Choice Of Second-line Treatment Research Articles

EAACI/GA²LEN/EDF/WAO guideline: management of urticaria

This guideline, together with its sister guideline on the classification of urticaria (Zuberbier T, Asero R, Bindslev-Jensen C, Canonica GW, Church MK, Giménez-Arnau AM et al. EAACI/GA(2)LEN/EDF/WAO Guideline: definition, classification and diagnosis of urticaria. Allergy 2009;64: 1417-1426), is the result of a consensus reached during a panel discussion at the Third International Consensus Meeting on Urticaria, Urticaria 2008, a joint initiative of the Dermatology Section of the European Academy of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (EAACI), the EU-funded network of excellence, the Global Allergy and Asthma European Network (GA(2)LEN), the European Dermatology Forum (EDF) and the World Allergy Organization (WAO). As members of the panel, the authors had prepared their suggestions regarding management of urticaria before the meeting. The draft of the guideline took into account all available evidence in the literature (including Medline and Embase searches and hand searches of abstracts at international allergy congresses in 2004-2008) and was based on the existing consensus reports of the first and the second symposia in 2000 and 2004. These suggestions were then discussed in detail among the panel members and with the over 200 international specialists of the meeting to achieve a consensus using a simple voting system where appropriate. Urticaria has a profound impact on the quality of life and effective treatment is, therefore, required. The recommended first line treatment is new generation, nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines. If standard dosing is not effective, increasing the dosage up to four-fold is recommended. For patients who do not respond to a four-fold increase in dosage of nonsedating H(1)-antihistamines, it is recommended that second-line therapies should be added to the antihistamine treatment. In the choice of second-line treatment, both their costs and risk/benefit profiles are most important to consider. Corticosteroids are not recommended for long-term treatment due to their unavoidable severe adverse effects. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS).

Antiretroviral treatment outcome following genotyping in Thai children who failed dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors

Objective To evaluate outcomes in dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) pretreated children after genotyping (GT). Methods We assessed CD4 and viral load (VL) in children three years after baseline GT at the time of dual NRTI failure. Baseline high grade resistance (HR) was defined as ≥4 nucleoside analogue mutations (NAMs) ± Q151 M or 69 insertion complex, and low grade resistance (LR) was defined as <4 NAMs. Genotypic susceptibility scores (GSS) were determined. The current selection of antiretrovirals (ARV) was based on physician judgment and ARV availability. Results Seventy-two children were enrolled, with a mean age of 9.3 years; 61% were female. Baseline median CD4 was 18%, VL was 1.7 log 10 with HR 37.5%, LR 56.9% and no mutation (NR, no resistance) 5.6%. Sixty-five (90.3%) switched ARV: 46.2% non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), 30.8% protease inhibitor (PI), and 23.1% PI + NNRTI based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). The choice of regimen did not differ based on baseline HR, LR, and NR. The median duration from dual NRTI therapy to HAART was 5.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0–6.9 years) and the mean (SD) duration of current HAART regimen was 1.51 (1.78) years; both were similar between ARV groups. Five children continued dual NRTI, two interrupted therapy. The GSS score was significantly higher in the PI group (3.1) vs. PI + NNRTI (2.5) vs. NNRTI (2.6) groups. Sixty-three percent of the HR group used PI or PI + NNRTI-based HAART compared to 41% of the LR group, p = not significant. At follow-up, median CD4 changes from baseline were +5% and VL −2.2 log 10 ( p < 0.001). VL <1.7 log 10 was seen in 59.3% of HR, 58.5% of LR, and 50.0% of NR groups (no significant difference). More children on PI (75%) and PI + NNRTI (80%) based HAART had VL <50 compared to NNRTI-based HAART (50%), p = 0.003. Conclusion PI-based regimens showed a higher rate of undetectable VL compared with NNRTI-based regimens. Having GT may not affect second-line treatment choices in developing countries, most likely due to late VL failure and limited availability of PIs.

Second-Line Salvage Treatment of AIDS-Associated Pneumocystis jirovecii Pneumonia

Limited clinical data exist to guide the choice of second-line salvage treatment for AIDS-associated Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (PCP). We did a systematic search of MEDLINE for all randomized and observational studies of PCP treatment published up to August 2007 and included individual treatment data of AIDS-associated PCP from a tricenter study. We calculated pooled estimates of reported outcome of second-line treatment using averaged odds ratios (ORs). Twenty-nine studies with sufficient detail of second-line treatment and outcome, including data from 82 individual cases from the tricenter study, yielded a total of 468 PCP second-line treatment episodes. Response rates to second-line treatment were comparable for trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TMP-SMX; 68%) and clindamycin-primaquine (73%) (OR for response = 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1 to 3.2] and 2.7 [95% CI: 1.3 to 4.0], respectively) but were considerably lower for intravenous pentamidine (44%; OR = 0.8 [95% CI: 0.6 to 1.0]). Clindamycin-primaquine is an alternative to intravenous pentamidine as second-line treatment for PCP in patients who fail treatment with TMP-SMX. TMP-SMX should be used as a second-line treatment for those failing first-line treatments with regimens other than TMP-SMX.

Potential Combination Chemotherapy Approaches for Advanced Adult-Type Soft-Tissue Sarcoma

Soft-tissue sarcomas (STS) include a spectrum of histologically and clinically different tumors. Patients with these tumors are typically relatively young and the course of disease is characterized by early metastasis as well as limited response to chemotherapy. However, a few subtypes, such as small round-cell tumors and rhabdomyosarcoma (other than pleomorphic), are considered chemotherapy sensitive. In addition, reflecting successful translational research of recent years, gastrointestinal stromal tumor and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans have become model diseases for targeted oncologic therapy. We summarize current treatment options for metastatic STS, including established first-line chemotherapy approaches, mainly with anthracyclines and/or ifosfamide and second-line treatment choices beyond anthracyclines. Until only a few years ago, treatment choices for metastatic STS were easy to review because of the very limited number of active compounds available. However, with the advent of novel therapeutic strategies such as the anti-angiogenic approach and a multitude of novel compounds available both outside and within clinical studies, it has potentially become more difficult to keep track of currently available treatment options for STS and their clinical safety and efficacy. In this practice-oriented article, we therefore review treatment goals in advanced STS and provide an overview of compounds with proven activity in this setting. Anthracyclines with or without ifosfamide are still considered standard of care for most STS subtypes, especially for high-grade tumors. There is no evidence-based recommendation regarding use of second-line treatment options. However, a number of established compounds, including dacarbazine/temozolomide, gemcitabine, taxanes, trofosfamide, DNA topoisomerase I inhibitors, DNA minor groove binders, and bendamustine have shown activity. Recently, trabectedin, a DNA minor groove binder initially isolated from a sea sponge, has proven effective and received European approval for use in treatment-refractory STS. In addition, novel compounds such as bevacizumab, multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, imatinib, and the thrombospondin agonist ABT 510 represent attractive partners for the above-mentioned cytostatic agents, or may even be effective single agents in the clinically advanced setting. Novel combinations are being evaluated in clinical studies. In order to be successful, it may be necessary to combine not only different compounds but also different targets beyond the proliferation machinery of sarcoma cells such as tumor angiogenesis, the tumor stromal compartment, or tumor cell oncogene products.

Pemetrexed single agent in previously treated non-small cell lung cancer: A multi-institutional observational study

Several drugs have been approved for the treatment of patients affected by advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in progression after first line chemotherapy: Docetaxel, Pemetrexed and Erlotinib. Poor gain of survival has been demonstrated in randomised trials and patient characteristics predicting activity are poorly known yet. We evaluated the activity and toxicity of Pemetrexed, in a post-registration phase, to assess whether clinical benefits justify its employment in a second-line setting in routine clinical practice. We collected data on patients with advanced NSCLC treated with Pemetrexed 500mg/m(2) every 21 days, after progression to prior chemotherapy. One hundred and sixty patients from 4 different Italian Institutions, treated with Pemetrexed, mostly as second-line therapy, were analysed. There was a predominance of males versus females, adenocarcinoma versus other histologies; the median age was 63.6 years. The toxicity profile was extremely mild and the response rate (11.2% patients in complete or partial response) was similar to previous reports from the literature. The median overall survival, 12 months, was better than previously reported. Improved efficacy and mild toxicity observed in this clinically relevant patient population confirms Pemetrexed as an interesting choice in second-line treatment of NSCLC. Patient characteristics alone are not able to predict response to Pemetrexed.

Mitomycin C and Vinorelbine for second-line chemotherapy in NSCLC – a phase II trial

Single-agent therapy with Docetaxel or Pemetrexed is the current therapy of choice for second-line treatment in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The role of older agents was underattended over the last years. This study presents the combination of Mitomycin C and Vinorelbine in pretreated patients. Forty-two patients (stage IIIB and IV, pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy) received 8 mg m−2 Mitomycin C on day 1 and 25 mg m−2 Vinorelbine on days 1 and 8 of a 28-day cycle. End points were objective tumour response, survival, and toxicity. Additionally, quality of life (QoL) was assessed. Five patients (11.9 %) achieved partial responses and 13 patients (31.9%) stable disease. Progression-free survival was 16 weeks. The median overall survival was 8.5 month. Eleven patients (26.2 %) suffered from grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and four patients (9.52%) from grade 3 or 4 anaemia. Evaluation of QoL showed that some items ameliorated during therapy. The therapeutic concept including Mitomycin C and Vinorelbine offers an efficacious and well-tolerated regimen, with relatively low toxicity. Objective response and survival data correlate with other second-line studies using different medication. As costs of Mitomycin C and Vinorelbine are lower compared with current drugs of choice, this regimen is likely to be cost-saving.

The role of aromatase inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

Tamoxifen has been the gold standard of endocrine therapy for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer for over 20 years. The development of the third-generation aromatase inhibitors anastrozole, letrozole, and exemestane is changing the algorithm for the treatment of the disease. Recent clinical trials have shown that all three third-generation aromatase inhibitors present significant advantages over traditional progestins and aminoglutethimide therapy after tamoxifen failure in postmenopausal women. These new agents are now accepted as first choice for second-line treatment of metastatic disease. Since 2000, phase III trials with anastrozole and letrozole have shown that third-generation aromatase inhibitors are at least as effective as tamoxifen in the first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive or -unknown metastatic breast cancer. The first-line phase III trial of letrozole versus tamoxifen which, unlike the anastrozole trials, was prospectively designed to test superiority of the aromatase inhibitor, showed that this agent was superior to tamoxifen in all assessed outcome measures. A first-line phase III trial of exemestane versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive or -unknown advanced breast cancer is ongoing. The data presented in this article suggest that aromatase inhibitors may replace tamoxifen in the first-line hormonal management of this disease in postmenopausal women.

What constitutes failure for Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy?

Apart from patients with peptic ulcer disease, the use of eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori infection has been extended to patients with H pylori-positive dyspepsia and conditions at risk for gastric cancer. Standard treatments comprise a proton pump inhibitor plus two antibiotics for at least one week. The main factors leading to treatment failure are noncompliance and antibiotic resistance. Provided the patient is sufficiently informed about possible side effects, discontinuation of the newer triple therapies has become rare. The prevalence of antibiotic resistance varies considerably among different geographic regions, reflecting the habits of prescription of these antibiotics for other indications. Largely, it ranges from 1% to 15% for macrolides, and from 7% to 60% for nitroimidazoles. With nitroimidazole resistance, treatment failure occurs in only less than 50%; with macrolide resistance, by contrast, in more than 50% of the cases. Furthermore, bacterial and host-related factors (Cag A virulence factor, grade of inflammation) contribute to eradication success. In case of treatment failure, post-therapeutic resistance is frequent. Important principles for the choice of second-line treatment are: not to repeat an antibiotic with potential post-therapeutic resistance, and to ensure sufficient acid suppression.

Genetically modified interferon: is there a consensus yet?

The treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C virus infection has evolved during the last decade from interferon monotherapy to combination therapy with interferon and ribavirin. National and international guidelines recommend either 6 or 12 months of interferon/ribavirin combination therapy depending on the pre-treatment virological status of the patient. However, the choice for second-line treatment of patients who do not achieve sustained viral clearance with combination therapy has yet to be defined. This commentary examines previously published studies of the use of consensus interferon for hepatitis C virus infected patients. The characteristics of the treated populations and response to treatment are examined. The current and potential roles for this type of interferon in the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection are considered.

Practitioner versus medication-expert opinion on psychiatric pharmacotherapy of mentally retarded patients with mental disorders.

The agreement of practicing psychiatrists with medication experts regarding how psychotropic drugs should be used to treat behavioral and psychiatric problems in patients with mental retardation was studied. The medication survey used in developing guidelines on the treatment of behavioral and psychiatric problems in mental retardation was sent to 85 psychiatrists who had been identified as caring for the mentally retarded in the Texas public mental health system. The comparison of these practitioners with the medication experts included first-line and second-line treatment choices. Survey analysis was based on using 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the type of rating. If the 95% CIs for the practitioners' responses overlapped the 95% CIs for experts, the two groups were judged to be in agreement. Thirty-seven practitioners (43.5%) completed and returned the survey. Few differences between the practitioners and the medication experts were found with respect to treatments for specific mental illness diagnoses. However, the practitioners rated venlafaxine and mirtazapine higher than the medication experts. Lithium augmentation of therapy with selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors for nonpsychotic depression was rated first-line by the practitioners and second-line by the medication experts. Practicing psychiatrists and medication experts generally agreed about the use of psychotropic drugs for mental illness in patients with mental retardation.

Paclitaxel: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the treatment of ovarian cancer.

Paclitaxel belongs to the group of antitumour agents called the taxanes. Its efficacy in advanced ovarian cancer has been established in large, randomised phase III clinical trials. When used in combination with cisplatin for first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer, it is superior to cyclophosphamide/cisplatin, with gains in median survival of around 1 year. Paclitaxel plus carboplatin has similar efficacy to paclitaxel plus cisplatin. There is now consensus that paclitaxel plus either carboplatin or cisplatin is the recommended first-line therapy for patients with advanced ovarian cancer. The particular combination employed may vary between institutions and geographical regions, although paclitaxel plus carboplatin is generally better tolerated (i.e. lower incidence of non-haematological adverse events) than paclitaxel plus cisplatin and is widely used in many countries. Paclitaxel is also used as monotherapy in second-line (salvage) treatment of ovarian cancer. Pharmacoeconomic analyses performed to date have primarily focused on first-line therapy comparing the combination of paclitaxel/cisplatin with cyclophosphamide/cisplatin. All studies incorporated clinical outcomes data, most commonly from the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) 111 trial, showing a survival advantage for paclitaxel/cisplatin. These studies report incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) ranging from $US 6395 per additional life-year gained (LYG) in Spain (1995/96 values) to $US 44,690 per additional progression-free LYG in France (year of costs not reported). Five studies were based in the US and Canada and these reported very similar ICERs of $US 13,135 (year of costs not reported) to $US 25,131 (1993 costs) per additional LYG. In all of these studies the incremental costs of paclitaxel/cisplatin therapy fall well within the commonly cited threshold limit of $US 50,000 for new therapies and compare well with incremental costs reported for other oncological and life-saving therapies. Patient preferences and quality of life are important issues due to the short survival of patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Two cost-utility studies reported similar incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs). In the study based on US costs, the ICUR of paclitaxel/cisplatin treatment was US $18,200 per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [1995 drug costs]. In a Canadian study the ICUR ranged from 11,600 Canadian dollars ($Can) to $Can 24,200 (1996 costs) per additional progression-free QALY depending on the choice of second-line treatment. Paclitaxel used in combination with cisplatin offers survival and utility gains versus cyclophosphamide plus cisplatin, when used as first-line treatment in patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer. The incremental cost for these gains is within the accepted range for healthcare interventions. However, pharmacoeconomic analyses of paclitaxel plus carboplatin--a combination widely accepted for use in women with advanced ovarian cancer and with clinical advantages over paclitaxel plus cisplatin in terms of ease of administration and tolerability profile--are currently lacking. Nevertheless, results of available pharmacoeconomic data support the clinical use of paclitaxel/platinum combinations, particularly paclitaxel plus cisplatin, as a first-line chemotherapy treatment option in patients with advanced ovarian cancer.

Survival analysis of disease modifying antirheumatic drugs in Spanish rheumatoid arthritis patients.

To evaluate the duration of treatment and the reasons for discontinuing therapy with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs in Spanish rheumatoid arthritis patients. An observational study was made of 629 patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with disease modifying antirheumatic drugs between 1979 and 1991. The outcomes (treatment termination because of toxicity and lack of response) of 991 treatment starts with intramuscular gold salts, D-penicillamine, azathioprine, and methotrexate were subjected to survival analysis. Cumulative probability of continuation of each drug (drug survival) was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and comparison between the survival curve of each was made by log rank testing. Median drug survival (95% confidence interval) was 51 (25-76.9) months for methotrexate, 39.9 (19.9-48.2) months for azathioprine, 34.9 (29.4-41.4) months for gold salts, and 16.4 (13.9-21) months for D-penicillamine. The highest cumulative probability of drug survival at five years was for methotrexate (45%); that at 10 years was for gold salts (15%). Up to 60% of the patients discontinued D-penicillamine in the first two years. Lack of response was the major limiting factor for all drugs except D-penicillamine, for which it was toxicity. D-Penicillamine was associated with a greater rate of discontinuations because of toxicity in women and patients older than 65. Previous disease modifying antirheumatic drug administration did not influence current drug survival. Overall, gold salts remain useful for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis over long periods of time in the population studied. Because of the high rate of continuation of treatment (survival) and the optimal efficacy and toxicity profiles observed with methotrexate after five years of treatment, it should be the drug of first choice for second line treatment of these RA patients.