Spotlight on lamotrigine in bipolar disorder.

UNLABELLED: Lamotrigine (Lamictal), a phenyltriazine derivative, is a well established anticonvulsant agent that has shown efficacy in the prevention of mood episodes in adult patients with bipolar I disorder. The mechanism of action of the drug in patients with bipolar disorder may be related to the inhibition of sodium and calcium channels in presynaptic neurons and subsequent stabilisation of the neuronal membrane. Lamotrigine monotherapy significantly delayed time to intervention with additional pharmacotherapy or electroconvulsive therapy for any new mood episode (mania, hypomania, depression and mixed episodes), compared with placebo, in two large, randomised, double-blind trials of 18 months' duration. Additionally, lamotrigine was significantly superior to placebo at prolonging time to intervention for depression. These effects of lamotrigine were demonstrated in both recently manic/hypomanic and recently depressed patients. Lamotrigine showed efficacy in delaying manic/hypomanic episodes in pooled data only, although lithium was superior to lamotrigine on this measure. Two of four double-blind, short-term studies have shown lamotrigine to be more effective than placebo in the treatment of patients with treatment-refractory bipolar disorder or those with bipolar depression. Lamotrigine has not demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania. Lamotrigine was generally well tolerated in maintenance studies with the most common adverse events being headache, nausea, infection and insomnia. Incidences of diarrhoea and tremor were significantly lower in lamotrigine- than in lithium-treated patients. The incidence of serious rash with lamotrigine treatment was 0.1% in all studies of bipolar disorder and included one case of mild Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Lamotrigine did not appear to cause bodyweight gain. The dosage of lamotrigine is titrated over a 6-week period to 200 mg/day to minimise the incidence of serious rash. Adjustments to the initial and target dosages are required if coadministered with valproate semisodium or carbamazepine. CONCLUSION: Lamotrigine has been shown to be an effective maintenance therapy for patients with bipolar I disorder, significantly delaying time to intervention for any mood episode. Additionally, lamotrigine significantly delayed time to intervention for a depressive episode and showed limited efficacy in delaying time to intervention for a manic/hypomanic episode, compared with placebo. Although not approved for the short-term treatment of mood episodes, lamotrigine has shown efficacy in the acute treatment of patients with bipolar depression but has not demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania. Lamotrigine is generally well tolerated, does not appear to cause bodyweight gain and, unlike lithium, generally does not require monitoring of serum levels.

Lamotrigine: a review of its use in bipolar disorder.

UNLABELLED: Lamotrigine (Lamictal), a phenyltriazine derivative, is a well established anticonvulsant agent that has shown efficacy in the prevention of mood episodes in adult patients with bipolar I disorder. The mechanism of action of the drug in patients with bipolar disorder may be related to the inhibition of sodium and calcium channels in presynaptic neurons and subsequent stabilisation of the neuronal membrane. Lamotrigine monotherapy significantly delayed time to intervention with additional pharmacotherapy or electroconvulsive therapy for any new mood episode (mania, hypomania, depression and mixed episodes), compared with placebo, in two large, randomised, double-blind trials of 18 months' duration. Additionally, lamotrigine was significantly superior to placebo at prolonging time to intervention for depression. These effects of lamotrigine were demonstrated in both recently manic/hypomanic and recently depressed patients. Lamotrigine showed efficacy in delaying manic/hypomanic episodes in pooled data only, although lithium was superior to lamotrigine on this measure. Two of four double-blind, short-term studies have shown lamotrigine to be more effective than placebo in the treatment of patients with treatment-refractory bipolar disorder or those with bipolar depression. Lamotrigine has not demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania. Lamotrigine was generally well tolerated in maintenance studies with the most common adverse events being headache, nausea, infection and insomnia. Incidences of diarrhoea and tremor were significantly lower in lamotrigine- than in lithium-treated patients. The incidence of serious rash with lamotrigine treatment was 0.1% in all studies of bipolar disorder and included one case of mild Stevens-Johnson syndrome. Lamotrigine did not appear to cause bodyweight gain. The dosage of lamotrigine is titrated over a 6-week period to 200 mg/day to minimise the incidence of serious rash. Adjustments to the initial and target dosages are required if coadministered with valproate semisodium or carbamazepine. CONCLUSION: Lamotrigine has been shown to be an effective maintenance therapy for patients with bipolar I disorder, significantly delaying time to intervention for any mood episode. Additionally, lamotrigine significantly delayed time to intervention for a depressive episode and showed limited efficacy in delaying time to intervention for a manic/hypomanic episode, compared with placebo. Although not approved for the short-term treatment of mood episodes, lamotrigine has shown efficacy in the acute treatment of patients with bipolar depression but has not demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of acute mania. Lamotrigine is generally well tolerated, does not appear to cause bodyweight gain and, unlike lithium, generally does not require monitoring of serum levels.

Eptifibatide: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in percutaneous coronary intervention and acute coronary syndromes.

UNLABELLED: Eptifibatide (Integrilin) is a selective inhibitor of platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptors used as adjunctive therapy for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), particularly those requiring PCI. Most economic analyses of eptifibatide have incorporated clinical and healthcare resource use data from either the ESPRIT (Enhanced Suppression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Therapy) study in low- to moderate-risk patients undergoing selective PCI with stent implantation or the PURSUIT (Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrilin Therapy) trial in patients with ACS. Eptifibatide achieved statistically significant reductions in combined endpoints of death and ischaemic complications in both of these large multicentre clinical trials, in which patients were randomised to receive intravenous eptifibatide or placebo as adjunctive therapy to heparin and aspirin (plus a thienopyridine in ESPRIT). In US economic analyses using ESPRIT trial data, approximately 40% and 70% of the acquisition cost of eptifibatide was offset by reduced medical resource consumption during the initial hospitalisation period and over a 1-year period, respectively. Eptifibatide was associated with a favourable cost-effectiveness ratio of $US1407 (year 2000 costs) per life-year gained (LYG) in a retrospective US cost-effectiveness analysis that incorporated data from the ESPRIT trial and modelled life expectancy using a large cardiovascular database.Several cost-effectiveness analyses used prospectively collected data from the PURSUIT trial and modelled survival projections using similar methods. These analyses, conducted in the US, Canada and Western Europe, also showed favourable results ($US3761-$US18 774 per LYG; various years of costing). Cost-utility ratios reported in US analyses varied somewhat, but remained <$US20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained (1996 values) when clinical efficacy data were derived from the US cohort of PURSUIT. CONCLUSION: Significant clinical benefits have been demonstrated with eptifibatide as adjunctive therapy in patients undergoing selective PCI with stent implantation in the ESPRIT trial and in patients with ACS in the PURSUIT trial. Pharmacoeconomic analyses using data from either ESPRIT or PURSUIT have demonstrated favourable cost-effectiveness ratios for both indications in various countries. ESPRIT-based results from the limited number of available economic analyses are particularly favourable. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide in ACS (i.e. PURSUIT-based results) may be further improved by targeting the drug for patients in whom catheterisation and PCI are planned, although further analyses are required to confirm this.

Latanoprost : an update of its use in glaucoma and ocular hypertension.

Latanoprost (Xalatan) is an ester analogue of prostaglandin F2alpha that reduces intraocular pressure (IOP) by increasing uveoscleral outflow. The IOP-lowering efficacy of latanoprost 0.005% lasts for up to 24 hours after a single topical dose, which allows for a once-daily dosage regimen. In patients with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma, a single drop of latanoprost 0.005% solution (about 1.5 microg) administered topically once daily reduced diurnal IOP by 22 to 39% over 1 to 12 months' treatment in well-controlled trials; efficacy was maintained during treatment periods of up to 2 years. At this dosage, latanoprost was significantly more effective than timolol 0.5% twice daily in 3 of 4 large, double-blind, randomised studies, was generally as effective as bimatoprost or travoprost, and was significantly more effective than dorzolamide, brimonidine or unoprostone. Furthermore, in patients whose IOP was poorly controlled with timolol, switching to latanoprost monotherapy was at least as effective at lowering IOP as adding dorzolamide or pilocarpine to the regimen. Latanoprost has also shown significant additive effects when used in combination with one or more other glaucoma medications. The fixed combination of latanoprost plus timolol was significantly more effective than either of its individual components in two double-blind randomised studies and more effective than the fixed combination of dorzolamide and timolol in a 3-month, evaluator-masked study. Data in patients with angle-closure glaucoma are limited, but in patients with elevated IOP after undergoing iridotomy, latanoprost 0.005% once daily was significantly more effective than timolol 0.5% twice daily at reducing IOP over 12 weeks of treatment in a large double-blind, randomised study. Latanoprost is generally well tolerated and, unlike timolol, induces minimal systemic adverse events. In well-controlled, 6-month trials, the most commonly occurring drug-related ocular events in latanoprost recipients were mild to moderate conjunctival hyperaemia (3 to 15%) and iris colour change (2 to 9%); these seldom required patient withdrawal although the latter may be permanent. Latanoprost 0.005% as a single daily drop has shown good IOP-lowering efficacy in patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension and does not produce the cardiopulmonary adverse effects associated with beta-blockers. Thus, latanoprost is a valuable addition to the first-line treatment options for patients with open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension. In addition, adjunctive treatment with latanoprost in patients who are refractory to beta-blocker therapy is a viable, second-line treatment option. Although preliminary findings are promising, wider clinical experience is required to define the place of latanoprost in the treatment of angle-closure glaucoma.

Lamivudine/zidovudine/abacavir: triple combination tablet.

The triple combination tablet containing lamivudine (150 mg), zidovudine (300 mg) and abacavir (300 mg, as abacavir sulfate) is a new formulation of three nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Two studies in treatment-naive patients (one double-blind, one nonblind) have reported that lamivudine/zidovudine (dual combination tablet) plus abacavir showed efficacy similar to that of lamivudine/zidovudine plus indinavir. In both studies, similar numbers of patients in each treatment group had plasma HIV RNA levels 400 copies/mL, was reported in 22% of patients in both treatment groups at week 48. Treatment-naive patients receiving lamivudine/zidovudine/abacavir combination therapy experienced several adverse events, including nausea, malaise/fatigue and vomiting.

Abciximab: an updated review of its therapeutic use in patients with ischaemic heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularisation.

UNLABELLED: Abciximab (Reopro) is an antibody fragment that dose-dependently inhibits platelet aggregation and leucocyte adhesion by binding to the glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, vitronectin and Mac-1 receptors. Abciximab (0.25 mg/kg bolus plus infusion of 0.125 micro g/kg/min for 12 hours) showed greater efficacy than tirofiban in reducing the 30-day composite endpoint of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or urgent target-vessel revascularisation in the randomised, double-blind TARGET study in patients scheduled for stent placement. In addition, the beneficial effects of treatment with abciximab previously observed in the randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled EPILOG and EPISTENT studies have been maintained to 1 year, with a significantly reduced incidence of ischaemic complications relative to placebo consistently observed across a range of subgroups including age, sex, bodyweight and indication for revascularisation. The incidence of the composite endpoint was reduced in patients presenting with acute MI of <48 hours' duration in comparison with either fibrinolytic therapy or stenting alone in the randomised STOPAMI and ADMIRAL trials, primarily because of a reduced requirement for urgent repeat revascularisation and reduced incidence of mortality. In the randomised, nonblind, multicentre CADILLAC trial in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), stenting alone was superior to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and stenting alone was not inferior to PTCA plus abciximab. Recent large randomised, multicentre studies (ASSENT-3 and GUSTO-V) have shown higher efficacy (on various ischaemic endpoints) of abciximab in combination with either a reduced dose of tenecteplase or reteplase compared with the fibrinolytic drug alone. TIMI grade 3 flow rates at 60 and 90 minutes in the TIMI-14 and SPEED trials were higher in patients who received abciximab in combination with either alteplase or reteplase than abciximab alone and were similar to that seen with the full-dose fibrinolytic alone. In the randomised, multicentre GUSTO IV-ACS study, no significant differences in any of the ischaemic endpoints at either 7 or 30 days in patients with acute coronary syndromes who were not scheduled to undergo early revascularisation (within 12 hours of end of infusion) were apparent between those who received abciximab (bolus and either 24- or 48-hour infusion) and those who received placebo in addition to aspirin and heparin. The most common adverse events associated with the use of abciximab are bleeding complications and thrombocytopenia, although the risk of major bleeding can be limited through adhering to current administration protocols. Treatment costs are generally higher in both stent plus abciximab and angioplasty plus abciximab groups than stent plus placebo, primarily because of the acquisition cost of abciximab. Abciximab appeared most cost beneficial in high-risk patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary revascularisation; among lower risk patients, abciximab therapy has been associated with higher total in-hospital and 6-month medical costs than eptifibatide. CONCLUSION: The GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist abciximab, when used with aspirin and heparin, has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the short- and long-term risk of ischaemic complications in patients with ischaemic heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, when used with aspirin and heparin. High-risk patients (including those with diabetes mellitus) derive particular benefits from abciximab treatment. Abciximab remains an important therapeutic option for the prevention of complications in patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Capecitabine: a review of its pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy in the management of advanced breast cancer.

Capecitabine is an orally administered prodrug of fluorouracil which is indicated in the US and Europe, in combination with docetaxel, for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer failing anthracycline therapy, and as monotherapy for metastatic breast cancer resistant to paclitaxel and anthracycline therapy (US) or failing intensive chemotherapy (Europe). Capecitabine is also approved for use in metastatic colorectal cancer. Capecitabine is metabolically activated preferentially at the tumour site, and shows antineoplastic activity and synergy with other cytotoxic agents including cyclophosphamide or docetaxel in animal models. Bioavailability after oral administration is close to 100%. In patients with pretreated advanced breast cancer, capecitabine is effective as monotherapy and also in combination with other agents. Combination therapy with capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily for 2 weeks of every 3-week cycle plus intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day one of each cycle was superior to intravenous monotherapy with docetaxel 100 mg/m(2) on day one of each cycle. Capecitabine plus docetaxel significantly reduced the risks of disease progression and death by 35% (p = 0.0001) and 23% (p < 0.05), respectively, and significantly increased median survival (p < 0.05) and objective response rates (p < 0.01). Efficacy has also been demonstrated with capecitabine monotherapy and combination therapy in previously untreated patients in preliminary trials. The most common adverse effects occurring in patients receiving capecitabine monotherapy include lymphopenia, anaemia, diarrhoea, hand-and-foot syndrome, nausea, fatigue, hyperbilirubinaemia, dermatitis and vomiting (all >25% incidence). While gastrointestinal events and hand-and-foot syndrome occurred more often with capecitabine than with paclitaxel or a regimen of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and fluorouracil (CMF), neutropenic fever, arthralgia, pyrexia and myalgia were more common with paclitaxel, and nausea, stomatitis, alopecia and asthenia were more common with CMF. The incidence of adverse effects and hospitalisation was similar in patients receiving capecitabine plus docetaxel and those receiving docetaxel monotherapy. In conclusion, capecitabine, an oral prodrug of fluorouracil which is activated preferentially at the tumour site, is an effective and convenient addition to the intravenous polychemotherapeutic treatment of advanced breast cancer in pretreated patients, and also has potential as a component of first-line combination regimens. Combined capecitabine plus docetaxel therapy resulted in similar rates of treatment-related adverse effects and hospitalisation to those seen with docetaxel monotherapy. Capecitabine is also effective as monotherapy in pretreated patients and phase II data for capecitabine as first-line monotherapy are also promising. While gastrointestinal effects and hand-and-foot syndrome occur often with capecitabine, the tolerability profile was comparatively favourable for other adverse effects (notably, neutropenia and alopecia).

Spotlight on abciximab in patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization.

UNLABELLED: Abciximab (Reopro) is an antibody fragment that dose-dependently inhibits platelet aggregation and leucocyte adhesion by binding to the glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa, vitronectin and Mac-1 receptors. Abciximab (0.25 mg/kg bolus plus infusion of 0.125 micro g/kg/min for 12 hours) showed greater efficacy than tirofiban in reducing the 30-day composite endpoint of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) or urgent target-vessel revascularization in the randomized, double-blind TARGET study in patients scheduled for stent placement. In addition, the beneficial effects of treatment with abciximab previously observed in the randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled EPILOG and EPISTENT studies have been maintained to 1 year, with a significantly reduced incidence of ischemic complications relative to placebo consistently observed across a range of subgroups including age, sex, bodyweight and indication for revascularization. The incidence of the composite endpoint was reduced in patients presenting with acute MI of <48 hours' duration in comparison with either fibrinolytic therapy or stenting alone in the randomized STOPAMI and ADMIRAL trials, primarily because of a reduced requirement for urgent repeat revascularization and reduced incidence of mortality. In the randomized, nonblind, multicenter CADILLAC trial in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), stenting alone was superior to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and stenting alone was not inferior to PTCA plus abciximab. Recent large randomized, multicenter studies (ASSENT-3 and GUSTO-V) have shown higher efficacy (on various ischemic endpoints) of abciximab in combination with either a reduced dose of tenecteplase or reteplase compared with the fibrinolytic drug alone. TIMI grade 3 flow rates at 60 and 90 minutes in the TIMI-14 and SPEED trials were higher in patients who received abciximab in combination with either alteplase or reteplase than abciximab alone and were similar to that seen with the full-dose fibrinolytic alone. In the randomized, multicenter GUSTO IV-ACS study, no significant differences in any of the ischemic endpoints at either 7 or 30 days in patients with acute coronary syndromes who were not scheduled to undergo early revascularization (within 12 hours of end of infusion) were apparent between those who received abciximab (bolus and either 24- or 48-hour infusion) and those who received placebo in addition to aspirin and heparin. The most common adverse events associated with the use of abciximab are bleeding complications and thrombocytopenia, although the risk of major bleeding can be limited through adhering to current administration protocols. Treatment costs are generally higher in both stent plus abciximab and angioplasty plus abciximab groups than stent plus placebo, primarily because of the acquisition cost of abciximab. Abciximab appeared most cost beneficial in high-risk patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary revascularization; among lower risk patients, abciximab therapy has been associated with higher total in-hospital and 6-month medical costs than eptifibatide. CONCLUSION: The GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonist abciximab, when used with aspirin and heparin, has demonstrated efficacy in reducing the short- and long-term risk of ischemic complications in patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, when used with aspirin and heparin. High-risk patients (including those with diabetes mellitus) derive particular benefits from abciximab treatment. Abciximab remains an important therapeutic option for the prevention of complications in patients with ischaemic heart disease.

Biapenem.

Biapenem is a new parenteral carbapenem antibacterial agent with a broad spectrum of in vitro antibacterial activity encompassing many Gram-negative and Gram-positive aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, including species producing beta-lactamases. Biapenem is more stable than imipenem, meropenem and panipenem to hydrolysis by human renal dihydropeptidase-I (DHP-I), and therefore does not require the coadministration of a DHP-I inhibitor. After intravenous administration, biapenem is widely distributed and penetrates well into various tissues (e.g. lung tissue) and body fluids (e.g. sputum, pleural effusion, abdominal cavity fluid). In randomised, nonblind or double-blind clinical trials, biapenem showed good clinical and bacteriological efficacy (similar to that of imipenem/ cilastatin) in the treatment of adult patients with intra-abdominal infections, lower respiratory infections or complicated urinary tract infections. Biapenem is generally well tolerated. The most common adverse events in clinical trials were skin eruptions/rashes, nausea and diarrhoea.

Danaparoid: a review of its use in thromboembolic and coagulation disorders.

UNLABELLED: Danaparoid (danaparoid sodium) is a low molecular weight heparinoid which has undergone clinical study for use as continued anticoagulant therapy in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT), for the prophylaxis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and for the treatment of disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC). A nonblind study in patients with HIT has reported that complete clinical resolution is significantly more likely in patients receiving danaparoid than in patients receiving dextran 70. In addition, retrospective analyses and noncomparative data support the use of danaparoid for continued anticoagulant therapy in patients with HIT. Studies in patients undergoing hip surgery have shown that danaparoid significantly reduces the incidence of postoperative DVT compared with aspirin, warfarin, dextran 70 and heparin-dihydroergotamine, while additional data suggest no difference between danaparoid, enoxaparin and dalteparin. In patients undergoing abdominal or thoracic surgery for removal of a malignancy, danaparoid reduced the incidence of postoperative DVT compared with placebo, but showed no significant difference when compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH). Two studies have compared danaparoid with UFH in the prophylaxis of DVT following acute ischaemic stroke; twice daily danaparoid was significantly superior to UFH whereas there was no significant difference between a once-daily dosage and UFH. Danaparoid did not differ from UFH in terms of efficacy in the treatment of existing DVT. In all comparative studies examining the efficacy of danaparoid in the prophylaxis or treatment of DVT (versus warfarin, dextran 70, enoxaparin, dalteparin, aspirin, heparin-dihydroergotamine, UFH and placebo), the incidence of haemorrhagic complications did not differ between treatment groups. In patients with DIC, 61.9% of those patients receiving danaparoid experienced either disappearance or reduction of symptoms of DIC whereas 62% of those receiving UFH showed either no change or aggravation of their symptoms. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in tolerability or overall improvement of DIC. CONCLUSIONS: Danaparoid is an effective anticoagulant agent which has undergone clinical evaluation in a wide range of disease indications. Current guidelines support the use of danaparoid in prophylaxis of DVT following ischaemic stroke, and in patients who develop HIT. Danaparoid has shown efficacy in DIC, and for DVT prophylaxis in patients undergoing hip surgery although further data are required to establish the role of danaparoid in these indications. In particular, double-blind trials comparing danaparoid with such recommended therapies as the low molecular weight heparins will provide more definitive data on the place of danaparoid in the clinical management of these conditions and ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of intranasal sumatriptan.

A substantial proportion of migraine patients have gastric stasis and suffer severe nausea and/or vomiting during their migraine attack. This may lead to erratic absorption from the gastrointestinal tract and make oral treatment unsatisfactory. For such patients, an intranasal formulation may be advantageous. Sumatriptan is a potent serotonin 5HT(1B/1D) agonist widely used in the treatment of migraine; the effectiveness of the intranasal formulation (20mg) has been well established in several clinical studies. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics of intranasal sumatriptan and includes comparisons with oral and subcutaneous administration. After intranasal administration, sumatriptan is directly and rapidly absorbed, with 60% of the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) occurring at 30 minutes after administration of a single 20mg dose. Following intranasal administration, approximately 10% more sumatriptan is absorbed probably via the nasal mucosa when compared with oral administration. Mean C(max) after a 20mg intranasal dose is approximately 13.1 to 14.4 ng/mL, with median time to C(max) approximately 1 to 1.75 hours. When given as a single dose, intranasal sumatriptan displays dose proportionality in its extent of absorption and C(max) over the dose range 5 to 10mg, but not between 5 and 20mg for C(max). The elimination phase half-life is approximately 2 hours, consistent with administration by other routes. Sumatriptan is metabolised by monoamine oxidase (MAO; predominantly the A isozyme, MAO-A) to an inactive metabolite. Coadministration with a MAO-A inhibitor, moclobemide, leads to a significant increase in sumatriptan plasma concentrations and is contraindicated. Single-dose pharmacokinetics in paediatric and adolescent patients following intranasal sumatriptan were studied to determine the effect of changes in nasal morphology during growth, and of body size, on pharmacokinetic parameters. The pharmacokinetic profile observed in adults was maintained in the adolescent population; generally, factors such as age, bodyweight or height did not significantly affect the pharmacokinetics. In children below 12 years, C(max) is comparable to that seen in adolescents and adults, but total exposure (area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity) was lower in children compared with older patients, especially in younger children treated with 5mg. Clinical experience suggests that intranasal sumatriptan has some advantages over the tablet (more rapid onset of effect and use in patients with gastrointestinal complaints) or subcutaneous (noninvasive and fewer adverse events) formulations.

Enoxaparin: an update of its clinical use in the management of acute coronary syndromes.

UNLABELLED: Enoxaparin (enoxaparin sodium) is a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) indicated for use in the treatment of ischaemic complications of unstable angina and non-Q wave myocardial infarction (MI). Unfractionated heparin (UFH) has for many years represented the standard in anticoagulant therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes; however, recent studies suggest that enoxaparin is also a viable option for anticoagulant therapy in these patients. The ESSENCE (Efficacy and Safety of Subcutaneous Enoxaparin in Non-Q wave Coronary Events) and the TIMI 11B (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) studies reported that twice daily enoxaparin was significantly more effective than a continuous infusion of UFH in reducing the composite triple endpoint of death, MI, or recurrent angina or urgent revascularisation. Follow-up of both patient populations showed continued benefit associated with enoxaparin. Enoxaparin has been compared with tinzaparin in the treatment of unstable coronary artery disease using a nonblind study design. There was no difference between treatment groups in the therapeutic endpoints. Three nonblind studies have also compared the effects of enoxaparin and UFH in patients receiving thrombolytic therapy following acute MI. The HART II (Heparin and Aspirin Reperfusion Therapy), the ASSENT 3 (Assessment of the Safety and Efficacy of a New Thrombolytic Regimen) and the ENTIRE-TIMI 23 (Enoxaparin and Tenecteplase with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor as Reperfusion strategy in ST Elevation MI - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) studies have revealed that enoxaparin in combination with alteplase or tenecteplase is at least equivalent (HART II and ENTIRE-TIMI 23), and possibly superior (ASSENT 3) to UFH. Enoxaparin is administered as a twice-daily subcutaneous injection. In contrast, UFH is administered as an intravenous infusion which requires routine monitoring of the activated partial thromboplastin time to ensure adequate levels of anticoagulation are maintained. During the acute phase of the the ESSENCE and TIMI 11B studies, the incidence of major bleeding was similar in patients receiving enoxaparin to that in patients receiving UFH. In contrast, the rates of minor bleeding were higher in patients receiving enoxaparin than in those receiving UFH throughout these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Data from the ESSENCE, TIMI 11B and ASSENT 3 studies have prompted calls for those LMWHs which have been shown to be superior to UFH, to be considered as first choice treatment for anticoagulation in unstable coronary syndromes. To date, these suggestions are not reflected in current guidelines which consider UFH and LMWHs equally. Irrespective, the clinical data reported in this review support the use of enoxaparin in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. These data suggest that enoxaparin shows certain clinical and practical advantages over standard treatment with UFH and represents an important development in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes.