Sildenafil dosed concomitantly with bosentan for adult pulmonary arterial hypertension in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Few controlled clinical trials exist to support oral combination therapy in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). METHODS: Patients with PAH (idiopathic [IPAH] or associated with connective tissue disease [APAH-CTD]) taking bosentan (62.5 or 125 mg twice daily at a stable dose for ≥3 months) were randomized (1:1) to sildenafil (20 mg, 3 times daily; n = 50) or placebo (n = 53). The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 6-min walk distance (6MWD) at week 12, assessed using analysis of covariance. Patients could continue in a 52-week extension study. An analysis of covariance main-effects model was used, which included categorical terms for treatment, baseline 6MWD (<325 m; ≥325 m), and baseline aetiology; sensitivity analyses were subsequently performed. RESULTS: In sildenafil versus placebo arms, week-12 6MWD increases were similar (least squares mean difference [sildenafil-placebo], -2.4 m [90% CI: -21.8 to 17.1 m]; P = 0.6); mean ± SD changes from baseline were 26.4 ± 45.7 versus 11.8 ± 57.4 m, respectively, in IPAH (65% of population) and -18.3 ± 82.0 versus 17.5 ± 59.1 m in APAH-CTD (35% of population). One-year survival was 96%; patients maintained modest 6MWD improvements. Changes in WHO functional class and Borg dyspnoea score and incidence of clinical worsening did not differ. Headache, diarrhoea, and flushing were more common with sildenafil. CONCLUSIONS: Sildenafil, in addition to stable (≥3 months) bosentan therapy, had no benefit over placebo for 12-week change from baseline in 6MWD. The influence of PAH aetiology warrants future study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00323297 (registration date: May 5, 2006).

A retrospective, pooled data analysis of the safety of pegaptanib sodium in the treatment of age-related macular degeneration in subjects with or without diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety of pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg intravitreal injection in the treatment of neovascular age-related macular degeneration in subjects with or without diabetes mellitus. METHODS: A pooled, retrospective, analysis was conducted of data from 9 sponsor-administered, randomized, open-label trials. Subjects who received pegaptanib by randomization or change in dose assignment, crossover design, or protocol amendment, were included. Reports of endophthalmitis, increased intraocular pressure, retinal injury, intraocular hemorrhage, traumatic cataract, hypersensitivity reactions, stroke, myocardial infarction, and other arterial thromboembolic events defined by the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration were identified by Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities preferred terms. Adverse events were summarized from the first injection to 42 days after the last injection. The incidence of adverse events was stratified by the presence/absence of diabetes. RESULTS: Of 1,586 subjects enrolled, 165 (10.4%) had a history of diabetes mellitus and 1,421 (89.6%) did not. The 2 populations were similar at baseline. Based on the comparison of prespecified ocular, hypersensitivity, and Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration event terms, the safety review did not identify any notable differences between the 2 populations. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective analysis found no increased safety risk resulting from treatment with pegaptanib 0.3 mg in individuals with neovascular age-related macular degeneration and concomitant diabetes mellitus.

A phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-masked, 2-year trial of pegaptanib sodium for the treatment of diabetic macular edema.

PURPOSE: To confirm the safety and compare the efficacy of intravitreal pegaptanib sodium 0.3 mg versus sham injections in subjects with diabetic macular edema (DME) involving the center of the macula associated with vision loss not due to ischemia. DESIGN: Randomized (1:1), sham-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group trial. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with DME. INTERVENTION: Subjects received pegaptanib 0.3 mg or sham injections every 6 weeks in year 1 (total = 9 injections) and could receive focal/grid photocoagulation beginning at week 18. During year 2, subjects received injections as often as every 6 weeks per prespecified criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion gaining ≥ 10 letters of visual acuity (VA) from baseline to year 1. Safety was monitored throughout. RESULTS: In all, 260 (pegaptanib, n = 133; sham, n = 127) and 207 (pegaptanib, n = 107; sham, n = 100) subjects were included in years 1 and 2 intent-to-treat analyses, respectively. A total of 49 of the 133 (36.8%) subjects from the pegaptanib group and 25 of the 127 (19.7%) from the sham group experienced a VA improvement of ≥ 10 letters at week 54 compared with baseline (odds ratio [OR], 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.30; P = 0.0047). For pegaptanib-treated subjects, change in mean VA from baseline by visit was superior (P<0.05) to sham at weeks 6, 24, 30, 36, 42, 54, 78, 84, 90, 96, and 102. At week 102, pegaptanib-treated subjects gained, on average, 6.1 letters versus 1.3 letters for sham (P<0.01). Fewer pegaptanib- than sham-treated subjects received focal/grid laser treatment (week 54, 31/133 [23.3%] vs 53/127 [41.7%], respectively, P = 0.002; week 102, 27/107 [25.2%] vs 45/100 [45.0%], respectively, P = 0.003). The pegaptanib treatment group showed significantly better results on the National Eye Institute-Visual Functioning Questionnaire than sham for subscales important in this population. Pegaptanib was well tolerated; the frequencies of discontinuations, adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and serious adverse events were comparable in the pegaptanib and sham groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with DME derive clinical benefit from treatment with the selective vascular endothelial growth factor antagonist pegaptanib 0.3 mg. These findings indicate that intravitreal pegaptanib is effective in the treatment of DME and, taken together with prior study data, support a positive safety profile in this population. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Lack of evidence for a link between latanoprost use and malignant melanoma: an analysis of safety databases and a review of the literature.

AIM: To determine if there is an association between the use of latanoprost ophthalmic solution and malignant melanoma and to assess the evidence of a plausible biological mechanism. METHODS: Two safety databases were reviewed: one representing all latanoprost (n=24) and fixed-combination latanoprost/timolol (n=16) clinical trials conducted from November 1992 through November 2007 and a global safety database of all spontaneous non-trial-related clinical reports spanning 13 and 9 years for latanoprost and for latanoprost/timolol, respectively. A systematic PubMed search for studies evaluating potential mechanisms was conducted. RESULTS: Amongst 12,880 latanoprost-treated subjects in clinical trials, no reported cases of ocular melanoma and three cases of cutaneous melanoma were identified. Of 19,940 cases recorded in the global safety database, 22 reports of ocular/cutaneous neoplasms were identified. Of these neoplasms, 11 were ocular and six were cutaneous melanomas. Possible association with latanoprost use could not be excluded in three ocular and one periorbital report. In vitro and in vivo data were consistent with a mechanism whereby the increased iris pigmentation results from stimulation of melanin synthesis by induction of tyrosinase transcription without increasing mitotic activity. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence at present that establishes a link between latanoprost use and either ocular or cutaneous melanoma.