Compliance lebertransplantierter Patienten mit dem Immunsuppressivum Tacrolimus bei 2x täglicher im Vergleich zu 1x täglicher Einnahme

Compliance lebertransplantierter Patienten mit der immunsuppressiven Therapie ist unerlässlich für den lang-fristigen Erfolg der Lebertransplantation. Aus Non-Compliance mit der immunsuppressiven Therapie können Abstoßungsreaktionen, Organverlust oder sogar Tod resultieren. Hauptziel der vorliegenden Studie war die erstmalige Evaluation der Compliance bei Einnahme von Prograf® (zweimal tägliche Einnahme von Tacrolimus) im Vergleich zur Einnahme von Advagraf® (einmal tägliche Einnahme von Tacrolimus). Von Interesse war außerdem die Fragestellung, ob sich die Compliance bezüglich der immunsuppressiven Therapie mit dem Zeitabstand zur Transplantation verändert. rnDie Compliancemessung wurde offen mittels MEMS® (Aardex Ltd., Schweiz) durchgeführt, der Patient war also über die Compliancekontrolle informiert. Mittels MEMS® konnten Datum und Uhrzeit der Dosisentnahme dokumentiert und damit zuverlässig das gesamte Compliancemuster über im Durchschnitt 176 Tage mit der zweimal täglichen Einnahme und 188 Tage mit der einmal täglichen Einnahme pro Patient erfasst werden. 65 Patienten mit dem Basisimmunsuppressivum Prograf® wurden in die prospektive, nicht-interventionelle Studie eingeschlossen und nach Per Protokoll-Analyse konnten die Daten von 63 in Mainz lebertransplantierten Patienten ausgewertet werden (Prograf®: Gruppe 1: 15 Patienten (Pat.), Gruppe 2: 23 Pat., Gruppe 3: 22 Pat., Drop-outs: 3 Pat.; Advagraf®: Gruppe 1: 16 Pat., Gruppe 2: 23 Pat., Gruppe 3: 23 Pat., Drop-outs: 1 Pat.). Die Dosing Compliance (DC), definiert als Prozent der Tage, an denen der MEMS®-Behälter korrekt geöffnet und die Dosis höchstwahrscheinlich korrekt eingenommen wurde, war der primäre Zielparameter. Weitere Methoden der Compliancemessung, wie der Pill Count, mehrere Fragebögen (Selbsteinschätzung, Patientenwissen-, Morisky-, MESI-, HADS-, SF-36- und Patientenzufriedenheit-Fragebogen) sowie die Blutspiegelmessung wurden eingesetzt, um die Compliance der Patienten umfassend charakterisieren zu können. rnDer Median der DC mit der zweimal täglichen Einnahme betrug 97% bei Pat. > 6 m.p.t. < 2 y.p.t., 97% bei Pat. > 2 y.p.t. < 5 y.p.t. und 98% bei Pat. > 5 y.p.t. (p=0,931; Kruskal-Wallis-Test). Der Median der DC von Tacroli-mus bei einmal täglicher Einnahme (Advagraf®) betrug 99% bei Pat. > 6 m.p.t. < 2 y.p.t., 98% bei Pat. > 2 y.p.t. < 5 y.p.t. und 97% bei Pat. > 5 y.p.t. (p=0,158; Kruskal-Wallis-Test). Insgesamt zeigten die Patienten während des gesamten Beobachtungszeitraums von 12 Monaten eine gute Compliance für die Einnahme ihres Immun-suppressivums. Die Timing Compliance (TiC)-raten lagen auf einem niedrigeren Niveau als die Dosing- und Taking Compliance (TC)-raten. Die Complianceraten der drei Subgruppen unterschieden sich nicht signifikant. Die Patienten mit dem geringsten Abstand zur Transplantation zeigten bei beinahe allen Messmethoden die höchste Compliance im Gegensatz zur etwas geringeren Compliance der Patienten mit größerem Abstand zur Transplantation. Die während der Advagraf®-Phase mittels MEMS® gemessenen DC-, TC- und TiC-raten fielen höher aus als bei Einnahme von Prograf® (p(DC)=0,003; p(TC)=0,077; p(TiC)=0,003; Wilcoxon Vorzeichen-Rang-Test). Dieses Ergebnis untermauert die in anderen Indikationen gefundene Complianceverbesserung durch die einmal tägliche Arzneimittelgabe im Vergleich zur zweimal täglichen Gabe. Die Auswertung der Drug Holidays ergab für die Advagraf®-Phase hingegen niedrigere Complianceraten als für die Prograf®-Phase. Dieses Ergebnis ist auf die Definition des Drug Holidays (keine Arzneimitteleinnahme über 48 h) zurück zu führen. Die Chance Advagraf® einmal pro Tag zu vergessen ist doppelt so hoch, als Prograf® dreimal aufeinander fol-gend zu vergessen. Mit einer verhältnismäßigeren Definition von Drug Holidays (Einnahmepause von 72 Stun-den bei einmal täglicher Einnahme von Advagraf® entsprechend drei ausgelassenen Dosen von Prograf®) ist die Compliancerate 81%. Die Ergebnisse des Pill Counts waren sowohl bei Einnahme von Prograf® als auch von Advagraf® mit der jeweils gemessenen TC vergleichbar, was die Zuverlässigkeit der Messergebnisse bes-tätigt. rnDie zusätzlich eingesetzten Methoden verifizierten das Ergebnis der höheren Compliance mit der einmal tägli-chen Einnahme. Die während der Advagraf®-Phase beantworteten Fragebögen zeigten einen Trend zu besserer Compliance und Lebensqualität. Lediglich die Ergebnisse des MESI-Fragebogens und der Blutspiegelmessungen wichen sowohl während der Prograf®- als auch während der Advagraf®-Phase stark von den Ergebnis-sen der anderen Methoden ab. rnUnter Einbeziehung aller mittels MEMS® und Pill Count objektiv gemessenen Complianceparameter konnten während der Prograf®-Einnahme 54 von 60 Pat. (90%) und während der Advagraf®-Phase 59 von 62 Pat. (95%) als compliant eingestuft werden. Aufgrund subjektiver Compliancemessungen waren 49 von 58 Pat. (84%) während der Prograf®- und 54 von 59 Pat. (92%) während der Advagraf®-Phase als compliant einzustufen. Es wurde beobachtet, dass die zeitlich korrekte Einnahme der Morgendosis einfacher und bei Einmalgabe zu bevorzugen ist. Die wochentagsbezogene Auswertung ergab erwartungsgemäß, dass am Wochenende (Samstag und Sonntag) am häufigsten Dosen ausgelassen wurden. rnDie Umstellung von Prograf® auf Advagraf® stellte kein Problem dar. Beinahe alle Patienten waren dankbar und zufrieden mit der Reduzierung der Dosierungsfrequenz und der größeren Unabhängigkeit durch die entfallene abendliche Einnahme. Der positive Einfluss der geringeren Dosierungshäufigkeit auf die Langzeitcompliance der Patienten, ist ein hinreichender Grund die Entwicklung von Formulierungen zur einmal täglichen Ein-nahme für weitere Immunsuppressiva zu fordern. Insbesondere bei den häufig eingesetzten Kombinationstherapien von Immunsuppressiva würde der Effekt der Complianceverbesserung noch verstärkt werden, wenn alle eingesetzten Immunsuppressiva zur einmal täglichen Gabe geeignet wären.

A novel, long-acting agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide suitable for once-daily administration in type 2 diabetes

Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is a gastrointestinal hormone with a potentially therapeutic role in type 2 diabetes. Rapid degradation by dipeptidylpeptidase IV has prompted the development of enzyme-resistant N-terminally modified analogs, but renal clearance still limits in vivo bioactivity. In this study, we report long-term antidiabetic effects of a novel, N-terminally protected, fatty acid-derivatized analog of GIP, N-AcGIP(LysPAL(37)), in obese diabetic (ob/ob) mice. Once-daily injections of N-AcGIP(LysPAL(37)) over a 14-day period significantly decreased plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, and improved glucose tolerance compared with ob/ob mice treated with saline or native GIP. Plasma insulin and pancreatic insulin content were significantly increased by N-AcGIP(LysPAL(37)). This was accompanied by a significant enhancement in the insulin response to glucose together with a notable improvement of insulin sensitivity. No evidence was found for GIP receptor desensitization and the metabolic effects of NAcGIP(LysPAL(37)) were independent of any change in feeding or body weight. Similar daily injections of native GIP did not affect any of the parameters measured. These data demonstrate the ability of once-daily injections of N-terminally modified, fatty acid-derivatized analogs of GIP, such as N-AcGIP(LysPAL(37)), to improve diabetes control and to offer a new class of agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

Dose-dependent effects of the once-daily GLP-1 receptor agonist lixisenatide in patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin:a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

To evaluate the dose-response relationship of lixisenatide (AVE0010), a glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist, in metformin-treated patients with Type 2 diabetes.

One-Year Safety of Olodaterol Once Daily via Respimat® in Patients with GOLD 2-4 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results of a Pre-Specified Pooled Analysis

The novel long-acting β2-agonist olodaterol demonstrated an acceptable safety profile in short-term phase II clinical studies. This analysis of four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase III studies (1222.11, NCT00782210; 1222.12, NCT00782509; 1222.13, NCT00793624; 1222.14, NCT00796653) evaluated the long-term safety of olodaterol once daily (QD) in a large cohort of patients with moderate to very severe (Global initiative for chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2-4) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The studies compared olodaterol (5 or 10 μg) QD via Respimat®, formoterol 12 μg twice daily (BID) via Aerolizer® (1222.13 and 1222.14), and placebo for 48 weeks. Patients continued receiving background maintenance therapy, with ∼60% receiving concomitant cardiovascular therapy and 25% having a history of concomitant cardiac disease. Pre-specified analyses of pooled data assessed the adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs in the whole population, and in subgroups with cardiac disease, along with in-depth electrocardiogram and Holter monitoring. In total, 3104 patients were included in the safety analysis: 876 received olodaterol 5 μg, 883 received olodaterol 10 μg, 885 received placebos, and 460 received formoterol 12 μg BID. Overall incidence of on-treatment AEs (71.2%), serious AEs (16.1%), and deaths (1.7%) were balanced across treatment groups. Respiratory and cardiovascular AEs, including major adverse cardiac events, were reported at similar frequencies in placebo and active treatment groups. The safety profiles of both olodaterol 5 μg (marketed and registered dose) and 10 μg QD delivered via Respimat® are comparable to placebo and formoterol BID in this population, with no safety signals identified.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of once-daily raltegravir and atazanavir in healthy volunteers.

Atazanavir inhibits UDP-glucuronyl-transferase-1A1 (UGT1A1), which metabolizes raltegravir, but the magnitude of steady-state inhibition and role of the UGT1A1 genotype are unknown. Sufficient inhibition could lead to reduced-dose and -cost raltegravir regimens. Nineteen healthy volunteers, age 24 to 51 years, took raltegravir 400 mg twice daily (arm A) and 400 mg plus atazanavir 400 mg once daily (arm B), separated by ?3 days, in a crossover design. After 1 week on each regimen, raltegravir and raltegravir-glucuronide plasma and urine concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in multiple samples obtained over 12 h (arm A) or 24 h (arm B) and analyzed by noncompartmental methods. UGT1A1 promoter variants were detected with a commercially available kit and published primers. The primary outcome was the ratio of plasma raltegravir C(tau), or concentration at the end of the dosing interval, for arm B (24 h) versus arm A (12 h). The arm B-to-arm A geometric mean ratios (95% confidence interval, P value) for plasma raltegravir C(tau), area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)), and raltegravir-glucuronide/raltegravir AUC(0-12) were 0.38 (0.22 to 0.65, 0.001), 1.32 (0.62 to 2.81, 0.45), and 0.47 (0.38 to 0.59, <0.001), respectively. Nine volunteers were heterozygous and one was homozygous for a UGT1A1 reduction-of-function allele, but these were not associated with metabolite formation. Although atazanavir significantly reduced the formation of the glucuronide metabolite, its steady-state boosting of plasma raltegravir did not render the C(tau) with a once-daily raltegravir dose of 400 mg similar to the C(tau) with the standard twice-daily dose. UGT1A1 promoter variants did not significantly influence this interaction.

An open-label, comparative study of the efficacy and safety of once-daily dose of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in the treatment of proximal lower limb deep-vein thrombosis

Background: Treatment of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) with a once-daily regimen of enoxaparin, rather than a continuous infusion of unfractionated heparin (UFH) is more convenient and allows for home care in some patients. This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of these two regimens for the treatment of patients with proximal lower limb DVT. Methods: 201 patients with proximal lower limb DVT from 13 centers in Brazil were randomized in an open manner to receive either enoxaparin [1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous (s.c.) OD] or intravenous (i.v.) UFH (adjusted to aPTT 1.5-2.5 times control) for 5-10 days. All patients also received warfarin (INR 2-3) for at least 3 months. The primary efficacy endpoint Was recurrent DVT (confirmed by venography or ultrasonography), and safety endpoints included bleeding and serious adverse events. The rate of pulmonary embolism (PE) was also collected. Hospitalization was at the physician's discretion. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were comparable between groups. The duration of hospital stay was significantly shorter with enoxaparin than with UFH (3 versus 7 days). In addition, 36% of patients receiving enoxaparin did not need to be hospitalized, whereas all of the patients receiving UFH were! hospitalized. The treatment duration was slightly longer with enoxaparin (8 versus 7 days). There was a nonsignificant trend toward a reduction in the rate of recurrent DVT with enoxaparin versus UFH, and similar safety. Conclusions: A once-daily regimen of enoxaparin 1.5 mg/kg subcutaneous is at least as effective and safe as conventional treatment with a continuous intravenous infusion of UFH. However, the once daily enoxaparin regimen is easier to administer (subcutaneous versus intravenous), does not require aPTT monitoring, and leads to both a reduced number of hospital admissions and an average 4-day-shorter hospital stay. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A randomized comparison of the safety and efficacy of once-daily gentamicin or thrice-daily gentamicin in combination with ticarcillin-clavulanate

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of the clinical trial was to assess the safety and efficacy of once-a-day compared with three-times-a-day gentamicin in patients with serious infections who had protocol-determined peak serum aminoglycoside concentrations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 249 hospitalized patients with suspected or proven serious infections were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to gentamicin given three times a day with ticarcillin-clavulanate (TC), gentamicin once a day with TC, or ticarcillin-clavulanate (TC) alone. The gentamicin once-a-day dosage for patients with estimated creatinine clearance values of > or =80 mL/min was 5.1 mg/kg. With lower creatinine clearance estimates, the mg/kg dosage of gentamicin was decreased, and the dosage intervals (once daily or three times a day) were maintained. Evaluability required documentation of achievement of protocol-defined peak serum gentamicin levels. RESULTS: Of the total 175 evaluable patients, there were no significant differences found between treatment regimens with respect to clinical or microbiologic efficacy. Bedside audiometry proved impractical due to the frequency of altered mental state in ill patients. Based on the traditional increase in serum creatinine values from baseline values, no differences in renal toxicity between the treatment groups was identified. When changes in renal function were reanalyzed based on maintaining, as opposed to worsening, of renal function, preservation of renal function was better in the gentamicin once-a-day patients as opposed to the gentamicin three-times-a-day patients, P <0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Gentamicin once a day plus TC, gentamicin three times a day plus TC, and TC alone had similar effects in seriously ill hospitalized patients. The incidence of nephrotoxicity was similar in the three treatment groups. Using a nonvalidated post-hoc analysis, renal function was better preserved in gentamicin once-a-day + TC and TC-only patients as opposed to gentamicin three-times-a-day + TC.

Once daily dosing of netilmicin in neonatal and pediatric intensive care

OBJECTIVE: To examine a once daily dosing regimen of netilmicin in critically ill neonates and children. DESIGN AND SETTING: Open, prospective study on 81 antibiotic courses in 77 critically ill neonates and children, hospitalized in a multidisciplinary pediatric/neonatal intensive care unit. For combined empiric therapy (aminoglycoside and beta-lactam), netilmicin was given intravenously over 5 min once every 24 h. The dose ranged from 3.5-6 mg/kg, mainly depending upon gestational and postnatal age. Peak levels were determined by immunoassay 30 min after the second dose and trough levels 1 h before the third and fifth dose or after adaptation of dosing. RESULTS: All peak levels (n = 28) were clearly above 12 mumol/l (mean 22, range 13-41 mumol/l). Eighty-nine trough levels were within desired limits (< 4 mumol/l) and 11 (11%) above 4 mumol/l, mostly in conjunction with impaired renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal peak and trough levels of netilmicin can be achieved by once daily dosing, adapted to gestational/postnatal age and renal function.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of once daily aminoglycoside dosing: comparison of two methods and investigation of the optimal blood sampling strategy.

PURPOSE Therapeutic drug monitoring of patients receiving once daily aminoglycoside therapy can be performed using pharmacokinetic (PK) formulas or Bayesian calculations. While these methods produced comparable results, their performance has never been checked against full PK profiles. We performed a PK study in order to compare both methods and to determine the best time-points to estimate AUC0-24 and peak concentrations (C max). METHODS We obtained full PK profiles in 14 patients receiving a once daily aminoglycoside therapy. PK parameters were calculated with PKSolver using non-compartmental methods. The calculated PK parameters were then compared with parameters estimated using an algorithm based on two serum concentrations (two-point method) or the software TCIWorks (Bayesian method). RESULTS For tobramycin and gentamicin, AUC0-24 and C max could be reliably estimated using a first serum concentration obtained at 1 h and a second one between 8 and 10 h after start of the infusion. The two-point and the Bayesian method produced similar results. For amikacin, AUC0-24 could reliably be estimated by both methods. C max was underestimated by 10-20% by the two-point method and by up to 30% with a large variation by the Bayesian method. CONCLUSIONS The ideal time-points for therapeutic drug monitoring of once daily administered aminoglycosides are 1 h after start of a 30-min infusion for the first time-point and 8-10 h after start of the infusion for the second time-point. Duration of the infusion and accurate registration of the time-points of blood drawing are essential for obtaining precise predictions.