Lenvatinib in combination with pembrolizumab or everolimus has activity against advanced renal cell carcinoma. The efficacy of these regimens as compared with that of sunitinib is unclear.
In this ...phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 1:1:1 ratio) patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and no previous systemic therapy to receive lenvatinib (20 mg orally once daily) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously once every 3 weeks), lenvatinib (18 mg orally once daily) plus everolimus (5 mg orally once daily), or sunitinib (50 mg orally once daily, alternating 4 weeks receiving treatment and 2 weeks without treatment). The primary end point was progression-free survival, as assessed by an independent review committee in accordance with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Overall survival and safety were also evaluated.
A total of 1069 patients were randomly assigned to receive lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (355 patients), lenvatinib plus everolimus (357), or sunitinib (357). Progression-free survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (median, 23.9 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.39; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.32 to 0.49; P<0.001) and was longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (median, 14.7 vs. 9.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.80; P<0.001). Overall survival was longer with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab than with sunitinib (hazard ratio for death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.88; P = 0.005) but was not longer with lenvatinib plus everolimus than with sunitinib (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.50; P = 0.30). Grade 3 or higher adverse events emerged or worsened during treatment in 82.4% of the patients who received lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab, 83.1% of those who received lenvatinib plus everolimus, and 71.8% of those who received sunitinib. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurring in at least 10% of the patients in any group included hypertension, diarrhea, and elevated lipase levels.
Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival than sunitinib. (Funded by Eisai and Merck Sharp and Dohme; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02811861.).
Summary Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents. However, whether to use pharmacological interventions in this population and which ...drug should be preferred are still matters of controversy. Consequently, we aimed to compare and rank antidepressants and placebo for major depressive disorder in young people. Methods We did a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LiLACS, regulatory agencies' websites, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind randomised controlled trials up to May 31, 2015, for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We included trials of amitriptyline, citalopram, clomipramine, desipramine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, imipramine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of less than ten patients were excluded. We extracted the relevant information from the published reports with a predefined data extraction sheet, and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and tolerability (discontinuations due to adverse events). We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the random-effects model and then did a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate using the GRADE framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015016023. Findings We deemed 34 trials eligible, including 5260 participants and 14 antidepressant treatments. The quality of evidence was rated as very low in most comparisons. For efficacy, only fluoxetine was statistically significantly more effective than placebo (standardised mean difference −0·51, 95% credible interval CrI −0·99 to −0·03). In terms of tolerability, fluoxetine was also better than duloxetine (odds ratio OR 0·31, 95% CrI 0·13 to 0·95) and imipramine (0·23, 0·04 to 0·78). Patients given imipramine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine had more discontinuations due to adverse events than did those given placebo (5·49, 1·96 to 20·86; 3·19, 1·01 to 18·70; and 2·80, 1·20 to 9·42, respectively). In terms of heterogeneity, the global I2 values were 33·21% for efficacy and 0% for tolerability. Interpretation When considering the risk–benefit profile of antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder, these drugs do not seem to offer a clear advantage for children and adolescents. Fluoxetine is probably the best option to consider when a pharmacological treatment is indicated. Funding National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program).
The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has evolved into an emergent global pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can manifest on a spectrum of illness ...from mild disease to severe respiratory failure requiring intensive care unit admission. As the incidence continues to rise at a rapid pace, critical care teams are faced with challenging treatment decisions. There is currently no widely accepted standard of care in the pharmacologic management of patients with COVID-19. Urgent identification of potential treatment strategies is a priority. Therapies include novel agents available in clinical trials or through compassionate use, and other drugs, repurposed antiviral and immunomodulating therapies. Many have demonstrated in vitro or in vivo potential against other viruses that are similar to SARS-CoV-2. Critically ill patients with COVID-19 have additional considerations related to adjustments for organ impairment and renal replacement therapies, complex lists of concurrent medications, limitations with drug administration and compatibility, and unique toxicities that should be evaluated when utilizing these therapies. The purpose of this review is to summarize practical considerations for pharmacotherapy in patients with COVID-19, with the intent of serving as a resource for health care providers at the forefront of clinical care during this pandemic.
Malaria volunteer infection studies (VISs) accelerate new drug and vaccine development. In the induced blood-stage malaria (IBSM) model, volunteers are inoculated with erythrocytes infected with
. ...Observations of elevated liver enzymes in the IBSM model with new chemical entities (NCEs) promoted an analysis of available data. Data were reviewed from eight IBSM studies of seven different NCEs, plus two studies with the registered antimalarial piperaquine conducted between June 2013 and January 2017 at QIMR Berghofer, Brisbane, Australia. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was elevated (> 2.5 times the upper limit of normal ×ULN) in 20/114 (17.5%) participants. Of these, 8.9% (10/114) had moderate increases (> 2.5-5 × ULN), noted in seven studies of six different NCEs ± piperaquine or piperaquine alone, and 8.9% (10/114) had severe elevations (> 5 × ULN), occurring in six studies of six different NCEs ± piperaquine. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) was elevated (> 2.5 × ULN) in 11.4% (13/114) of participants, across six of the 10 studies. Bilirubin was > 2 × ULN in one participant. Published data from other VIS models, using sporozoite inoculation by systemic administration or mosquito feeding, also showed moderate/severe liver enzyme elevations. In conclusion, liver enzyme elevations in IBSM studies are most likely multifactorial and could be caused by the model conditions, that is, malaria infection/parasite density and/or effective parasite clearance, or by participant-specific risk factors, acetaminophen administration, or direct hepatotoxicity of the test drug. We make recommendations that may mitigate the risk of liver enzyme elevations in future VISs and propose measures to assist their interpretation, should they occur.
Introduction
Primary care provides an opportunity to prevent community acquired, medicine or drug-induced acute kidney injury. One of the barriers to proactive prevention of medicine-induced kidney ...injury in primary care is the lack of a list of nephrotoxic medicines that are most problematic in primary care, particularly one that provides a comparison of risks across medicines.
Objective
The aim of this study was to consolidate evidence on the risks associated with medicines and acute kidney injury, with a focus on medicines used in primary care.
Method
We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to identify published studies of all medicines associated with acute kidney injury identified from spontaneous report data. For each medicine positively associated with acute kidney injury, as identified from spontaneous reports, we implemented a sequence symmetry analysis (SSA) and a case–control design to determine the association between the medicine and hospital admission with a primary diagnosis of acute kidney injury (representing community-acquired acute kidney injury). Administrative claims data held by the Australian Government Department of Veterans’ Affairs for the study period 2005–2019 were used.
Results
We identified 89 medicines suspected of causing acute kidney injury based on spontaneous report data and a reporting odds ratio above 2, from Japan, France and the US. Spironolactone had risk estimates of 3 or more based on spontaneous reports, SSA and case–control methods, while furosemide and trimethoprim with sulfamethoxazole had risk estimates of 1.5 or more. Positive association with SSA and spontaneous reports, but not case control, showed zoledronic acid had risk estimates above 2, while candesartan telmisartan, simvastatin, naproxen and ibuprofen all had risk estimates in SSA between 1.5 and 2. Positive associations with case–control and spontaneous reports, but not SSA, were found for amphotericin B, omeprazole, metformin, amlodipine, ramipril, olmesartan, ciprofloxacin, valaciclovir, mycophenolate and diclofenac. All with the exception of metformin and omeprazole had risk estimates above 2.
Conclusion
This research highlights a number of medicines that may contribute to acute injury; however, we had an insufficient sample to confirm associations of some medicines. Spironolactone, furosemide, and trimethoprim with sulfamethoxazole are medicines that, in particular, need to be used carefully and monitored closely in patients in the community at risk of acute kidney injury.
Limited data exist that compare the predominant cardiac preservation solutions (CPSs).
The United Network for Organ Sharing database was retrospectively reviewed from January 1, 2004 to March 31, ...2018, for donor hearts. Of 34,614 potential donors, 21,908 remained after applying the exclusion criteria. The CPS analyzed included saline, the University of Wisconsin (UW), cardioplegia, Celsior, and Custodiol. The primary endpoints were recipient survival and posttransplant rejection. Logistic and Cox models were used to quantify survival endpoints.
Saline was used as the CPS in 2549 patients (12%), UW in 10,549 (48%), cardioplegia in 1307 (6%), Celsior in 5081 (23%), and Custodiol in 2422 (11%). Donor age ranged from 15 to 68 y (mean = 32.0 y, median = 30.0 y), and 71% were male. Adjusted survival probabilities of recipients whose donor hearts were procured with saline was 96% 30 d, 90% 1 y, UW: 97% 30 d, 92% 1 y, cardioplegia: 95% 30 d, 87% 1 y, Celsior: 96% 30 d, 90% 1 y, and Custodiol: 97% 30 d, 92% 1 y. When these comparisons were adjusted for donor age, sex, ethnicity, ischemic time, recipient age, sex, ethnicity, creatinine, ventricular assist device (VAD), length of stay, region and days on waiting list, cardioplegia solution was demonstrated to have a higher risk of death (30 d, 1 y, overall) and posttransplant rejection versus UW (odds ratio 1.70, P = 0.001; odds ratio 1.63, P < 0.001; hazard ratio 1.22, P < 0.001; hazard ratio 1.21, P < 0.001, respectively).
Cardioplegia solutions for cardiac preservation are associated with a higher mortality in heart transplant recipients.
•Persons with epilepsy are not necessarily vulnerable to get infected by SARS-CoV-2.•Management of PWE and COVID-19 needs to consider potential drug-drug interactions.•Remdesivir and tocilizumab ...exhibit clinically irrelevant interactions with ASMs.•NSAIDs can be cautiously co-administered with ASDs in patients with COVID-19.
In regard to the global pandemic of COVID-19, it seems that persons with epilepsy (PWE) are not more vulnerable to get infected by SARS-CoV-2, nor are they more susceptible to a critical course of the disease. However, management of acute seizures in patients with COVID-19 as well as management of PWE and COVID-19 needs to consider potential drug-drug interactions between antiseizure drugs and candidate drugs currently assessed as therapeutic options for COVID-19. Repurposing of several licensed and investigational drugs is discussed for therapeutic management of COVID-19. While for none of these approaches, efficacy and tolerability has been confirmed yet in sufficiently powered and controlled clinical studies, testing is ongoing with multiple clinical trials worldwide. Here, we have summarized the possible mechanisms of action of drugs currently considered as potential therapeutic options for COVID-19 management along with possible and confirmed drug-drug interactions that should be considered for a combination of antiseizure drugs and COVID-19 candidate drugs. Our review suggests that potential drug-drug interactions should be taken into account with drugs such as chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir while remdesivir and tocilizumab may be less prone to clinically relevant interactions with ASMs.
Drug use for both therapeutic and recreational purposes is very widespread in most societies. The range of drugs used, the variations in response to these drugs and other health and behavioral ...confounders mean that drug use may be an important contributor to individualized periodontal diagnoses. In this narrative review, we review the main reported effects of drugs on the periodontal tissues and periodontal disease processes. Although some of the more common adverse drug reactions on periodontal tissues are well described, in many other cases the evidence for these drug effects is quite limited and based on small case series or isolated reports. Prescription drugs are responsible for a range of effects, including drug‐induced gingival overgrowth and increased gingival bleeding, and influence periodontal inflammation and periodontal breakdown. The effects of recreational drugs on the periodontal tissues is less well researched, perhaps for the obvious reason that assembling large cohorts of recreational drug users presents particular challenges. Use of nearly all of these substances is associated with poorer periodontal and dental health, although there is almost certainly a large degree of behavioral confounding in these findings. Overall, further studies of adverse drug reactions on the periodontal tissues are required as this continues to be an important and increasing factor in periodontal health determination.
Antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea carries a significant burden, but evidence-based treatment guidance is incomplete, warranting network meta-analysis (NMA) of pharmacological interventions for ...antipsychotic-related sialorrhea. PubMed Central/PsycInfo/Cochrane Central database/Clinicaltrials.gov/WHO-ICTRP and the Chinese Electronic Journal Database (Qikan.cqvip.com) were searched for published/unpublished RCTs of antipsychotic-induced sialorrhea (any definition) in adults, up to 06/12/2023. We assessed global/local inconsistencies, publication bias, risk of bias (RoB2), and confidence in the evidence, conducting subgroup/sensitivity analyses. Co-primary efficacy outcomes were changes in saliva production (standardized mean difference/SMD) and study-defined response (risk ratios/RRs). The acceptability outcome was all-cause discontinuation (RR). Primary nodes were molecules; the mechanism of action (MoA) was secondary. Thirty-four RCTs entered a systematic review, 33 NMA (n = 1958). All interventions were for clozapine-induced sialorrhea in subjects with mental disorders. Regarding individual agents and response, metoclopramide (RR = 3.11, 95% C.I. = 1.39-6.98), cyproheptadine, (RR = 2.76, 95% C.I. = 2.00-3.82), sulpiride (RR = 2.49, 95% C.I. = 1.65-3.77), propantheline (RR = 2.39, 95% C.I. = 1.97-2.90), diphenhydramine (RR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.88-2.86), benzhexol (RR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.59-3.38), doxepin (RR = 2.30, 95% C.I. = 1.85-2.88), amisulpride (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.30-3.81), chlorpheniramine (RR = 2.20, 95% C.I. = 1.67-2.89), amitriptyline (RR = 2.09, 95% C.I. = 1.34-3.26), atropine, (RR = 2.03, 95% C.I. = 1.22-3.38), and astemizole, (RR = 1.70, 95% C.I. = 1.28-2.26) outperformed placebo, but not glycopyrrolate or ipratropium. Across secondary nodes (k = 28, n = 1821), antimuscarinics (RR = 2.26, 95% C.I. = 1.91-2.68), benzamides (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.75-3.10), TCAs (RR = 2.23, 95% C.I. = 1.83-2.72), and antihistamines (RR = 2.18, 95% C.I. = 1.83-2.59) outperformed placebo. In head-to-head comparisons, astemizole and ipratropium were outperformed by several interventions. All secondary nodes, except benzamides, outperformed the placebo on the continuous efficacy outcome. For nocturnal sialorrhea, neither benzamides nor atropine outperformed the placebo. Active interventions did not differ significantly from placebo regarding constipation or sleepiness/drowsiness. Low-confidence findings prompt caution in the interpretation of the results. Considering primary nodes' co-primary efficacy outcomes and head-to-head comparisons, efficacy for sialorrhea is most consistent for the following agents, decreasing from metoclopramide through cyproheptadine, sulpiride, propantheline, diphenhydramine, benzhexol, doxepin, amisulpride, chlorpheniramine, to amitriptyline, and atropine (the latter not for nocturnal sialorrhea). Shared decision-making with the patient should guide treatment decisions regarding clozapine-related sialorrhea.
Cardiovascular diseases are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in most developed countries of the world. Pharmaceuticals, illicit drugs, and toxins can significantly contribute to the overall ...cardiovascular burden and thus deserve attention. The present article is a systematic overview of drugs that may induce distinct cardiovascular toxicity. The compounds are classified into agents that have significant effects on the heart, blood vessels, or both. The mechanism(s) of toxic action are discussed and treatment modalities are briefly mentioned in relevant cases. Due to the large number of clinically relevant compounds discussed, this article could be of interest to a broad audience including pharmacologists and toxicologists, pharmacists, physicians, and medicinal chemists. Particular emphasis is given to clinically relevant topics including the cardiovascular toxicity of illicit sympathomimetic drugs (e.g., cocaine, amphetamines, cathinones), drugs that prolong the QT interval, antidysrhythmic drugs, digoxin and other cardioactive steroids, beta‐blockers, calcium channel blockers, female hormones, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory, and anticancer compounds encompassing anthracyclines and novel targeted therapy interfering with the HER2 or the vascular endothelial growth factor pathway.
PDF
