Repaglinide: a review of its therapeutic use in type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Repaglinide, a carbamoylmethyl benzoic acid derivative, is the first of a new class of oral antidiabetic agents designed to normalise postprandial glucose excursions in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Like the sulphonylureas, repaglinide reduces blood glucose by stimulating insulin release from pancreatic beta-cells, but differs from these and other antidiabetic agents in its structure, binding profile, duration of action and mode of excretion. In clinical trials of up to 1-year's duration, repaglinide maintained or improved glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. In comparative, 1-year, double-blind, randomised trials (n = 256 to 544), patients receiving repaglinide (0.5 to 4mg before 3 daily meals) achieved similar glycaemic control to that in patients receiving glibenclamide (glyburide) < or = 15 mg/day and greater control than patients receiving glipizide < or = 15 mg/day. Changes from baseline in glycosylated haemoglobin and fasting blood glucose levels were similar between patients receiving repaglinide and glibenclamide in all studies; however, repaglinide was slightly better than glibenclamide in reducing postprandial blood glucose in I short term study (n = 192). Patients can vary their meal timetable with repaglinide: the glucose-lowering efficacy of repaglinide was similar for patients consuming 2, 3 or 4 meals a day. Repaglinide showed additive effects when used in combination with other oral antidiabetic agents including metformin, troglitazone, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, and intermediate-acting insulin (NPH) given at bedtime. In 1-year trials, the most common adverse events reported in repaglinide recipients (n = 1,228) were hypoglycaemia (16%), upper respiratory tract infection (10%), rhinitis (7%), bronchitis (6%) and headache (9%). The overall incidence of hypoglycaemia was similar to that recorded in patients receiving glibenclamide, glipizide or gliclazide (n = 597) [18%]; however, the incidence of serious hypoglycaemia appears to be slightly higher in sulphonylurea recipients. Unlike glibenclamide, the risk of hypoglycaemia in patients receiving repaglinide was not increased when a meal was missed in 1 trial. In conclusion, repaglinide is a useful addition to the other currently available treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Preprandial repaglinide has displayed antihyperglycaemic efficacy at least equal to that of various sulphonylureas and is associated with a reduced risk of serious hypoglycaemia. It is well tolerated in a wide range of patients, including the elderly, even if a meal is missed. Furthermore, glycaemic control is improved when repaglinide is used in combination with metformin. Thus, repaglinide should be considered for use in any patient with type 2 diabetes mellitus whose blood glucose cannot be controlled by diet or exercise alone, or as an adjunct in patients whose glucose levels are inadequately controlled on metformin alone.

Ondansetron: a review of its use as an antiemetic in children.

UNLABELLED: Ondansetron, a selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, is an antiemetic agent available for use in adults and children. In children receiving ondansetron (multiple 5 mg/m2 or 0.15 mg/kg intravenous and/or oral doses) in addition to chemotherapy in 2 large (n > 100) non-comparative analyses, < or =2 emetic episodes were observed in 33 and 40% of cisplatin recipients, 48 and 68% of ifosfamide recipients, and 70 and 72% of patients receiving other chemotherapeutic regimens. In comparative trials, ondansetron was significantly more effective at reducing nausea and vomiting than metoclopramide or chlorpromazine (both combined with dexamethasone), although the incidence of delayed symptoms were similar between children receiving ondansetron and metoclopramide. In addition, dexamethasone significantly improved the antiemetic efficacy of ondansetron in 1 randomised trial. When used in children undergoing conditioning therapy (including total body irradiation) prior to bone marrow transplantation, ondansetron was significantly better at controlling nausea and vomiting than combined perphenazine and diphenhydramine therapy. In dose-ranging and large placebo-controlled trials, intravenous (0.075 to 0.15 mg/kg) or oral (0.1 mg/kg) ondansetron was significantly more effective than placebo in preventing emesis in children undergoing surgery associated with a high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) including tonsillectomy or strabismus repair. In comparative studies, intravenous administration of ondansetron 0.1 to 0.15 mg/kg was significantly superior to droperidol 0.02 to 0.075 mg/kg or metoclopramide 0.2 to 0.25 mg/kg in preventing emesis in children undergoing various surgical procedures. In comparison with other antiemetics, including prochlorperazine and dimenhydrinate, ondansetron generally showed greater prophylactic antiemetic efficacy. Ondansetron combined with dexamethasone was significantly more effective than ondansetron or dexamethasone alone, as was the combination of ondansetron with a propofol-based anaesthetic compared with either agent alone. Ondansetron is generally well tolerated in children, rarely necessitating treatment withdrawal. The most frequently reported adverse events were mild to moderate headache, constipation and diarrhoea in patients receiving chemotherapy. Wound problems, anxiety, headache, drowsiness and pyrexia were reported most frequently in patients postsurgery. CONCLUSIONS: Ondansetron has shown good efficacy in the prevention of acute nausea and vomiting in children receiving moderately or highly emetogenic chemotherapy and/or irradiation, particularly when combined with dexamethasone. In the chemotherapy setting, ondansetron is significantly better than metoclopramide and chlorpromazine and has a more favourable tolerability profile. In children undergoing surgery, ondansetron demonstrated superior prophylactic antiemetic efficacy compared with placebo, droperidol and metoclopramide, and was relatively free of adverse events. Ondansetron is thus an effective first-line antiemetic in children undergoing chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery.

Amifostine: an update on its clinical status as a cytoprotectant in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy and its potential therapeutic application in myelodysplastic syndrome.

UNLABELLED: Amifostine (WR-2721) is a cytoprotective agent that protects a broad range of normal tissues from the toxic effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy without attenuating tumour response. This selective protection is due to the greater conversion and uptake of the active metabolite, WR- 1065, in normal versus neoplastic tissues. In a pivotal phase III trial, 242 patients with advanced ovarian cancer were randomised to receive treatment with cisplatin 100 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2 every 3 weeks with or without pretreatment with intravenous amifostine 910 mg/m2. Over 6 cycles of therapy, amifostine significantly reduced haematological, renal and neurological toxicities: treatment delays, treatment discontinuation and days in hospital related to these adverse events were also significantly reduced in patients receiving amifostine versus patients receiving chemotherapy alone. In another randomised phase III trial in 303 patients with head and neck cancer undergoing irradiation therapy (total dose 50 to 70Gy), pretreatment with intravenous amifostine 200 mg/m2 significantly reduced the incidence of acute and late grade > or =2 xerostomia. However, mucositis was not significantly reduced in amifostine recipients compared with patients receiving radiotherapy alone, although this has been shown in smaller randomised trials. Amifostine (340 mg/m2) also provided significant protection against pneumonitis and oesophagitis in patients with lung cancer receiving thoracic irradiation in a preliminary report from a phase III trial (n = 144). Other studies have demonstrated protective effects of amifostine in other tumour types and other chemotherapy, radiation and radiochemotherapy regimens; however, evidence is still limited in these indications. No evidence of tumour protection by amifostine has been demonstrated in any clinical trials. Amifostine has also been shown to stimulate haematopoietic stem cells and has been investigated as a therapy for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome in number of small preliminary studies. At the recommended dose and schedule, amifostine is generally well tolerated. Adverse effects are usually reversible and manageable and those most frequently experienced include nausea and vomiting, transient hypotension and somnolence and sneezing. CONCLUSION: The results of phase III trials have confirmed the safety and efficacy of amifostine as a cytoprotectant to ameliorate cisplatin-induced cumulative renal toxicity, for which it is the only agent proven to be effective, and neutropenia in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, and to reduce xerostomia in patients with head and neck cancer receiving irradiation therapy. Depending on the outcome of numerous ongoing clinical trials, amifostine may eventually find broader clinical applications, both as a cytoprotectant and as a potential therapy in myelodysplastic syndrome.

Oxaliplatin. A review of its pharmacological properties and clinical efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer and its potential in other malignancies.

UNLABELLED: Oxaliplatin is a platinum compound that inhibits DNA synthesis, primarily by causing intrastrand cross-links in DNA. Oxaliplatin has a broad spectrum of antineoplastic activity and has demonstrated a lack of cross-resistance with other platinum compounds. In patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, intravenous oxaliplatin has been trialled as a monotherapy and in combination with other agents. The highest response rates were achieved when oxaliplatin was used in combination with fluorouracil/folinic acid (leucovorin; calcium folinate), typically > or = 50% in the first-line setting and 13 to 45% as a second-line therapy. First-line triple therapy with oxaliplatin and fuorouracil/folinic acid achieved significantly higher response rates and longer median progression-free survival than fluorouracil/folinic acid therapy alone. However, no significant difference in the median duration of overall survival was found. This may be a consequence of the subsequent use of oxaliplatin and/or surgery after disease progression in patients who relapsed after fluorouracil/folinic acid therapy alone. Neoadjuvant therapy with oxaliplatin/fluorouracil/folinic acid has proven beneficial in enabling surgical removal of previously unresectable liver metastases. In 2 studies, surgery with curative intent was performed in 16 and 51% of patients with initially unresectable liver metastases following oxaliplatin/fluorouracil/folinic acid therapy; the 5-year survival rates were 40 and 50%, respectively. In patients with advanced ovarian cancer, first-line therapy with oxaliplatin/cyclophosphamide achieved an objective response rate which did not differ significantly from that of cisplatin/cyclophosphamide (33 vs 42%). In addition, oxaliplatin has shown efficacy in patients with platinum-pretreated ovarian cancer and achieved objective response rates similar to paclitaxel in this setting (16 vs 17%). Promising results have also been found with oxaliplatin in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast cancer, mesothelioma and non-small cell lung cancer. Reversible, cumulative, peripheral sensory neuropathy is the principle dose-limiting factor of oxaliplatin therapy. Haematological and gastrointestinal toxicities occur frequently but are generally mild to moderate in intensity. CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin in combination with fluorouracil/folinic acid is an effective treatment option for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, both as a first-line therapy and in patients refractory to previous chemotherapy. Although preliminary results failed to show any overall survival advantage of this regimen over fluorouracil/folinic acid alone, this may be a consequence of trial design and requires further examination. Additional clinical investigation of oxaliplatin in patients with other cancers is warranted given the promising results achieved in early trials, most notably in patients with platinum-pretreated ovarian cancer.

Lamotrigine. A review of its use in childhood epilepsy.

UNLABELLED: Lamotrigine is an antiepileptic agent that blocks use-dependent voltage-sensitive sodium channels, thereby preventing excitatory neurotransmitter release. However, this mechanism does not explain the broad range of clinical efficacy of this agent. In noncomparative trials, adjunctive lamotrigine (< or = 15 mg/kg/day) improved seizure control in children and adolescents with various refractory seizure types, with about 29 to 90% of patients showing a > or = 50% reduction in seizure frequency after > or = 3 months' treatment. Lamotrigine was particularly effective in generalised seizures, especially absence seizures and those related to the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. In one placebo-controlled study, 33% of children and young adults (aged 3 to 25 years) with refractory Lennox-Gastaut syndrome had a reduction in seizure frequency of > or = 50% after 16 weeks of adjunctive lamotrigine treatment, compared with 16% of placebo recipients (p = 0.01). Significant reductions in seizure frequency when compared with placebo were also observed in patients with refractory generalised and partial seizures. The use of lamotrigine has also been associated with beneficial effects on cognition and behaviour. Adverse events associated with lamotrigine are primarily neurological, gastrointestinal and dermatological and are typically mild or moderate and transient with the exception of a potentially serious rash. Maculopapular or erythematous skin rash occurred in approximately 12% of paediatric patients (aged < 16 years) treated with lamotrigine and was the most common reason for treatment discontinuation. More severe forms of rash, including Stevens-Johnson syndrome, occasionally occurred, with a 3-fold higher incidence in children (approximately 1%) than adults (approximately 0.3%). However, lamotrigine treatment in paediatric trials was generally given at higher initial doses and faster dose escalations than recently revised recommendations. These factors, as well as concomitant use of valproic acid (valproate sodium), are associated with an increased risk of rash. CONCLUSION: Although published clinical evidence is still limited in paediatric populations, lamotrigine is an effective and generally well tolerated broad-spectrum agent for adjunctive treatment of refractory seizures in children, most notably in those with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Results of direct comparisons with other antiepileptic agents are needed to determine more clearly the place of lamotrigine, particularly relative to newer agents, in the treatment of childhood epilepsy. The potential for serious rash in recipients of lamotrigine should also be kept in mind. Nonetheless, lamotrigine is a welcome addition to the available treatments for refractory childhood epilepsy, particularly Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.

Inhaled fluticasone propionate. A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the management of asthma.

UNLABELLED: Contemporary asthma management guidelines list inhaled corticosteroids as the preferred controller medication for patients with persistent asthma. Despite the availability of explicit guidelines, there is evidence that these agents are underused and that guidelines are not always adhered to. Fluticasone propionate is one of several inhaled corticosteroids used for the treatment of asthma. Like other agents of its class, its efficacy is backed by extensive clinical data. More recently, the quality of life of recipients of fluticasone propionate and its relative cost effectiveness have been investigated. A series of comparative analyses show that inhaled fluticasone propionate is more cost effective than oral zafirlukast and triamcinolone acetonide and slightly more cost effective than flunisolide in adult patients with asthma. Analyses used cost per symptom-free day and/or cost per successfully treated patient as outcome measures and were generally conducted from the perspective of the third-party payer. When administered at a microgram dose of half or less than budesonide (as is therapeutically appropriate), the cost effectiveness of fluticasone propionate was similar to or better than that of budesonide. In children, fluticasone propionate was more cost effective per treatment success compared with inhaled sodium cromoglycate. Quality-of-life assessments in patients with mild to moderate disease show that inhaled fluticasone propionate achieved improvements which were deemed to be clinically meaningful in patients with mild to moderate asthma; these changes were significantly greater than those achieved with oral zafirlukast, inhaled triamcinolone acetonide or placebo. Greater improvements were evident with inhaled fluticasone propionate in patients with severe disease. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the considerable body of clinical evidence supporting the use of inhaled fluticasone propionate in patients with asthma, accumulating short term cost-effectiveness data also suggest that this agent can be administered for a similar or lower cost per outcome than other inhaled corticosteroids or oral zafirlukast. Importantly, the clinical benefits offered by fluticasone propionate in patients with persistent asthma are accompanied by clinically significant improvements in quality of life.

131I tositumomab.

black triangle (131)I tositumomab is a radiolabelled murine anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to the CD20 antigen on normal and malignant B lymphocytes. It has antitumour activity as a result of emission of beta particles, and activation of antibody-dependent cellular and complement-mediated cytotoxicity. black triangle (131)I tositumomab monotherapy consistently produced objective response rates of >or=60% in patients with relapsed or refractory, low grade or transformed low grade non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) in clinical trials. 62% of patients responded to retreatment in 1 small trial. black triangle In 2 studies, objective and complete response rates were higher and overall durations of response were significantly longer in patients treated with (131)I tositumomab compared with their last chemotherapy regimen. black triangle High dose (131)I tositumomab combined with autologous stem cell transplant produced an objective response rate of 86% in relapsed or refractory patients. black triangle (131)I tositumomab alone or in combination with fludarabine achieved an objective response rate of 100% in 2 preliminary reports in patients with previously untreated NHL. black triangle The dose-limiting toxicity of (131)I tositumomab is reversible myelosuppression, with approximately 18% of patients requiring haematological support in combined trial data. Other nonhaematological toxicities occur in approximately 20 to 40% of patients and include mild to moderate flu-like symptoms.