Agency Fact Sheet, Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy, FY2010

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Agency Fact Sheet, Governors Office of Drug Control Policy, FY2011

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Drug metabolism for the perplexed medicinal chemist.

Two related and significant issues may elicit perplexity in medicinal chemists and are discussed here. First, a broad presentation of the pharmacological and toxicological consequences of drug metabolism should justify the significance of drug metabolism and serve as an incentive to further study. When comparing the pharmacological activities of a drug and its metabolite(s), a continuum is found which ranges from soft drugs (no active metabolites) to prodrugs (inactive per se, as illustrated here with clopidogrel and prasugrel). Innumerable intermediate cases document drugs whose activity is shared by one or more metabolites, as exemplified with tamoxifen. The toxicological consequences of metabolism at the molecular, macromolecular, and macroscopic levels are manyfold. A brief overview is offered together with a summary of the reactions of toxification and detoxification of the antiepileptic valproic acid. The second issue discussed in the review is a comparison of the relative significance of cytochromes P450 and other oxidoreductases (EC 1), hydrolases (EC 3), and transferases (EC 2) in drug metabolism, based on a 'guesstimate' of the number of drug metabolites that are known to be produced by them. The conclusion is that oxidoreductases are the main enzymes responsible for the formation of toxic or active metabolites, whereas transferases play the major role in producing inactive and nontoxic metabolites.

Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Refinements in stent design affecting strut thickness, surface polymer, and drug release have improved clinical outcomes of drug-eluting stents. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of a novel, ultrathin strut cobalt-chromium stent releasing sirolimus from a biodegradable polymer with a thin strut durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. METHODS: We did a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial with minimum exclusion criteria at nine hospitals in Switzerland. We randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 18 years or older with chronic stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to treatment with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents or durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents. Randomisation was via a central web-based system and stratified by centre and presence of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Patients and outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation, but treating physicians were not. The primary endpoint, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically-indicated target lesion revascularisation at 12 months. A margin of 3·5% was defined for non-inferiority of the biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent compared with the durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent. Analysis was by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01443104. FINDINGS: Between Feb 24, 2012, and May 22, 2013, we randomly assigned 2119 patients with 3139 lesions to treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents (1063 patients, 1594 lesions) or everolimus-eluting stents (1056 patients, 1545 lesions). 407 (19%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Target lesion failure with biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (69 cases; 6·5%) was non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (70 cases; 6·6%) at 12 months (absolute risk difference -0·14%, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1·97%, p for non-inferiority <0·0004). No significant differences were noted in rates of definite stent thrombosis (9 [0·9%] vs 4 [0·4%], rate ratio [RR] 2·26, 95% CI 0·70-7·33, p=0·16). In pre-specified stratified analyses of the primary endpoint, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were associated with improved outcome compared with durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (7 [3·3%] vs 17 [8·7%], RR 0·38, 95% CI 0·16-0·91, p=0·024, p for interaction=0·014). INTERPRETATION: In a patient population with minimum exclusion criteria and high adherence to dual antiplatelet therapy, biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents were non-inferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents for the combined safety and efficacy outcome target lesion failure at 12 months. The noted benefit in the subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction needs further study. FUNDING: Clinical Trials Unit, University of Bern, and Biotronik, Bülach, Switzerland.

Sunitinib-eluting beads for chemoembolization: methods for in vitro evaluation of drug release.

Drug-eluting microspheres are used for embolization of hypervascular tumors and allow for local controlled drug release. Although the drug release from the microspheres relies on fast ion-exchange, so far only slow-releasing in vitro dissolution methods have been correlated to in vivo data. Three in vitro release methods are assessed in this study for their potential to predict slow in vivo release of sunitinib from chemoembolization spheres to the plasma, and fast local in vivo release obtained in an earlier study in rabbits. Release in an orbital shaker was slow (t50%=4.5h, 84% release) compared to fast release in USP 4 flow-through implant cells (t50%=1h, 100% release). Sunitinib release in saline from microspheres enclosed in dialysis inserts was prolonged and incomplete (t50%=9 days, 68% release) due to low drug diffusion through the dialysis membrane. The slow-release profile fitted best to low sunitinib plasma AUC following injection of sunitinib-eluting spheres. Although limited by lack of standardization, release in the orbital shaker fitted best to local in vivo sunitinib concentrations. Drug release in USP flow-through implant cells was too fast to correlate with local concentrations, although this method is preferred to discriminate between different sphere types.

Agency Fact Sheet, Office of Drug Control Policy, FY2006

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Céphalées pharmacorésistantes: nouvelles approches du casse-tête [Drug-resistant headache: is it the end?].

Chronic primary headache often cause significant interference with function and quality of life despite acute and preventive medicines. New treatments are emerging for pharmacologically intractable cluster headache and migraine. Occipital nerve stimulation in chronic cluster headache and botulinum toxin in chronic migraine represent the most promising therapies.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2008

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2010

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2012

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2009

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Plan, FY 2011

Agency Performance Plan, Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Plan, FY 2012

Agency Performance Plan, Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy