Cyclosporin monitoring in Australasia: 2002 update of consensus guidelines

Therapeutic drug monitoring of cyclosporin (CsA) has been established as part of the routine clinical treatment of patients following organ transplantation for more than 20 years, and based on contemporary knowledge, many consensus guidelines have been published to assist clinics and laboratories attain optimal strategies for patient care. This article addresses the newer directions in CsA monitoring, with particular reference to the Australasian situation that has evolved since the 1993 Australasian guideline (1). These changes have included the introduction of alternative assay methodologies, changed CsA formulation from Sandimmun to Neoral throughout Australasia, and alternatives to trough concentration (C0) monitoring, especially 2-hour concentration (C2) monitoring and associated validated dilution protocols to accurately quantitate the higher whole blood CsA concentrations. The revision was prepared following a recent survey of all Australasian CsA-monitoring laboratories (2) where discordant practices were evident.

Cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with average cholesterol levels and established ischaemic heart disease: is it cost-effective?

Objective: To measure the cost-effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering therapy with pravastatin in patients with established ischaemic heart disease and average baseline cholesterol levels. Design: Prospective economic evaluation within a double-blind randomised trial (Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease [LIPID]), in which patients with a history of unstable angina or previous myocardial infarction were randomised to receive 40 mg of pravastatin daily or matching placebo. Patients and setting: 9014 patients aged 35-75 years from 85 centres in Australia and New Zealand, recruited from June 1990 to December 1992. Main outcome measures: Cost per death averted, cost per life-year gained, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained, calculated from measures of hospitalisations, medication use, outpatient visits, and quality of life. Results: The LIPID trial showed a 22% relative reduction in all-cause mortality (P < 0.001). Over a mean follow-up of 6 years, hospital admissions for coronary heart disease and coronary revascularisation were reduced by about 20%. Over this period, pravastatin cost $A4913 per patient, but reduced total hospitalisation costs by $A1385 per patient and other long-term medication costs by $A360 per patient. In a subsample of patients, average quality of life was 0.98 (where 0 = dead and 1 = normal good health); the treatment groups were not significantly different. The absolute reduction in all-cause mortality was 3.0% (95% CI, 1.6%-4.4%), and the incremental cost was $3246 per patient, resulting in a cost per life saved of $107730 (95% Cl, $68626-$209881) within the study period. Extrapolating long-term survival from the placebo group, the undiscounted cost per life-year saved was $7695 (and $10 938 with costs and life-years discounted at an annual rate of 5%). Conclusions: Pravastatin therapy for patients with a history of myocardial infarction or unstable angina and average cholesterol levels reduces all-cause mortality and appears cost effective compared with accepted treatments in high-income countries.

Risk factors for non-haemorrhagic stroke in patients with coronary heart disease and the effect of lipid-modifying therapy with pravastatin

Objective To determine the relative importance of recognised risk factors for non-haemorrhagic stroke, including serum cholesterol and the effect of cholesterol-lowering therapy, on the occurrence of non-haemorrhagic stroke in patients enrolled in the LIPID (Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischaemic Disease) study. Design The LIPID study was a placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of the efficacy on coronary heart disease mortality of pravastatin therapy over 6 years in 9014 patients with previous acute coronary syndromes and baseline total cholesterol of 4-7 mmol/l. Following identification of patients who had suffered non-haemorrhagic stroke, a pre-specified secondary end point, multivariate Cox regression was used to determine risk in the total population. Time-to-event analysis was used to determine the effect of pravastatin therapy on the rate of non-haemorrhagic stroke. Results There were 388 non-haemorrhagic strokes in 350 patients. Factors conferring risk of future non-haemorrhagic stroke were age, atrial fibrillation, prior stroke, diabetes, hypertension, systolic blood pressure, cigarette smoking, body mass index, male sex and creatinine clearance. Baseline lipids did not predict non-haemorrhagic stroke. Treatment with pravastatin reduced non-haemorrhagic stroke by 23% (P= 0.016) when considered alone, and 21% (P= 0.024) after adjustment for other risk factors. Conclusions The study confirmed the variety of risk factors for non-haemorrhagic stroke. From the risk predictors, a simple prognostic index was created for nonhaemorrhagic stroke to identify a group of patients at high risk. Treatment with pravastatin resulted in significant additional benefit after allowance for risk factors. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

Clarithromycin and prednisolone inhibit cytokine production in chronic rhinosinusitis

Objectives. Long-term, low-dose macrolide therapy is effective in the treatment of chronic rhinosinusitis. The mechanism of its anti-inflammatory effect and how this differs from corticosteroids remains unclear. The effect of clarithromycin and prednisolone on interleukin-5, interleukin-8, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor production by cultured chronic sinusitis nasal mucosa was examined in the study. Study Design and Methods. Nasal mucosa was obtained from 11 patients with chronic sinusitis. This tissue was cultured for 24 hours in the presence of clarithromycin or prednisolone at a variety of concentrations. Cytokine levels were determined by enzyme-linked immunoassay. Results. Clarithromycin and prednisolone each produced significant reductions in interleukin-5, interleukin-8, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor production. There was no significant difference between the effects of clarithromycin and prednisolone. Conclusion: Macrolide antibiotics are capable of inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokine production in vitro and are as potent as prednisolone. This mechanism is likely to be at least partly responsible for the clinical efficacy of macrolide antibiotics in chronic rhinosinusitis. Key Words. Macrolide, prednisolone, sinusitis, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, cytokine.

Angiotensin AT-1 receptor antagonism: complementary or alternative to ACE inhibition in cardiovascular and renal disease

Both angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and AT-1 receptor antagonists reduce the effects of angiotensin II, however they may have different clinical effects. This is because the ACE inhibitors, but not the AT-1 receptor antagonists, increase the levels of substance P, bradykinin and tissue plasminogen activator. The AT-1 receptor antagonists, but not the ACE inhibitors, are capable of inhibiting the effects of angiotensin II produced by enzymes other than ACE. On the basis of the present clinical trial evidence, AT-1 receptor antagonists, rather than the ACE inhibitors, should be used to treat hypertension associated with left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. Both groups of drugs are useful when hypertension is not complicated by LV hypertrophy, and in diabetes. In the treatment of diabetes with or without hypertension, there is good clinical support for the use of either an ACE inhibitor or an AT-1 receptor antagonist. ACE inhibitors are recommended in the treatment of renal disease that is not associated with diabetes, after myocardial infarction when left ventricular dysfunction is present, and in heart failure. As the incidence of cough is much lower with the AT-1 receptor antagonists, these can be substituted for ACE inhibitors in patients with hypertension or heart failure who have persistent cough. Preliminary studies suggest that combining an AT-1 receptor antagonist with an ACE inhibitor may be more effective than an ACE inhibitor alone in the treatment of hypertension, diabetes with hypertension, renal disease without diabetes and heart failure. However, further trials are required before combination therapy can be recommended in these conditions.

The therapeutic potential of endothelin-1 receptor antagonists and endothelin-converting enzyme inhibitors on the cardiovascular system

Clinical trials have established bosentan, an orally active non-selective endothelin (ET) receptor antagonist, as a beneficial treatment in pulmonary hypertension. Trials have also shown short-term benefits of bosentan in systemic hypertension and congestive heart failure. However, bosentan also increased plasma levels of ET-1, probably by inhibiting the clearance of ET-1 by endothelin type B (ET.) receptors, and this may mean its effectiveness is reduced with long-term clinical use. Preliminary data suggests that selective endothelin type A (ETA) receptor antagonists (BQ-123, sitaxsentan) may be more beneficial than the non-selective ET receptor antagonists in heart failure, especially when the failure is associated with pulmonary hypertension. Experimental evidence in animal disease models suggests that non-selective ET or selective ETA receptor antagonism may have a role in the treatment of athero-sclerosis, restenosis, myocarditis, shock and portal hypertension. In animal models of myocardial infarction and/or reperfusion injury, non-selective ET or selective ETA receptor antagonists have beneficial or detrimental effects depending on the conditions and agents used. Thus clinical trials of the nonselective ET or selective ETA receptor antagonists in these conditions are not presently warranted. Several selective endothelin-converting enzyme inhibitors tors have been synthesised recently, and these are only beginning to be tested in animal models of cardiovascular disease, and thus the clinical potential of these inhibitors is still to be defined.

Neonatal respiratory therapy in the new millennium: Does clinical practice reflect scientific evidence?

Respiratory therapy has historically been considered the primary role of the physiotherapist in neonatal intensive care in Australia. In 2001 a survey was undertaken of all level three neonatal intensive care units in Australia to determine the role of the physiotherapist and of respiratory therapy in clinical practice. It appears that respiratory therapy is provided infrequently, with the number of infants treated per month ranging from 0 to 10 in 15 of the 20 units who provide respiratory therapy, regardless of therapist availability. The median number of respiratory treatments per month during the week was three, and on weekends it was one. Respiratory therapy was carried out by physiotherapists and nurses in 54.6% of units, by physiotherapists only in 36.4% of units, and by nurses only in the remaining 9% of units surveyed. There was also a diminution of the role of respiratory therapy in the extubation of premature infants. A review of the literature shows that overall the use of respiratory therapy reflects current evidence. The question remains whether it is possible to maintain the competency of staff and justify the cost of training in the current healthcare economic climate. It seems probable that the future role of physiotherapists in neonatal intensive care unit may be in the facilitation of optimal neurological development of surviving very low birth weight infants.