Acute administration of unacylated ghrelin has no effect on Basal or stimulated insulin secretion in healthy humans.

Unacylated ghrelin (UAG) is the predominant ghrelin isoform in the circulation. Despite its inability to activate the classical ghrelin receptor, preclinical studies suggest that UAG may promote β-cell function. We hypothesized that UAG would oppose the effects of acylated ghrelin (AG) on insulin secretion and glucose tolerance. AG (1 µg/kg/h), UAG (4 µg/kg/h), combined AG+UAG, or saline were infused to 17 healthy subjects (9 men and 8 women) on four occasions in randomized order. Ghrelin was infused for 30 min to achieve steady-state levels and continued through a 3-h intravenous glucose tolerance test. The acute insulin response to glucose (AIRg), insulin sensitivity index (SI), disposition index (DI), and intravenous glucose tolerance (kg) were compared for each subject during the four infusions. AG infusion raised fasting glucose levels but had no effect on fasting plasma insulin. Compared with the saline control, AG and AG+UAG both decreased AIRg, but UAG alone had no effect. SI did not differ among the treatments. AG, but not UAG, reduced DI and kg and increased plasma growth hormone. UAG did not alter growth hormone, cortisol, glucagon, or free fatty acid levels. UAG selectively decreased glucose and fructose consumption compared with the other treatments. In contrast to previous reports, acute administration of UAG does not have independent effects on glucose tolerance or β-cell function and neither augments nor antagonizes the effects of AG.

Final report of the Lyme disease review panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

In April 2008, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) entered into an agreement with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to voluntarily undertake a special review of its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines. This agreement ended the Attorney General's investigation into the process by which the guidelines were developed. The IDSA agreed to convene an independent panel to conduct a one-time review of the guidelines. The Review Panel members, vetted by an ombudsman for potential conflicts of interest, reviewed the entirety of the 2006 guidelines, with particular attention to the recommendations devoted to post-Lyme disease syndromes. After multiple meetings, a public hearing, and extensive review of research and other information, the Review Panel concluded that the recommendations contained in the 2006 guidelines were medically and scientifically justified on the basis of all of the available evidence and that no changes to the guidelines were necessary.

Early clopidogrel versus prasugrel use among contemporary STEMI and NSTEMI patients in the US: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.

BACKGROUND: P2Y12 antagonist therapy improves outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Novel agents in this class are now available in the US. We studied the introduction of prasugrel into contemporary MI practice to understand the appropriateness of its use and assess for changes in antiplatelet management practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using ACTION Registry-GWTG (Get-with-the-Guidelines), we evaluated patterns of P2Y12 antagonist use within 24 hours of admission in 100 228 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 158 492 Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients at 548 hospitals between October 2009 and September 2012. Rates of early P2Y12 antagonist use were approximately 90% among STEMI and 57% among NSTEMI patients. From 2009 to 2012, prasugrel use increased significantly from 3% to 18% (5% to 30% in STEMI; 2% to 10% in NSTEMI; P for trend <0.001 for all). During the same period, we observed a decrease in use of early but not discharge P2Y12 antagonist among NSTEMI patients. Although contraindicated, 3.0% of patients with prior stroke received prasugrel. Prasugrel was used in 1.9% of patients ≥75 years and 4.5% of patients with weight <60 kg. In both STEMI and NSTEMI, prasugrel was most frequently used in patients at the lowest predicted risk for bleeding and mortality. Despite lack of supporting evidence, prasugrel was initiated before cardiac catheterization in 18% of NSTEMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: With prasugrel as an antiplatelet treatment option, contemporary practice shows low uptake of prasugrel and delays in P2Y12 antagonist initiation among NSTEMI patients. We also note concerning evidence of inappropriate use of prasugrel, and inadequate targeting of this more potent therapy to maximize the benefit/risk ratio.

Economics of new oncology drug development.

PURPOSE: Review existing studies and provide new results on the development, regulatory, and market aspects of new oncology drug development. METHODS: We utilized data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), company surveys, and publicly available commercial business intelligence databases on new oncology drugs approved in the United States and on investigational oncology drugs to estimate average development and regulatory approval times, clinical approval success rates, first-in-class status, and global market diffusion. RESULTS: We found that approved new oncology drugs to have a disproportionately high share of FDA priority review ratings, of orphan drug designations at approval, and of drugs that were granted inclusion in at least one of the FDA's expedited access programs. US regulatory approval times were shorter, on average, for oncology drugs (0.5 years), but US clinical development times were longer on average (1.5 years). Clinical approval success rates were similar for oncology and other drugs, but proportionately more of the oncology failures reached expensive late-stage clinical testing before being abandoned. In relation to other drugs, new oncology drug approvals were more often first-in-class and diffused more widely across important international markets. CONCLUSION: The market success of oncology drugs has induced a substantial amount of investment in oncology drug development in the last decade or so. However, given the great need for further progress, the extent to which efforts to develop new oncology drugs will grow depends on future public-sector investment in basic research, developments in translational medicine, and regulatory reforms that advance drug-development science.

Returns to R&D on new drug introductions in the 1980s.

This study finds that the mean IRR for 1980-84 U.S. new drug introductions is 11.1%, and the mean NPV is 22 million (1990 dollars). The distribution of returns is highly skewed. The results are robust to plausible changes in the baseline assumptions. Our work is also compared with a 1993 study by the OTA. Despite some important differences in assumptions, both studies imply that returns for the average NCE are within one percentage point of the industry's cost of capital. This is much less than what is typically observed in analyses based on accounting data.

Impact of economic, regulatory, and patent policies on innovation in cancer chemoprevention.

Chemoprevention agents are an emerging new scientific area that holds out the promise of delaying or avoiding a number of common cancers. These new agents face significant scientific, regulatory, and economic barriers, however, which have limited investment in their research and development (R&D). These barriers include above-average clinical trial scales, lengthy time frames between discovery and Food and Drug Administration approval, liability risks (because they are given to healthy individuals), and a growing funding gap for early-stage candidates. The longer time frames and risks associated with chemoprevention also cause exclusivity time on core patents to be limited or subject to significant uncertainties. We conclude that chemoprevention uniquely challenges the structure of incentives embodied in the economic, regulatory, and patent policies for the biopharmaceutical industry. Many of these policy issues are illustrated by the recently Food and Drug Administration-approved preventive agents Gardasil and raloxifene. Our recommendations to increase R&D investment in chemoprevention agents include (a) increased data exclusivity times on new biological and chemical drugs to compensate for longer gestation periods and increasing R&D costs; chemoprevention is at the far end of the distribution in this regard; (b) policies such as early-stage research grants and clinical development tax credits targeted specifically to chemoprevention agents (these are policies that have been very successful in increasing R&D investment for orphan drugs); and (c) a no-fault liability insurance program like that currently in place for children's vaccines.

Entry and competition in generic biologics

Patents for several blockbuster biological products are expected to expire soon. The Food and Drug Administration is examining whether biologies can and should be treated like pharmaceuticals with regard to generics. In contrast with pharmaceuticals, which are manufactured through chemical synthesis, biologies are manufactured through fermentation, a process that is more variable and costly. Regulators might require extensive clinical testing of generic biologies to demonstrate equivalence to the branded product. The focus of the debate on generic biologies has been on legal and health concerns, but there are important economic implications. We combine a theoretical model of generic biologies with regression estimates from generic pharmaceuticals to estimate market entry and prices in the generic biologic market. We find that generic biologies will have high fixed costs from clinical testing and from manufacturing, so there will be less entry than would be expected for generic pharmaceuticals. With fewer generic competitors, generic biologies will be relatively close in price to branded biologies. Policy makers should be prudent in estimating financial benefits of generic biologies for consumers and payers. We also examine possible government strategies to promote generic competition. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Economic return of clinical trials performed under the pediatric exclusivity program.

CONTEXT: In 1997, Congress authorized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to grant 6-month extensions of marketing rights through the Pediatric Exclusivity Program if industry sponsors complete FDA-requested pediatric trials. The program has been praised for creating incentives for studies in children and has been criticized as a "windfall" to the innovator drug industry. This critique has been a substantial part of congressional debate on the program, which is due to expire in 2007. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the economic return to industry for completing pediatric exclusivity trials. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cohort study of programs conducted for pediatric exclusivity. Nine drugs that were granted pediatric exclusivity were selected. From the final study reports submitted to the FDA (2002-2004), key elements of the clinical trial design and study operations were obtained, and the cost of performing each study was estimated and converted into estimates of after-tax cash outflows. Three-year market sales were obtained and converted into estimates of after-tax cash inflows based on 6 months of additional market protection. Net economic return (cash inflows minus outflows) and net return-to-costs ratio (net economic return divided by cash outflows) for each product were then calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Net economic return and net return-to-cost ratio. RESULTS: The indications studied reflect a broad representation of the program: asthma, tumors, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, hypertension, depression/generalized anxiety disorder, diabetes mellitus, gastroesophageal reflux, bacterial infection, and bone mineralization. The distribution of net economic return for 6 months of exclusivity varied substantially among products (net economic return ranged from -$8.9 million to $507.9 million and net return-to-cost ratio ranged from -0.68 to 73.63). CONCLUSIONS: The economic return for pediatric exclusivity is variable. As an incentive to complete much-needed clinical trials in children, pediatric exclusivity can generate lucrative returns or produce more modest returns on investment.

Developing drugs for developing countries.

Infectious and parasitic diseases create enormous health burdens, but because most of the people suffering from these diseases are poor, little is invested in developing treatments. We propose that developers of treatments for neglected diseases receive a "priority review voucher." The voucher could save an average of one year of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) review and be sold by the developer to the manufacturer of a blockbuster drug. In a well-functioning market, the voucher would speed access to highly valued treatments. Thus, the voucher could benefit consumers in both developing and developed countries at relatively low cost to the taxpayer.

5-α reductase inhibitors and prostate cancer prevention: where do we turn now?

With the lifetime risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer so great, an effective chemopreventive agent could have a profound impact on the lives of men. Despite decades of searching for such an agent, physicians still do not have an approved drug to offer their patients. In this article, we outline current strategies for preventing prostate cancer in general, with a focus on the 5-α-reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) finasteride and dutasteride. We discuss the two landmark randomized, controlled trials of finasteride and dutasteride, highlighting the controversies stemming from the results, and address the issue of 5-ARI use, including reasons why providers may be hesitant to use these agents for chemoprevention. We further discuss the recent US Food and Drug Administration ruling against the proposed new indication for dutasteride and the change to the labeling of finasteride, both of which were intended to permit physicians to use the drugs for chemoprevention. Finally, we discuss future directions for 5-ARI research.

Implant healing in experimental animal models of diabetes.

Diabetes mellitus is becoming increasingly prevalent worldwide. Additionally, there is an increasing number of patients receiving implantable devices such as glucose sensors and orthopedic implants. Thus, it is likely that the number of diabetic patients receiving these devices will also increase. Even though implantable medical devices are considered biocompatible by the Food and Drug Administration, the adverse tissue healing that occurs adjacent to these foreign objects is a leading cause of their failure. This foreign body response leads to fibrosis, encapsulation of the device, and a reduction or cessation of device performance. A second adverse event is microbial infection of implanted devices, which can lead to persistent local and systemic infections and also exacerbates the fibrotic response. Nearly half of all nosocomial infections are associated with the presence of an indwelling medical device. Events associated with both the foreign body response and implant infection can necessitate device removal and may lead to amputation, which is associated with significant morbidity and cost. Diabetes mellitus is generally indicated as a risk factor for the infection of a variety of implants such as prosthetic joints, pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, penile implants, and urinary catheters. Implant infection rates in diabetic patients vary depending upon the implant and the microorganism, however, for example, diabetes was found to be a significant variable associated with a nearly 7.2% infection rate for implantable cardioverter defibrillators by the microorganism Candida albicans. While research has elucidated many of the altered mechanisms of diabetic cutaneous wound healing, the internal healing adjacent to indwelling medical devices in a diabetic model has rarely been studied. Understanding this healing process is crucial to facilitating improved device design. The purpose of this article is to summarize the physiologic factors that influence wound healing and infection in diabetic patients, to review research concerning diabetes and biomedical implants and device infection, and to critically analyze which diabetic animal model might be advantageous for assessing internal healing adjacent to implanted devices.

Safety and tolerability considerations in the use of sildenafil for children with pulmonary arterial hypertension.

Sildenafil is a phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitor approved for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) in adults. Data from pediatric trials demonstrate a similar acute safety profile to the adult population but have raised concerns regarding the safety of long-term use in children. Interpretation of these trials remains controversial with major regulatory agencies differing in their recommendations - the US Food and Drug Administration recommends against the use of sildenafil for treatment of PAH in children, while the European Medicines Agency supports its use at "low doses". Here, we review the available pediatric data regarding dosing, acute, and long-term safety and efficacy of sildenafil for the treatment of PAH in children.

Drug-drug interaction studies of cardiovascular drugs involving P-glycoprotein, an efflux transporter, on the pharmacokinetics of edoxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Edoxaban, an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor, is in development for thromboprophylaxis, including prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). P-glycoprotein (P-gp), an efflux transporter, modulates absorption and excretion of xenobiotics. Edoxaban is a P-gp substrate, and several cardiovascular (CV) drugs have the potential to inhibit P-gp and increase drug exposure. OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential pharmacokinetic interactions of edoxaban and 6 cardiovascular drugs used in the management of AF and known P-gp substrates/inhibitors. METHODS: Drug-drug interaction studies with edoxaban and CV drugs with known P-gp substrate/inhibitor potential were conducted in healthy subjects. In 4 crossover, 2-period, 2-treatment studies, subjects received edoxaban 60 mg alone and coadministered with quinidine 300 mg (n = 42), verapamil 240 mg (n = 34), atorvastatin 80 mg (n = 32), or dronedarone 400 mg (n = 34). Additionally, edoxaban 60 mg alone and coadministered with amiodarone 400 mg (n = 30) or digoxin 0.25 mg (n = 48) was evaluated in a single-sequence study and 2-cohort study, respectively. RESULTS: Edoxaban exposure measured as area under the curve increased for concomitant administration of edoxaban with quinidine (76.7 %), verapamil (52.7 %), amiodarone (39.8 %), and dronedarone (84.5 %), and exposure measured as 24-h concentrations for quinidine (11.8 %), verapamil (29.1 %), and dronedarone (157.6 %) also increased. Administration of edoxaban with amiodarone decreased the 24-h concentration for edoxaban by 25.7 %. Concomitant administration with digoxin or atorvastatin had minimal effects on edoxaban exposure. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of the P-gp inhibitors quinidine, verapamil, and dronedarone increased edoxaban exposure. Modest/minimal effects were observed for amiodarone, atorvastatin, and digoxin.