Search

Background: Continuous administration of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel (carbidopa-levodopa enteral suspension) through a percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy is a treatment option for advanced Parkinson disease (PD) patients with motor fluctuations resistant to standard oral medications. Safety data from 4 prospective studies were integrated to assess the safety of this therapy.Methods: Safety data from 4 studies were summarized using 2 overlapping data sets, permitting the separation of procedure/device-associated (n = 395) from non-procedure/device adverse events (n = 412).Results: At the data cutoff, median exposure to levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel was 911 days (range, 1-1980 days) with 963 total patient-years of exposure. Procedure/device adverse events occurred in 300 patients (76%), and serious adverse events occurred in 68 (17%); most frequently reported procedure/device adverse events and serious adverse events were complications of device insertion (41% and 8%, respectively) and abdominal pain (36% and 4%, respectively). Non-procedure/device adverse events occurred in 92% (379), with most frequently reported being insomnia (23%) and falls (23%); 42% (171) had non-procedure/device serious adverse events, with most frequently reported being pneumonia (5%) and PD symptoms (2%). Adverse events led to discontinuation in 17% (72), most frequently because of complication of device insertion (2.4%). There were 34 treatment-emergent deaths (8.3%) in the overlapping data sets, 2 of which (0.5%) were considered "possibly related" to the treatment system.Conclusion: In the largest collection of levodopa-carbidopa intestinal gel safety data from prospective clinical studies, procedure/device events were frequently reported and occasionally life threatening. Most non-procedure/device events were typical for levodopa treatment and an elderly population. These factors combined with high treatment efficacy led to a relatively low discontinuation rate in advanced PD patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Lentiviral vectors are being used with increasing frequency in human clinical trials. We were the first to use lentiviral vectors in clinical trials in 2003. Our lentiviral vector encoded a long RNA antisense sequence to the HIV-1 envelope and was used in an ex vivo autologous setting to provide viral load control in HIV-1 positive subjects failing anti-HIV therapy. A total of 65 subjects have been treated in Phase 1 and Phase 2 trials in six institutions. Methods Good manufacturing practices (GMP) lots of the lentiviral vector used in our clinical trials were assayed for the presence of replication competent lentivirus (RCL). RCL assays were conducted at two stages. The first testing was performed on samples collected immediately following bulk harvest of the GMP product lot and consisted of 1 × 108 cells used in production. RCL assays were also performed on aliquots of the final fill of the vector by the inoculation of at least 5% of the GMP final fill volume into C8166 cells, passaged for at least ten passages and tested for RCL by p24 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and vesicular stomatitis virus-G envelope DNA. Results Following 263 infusions of autologous, transduced cells, no adverse events have been detected in these subjects, with some followed for more than 8 years following infusions. More than 4.3 × 1012 VRX496 proviral copies were administered to these 65 subjects. Conclusions Data from this small population suggest that there is no apparent risk for serious adverse events with the use of lentiviral vectors. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. In human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients, fluconazole prophylaxis is associated with reductions in the rate of fungal infection. However, concerns exist with regard to the use of fluconazole prophylaxis and the risk of development of fluconazole treatment-refractory infections. Methods. We performed a randomized, open-label trial that compared oral fluconazole given continuously (200 mg 3 times weekly', the "continuous fluconazole arm") with fluconazole that was provided only for episodes of orophayngeal candidiasis (OPC) or esophageal candidiasis (EC) (the "episodic fluconazole arm") in HIV-infected persons with CD4+ T cell counts of <150 cells/mm³ and a history of OPC. The primary study end point was the time to development of fluconazole-refractory OPC or EC, which was defined as lack of response to 200 mg fluconazole given daily for 14 or 21 days, respectively. Results. A total of 413 subjects were randomized to receive continuous fluconazole, and 416 were randomized to receive episodic fluconazole. After 42 months, 17 subjects (4.1%) in the continuous fluconazole arm developed fluconazole-refractory OPC or EC infections, compared with 18 subjects (4.3%) in the episodic fluconazole arm, with no difference between treatment arms with regard to the time to development of a fluconazole-refractory infection within 24 months (P = .88, by log-rank test) or before the end of the study (P = .97, by the log-rank test). Continuous fluconazole therapy was associated with fewer cases of OPC or EC (0.29 vs. 1.08 episodes per patient-year; P <.0001) and fewer invasive fungal infections (15 vs. 28 episodes; P = .04, by χ² test), but not with improved survival, compared with episodic fluconazole therapy. Conclusion. Continuous fluconazole therapy is not associated with significant risk of fluconazole-refractory OPC or EC, compared with episodic fluconazole therapy, in HIV-infected patients with access to active antiretroviral therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To determine whether different doses and dosing regimens of intravitreal vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) Trap-Eye are superior to focal/grid photocoagulation in eyes with diabetic macular edema (DME). Design: Multicenter, randomized, double-masked, phase 2 clinical trial. Participants: A total of 221 diabetic patients with clinically significant macular edema involving the central macula. Methods: Patients were assigned to 1 of 5 treatment regimens: 0.5 mg VEGF Trap-Eye every 4 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye every 4 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye for 3 initial monthly doses and then every 8 weeks; 2 mg VEGF Trap-Eye for 3 initial monthly doses and then on an as-needed (PRN) basis; or macular laser photocoagulation. Assessments were completed at baseline and every 4 weeks thereafter. Main Outcome Measures: Mean change in visual acuity and central retinal thickness (CRT) at 24 weeks. Results: Patients in the 4 VEGF Trap-Eye groups experienced mean visual acuity benefits ranging from +8.5 to +11.4 Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) letters versus only +2.5 letters in the laser group (P ≤ 0.0085 for each VEGF Trap-Eye group vs. laser). Gains from baseline of 0+, 10+, and 15+ letters were seen in up to 93%, 64%, and 34% of VEGF Trap-Eye groups versus up to 68%, 32%, and 21% in the laser group, respectively. Mean reductions in CRT in the 4 VEGF Trap-Eye groups ranged from −127.3 to −194.5 μm compared with only −67.9 μm in the laser group (P = 0.0066 for each VEGF Trap-Eye group vs. laser). VEGF Trap-Eye was generally well tolerated. Ocular adverse events in patients treated with VEGF Trap-Eye were generally consistent with those seen with other intravitreal anti-VEGF agents. Conclusions: Intravitreal VEGF Trap-Eye produced a statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in visual acuity when compared with macular laser photocoagulation in patients with DME. Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]