Never Too Late: Safety and Efficacy of Deep TMS for Late-Life Depression.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective and well-established treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD). Deep TMS utilizes specially designed H-Coils to stimulate the deep and broad cerebral regions associated with the reward system. The improved depth penetration of Deep TMS may be particularly important in late-life patients who often experience brain atrophy. The aim of this phase IV open-label study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Deep TMS in patients with late-life MDD. Data were collected from 247 patients with MDD aged 60-91 at 16 sites who had received at least 20 Deep TMS sessions for MDD. The outcome measures included self-assessment questionnaires (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II)) and clinician-based scales (21-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-21)). Following 30 sessions of Deep TMS, there was a 79.4% response and 60.3% remission rate on the most rated scale. The outcomes on the PHQ-9 were similar (76.6% response and 54.7% remission rate). The highest remission and response rates were observed with the HDRS physician-rated scale after 30 sessions (89% response and a 78% remission rate). After 20 sessions, there was a 73% response and 73% remission rate on the HDRS. Consistent with prior studies, the median onset of response was 14 sessions (20 days). The median onset of remission was 15 sessions (23 days). The treatment was well tolerated, with no reported serious adverse events. These high response and remission rates in patients with treatment-resistant late-life depression suggest that Deep TMS is a safe, well-tolerated and effective treatment for this expanded age range of older adults.

A Real-World Study of Safety, Immunogenicity and Efficacy of Bevacizumab in Patients With Solid Malignancies: A Phase IV, Post-Marketing Study in India.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the post-marketing safety, tolerability, immunogenicity and efficacy of Bevacizumab (manufactured by Hetero Biopharma) in a broader population of patients with solid tumors. Patients And Methods: This phase IV, prospective, multi-centric clinical study was carried out in Indian patients with solid malignancies (metastatic colorectal cancer, non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, metastatic renal cell carcinoma) treated with Bevacizumab between April 2018 and July 2019. This study included 203 patients from 16 tertiary care oncology centers across India for safety assessment, of which a subset of 115 patients who have consented were also evaluated for efficacy and immunogenicity. This study was prospectively registered in the Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI), and was commenced only after receiving approval from the competent authority (Central Drugs Standard Control Organization, CDSCO). Results: Out of the 203 enrolled patients, 121 (59.6%) patients reported 338 adverse events (AEs) during this study. Of 338 reported AEs, 14 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported by 13 patients including 6 fatal SAEs, assessed as unrelated to the study medication and 7 non-fatal SAEs, 5 assessed as related, and 3 unrelated to Bevacizumab. Most AEs reported in this study (33.9%) were general disorders and administration site conditions, followed by gastrointestinal disorders (29.1%). The most frequently reported AEs were diarrhea (11.3%), asthenia (10.3%), headache (8.9%), pain (7.4%), vomiting (7.9%), and neutropenia (5.9%). At the end of the study, 2 (1.75%) of 69 patients reported antibodies to Bevacizumab without affecting safety and efficacy. However, at the end of 12 months, no patient had reported antibodies to Bevacizumab. Complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were reported in 18.3%, 22.6%, 9.6%, and 8.7% of patients, respectively. The overall response rate (CR + PR) was reported in 40.9% of patients at the end of the study. Disease control rate (DCR), also known as the clinical benefit rate (CBR) was reported in 50.4% of patients. Conclusions: Bevacizumab (Cizumab, Hetero Biopharma) was observed to be safe, well tolerated, lacking immunogenicity, and efficacious in the treatment of solid tumors. The findings of this phase IV study of Bevacizumab, primarily as a combination therapy regimen suggest its suitability and rationality for usage in multiple solid malignancies. Clinical Trial Registry Number: CTRI/2018/4/13371 [Registered on CTRI http://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/advsearch.php : 19/04/2018]; Trial Registered Prospectively.

Safety and efficacy of apatinib in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma after the failure of two or more lines of chemotherapy (AHEAD): a prospective, single-arm, multicenter, phase IV study.

BACKGROUND: Apatinib, a highly selective VEGFR2 inhibitor, significantly improved efficacy versus placebo as a third- and later-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer in phase 2 and 3 trials. This prospective, single-arm, multicenter phase IV AHEAD study was conducted to verify the safety and efficacy of apatinib in patients with advanced or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma after at least two lines of systematic therapy in clinical practice settings. METHODS: Patients with advanced gastric cancer who had previously failed at least two lines of chemotherapy received oral apatinib until disease progression, death or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety. The secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Adverse events were summarized by the incidence rate. Median OS and PFS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. ORR, DCR, OS at 3 and 6 months, and PFS at 3 and 6 months were calculated, and their 95% CIs were estimated according to the Clopper-Pearson method. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and November 2019, a total of 2004 patients were enrolled, and 1999 patients who received at least one dose of apatinib were assessed for safety. In the safety population, 87.9% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with the most common hypertension (45.2%), proteinuria (26.5%), and white blood cell count decreased (25.3%). Additionally, 51% of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 TRAEs. Fatal TRAEs occurred in 57 (2.9%) patients. No new safety concerns were reported. Among the 2004 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, the ORR was 4.4% (95% CI, 3.6-5.4%), and DCR was 35.8% (95% CI, 33.7-38.0%). The median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.2-2.8), and the median OS was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.4-6.1). CONCLUSIONS: The findings in the AHEAD study confirmed the acceptable and manageable safety profile and clinical benefit of apatinib in patients with advanced gastric cancer as a third- or later-line of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02426034. Registration date was April 24, 2015.

Real-world safety of ulinastatin: a post-marketing surveillance of 11,252 patients in China.

BACKGROUND: The safety assessment of ulinastatin can guide clinical practice. The present study aimed to investigate the real-world safety of ulinastatin in China. METHODS: This multicenter study retrospectively analyzed the post-marketing surveillance data of consecutive patients treated with ulinastatin between August 2014 and June 2017 in the general wards and the intensive care units (ICU) of nine hospitals in China. Adverse drug reactions/adverse drug events (ADRs/ADEs) were collected and evaluated in a post-marketing database. RESULTS: A total of 11,252 consecutive patients were included in the study: 7009 ICU patients and 4243 general ward patients. Eleven patients with ADRs/ADEs were observed, including nine ICU patients and two general ward patients. The clinical manifestations were liver dysfunction (n = 5 ICU cases, n = 1 general case), thrombocytopenia (n = 2 ICU cases, n = 1 general case), leukopenia (n = 1 ICU case), and rash (n = 1 ICU case). During the study period, the drug ADR/ADE rate of ulinastatin injection was 0.98‰ (11/11,252 × 1000‰). Among the 11,252 valid patients, only 327 received ulinastatin in accordance with the drug specifications. After excluding unreasonable drug use, the calculated ADR rate was 3.06‰ (1/327 × 1000‰) (95% confidence interval: 0.0‰-17.1‰). In ICU and general ward patients, the use of other drugs combined with ulinastatin was associated with the occurrence of ADRs/ADEs (100% with ADRs/ADEs vs. 0% in controls, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ADRs/ADEs of ulinastatin is < 5‰. The ADRs/ADEs involved limited organs, mainly the skin, gastrointestinal tract, and blood. In most cases, the ADRs/ADEs gradually alleviated or recovered after drug withdrawal. The inappropriate/off-label use of ulinastatin should be the focus of surveillance.

Efficacy and safety of alogliptin versus acarbose in Chinese type 2 diabetes patients with high cardiovascular risk or coronary heart disease treated with aspirin and inadequately controlled with metformin monotherapy or drug-naive: A multicentre, randomized, open-label, prospective study (ACADEMIC).

AIMS: To demonstrate the noninferiority of alogliptin to acarbose, in terms of antidiabetic efficacy, in Chinese people with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D) and high cardiovascular risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: ACADEMIC (NCT03794336) was a randomized, open-label, phase IV study conducted at 46 sites in China. Antidiabetic treatment-naive or metformin-treated adults with uncontrolled T2D (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c] 58.0-97.0 mmol/mol) were randomized 2:1 to alogliptin 25 mg once daily or acarbose 100 mg three times daily for 16 weeks. All participants had a documented history of coronary heart disease or high cardiovascular risk at screening and received aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 100 mg daily throughout the trial. The primary endpoints were change in HbA1c versus baseline, and the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events (AEs). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1088 participants were randomized. Alogliptin was noninferior to acarbose for the change in Week-16 HbA1c (least-squares mean change [standard error] -11.9 [0.4] vs. -11.4 [0.5] mmol/mol, respectively; difference between arms -0.5 [0.7] mmol/mol; 95% confidence interval -1.9 to 0.8 mmol/mol), and was associated with a lower incidence of gastrointestinal AEs (8.9% vs. 33.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001). More alogliptin than acarbose recipients achieved HbA1c <53.0 mmol/mol without gastrointestinal AEs (48.0% vs. 32.7%; P < 0.0001). Discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs were less frequent with alogliptin than acarbose (0.3% vs. 2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Glycaemic control was comparable between alogliptin and acarbose, but the gastrointestinal tolerability of alogliptin was better. More patients achieved target HbA1c without gastrointestinal AEs with alogliptin, suggesting that this agent may be preferred in clinical practice.

Comparison of treatment with insulin degludec and glargine U100 in patients with type 1 diabetes prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia: The HypoDeg randomized, controlled, open-label, crossover trial.

AIM: To investigate whether the long-acting insulin analogue insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100 reduces the risk of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D). METHODS: Adults with T1D and at least one episode of nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia during the last 2 years were included in a 2-year prospective, randomized, open, multicentre, crossover trial. A total of 149 patients were randomized 1:1 to basal-bolus therapy with insulin degludec and insulin aspart or insulin glargine U100 and insulin aspart. Each treatment period lasted 1 year and consisted of 3 months of run-in or crossover followed by 9 months of maintenance. The primary endpoint was the number of blindly adjudicated nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemic episodes. Secondary endpoints included the occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia. We analysed all endpoints by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Treatment with insulin degludec resulted in a 28% (95% CI: 9%-43%; P = .02) relative rate reduction (RRR) of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia at level 1 (≤3.9 mmol/L), a 37% (95% CI: 16%-53%; P = .002) RRR at level 2 (≤3.0 mmol/L), and a 35% (95% CI: 1%-58%; P = .04) RRR in all-day severe hypoglycaemia compared with insulin glargine U100. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T1D prone to nocturnal severe hypoglycaemia have lower rates of nocturnal symptomatic hypoglycaemia and all-day severe hypoglycaemia with insulin degludec compared with insulin glargine U100.

Final results from IMPROVE: a randomized, controlled, open-label, two-arm, cross-over phase IV study to determine patients' preference for everolimus in combination with exemestane or capecitabine in combination with bevacizumab in advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the IMPROVE study was patients' preference for either endocrine-based therapy or combined chemo- and anti-angiogenic therapy in advanced HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, cross-over phase IV study, 77 patients were recruited in 26 sites in Germany. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cap+Bev) as first-line therapy followed by cross-over to everolimus plus exemestane (Eve+Exe) as second-line therapy (Arm A) or the reverse sequence (Arm B). The primary endpoint was patients' preference for either regimen, assessed by the Patient Preference Questionnaire 12 weeks after cross-over. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: 61.5% of patients preferred Cap+Bev (p = 0.1653), whereas 15.4% preferred Eve+Exe and 23.1% were indecisive. Physicians showed a similar tendency towards Cap+Bev (58.1%) as the preferred regimen versus Eve+Exe (32.3%). Median first-line PFS was longer for Cap+Bev than for Eve+Exe (11.1 months versus 3.5 months). Median second-line PFS was similar between Cap+Bev and Eve+Exe (3.6 months versus 3.7 months). Median OS was comparable between Arm A (28.8 months) and Arm B (24.7 months). 73.0% and 52.6% (first-/second-line, Cap+Bev) and 54.1% and 52.9% (first-/second-line, Eve+Exe) of patients experienced grade 3/4 TEAEs. No treatment-related deaths occurred. QoL and treatment satisfaction were not significantly different between arms or treatment lines. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tended to favor Cap+Bev over Eve+Exe, which was in line with physicians' preference. Cap+Bev showed superior first-line PFS, while QoL was similar in both arms. No new safety signals were reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No: 2013-005329-22. Registered on 19 August 20.

Once-Weekly Dulaglutide with Insulin Therapy for Type 2 Diabetes: Efficacy and Safety Results from a Phase 4, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although global studies have investigated the combination of dulaglutide with insulin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), differences in lean body mass and dulaglutide dosing can complicate the extrapolation of global study results to Japanese patients. This phase 4, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, and subsequent open-label study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg in combination with insulin therapy in patients with T2DM. METHODS: Patients enrolled in this multicenter study were Japanese with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c 7.5-10.5%) with insulin therapy (basal insulin, premixed insulin, or basal/mealtime insulin) in combination with or without one or two oral antidiabetic agents (OADs). Patients were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to dulaglutide or placebo. The first 16 weeks was the double-blind period with stable insulin dosing, and patients taking placebo were switched to dulaglutide for an additional 36-week open-label period in which all patients took dulaglutide (52 weeks total). RESULTS: Patients (N = 159) were randomized to dulaglutide (n = 120) or placebo (n = 39). The least-squares (LS) mean changes from baseline in HbA1c at week 16 were dulaglutide - 1.45% and placebo 0.06%. The LS mean and 95% confidence interval for the difference were - 1.50% (- 1.73%, - 1.28%) and dulaglutide was superior to placebo. There were no significant differences between treatment groups in changes from baseline in body weight and insulin dose. The most frequently observed treatment-emergent adverse events in dulaglutide were nasopharyngitis, constipation, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and decreased appetite. The incidence rates of hypoglycemic events by week 16 were dulaglutide 42.5% and placebo 30.8% (P = 0.258). CONCLUSION: Once-weekly dulaglutide 0.75 mg was superior to once-weekly placebo in glycemic control improvement and well tolerated in patients with T2DM in combination with insulin therapy with or without OADs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02750410. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Effectiveness and Safety of Physician-Led Versus Patient-Led Titration of Insulin Glargine in Indian Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Subanalysis of the Asian Treat to Target Lantus Study (ATLAS).

Background: Titration of basal insulin led by either the physician or the patient is not well understood in India. This analysis of Indian subset of Asian Treat to Target Lantus Study (ATLAS) compared effectiveness of patient-led with physician-led titration of once-daily insulin glargine 100 U/mL (Glargine-U-100) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) uncontrolled on oral antidiabetes drug (OAD). Methods: In this open-label parallel group study, randomized patients (either physician-led or patient-led [self-titration] group) followed the same dose titration algorithm (fasting blood glucose [FBG] target 110 mg/dL [6.1 mmol/L]). The primary endpoint was change in mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) at week 24 in the patient-led group versus the physician-led group. Results: Patients (40-75 years) were randomized to either the physician-led group (n = 39) or the patient-led group (n = 36). At week 24, self-titration led to a greater decline in HbA1c than physician-led titration (-1.3% vs. -1.1%). Mean decrease in FBG was more in the patient-led group than in the physician-led group (-53.7 mg/dL vs. -35.5 mg/dL). Mean daily dose of Glargine-U-100 at week 24 was higher in the patient-led group than in the physician-led group (30.0 U vs. 23.8 U). At any time during the study, 30.6% and 7.7% of patients in the patient-led and physician-led groups, respectively, showed target HbA1c level of <7.0% without severe hypoglycemia. Treatment satisfaction and quality of life improved in both groups. Overall, treatment was safe and well tolerated, and none of the events led to treatment discontinuation. Conclusion: Patient-led adjustment of Glargine-U-100 in outpatient setting can be a safe and effective method for glycemic control in Indian patients with T2DM uncontrolled on OADs.

Efectividad y seguridad del esquema genérico lamivudina/tenofovir y efavirenz en pacientes con VIH/SIDA naïve: estudio fase IV no aleatorizado, Cali-Colombia 2012-2014 / Effectiveness and safety of generic version of lamivudine/tenofovir and efavirenz in treatment naïve HIV-infected patients: a nonrandomized, open-label, phase IV study in Cali-Colombia, 2012-2014

Resumen Antecedentes: Los estudios clínicos orientados a evaluar la calidad de medicamentos genéricos pueden ser útiles para fortalecer políticas de acceso a terapia anti-retroviral combinada (TARc). Objetivo: Describir la efectividad y seguridad del esquema genérico lamivudina/tenofovir/efavirenz (3TC/TDF/EFV) en pacientes con infección por VIH/SIDA naïve, pertenecientes a un programa de atención integral. Materiales/Métodos: Estudio clínico prospectivo fase IV abierto y sin grupo control. Entre 2012-2014, se incluyeron y siguieron 40 pacientes con infección por VIH/SIDA naïve y con indicación para iniciar tratamiento. Los pacientes fueron tratados con el esquema genérico 3TC/TDF/EFV y fueron seguidos durante 12 meses. El seguimiento incluyó valoración clínica, parámetros inmunovirológicos y de laboratorio, al inicio del tratamiento y a los 3, 6 y 12 meses. Resultados: De los 40 pacientes, 30 (75%) cumplieron los doce meses de tratamiento; de ellos, 80% alcanzó CV indetectable (< 40 copias/mL) y 83,3% CV < 50 copias/mL. Adicionalmente, en el grupo hubo un incremento en la mediana de 173 linfocitos TCD4/mm3. Por su parte, los resultados del hemograma completo, creatininemia y transaminasas hepáticas se conservaron en rangos normales y no generaron cambios del TARc. Los efectos adversos reconocidos para estos medicamentos se presentaron en menos de 10% de los pacientes y no tuvieron implicaciones graves. Conclusiones: En este grupo pequeño de pacientes, el esquema genérico 3TC/TDF/EFV es efectivo y seguro en el tratamiento de pacientes con infección por VIH/SIDA naïve, y su perfil de efectividad y seguridad es similar al del esquema 3TC/TDF/EFV innovador en pacientes con condiciones clínicas similares.

Background: Clinical studies aimed to evaluating the quality of generic drugs may be useful to strengthen policies of access to combined antiretroviral therapy (cART). Aim: To describe the effectiveness and safety of the generic schema lamivudine/tenofovir/efavirenz (3TC/TDF/EFV) in patients with HIV/AIDS naive, belonging to a comprehensive care program. Methods: A nonrandomized, open-label, phase IV study, during 2012 to 2014 naive HIV-infected patients 18 years or older with indication to receive cART were recruited. Patients were treated with generic scheme 3TC/TDF/EFV and were followed-up during 12 months. Clinical, immunological and laboratory parameters were assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months of treatment. Results: Of the 40 patients, 30 (75%) met the 12 months of treatment; of them, 80% achieved undetectable viral load (< 40 copies/mL) and 83.3% viral load < 50 copies/mL. Additionally, there was a significant increase (173 cells/mm3) in the median for CD4 T lymphocyte count. Moreover, the results of the whole blood count, creatinine and transaminases were preserved in normal ranges and did not generate changes in the cART. Potential side effects of antiretroviral drugs occurred in less than 10% of patients and had no serious implications. Conclusions: In this small group of patients, the generic scheme 3TC/TDF/EFV is effective and safe in the treatment of patients with HIV/AIDS naïve, and its effectiveness and safety profile is similar to show by innovator scheme 3TC/TDF/EFV in patients with similar clinical conditions. Registro Estudio: Registro Público Cubano de Ensayos Clínicos (RPCEC) ID: RPCEC00000134. Registered 20 July 2012.

Long-term immunogenicity and immune persistence of live attenuated and inactivated hepatitis a vaccines: a report on additional observations from a phase IV study.

Both live attenuated (HA-L) and inactivated (HA-I) hepatitis A vaccine were licensed for routine use in China. Although phase 1, 2 and 3 clinical studies of both vaccines have been completed, further systematic evaluation of their immunogenicity and immunological persistence under phase 4 clinical studies in a wide range of conditions and involving large populations is necessary. A phase IV clinical trial (NCT02601040) was performed in 9000 participants over 18 months of age. Geometric mean concentrations (GMCs) and seroconversion rates (SRs) were compared at five time points during 3 years for 1800 individuals among them. The SRs of HA-L and HA-I were 98.08% (95% CI 95.59%-99.38%) and 99.64% (95% CI 98.93%-100.00%) respectively 28 days after administration of the first dose, and remained at 97.07% (95% CI 94.31%-98.73%) or above and 96.73% (95% CI 94.07%-98.42%) or above respectively during the following 3 years. The GMCs for both the HA-L and HA-I groups showed that both vaccines elicited high anti-HAV titres, considerably more than the threshold of protection needed against HAV infection in humans, and these titres were sustained. Hence, both HA-I and HA-L vaccines could provide an excellent long-term protective effect, and supported the routine use of both vaccines.

Efficacy and safety of trelagliptin in combination with insulin therapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes: Results from a randomized, Phase IV study.

We aimed to explore the efficacy and safety of once-weekly trelagliptin 100 mg as an add-on therapy to insulin in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with inadequate glycaemic control. Patients with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 7.5% to 10.0% who were receiving 8 to 40 units of insulin per day were randomized to receive, with insulin, trelagliptin 100 mg (A/A, n = 116) or placebo (P/A, n = 124) for a 12-week double-blind (DB) phase, after which all received trelagliptin for a 40-week open-label phase. Primary endpoints were HbA1c change from baseline to the end of the DB phase and adverse events (AEs). HbA1c significantly decreased in the A/A group vs the P/A group at the end of the DB phase (least square mean difference, -0.63% [95% CI, -0.83 to -0.44]: P < .0001). The frequency of treatment-emergent AEs during the DB phase was 44.0% in the A/A group and 47.6% in the P/A group. No patient experienced severe hypoglycaemia during trelagliptin treatment. Once-weekly trelagliptin 100 mg therapy with insulin demonstrated a significant reduction in HbA1c. Long-term treatment was well-tolerated, with no clinically significant hypoglycaemia, suggesting that trelagliptin with insulin is a meaningful treatment option in this patient population.

Effectiveness and safety of generic version of abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz in treatment naïve HIV-infected patients: a nonrandomized, open-label, phase IV study in Cali-Colombia, 2011-2012.

BACKGROUND: Generic drug policies are often associated with concerns about the quality and effectiveness of these products. Phase IV clinical trials may be a suitable design to assess the effectiveness and safety of generic drugs. The objective of this study was to describe the effectiveness and the safety of the generic abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz in treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. METHODS: A monocentric, nonrandomized, open-label, phase IV study in treatment naïve HIV-infected patients 18 years or older with indication to receive abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz were recruited from a program that provides comprehensive outpatient consultation and continuing care. The primary end-point was to achieve viral load <40 copies/mL at 12 months after baseline to assess effectiveness. Secondary end-point of the study were 1) to asses increasing in T-CD4 lymphocytes levels as accompaniment to asses effectiveness, and 2) to assess both gastrointestinal, skin, and central nervous system symptoms, and lipid profile, cardiovascular risk, renal, and hepatic function as safety profile. Data were determined at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Close clinical monitoring and pharmaceutical care were used for data collection. Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test was used to compare proportions or medians. RESULTS: Sixty patients were invited to participate in the study; 42 were enrolled and 33 completed the follow-up. Of the nine patients excluded from the study, only one was withdrawn due to adverse events. At 12 months, 31 of 42 patients (73.8 % in intention-to-treat analysis) achieved a viral load of HIV1 RNA <40 copies/mL. There was a significant increase (172 cells/mm3) in the median for CD4 T lymphocyte count. The adverse events were mild and met the safety profile for this antiretroviral regimen, mainly of central nervous system symptoms, skin rash, lipid abnormalities, and an increase of 2 % in the median of the percentage of cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical outcomes of generic version of abacavir/lamivudine and efavirenz in HIV treatment naïve patients showed the expected safety and effectiveness profile of proprietary ARV drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registro Público Cubano de Ensayos Clínicos (RPCEC) ID: RPCEC00000202 . Registered 19 November 2015.

Ten-year observational follow-up of PROactive: a randomized cardiovascular outcomes trial evaluating pioglitazone in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: To conduct a 10-year, observational follow-up of patients completing PROactive to investigate whether trends of cardiovascular benefit with pioglitazone and imbalances in specific malignancies persisted over time. METHODS: Macrovascular endpoints and malignancies were compared based on original randomization to pioglitazone or placebo and 'any' versus 'no' pioglitazone use for bladder and prostate cancer. RESULTS: Of 4873 patients completing the PROactive trial, 74% entered the follow-up. During follow-up (mean 7.8 years), there were no statistically significant differences in the primary [all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac intervention, stroke, major leg amputation, leg revascularization] or main secondary (death, MI, stroke) endpoints for subjects originally randomized to pioglitazone and placebo, except for leg amputations during follow-up [4.1% pioglitazone, 5.6% placebo; hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.99; p = 0.046]. During follow-up, the incidence of total malignancies was similar between groups; bladder cancer was reported in 0.8% of patients (n = 14) in the pioglitazone versus 1.2% (n = 21) in the placebo group [relative risk (RR) 0.65, 95% CI 0.33-1.28], and prostate cancer was reported in 44 men (3.7%) in the pioglitazone versus 29 men (2.5%) in the placebo group (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.93-2.34). CONCLUSIONS: The trends of macrovascular benefits of pioglitazone compared with placebo during PROactive did not persist in the absence of continued pioglitazone during this 10-year follow-up. Trends of decreased bladder cancer and increased prostate cancer were observed in the pioglitazone group during follow-up; however, these imbalances should be interpreted with caution because of the limitations of the observational study design.

Efectividad y seguridad del esquema genérico lamivudina/zidovudina/efavirenz en pacientes VIH (+). Estudio fase IV y comparación con el mismo esquema de medicamentos innovadores / Effectiveness and safety of generic lamivudine/zidovudine/efavirenz in HIV (+) patients. Phase IV study and comparison with generic and innovator drugs

Antecedentes: El fortalecimiento de la política de productos competidores (genéricos) se puede acompañar de interrogantes sobre la calidad y, por tanto, sobre la efectividad de algunos de estos medicamentos. Los estudios fase IV son una opción válida para valorar la efectividad y seguridad de estos medicamentos. Objetivos: Valorar la efectividad y seguridad del esquema genérico Lamivudina/Zidovudina/Efavirenz en pacientes con VIH/SIDA que no han recibido terapia antirretroviral, que son atendidos en un programa de atención integral ambulatoria especializada, y comparar estos resultados con los datos de eficacia y seguridad reportados en un estudio de referencia (que utiliza el mismo esquema de medicamentos innovadores y fue realizado con pacientes con condiciones similares). Métodos: Se realizó un estudio clínico abierto no controlado del tipo fase IV. Se valoró la efectividad (disminución de carga viral en plasma y aumento de linfocitos CD4+) y seguridad (reacciones adversas) del esquema genérico Lamivudina/Zidovudina/Efavirenz durante 12 meses en pacientes mayores de 18 años VIH (+), que no habían recibido terapia antirretroviral y con indicación para recibirla. Los seguimientos clínicos y el seguimiento farmacoterapéutico fueron utilizados como estrategias de valoración y recolección de datos. Los resultados fueron comparados con los resultados reportados en un estudio referencia, contrastando la hipótesis de no inferioridad de dichos resultados. Resultados: El estudio incluyó 47 pacientes, de los cuales 33 estuvieron presentes hasta el final del estudio. Al año de tratamiento, en 28 pacientes (el 85%) la carga viral (valorada por indetectabilidad de las copias de RNAm viral/mL) alcanzó una disminución estadísticamente significativa, mientras que en 30 pacientes (el 91%) el recuento de linfocitos T-CD4+ mayor a 200 células/mm3 alcanzó un aumento progresivo y estadísticamente significativo. Para la comparación se halló un artículo que cumplió con...