Search

Objectives: To summarize available clinical evidence for cysteamine bitartrate preparations in the treatment of nephropathic cystinosis as identified through a systematic literature review (SLR).Methods: We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process and Embase using Ovid with a predefined search strategy through 19 January 2016. All publicly available clinical reports on the use of delayed-release (DR) cysteamine bitartrate (Procysbi 1 ) or immediate-release (IR) cysteamine bitartrate (Cystagon 2 ) in patients with cystinosis were included.Results: We identified a total of 103 publications and 10 trial records. Of these, 9 studies describe DR cysteamine bitartrate (n = 267 patients), 42 describe IR cysteamine bitartrate (n = 1,427 patients) and in 53 studies the exact preparation was not specified (n = 906 patients). The vast majority of the studies used a non-randomized study design, with randomized clinical trials (RCTs) being scarce (1 study comparing DR and IR formulation) and case reports (n = 49) being the most common study design representing 47% of the total.Conclusion: A substantial evidence base for cysteamine bitartrate in the treatment of nephropathic cystinosis was identified. However, the majority of the evidence was of relatively low quality, with evidence levels of 3 or 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A challenge in the empiric treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) is identifying the initial appropriate antibiotic therapy (IAAT), which is associated with reduced length of stay and mortality compared with initial inappropriate antibiotic therapy (IIAT). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with piperacillin/tazobactam (one of the standard of care antibiotics), for the treatment of hospitalized patients with cUTI.Methods: A decision-analytic Monte Carlo simulation model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of empiric treatment with either ceftolozane/tazobactam or piperacillin/tazobactam in hospitalized adult patients with cUTI infected with Gram-negative pathogens in the US. The model applies the baseline prevalence of resistance as reported by national in-vitro surveillance data.Results: In a cohort of 1000 patients, treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam resulted in higher total costs compared with piperacillin/tazobactam ($36,413 /patient vs. $36,028/patient, respectively), greater quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (9.19/patient vs. 9.13/patient, respectively) and an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $6128/QALY. Ceftolozane/tazobactam remained cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $100,000 per QALY compared to piperacillin/tazobactam over a range of input parameter values during one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis.Conclusions: Model results show that ceftolozane/tazobactam is likely to be cost-effective compared with piperacillin/tazobactam for the empiric treatment of hospitalized cUTI patients in the United States. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The objective of this study was to estimate the relative efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination aclidinium/formoterol 400/12 μg twice daily compared to tiotropium 18 μg once daily in adult patients with moderate-to-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).Methods: A systematic literature review performed in March 2014, using a predefined search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, identified 17 randomized placebo-controlled trials, (tiotropium n = 15; aclidinium/formoterol n = 2). Outcomes of interest were: bronchodilation (peak and trough forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)), COPD symptoms [Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) focal score and % of responders (>1 unit improvement)] and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) [St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and % responders (>4 unit improvement)], % of patients with ≥1 exacerbations, adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE), hospitalization and mortality, all at 24 weeks. In the absence of head-to-head trials between aclidinium/formoterol and tiotropium, a Bayesian indirect treatment comparison (ITC) was used with placebo as common control.Results: Regarding bronchodilation, aclidinium/formoterol was found to be more efficacious than tiotropium at peak FEV1, with mean difference in change from baseline (DCFB) 143 mL [95% credible interval (CrI): 112, 174] and at trough FEV1 [DCFB 26 mL (95% CrI -2, 55)]. Aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in improving dyspnea symptoms measured by TDI [DCFB 0.54 points (95% CrI 0.09, 0.99); odds ratio (OR) of responders 1.51 (95% CrI 1.11, 2.06)]. SGRQ results are comparable for aclidinium/formoterol versus tiotropium [DCFB -0.52 (95% CrI -2.21, 1.17); OR of responders 1.16 (95% CrI 0.47, 2.87)]. The ITC results suggest similar safety profiles regarding AEs, SAEs and hospitalization.Conclusion: Based on the ITC, aclidinium/formoterol is expected to be more efficacious than tiotropium in terms of lung function and symptom control while providing comparable HRQoL results and safety profile.Funding: AstraZeneca. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]