Pharmacogenetic Study on Risperidone Long-Acting Injection: Influence of Cytochrome P450 2D6 and Pregnane X Receptor on Risperidone Exposure and Drug-Induced Side-Effects.

Risperidone is metabolized by polymorphic enzymes, and a large variability in plasma concentration and therapeutic response is observed. Risperidone long-acting injection (RLAI) avoids the first-pass effect, and little is known about the influence of gene polymorphisms involved in its pharmacokinetics. The influence on plasma concentrations of risperidone (RIS), its metabolite 9-hydroxy-risperidone, and on adverse effects were investigated for polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) (*3, *4, *5, *6), CYP3A (CYP3A4*1B, CYP3A4 rs4646437, CYP3A5*3, CYP3A7*1C), ABCB1 (1236C>T, 2677G>T, 3435C>T), NR1/2 coding for pregnane X receptor (rs1523130, rs2472677, rs7643645), and for CYP3A activity measured by a phenotyping test. Forty-two patients with at least 4 consecutive unchanged doses of RLAI were included in a multicenter cross-sectional study. A 55% lower dose-adjusted plasma levels of RIS were observed for CYP2D6 ultrarapid metabolizers (n = 5) as compared with CYP2D6 intermediate metabolizers (P < 0.007). NR1/2 polymorphism (rs7643645A>G) influenced RIS exposure with a 2.8-fold lower active moiety (P = 0.031) in GG compared with the AA genotype. This was confirmed in a second independent cohort (n = 16). Furthermore, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol was positively correlated with CYP3A activity (P = 0.01), and the NR1/2 (rs2472677) polymorphism was associated with different adverse effects including prolactin plasma levels adjusted for age and sex. In conclusion, our results confirmed the influence of CYP2D6 genotype on plasma levels of RIS. This is the first report on the influence of NR1/2 polymorphisms on RLAI exposure and on drug-induced adverse effects. These results should be validated in larger cohorts.

Ceftriaxone--bilirubin-albumin interactions in the neonate: an in vivo study.

The in vivo bilirubin-albumin binding interaction of ceftriaxone (CRO) was investigated in 14 non-jaundiced newborns, aged 33-42 weeks of gestation, during the first few days of life after they had reached stable clinical condition. CRO (50 mg/kg) was infused intravenously over 30 min. The competitive binding effect of CRO on the bilirubin-albumin complex was estimated by determining the reserve albumin concentration (RAC) at baseline, at the end of CRO infusion, and at 15 and 60 min thereafter. Immediately after the end of drug administration, RAC decreased from 91.9 (+/- 25.1) mumol/l to 38.6 (+/- 10.1) mumol/l (P = 0.0001). At the same time the plasma bilirubin toxicity index (PBTI) increased from 0.64 (+/- 0.40) before drug infusion to 0.96 (+/- 0.44) thereafter (P = 0.0001). The highest displacement factor (DF) was calculated to be 2.8 (+/- 0.6) at the end of drug infusion. Average total serum bilirubin concentrations decreased from a baseline value of 59.6 (+/- 27.0) mumol/l to 55.2 (+/- 27.1) mumol/l (P = 0.026). Sixty minutes after the end of CRO infusion, RAC was 58.3 (+/- 21.7) mumol/l, PBTI regained baseline, but DF was still 1.9 (+/- 0.2). No adverse events were recorded. Our results demonstrate significant competitive interaction of CRO with bilirubin-albumin binding in vivo. Thus, ceftriaxone should not be given to the neonate at risk of developing bilirubin encephalopathy.

The effect of fluoxetine on the pharmacokinetics and safety of risperidone in psychotic patients

In this open, 30-day trial, the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a combination therapy of risperidone (4 or 6 mg/day)and fluoxetine (20mg/day from day 6) were evaluated in 11 psychotic inpatients. CYP2D6 genotyping revealed that 3 and 8 patients were poor metabolizers (PMs) and extensive metabolizers (EMs) of debrisoquine, respectively. The mean (+/- SD) AUC of risperidone increased from 83.1 +/- 46.8 ng.h/ml and 398.3 +/- 33.2 ng.h/ml (monotherapy) to 345.1 +/- 158.0 ng.h/ml (p < 0.05) and 514.0 +/- 144.2 ng.h/ml (p < 0.001) when coadministered with fluoxetine in EMs and PMs, respectively. The AUC of the active moiety (risperidone plus 9-hydroxy-risperidone) increased from 470.0 +/- 170.0 ng.h/ml to 663.0 +/- 243.3 ng.h/ml (p < 0.05)and from 576.3 +/- 19.6 ng.h/ml to 788.0 +/- 89.1 ng.h/ml (ns) in EMs and PMs, respectively. In EMs, the AUC of 9-hydroxy-risperidone remained similar (monotherapy vs. combination therapy: 386.8 +/- 153.0 ng.h/ml vs. 317.7 +/- 125.2 ng.h/ml, ns),whereas it increased in PMs (178.3 +/- 23.5 ng.h/ml vs. 274.0 +/- 55.1 ng.h/ml (p < 0.05)). Ten of the 11 patients showed a clinical improvement (reduction of 20% or more in total PANSS score and 70% on the mean MADRS score compared to baseline). The severity and incidence of extrapyramidal symptoms and adverse events did not significantly increase when fluoxetine was added.

Edoxaban versus warfarin for the treatment of symptomatic venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Whether the oral factor Xa inhibitor edoxaban can be an alternative to warfarin in patients with venous thromboembolism is unclear. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, noninferiority study, we randomly assigned patients with acute venous thromboembolism, who had initially received heparin, to receive edoxaban at a dose of 60 mg once daily, or 30 mg once daily (e.g., in the case of patients with creatinine clearance of 30 to 50 ml per minute or a body weight below 60 kg), or to receive warfarin. Patients received the study drug for 3 to 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome was recurrent symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety outcome was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 4921 patients presented with deep-vein thrombosis, and 3319 with a pulmonary embolism. Among patients receiving warfarin, the time in the therapeutic range was 63.5%. Edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the primary efficacy outcome, which occurred in 130 patients in the edoxaban group (3.2%) and 146 patients in the warfarin group (3.5%) (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70 to 1.13; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The safety outcome occurred in 349 patients (8.5%) in the edoxaban group and 423 patients (10.3%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P=0.004 for superiority). The rates of other adverse events were similar in the two groups. A total of 938 patients with pulmonary embolism had right ventricular dysfunction, as assessed by measurement of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels; the rate of recurrent venous thromboembolism in this subgroup was 3.3% in the edoxaban group and 6.2% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Edoxaban administered once daily after initial treatment with heparin was noninferior to high-quality standard therapy and caused significantly less bleeding in a broad spectrum of patients with venous thromboembolism, including those with severe pulmonary embolism. (Funded by Daiichi-Sankyo; Hokusai-VTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00986154.).

Subconjunctival Injection of XG-102, a JNK Inhibitor Peptide, in Patients with Intraocular Inflammation: A Safety and Tolerability Study.

Abstract Purpose: We aimed to investigate the safety, tolerability, and systemic diffusion of a single escalating dose of XG-102 (a 31-D-amino-acid peptide inhibiting JNK pathway activation), administered subconjunctivally in the treatment of post-surgery or post-trauma intraocular inflammation. Methods: This is a dose-escalating, tolerance Phase Ib study. Twenty patients with post-surgery or post-traumatic intraocular inflammation were assigned to 1 of the 4 dose escalating (45, 90, 450, or 900 μg XG-102) groups of 5 patients each. Patients were evaluated at 24, 48 h, 8, and 28 days following the administration of XG-102, including laboratory tests, standard eye examinations, vital signs, and occurrence of adverse events. A single plasma quantification of XG-102 was performed 30 min after administration, according to previous pharmacokinetics studies performed on volunteers. Results: A total of 17 non-serious adverse events, considered unrelated to the study treatment, were reported for 10 patients. The adverse event incidence was not related to the drug dose. All patients experienced a decrease in intraocular inflammation as of 24 h post-administration and this decrease was sustained up to 28 days thereafter. No patient required local injection or systemic administration of corticoids following the administration of XG-102. XG-102 was undetectable in the first 3 dose groups. In the fourth-dose group (900 μg) the XG-102 plasma levels were above the limit of detection for 3 patients and above the limit of quantification for 1 patient. Conclusions: In this first clinical trial using XG-102, administered as a single subconjunctival injection as adjunct therapy, in patients with recent post-surgery or post-trauma intraocular inflammation is safe and well tolerated. Further studies are required to evaluate its efficacy.

Evaluation of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide implant versus standard systemic therapy in noninfectious posterior uveitis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an intravitreal fluocinolone acetonide (FA) implant compared with standard therapy in subjects with noninfectious posterior uveitis (NIPU). DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, phase 2b/3, open-label, multicenter superiority trial. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects with unilateral or bilateral NIPU. METHODS: One hundred forty subjects received either a 0.59-mg FA intravitreal implant (n = 66) or standard of care (SOC; n = 74) with either systemic prednisolone or equivalent corticosteroid as monotherapy (> or =0.2 mg/kg daily) or, if judged necessary by the investigator, combination therapy with an immunosuppressive agent plus a lower dose of prednisolone or equivalent corticosteroid (> or =0.1 mg/kg daily). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to first recurrence of uveitis. RESULTS: Eyes that received the FA intravitreal implant experienced delayed onset of observed recurrence of uveitis (P<0.01) and a lower rate of recurrence of uveitis (18.2% vs. 63.5%; P< or =0.01) compared with SOC study eyes. Adverse events frequently observed in implanted eyes included elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) requiring IOP-lowering surgery (occurring in 21.2% of implanted eyes) and cataracts requiring extraction (occurring in 87.8% of phakic implanted eyes). No treatment-related nonocular adverse events were observed in the implant group, whereas such events occurred in 25.7% of subjects in the SOC group. CONCLUSIONS: The FA intravitreal implant provided better control of inflammation in patients with uveitis compared with systemic therapy. Intraocular pressure and lens clarity of implanted eyes need close monitoring in patients receiving the FA intravitreal implant.

Ageing with HIV: medication use and risk for potential drug-drug interactions.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the use of co-medication, the potential drug-drug interactions (PDDIs) and the effect on antiretroviral therapy (ART) tolerability and efficacy in HIV-infected individuals according to age, ≥ 50 years or <50 years. METHODS: All ART-treated participants were prospectively included once during a follow-up visit of the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Information on any current medication was obtained by participant self-report and medical prescription history. The complete treatment was subsequently screened for PDDIs using a customized version of the Liverpool drug interaction database. RESULTS: Drug prescriptions were analysed for 1497 HIV-infected individuals: 477 age ≥ 50 and 1020 age <50. Older patients were more likely to receive one or more co-medications compared with younger patients (82% versus 61%; P < 0.001) and thus had more frequent PDDIs (51% versus 35%; P < 0.001). Furthermore, older patients tended to use a higher number of co-medications and certain therapeutic drug classes more often, such as cardiovascular drugs (53% versus 19%; P < 0.001), gastrointestinal medications (10% versus 6%; P = 0.004) and hormonal agents (6% versus 3%; P = 0.04). PDDIs with ART occurred mainly with cardiovascular drugs (27%), CNS agents (22%) and methadone (6%) in older patients and with CNS agents (27%), methadone (15%) and cardiovascular drugs (11%) in younger patients. The response to ART did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for PDDIs with ART increased in older patients who take more drugs than their younger HIV-infected counterparts. However, medication use in older and younger patients did not differ in terms of effect on antiretroviral tolerability and response.

Changes over time in risk factors for cardiovascular disease and use of lipid-lowering drugs in HIV-infected individuals and impact on myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Because of the known relationship between exposure to combination antiretroviral therapy and cardiovascular disease (CVD), it has become increasingly important to intervene against risk of CVD in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. We evaluated changes in risk factors for CVD and the use of lipid-lowering therapy in HIV-infected individuals and assessed the impact of any changes on the incidence of myocardial infarction. METHODS: The Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti-HIV Drugs Study is a collaboration of 11 cohorts of HIV-infected patients that included follow-up for 33,389 HIV-infected patients from December 1999 through February 2006. RESULTS: The proportion of patients at high risk of CVD increased from 35.3% during 1999-2000 to 41.3% during 2005-2006. Of 28,985 patients, 2801 (9.7%) initiated lipid-lowering therapy; initiation of lipid-lowering therapy was more common for those with abnormal lipid values and those with traditional risk factors for CVD (male sex, older age, higher body mass index [calculated as the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters], family and personal history of CVD, and diabetes mellitus). After controlling for these, use of lipid-lowering drugs became relatively less common over time. The incidence of myocardial infarction (0.32 cases per 100 person-years [PY]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29-0.35 cases per 100 PY) appeared to remain stable. However, after controlling for changes in risk factors for CVD, the rate decreased over time (relative rate in 2003 [compared with 1999-2000], 0.73 cases per 100 PY [95% CI, 0.50-1.05 cases per 100 PY]; in 2004, 0.64 cases per 100 PY [95% CI, 0.44-0.94 cases per 100 PY]; in 2005-2006, 0.36 cases per 100 PY [95% CI, 0.24-0.56 cases per 100 PY]). Further adjustment for lipid levels attenuated the relative rates towards unity (relative rate in 2003 [compared with 1999-2000], 1.06 cases per 100 PY [95% CI, 0.63-1.77 cases per 100 PY]; in 2004, 1.02 cases per 100 PY [95% CI, 0.61-1.71 cases per 100 PY]; in 2005-2006, 0.63 cases per 100 PY [95% CI, 0.36-1.09 cases per 100 PY]). CONCLUSIONS: Although the CVD risk profile among patients in the Data Collection on Adverse Events of Anti-HIV Drugs Study has decreased since 1999, rates have remained relatively stable, possibly as a result of a more aggressive approach towards managing the risk of CVD.

Risperidone versus clozapine in treatment-resistant chronic schizophrenia: a randomized double-blind study. The Risperidone Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term efficacy and safety of risperidone and clozapine in treatment-resistant chronic schizophrenic patients. METHOD: In a controlled double-blind, multicenter study, 86 inpatients with chronic schizophrenia (DSM-III-R), who were resistant to or intolerant of conventional neuroleptics, were randomly assigned to receive risperidone or clozapine for 8 weeks after a 7-day washout period. After a 1-week dose-titration phase, doses were fixed at 6 mg/day of risperidone and 300 mg/day of clozapine for 1 week and then adjusted according to each patient's response. The final mean doses were 6.4 mg/day of risperidone and 291.2 mg/day of clozapine. Treatment efficacy and safety were evaluated with several well-known rating scales. RESULTS: Both risperidone and clozapine significantly reduced the severity of psychotic symptoms (scores on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale and the Clinical Global Impression scale) from baseline, with no significant between-group differences. At endpoint, 67% of the risperidone group and 65% of the clozapine group were clinically improved (reduction of 20% or more in total Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale score). Risperidone appeared to have a faster onset of action. In both groups extrapyramidal symptoms and other adverse events were few, and their severity was generally mild. Neither group showed evidence of a relation between drug plasma concentrations and clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone was well tolerated and as effective as medium doses of clozapine in patients with chronic schizophrenia who had been resistant to or intolerant of conventional neuroleptics.

Cilengitide combined with standard treatment for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter (CENTRIC EORTC 26071-22072 study): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cilengitide is a selective αvβ3 and αvβ5 integrin inhibitor. Data from phase 2 trials suggest that it has antitumour activity as a single agent in recurrent glioblastoma and in combination with standard temozolomide chemoradiotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (particularly in tumours with methylated MGMT promoter). We aimed to assess cilengitide combined with temozolomide chemoradiotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with methylated MGMT promoter. METHODS: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 3 study, we investigated the efficacy of cilengitide in patients from 146 study sites in 25 countries. Eligible patients (newly diagnosed, histologically proven supratentorial glioblastoma, methylated MGMT promoter, and age ≥18 years) were stratified for prognostic Radiation Therapy Oncology Group recursive partitioning analysis class and geographic region and centrally randomised in a 1:1 ratio with interactive voice response system to receive temozolomide chemoradiotherapy with cilengitide 2000 mg intravenously twice weekly (cilengitide group) or temozolomide chemoradiotherapy alone (control group). Patients and investigators were unmasked to treatment allocation. Maintenance temozolomide was given for up to six cycles, and cilengitide was given for up to 18 months or until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was overall survival. We analysed survival outcomes by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00689221. FINDINGS: Overall, 3471 patients were screened. Of these patients, 3060 had tumour MGMT status tested; 926 patients had a methylated MGMT promoter, and 545 were randomly assigned to the cilengitide (n=272) or control groups (n=273) between Oct 31, 2008, and May 12, 2011. Median overall survival was 26·3 months (95% CI 23·8-28·8) in the cilengitide group and 26·3 months (23·9-34·7) in the control group (hazard ratio 1·02, 95% CI 0·81-1·29, p=0·86). None of the predefined clinical subgroups showed a benefit from cilengitide. We noted no overall additional toxic effects with cilengitide treatment. The most commonly reported adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the safety population were lymphopenia (31 [12%] in the cilengitide group vs 26 [10%] in the control group), thrombocytopenia (28 [11%] vs 46 [18%]), neutropenia (19 [7%] vs 24 [9%]), leucopenia (18 [7%] vs 20 [8%]), and convulsion (14 [5%] vs 15 [6%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of cilengitide to temozolomide chemoradiotherapy did not improve outcomes; cilengitide will not be further developed as an anticancer drug. Nevertheless, integrins remain a potential treatment target for glioblastoma. FUNDING: Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Assessment of letrozole and tamoxifen alone and in sequence for postmenopausal women with steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer: the BIG 1-98 randomised clinical trial at 8·1 years median follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer have persistent, long-term risk of breast-cancer recurrence and death. Therefore, trials assessing endocrine therapies for this patient population need extended follow-up. We present an update of efficacy outcomes in the Breast International Group (BIG) 1-98 study at 8·1 years median follow-up. METHODS: BIG 1-98 is a randomised, phase 3, double-blind trial of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer that compares 5 years of tamoxifen or letrozole monotherapy, or sequential treatment with 2 years of one of these drugs followed by 3 years of the other. Randomisation was done with permuted blocks, and stratified according to the two-arm or four-arm randomisation option, participating institution, and chemotherapy use. Patients, investigators, data managers, and medical reviewers were masked. The primary efficacy endpoint was disease-free survival (events were invasive breast cancer relapse, second primaries [contralateral breast and non-breast], or death without previous cancer event). Secondary endpoints were overall survival, distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), and breast cancer-free interval (BCFI). The monotherapy comparison included patients randomly assigned to tamoxifen or letrozole for 5 years. In 2005, after a significant disease-free survival benefit was reported for letrozole as compared with tamoxifen, a protocol amendment facilitated the crossover to letrozole of patients who were still receiving tamoxifen alone; Cox models and Kaplan-Meier estimates with inverse probability of censoring weighting (IPCW) are used to account for selective crossover to letrozole of patients (n=619) in the tamoxifen arm. Comparison of sequential treatments to letrozole monotherapy included patients enrolled and randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, or tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. Treatment has ended for all patients and detailed safety results for adverse events that occurred during the 5 years of treatment have been reported elsewhere. Follow-up is continuing for those enrolled in the four-arm option. BIG 1-98 is registered at clinicaltrials.govNCT00004205. FINDINGS: 8010 patients were included in the trial, with a median follow-up of 8·1 years (range 0-12·4). 2459 were randomly assigned to monotherapy with tamoxifen for 5 years and 2463 to monotherapy with letrozole for 5 years. In the four-arm option of the trial, 1546 were randomly assigned to letrozole for 5 years, 1548 to tamoxifen for 5 years, 1540 to letrozole for 2 years followed by tamoxifen for 3 years, and 1548 to tamoxifen for 2 years followed by letrozole for 3 years. At a median follow-up of 8·7 years from randomisation (range 0-12·4), letrozole monotherapy was significantly better than tamoxifen, whether by IPCW or intention-to-treat analysis (IPCW disease-free survival HR 0·82 [95% CI 0·74-0·92], overall survival HR 0·79 [0·69-0·90], DRFI HR 0·79 [0·68-0·92], BCFI HR 0·80 [0·70-0·92]; intention-to-treat disease-free survival HR 0·86 [0·78-0·96], overall survival HR 0·87 [0·77-0·999], DRFI HR 0·86 [0·74-0·998], BCFI HR 0·86 [0·76-0·98]). At a median follow-up of 8·0 years from randomisation (range 0-11·2) for the comparison of the sequential groups with letrozole monotherapy, there were no statistically significant differences in any of the four endpoints for either sequence. 8-year intention-to-treat estimates (each with SE ≤1·1%) for letrozole monotherapy, letrozole followed by tamoxifen, and tamoxifen followed by letrozole were 78·6%, 77·8%, 77·3% for disease-free survival; 87·5%, 87·7%, 85·9% for overall survival; 89·9%, 88·7%, 88·1% for DRFI; and 86·1%, 85·3%, 84·3% for BCFI. INTERPRETATION: For postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive early breast cancer, a reduction in breast cancer recurrence and mortality is obtained by letrozole monotherapy when compared with tamoxifen montherapy. Sequential treatments involving tamoxifen and letrozole do not improve outcome compared with letrozole monotherapy, but might be useful strategies when considering an individual patient's risk of recurrence and treatment tolerability. FUNDING: Novartis, United States National Cancer Institute, International Breast Cancer Study Group.

Pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic aspects of drugs used in the treatment of Alzheimer's disease.

With the aging population and its rapidly increasing prevalence, dementia has become an important public health concern in developed and developing countries. To date, the pharmacological treatment is symptomatic and based on the observed neurotransmitter disturbances. The four most commonly used drugs are donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine and memantine. Donepezil, galantamine and rivastigmine are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors with different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles. Donepezil inhibits selectively the acetylcholinesterase and has a long elimination half-life (t½) of 70 h. Galantamine is also a selective acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, but also modulates presynaptic nicotinic receptors. It has a t½ of 6-8 h. Donepezil and galantamine are mainly metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 and CYP3A4 in the liver. Rivastigmine is a so-called 'pseudo-irreversible' inhibitor of acetylcholinesterase and butyrylcholinesterase. The t½ of the drug is very short (1-2 h), but the duration of action is longer as the enzymes are blocked for around 8.5 and 3.5 h, respectively. Rivastigmine is metabolised by esterases in liver and intestine. Memantine is a non-competitive low-affinity antagonist of the NMDA receptor with a t½ of 70 h. Its major route of elimination is unchanged via the kidneys. Addressing the issue of inter-patient variability in treatment response might be of special importance for the vulnerable population taking anti-dementia drugs. Pharmacogenetic considerations might help to avoid multiple medication changes due to non-response and/or adverse events. Some pharmacogenetic studies conducted on donepezil and galantamine reported an influence of the CYP2D6 genotype on the pharmacokinetics of the drugs and/or on the response to treatment. Moreover, polymorphisms in genes of the cholinergic markers acetylcholinesterase, butyrylcholinesterase, choline acetyltransferase and paraoxonase were found to be associated with better clinical response to acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. However, confirmation studies in larger populations are necessary to establish evidence of which subgroups of patients will most likely benefit from anti-dementia drugs. The aim of this review is to summarize the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the four commonly used anti-dementia drugs and to give an overview on the current knowledge of pharmacogenetics in this field.

Pharmacovigilance et teratovigilance 2008 [Pharmacovigilance and teratovigilance 2008]

Various signals and alerts of pharmacovigilance were issued in 2008. Frequent neuropsychiatric adverse events are reported with varenicline and rimonabant and the marketing authorization of the latter has been suspended. Ezetimibe/simvastatin combination is suspected of causing cancer while it's clinical utility remains to be proved. Neuroleptics, typical and atypical, are associated with an increased risk of death in elderly with dementia. Safety is a concern with various biological drugs. Rituximab, natalizumab and efalizumab are involved in rare cases of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy with fatal issue. Screening of HLA-B*5701, a good predictor of hypersensitivity reaction to abacavir, is recommended prior to starting therapy. Mycophenolate turns out to be a human teratogen.

Nicotine vaccines for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: By reducing the amount of nicotine that reaches the brain when a person smokes a cigarette, nicotine vaccines may help people to stop smoking or to prevent recent quitters from relapsing. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this review are to assess the efficacy of nicotine vaccines for smoking cessation and for relapse prevention, and to assess the frequency and type of adverse events associated with the use of nicotine vaccines. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Review Group specialised register for trials, using the term 'vaccine' in the title or abstract, or in a keyword (date of most recent search April 2012). To identify any other material including reviews and papers potentially relevant to the background or discussion sections, we also searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, combining terms for nicotine vaccines with terms for smoking and tobacco use, without design limits or limits for human subjects. We searched the Annual Meeting abstracts of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco up to 2012, using the search string 'vaccin'. We searched Google Scholar for 'nicotine vaccine'. We also searched company websites and Google for information related to specific vaccines. We searched clinicaltrials.gov in March 2012 for 'nicotine vaccine' and for the trade names of known vaccine candidates. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials of nicotine vaccines, at Phase II and Phase III trial stage and beyond, in adult smokers or recent ex-smokers. We included studies of nicotine vaccines used as part of smoking cessation or relapse prevention interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the type of participants, the dose and duration of treatment, the outcome measures, the randomization procedure, concealment of allocation, blinding of participants and personnel, reporting of outcomes, and completeness of follow-up.Our primary outcome measure was a minimum of six months abstinence from smoking. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence, and preferred cessation rates at 12 months and biochemically validated rates where available. We have used the risk ratio (RR) to summarize individual trial outcomes. We have not pooled the current group of included studies as they cover different vaccines and variable regimens. MAIN RESULTS: There are no nicotine vaccines currently licensed for public use, but there are a number in development. We found four trials which met our inclusion criteria, three comparing NicVAX to placebo and one comparing NIC002 (formerly NicQbeta) to placebo. All were smoking cessation trials conducted by pharmaceutical companies as part of the drug development process, and all trials were judged to be at high or unclear risk of bias in at least one domain. Overall, 2642 smokers participated in the included studies in this review. None of the four included studies detected a statistically significant difference in long-term cessation between participants receiving vaccine and those receiving placebo. The RR for 12 month cessation in active and placebo groups was 1.35 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.82 to 2.22) in the trial of NIC002 and 1.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 4.18) in one NicVAX trial. Two Phase III NicVAX trials, for which full results were not available, reported similar quit rates of approximately 11% in both groups. In the two studies with full results available, post hoc analyses detected higher cessation rates in participants with higher levels of nicotine antibodies, but these findings are not readily generalisable. The two studies with full results showed nicotine vaccines to be well tolerated, with the majority of adverse events classified as mild or moderate. In the study of NIC002, participants receiving the vaccine were more likely to report mild to moderate adverse events, most commonly flu-like symptoms, whereas in the study of NicVAX there was no significant difference between the two arms. Information on adverse events was not available for the large Phase III trials of NicVAX.Vaccine candidates are likely to undergo significant changes before becoming available to the general public, and those included in this review may not be the first to reach market; this limits the external validity of the results reported in this review in terms of both effectiveness and tolerability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently no evidence that nicotine vaccines enhance long-term smoking cessation. Rates of serious adverse events recorded in the two trials with full data available were low, and the majority of adverse events reported were at mild to moderate levels. The evidence available suggests nicotine vaccines do not induce compensatory smoking or affect withdrawal symptoms. No nicotine vaccines are currently licensed for use in any country but a number are under development.Further trials of nicotine vaccines are needed, comparing vaccines with placebo for smoking cessation. Further trials are also needed to explore the potential of nicotine vaccines to prevent relapse. Results from past, current and future research should be reported in full. Adverse events and serious adverse events should continue to be carefully monitored and thoroughly reported.