Differential Gene Expression Profiles May Differentiate Responder and Nonresponder Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis for Methotrexate (MTX) Monotherapy and MTX plus Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitor Combined Therapy

Objective. We aimed to evaluate whether the differential gene expression profiles of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) could distinguish responders from nonresponders to methotrexate (MTX) and, in the case of MTX nonresponders, responsiveness to MTX plus anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (anti-TNF) combined therapy. Methods. We evaluated 25 patients with RA taking MTX 15-20 mg/week as a monotherapy (8 responders and 17 nonresponders). All MTX nonresponders received intliximab and were reassessed after 20 weeks to evaluate their anti-TNF responsiveness using the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria. A differential gene expression analysis from peripheral blood mononuclear cells was performed in terms of hierarchical gene clustering, and an evaluation of differentially expressed genes was performed using the significance analysis of microarrays program. Results. Hierarchical gene expression clustering discriminated MTX responders from nonresponders, and MTX plus anti-TNF responders from nonresponders. The evaluation of only highly modulated genes (fold change > 1.3 or < 0.7) yielded 5 induced (4 antiapoptotic and CCL4) and 4 repressed (4 proapoptotic) genes in MTX nonresponders compared to responders. In MTX plus anti-TNF nonresponders, the CCL4, CD83, and BCL2A1 genes were induced in relation to responders. Conclusion. Study of the gene expression profiles of RA peripheral blood cells permitted differentiation of responders from nonresponders to MTX and anti-TNF. Several candidate genes in MTX non-responders (CCL4, HTRA2, PRKCD, BCL2A1, CAV1, TNIP1 CASP8AP2, MXD1, and BTG2) and 3 genes in MTX plus anti-TNF nonresponders (CCL4, CD83, and BCL2A1) were identified for further study. (First Release July 1 2012; J Rheumatol 2012;39:1524-32; doi:10.3899/jrheum.120092)

Early improvement of psychotic symptoms with lithium monotherapy as a predictor of later response in mania

Although lithium has been the first line agent in the treatment of bipolar disorder (BD), few studies have evaluated lithium's efficacy in mania with psychosis and its association with later response. Furthermore, given the widespread concern about antipsychotic side effects, answering a question about whether lithium alone can manage to treat both psychotic and non-psychotic mania seems a very relevant one. The present study addresses the antipsychotic efficacy of lithium monotherapy in acute mania and early improvement of psychotic symptoms as a predictor of later response of manic symptoms. Forty-six patients presenting a manic episode (32 with psychotic features and 14 subjects without psychotic features) were treated for 4 weeks with lithium monotherapy and evaluated weekly using the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Subjects with rapid cycling, substance abuse/dependence, or mixed episodes were excluded. The overall antimanic efficacy of lithium in psychosis vs. non-psychosis groups was evaluated. In addition, early improvement of psychotic symptoms and its prediction of subsequent response (>50% decrease in total YMRS scores) or remission were evaluated. Lithium showed a similar efficacy in both psychosis and non-psychosis mania. Early improvement of psychotic symptoms was associated with clinical response and remission at endpoint. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Prescription patterns for diabetes mellitus and therapeutic implications: a population-based analysis

Objective: To analyze drug prescriptions for insulin and oral antidiabetic drugs in type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients seen in the Brazilian Public Healthcare System (Unified Health System - SUS) in Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil. Subjects and methods: All the patients with diabetes seen in the SUS in the western district of Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil between March/2006 and February/2007 were included in the study. Results: A total of 3,982 patients were identified. Mean age of the patients was 60.6 years, and 61.0% were females. Sixty percent of the patients were treated with monotherapy. Doses of oral antidiabetic drugs were lower in monotherapy than in polytherapy. Ten patients received doses of glibenclamide or metformin above the recommended maximum doses, and in elderly patients there was no reduction in drug doses. Conclusion: Monotherapy with oral antidiabetic drugs was the predominant procedure, and the doses were not individualized according to age. Arq Bras Endocrinol Metab. 2012;56(2):120-7

A Randomized, Naturalistic, Parallel-Group Study for the Long-Term Treatment of Panic Disorder With Clonazepam or Paroxetine

This long-term extension of an 8-week randomized, naturalistic study in patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia compared the efficacy and safety of clonazepam (n = 47) and paroxetine (n = 37) over a 3-year total treatment duration. Target doses for all patients were 2 mg/d clonazepam and 40 mg/d paroxetine (both taken at bedtime). This study reports data from the long-term period (34 months), following the initial 8-week treatment phase. Thus, total treatment duration was 36 months. Patients with a good primary outcome during acute treatment continued monotherapy with clonazepam or paroxetine, but patients with partial primary treatment success were switched to the combination therapy. At initiation of the long-term study, the mean doses of clonazepam and paroxetine were 1.9 (SD, 0.30) and 38.4 (SD, 3.74) mg/d, respectively. These doses were maintained until month 36 (clonazepam 1.9 [ SD, 0.29] mg/d and paroxetine 38.2 [SD, 3.87] mg/d). Long-term treatment with clonazepam led to a small but significantly better Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Improvement rating than treatment with paroxetine (mean difference: CGI-Severity scale -3.48 vs -3.24, respectively, P = 0.02; CGI-Improvement scale 1.06 vs 1.11, respectively, P = 0.04). Both treatments similarly reduced the number of panic attacks and severity of anxiety. Patients treated with clonazepam had significantly fewer adverse events than those treated with paroxetine (28.9% vs 70.6%, P < 0.001). The efficacy of clonazepam and paroxetine for the treatment of panic disorder was maintained over the long-term course. There was a significant advantage with clonazepam over paroxetine with respect to the frequency and nature of adverse events.

Influenza A/H1N1 vaccination of patients with SLE: can antimalarial drugs restore diminished response under immunosuppressive therapy?

Objective. To assess the efficacy and safety of pandemic 2009 influenza A (H1N1) in SLE under different therapeutic regimens. Methods. A total of 555 SLE patients and 170 healthy controls were vaccinated with a single dose of a non-adjuvanted preparation. According to current therapy, patients were initially classified as SLE No Therapy (n = 75) and SLE with Therapy (n = 480). Subsequent evaluations included groups under monotherapy: chloroquine (CQ) (n = 105), prednisone (PRED) epsilon 20 mg (n = 76), immunosuppressor (IS) (n = 95) and those with a combination of these drugs. Anti-H1N1 titres and seroconversion (SC) rate were evaluated at entry and 21 days post-vaccination. Results. The SLE with Therapy group had lower SC compared with healthy controls (59.0 vs 80.0%; P < 0.0001), whereas the SLE No Therapy group had equivalent SC (72 vs 80.0%; P = 0.18) compared with healthy controls. Further comparison revealed that the SC of SLE No Therapy (72%) was similar to the CQ group (69.5%; P = 0.75), but it was significantly reduced in PRED epsilon 20 mg (53.9%; P = 0.028), IS (55.7%; P = 0.035) and PRED epsilon 20 mg + IS (45.4%; P = 0.038). The concomitant use of CQ in each of these later regimens was associated with SC responses comparable with SLE No Therapy group (72%): PRED epsilon 20 mg + CQ (71.4%; P = 1.00), IS + CQ (65.2%; P = 0.54) and PRED epsilon 20 mg + IS + CQ (57.4%; P = 0.09). Conclusion. Pandemic influenza A H1N1/2009 vaccine response is diminished in SLE under immunosuppressive therapy and antimalarials seems to restore this immunogenicity.

Three Postpartum Antiretroviral Regimens to Prevent Intrapartum HIV Infection

BACKGROUND The safety and efficacy of adding antiretroviral drugs to standard zidovudine prophylaxis in infants of mothers with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who did not receive antenatal antiretroviral therapy (ART) because of late identification are unclear. We evaluated three ART regimens in such infants. METHODS Within 48 hours after their birth, we randomly assigned formula-fed infants born to women with a peripartum diagnosis of HIV type 1 (HIV-1) infection to one of three regimens: zidovudine for 6 weeks (zidovudine-alone group), zidovudine for 6 weeks plus three doses of nevirapine during the first 8 days of life (two-drug group), or zidovudine for 6 weeks plus nelfinavir and lamivudine for 2 weeks (three-drug group). The primary outcome was HIV-1 infection at 3 months in infants uninfected at birth. RESULTS A total of 1684 infants were enrolled in the Americas and South Africa (566 in the zidovudine-alone group, 562 in the two-drug group, and 556 in the three-drug group). The overall rate of in utero transmission of HIV-1 on the basis of Kaplan-Meier estimates was 5.7% (93 infants), with no significant differences among the groups. Intrapartum transmission occurred in 24 infants in the zidovudine-alone group (4.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2 to 7.1), as compared with 11 infants in the two-drug group (2.2%; 95% CI, 1.2 to 3.9; P=0.046) and 12 in the three-drug group (2.4%; 95% CI, 1.4 to 4.3; P=0.046). The overall transmission rate was 8.5% (140 infants), with an increased rate in the zidovudine-alone group (P=0.03 for the comparisons with the two-and three-drug groups). On multivariate analysis, zidovudine monotherapy, a higher maternal viral load, and maternal use of illegal substances were significantly associated with transmission. The rate of neutropenia was significantly increased in the three-drug group (P < 0.001 for both comparisons with the other groups). CONCLUSIONS In neonates whose mothers did not receive ART during pregnancy, prophylaxis with a two-or three-drug ART regimen is superior to zidovudine alone for the prevention of intrapartum HIV transmission; the two-drug regimen has less toxicity than the three-drug regimen. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD] and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00099359.)

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the Brazilian private health system

Cost-effectiveness and budget impact of saxagliptine as additional therapy to metformin for the treatment of diabetes mellitus type 2 in the Brazilian private health system Objectives: To compare costs and clinical benefits of three additional therapies to metformin (MF) for patients with diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2). Methods: A discrete event simulation model seas built to estimate the cost-utility ratio (cost per quality-adjusted life years [QALY)) of saxagliptine as an additional therapy to MF when compared to rosiglitazone or pioglitazone. A budget impact model (BIM) was built to simulate the economic impact of saxagliptine use in the context of the Brazilian private health system. Results: The acquiring medication costs for the hypothetical patient group analyzed in a time frame of three years, were R$ 10,850,185, R$ 14,836,265 and R$ 14,679,099 for saxagliptine, pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, respectively. Saxagliptine showed lower costs and greater effectiveness in both comparisons, with projected savings for the first three years of R$ 3,874 and R$ 3,996, respectively. The BIM estimated cumulative savings of R$ 417,958 with the repayment of saxagliptine in three years from the perspective of a health plan with 1,000,000 covered individuals. Conclusion: From the perspective of private paying source, the projection is that adding saxagliptine with MF save costs when compared with the addition of rosiglitazone or pioglitazone in patients with DM2 that have not reached the HbA1c goal with metformin monotherapy. The BIM of including saxagliptine in the reimbursement lists of health plans indicated significant savings on the three-year horizon.

Biochemical control of prostate cancer with iodine-125 brachytherapy alone: experience from a single institution

Brachytherapy is an adequate option as monotherapy for localised prostate cancer. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare biochemical failure free survival (BFFS) after low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDRB) alone for patients with prostate cancer using ASTRO and Phoenix criteria, and detect prognostic factors. Data on 220 patients treated between 1998 and 2002 with LDRB were retrospectively analysed. Neoadjuvant hormone therapy was used in 74 (33.6%) patients. Median follow-up was 53.5 months (24-116). Five year BFFS was 83.0% and 83.7% using, respectively, the ASTRO and Phoenix criteria. Low -and intermediate-risk patients presented, respectively, 86.7% and 77.8% 5-year BFFS using the ASTRO definition (p=0.069), and 88.5% and 78.6% considering the Phoenix criteria (p=0.016). Bounce was observed in 66 (30%) patients. Multivariate analysis detected PSA at diagnosis < 10 ng/ml and less than 50% positive biopsy fragments as favourable prognostic factors, regarding BF using both criteria. For the Phoenix criteria, also Gleason score < 7 and low-risk group were identified as independent favourable prognostic factors. LDRB alone should be considered mostly for low-risk patients. PSA level was a strong independent prognostic factor. We support the use of the Phoenix criteria for detection of BF in patients submitted to LDRB alone.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial

Background: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. Methods: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1: 1: 1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. Findings: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1.17 (95% CI 0.98-1.39; p=0.07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1.07 (0.90-1.28; p=0.44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1.27 (1.03-1.57; p=0.02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1.15 (0.93-1.42; p=0.21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. Interpretation: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer.

The ARIQUELI study: potentiation of quetiapine in bipolar I nonresponders with lithium versus aripiprazole

Abstract Background:The treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) remains a challenge due to the complexity of the disease. Current guidelines represent an effort to assist clinicians in routine practice but have several limitations, particularly concerning long-term treatment. The ARIQUELI (efficacy and tolerability of the combination of lithium or aripiprazole in young bipolar non or partial responders to quetiapine monotherapy) study aims to evaluate two different augmentation strategies for quetiapine nonresponders or partial responders in acute and maintenance phases of BD treatment. Methods/Design: The ARIQUELI study is a single-site, parallel-group, randomized, outcome assessor-blinded trial. BD I patients according to the DSM-IV-TR, in depressive, manic/hypomanic or mixed episode, aged 18 to 40 years, are eligible. After diagnostic assessments, patients initiated treatment in phase I with quetiapine. Nonresponders or partial responders after 8 weeks are allocated into one of two groups, potentiated with either lithium (0.5 to 0.8 mEq/l) or aripiprazole (10 or 15 mg). Patients will be followed up for 8 weeks in phase I (acute treatment), 6 months in phase II (continuation treatment) and 12 months in phase III (maintenance treatment). Outcome assessors are blinded to the treatment. The primary outcome is the evaluation of changes in mean scores on the CGI-BP-M between baseline and the endpoint at the end of each study phase. Discussion: The ARIQUELI study is currently in progress, with patients undergoing acute treatment (phase I), potentiation (phase II) and maintenance (phase III). The study will be extended until January 2015. Trials comparing lithium and aripiprazole with potentiate treatment in young BD I nonresponders to quetiapine in monotherapy can provide relevant information on the safety of these drugs in clinical practice. Long-term treatment is an issue of great importance and should be evaluated further through more in-depth studies given that BD is a chronic disease. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01710163