BTS(UK) and JSA(Japan) have published guidelines for asthma treatment. The aim of this study was to compare the representatives' international guidelines of pharmacotherapy for pediatric asthma. METHODS: The recommendations related to pharmacotherapy for pediatric asthma were extracted from the latest representatives' international guidelines, and comprehensive comparisons were conducted. RESULTS: Major comparison outcomes between international guidelines were evaluated as follows: classification system on severity and pediatric age group, recommendation for inhaled corticosteroid dose, recommendation for pediatric age group of theophylline in mild asthma, and recommendation for pediatric age group of tiotropium in severe asthma. Clinical trials emphasized the adverse effects of theophylline, whereas tiotropium demonstrated beneficial actions for pediatric asthma. Therefore, theophylline was recommended for older patients with persistent asthma, and tiotropium was considered to be suitable for younger patients with severe asthma according to GINA guidelines. CONCLUSION: These findings address the requirement to harmonize international guidelines of pharmacotherapy in pediatric asthma. In addition, the findings suggest that KAAACI needs to update its pharmacotherapy guidelines of theophylline, tiotropium and other medicines recently approved.

A Comparative Study of USA and Europe Guidelines of Rate and Rhythm Control Pharmacotherapy in Atrial Fibrillation

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines have been published in the USA and Europe. Recently, the USA and Europe have updated their guidelines, respectively. These new AF guidelines help in addressing key management issues in clinical situations. This study, therefore, systematically compared guidelines for rate and rhythm control pharmacotherapy of patients with AF between the USA (American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, ACC/AHA) and Europe (European Society of Cardiology, ESC). METHODS: This study investigated and compared American guidelines (2014) and European guidelines (2010 and 2012). RESULTS: Generally, there are four meaningful differences between ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines. Important differences are treatment classification system, level of recommendation, drug list, and dosage. In addition, ACC/AHA described pharmacokinetic drug interactions for antiarrhythmic drugs. ESC emphasized ECG and atrioventricular nodal slowing as feature of antiarrhythmic drugs. CONCLUSION: This research addresses important use of anti-arrhythmic drugs and movement to accept recent recommendations in Korea. For the successful application of the guidelines, a role of pharmacists is crucial in clinical situation.