Lesinurad Combined with Allopurinol

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Lesinurad Combined with Allopurinol ARTHRITIS & RHEUMATOLOGY Vol. 69, No. 1, January 2017, pp 203–212 DOI 10.1002/art.39840 VC 2016, American College of Rheumatology Lesinurad Combined With Allopurinol A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Gout Patients With an Inadequate Response to Standard-of-Care Allopurinol (a US-Based Study) Kenneth G. Saag,1 David Fitz-Patrick,2 Jeff Kopicko,3 Maple Fung,3 Nihar Bhakta,3 Scott Adler,4 Chris Storgard,3 Scott Baumgartner,3 and Michael A. Becker5 Objective. Lesinurad is a selective uric acid re- serum UA level of <6.0 mg/dl at month 6. Key secondary absorption inhibitor used for the treatment of gout in com- end points were the mean gout flare rate requiring treat- bination with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. The Combining ment (months 7–12) and the proportions of patients with Lesinurad with Allopurinol Standard of Care in Inade- complete resolution of ‡1 target tophus (month 12). Safety quate Responders (CLEAR 1) study, a 12-month, multi- assessments included adverse events and laboratory data. center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Results. The study patients (n 5 603) were predom- phase III trial, was conducted to investigate daily lesinurad inantlymaleandhadamean6 SD age of 51.9 6 11.3 (200 mg or 400 mg orally) added to allopurinol versus pla- years, a gout duration of 11.8 6 9.4 years, a baseline serum cebo plus allopurinol in patients with serum urate (UA) UA level of 6.94 6 1.27 mg/dl, and were receiving an allopu- levels above a target of <6.0 mg/dl. rinol dosage of 306.6 6 59.58 mg/day. Lesinurad at doses Methods. Patients receiving ‡300 mg of allopuri- of 200 mg or 400 mg added to allopurinol therapy signifi- nol (‡200 mg in those with moderate renal impairment) cantly increased the proportions of patients who achieved who had serum UA levels ‡6.5 mg/dl at screening and ‡2 serum UA target levels by month 6 as compared with those gout flares during the previous year were studied. The pri- receiving allopurinol alone (54.2%, 59.2%, and 27.9%, mary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a respectively, P < 0.0001). Lesinurad was not significantly superior to allopurinol alone in terms of the secondary end ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01510158. points: rates of gout flares and complete resolution of Supported by Ardea Biosciences, a member of the AstraZeneca group. tophi. Lesinurad was generally well-tolerated; the safety 1Kenneth G. Saag, MD, MSc: University of Alabama at profile of the 200-mg dose was comparable to that of allo- Birmingham; 2David Fitz-Patrick, MD: East-West Medical Research Institute, Honolulu, Hawaii; 3Jeff Kopicko, MSPH (current address: purinol alone, except for higher incidences of predomi- Receptos Inc., San Diego, California), Maple Fung, MD, Nihar Bhakta, nantly reversible elevations of serum creatinine levels. MD, Chris Storgard, MD (current address: Fate Therapeutics, San Conclusion. Lesinurad added to allopurinol pro- Diego, California), Scott Baumgartner, MD: Ardea Biosciences, San Diego, California; 4Scott Adler, MD: AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, vided benefit as compared with allopurinol alone in reduc- Gaithersburg, Maryland; 5Michael A. Becker, MD: University of ing serum UA levels and represents a new treatment option Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. for patients needing additional urate-lowering therapy. Dr. Saag has received consulting fees from Ardea/AstraZeneca (more than $10,000) and Takeda (less than $10,000) and research sup- port from Ardea, Crealta, and Takeda. Dr. Fitz-Patrick has received Current guidelines for the long-term management research support from Takeda, CymaBay Therapeutics, Ardea, BioCryst, of gout recommend a combination of lifestyle management and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Becker has received consulting fees from Ardea/AstraZeneca and Takeda (more than $10,000 each), and/or pharmacotherapy to lower serum urate (UA) levels and from Crealta, CymaBay Therapeutics, BioCryst, and Pfizer (less to ,6.0 mg/dl in most patients or ,5.0 mg/dl in patients than $10,000 each). with more severe disease (1). Allopurinol is the most Address correspondence to Kenneth G. Saag, MD, MSc, Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, University of widely used xanthine oxidase inhibitor and is recom- Alabama at Birmingham, 820 Faculty Office Tower, 510 20th Street mended in treatment guidelines as a first-line urate-lower- South, Birmingham, AL 35233. E-mail: [email protected]. Submitted for publication January 6, 2016; accepted in ing therapy in patients with gout, with a maximum daily revised form August 4, 2016. dose of 800 mg based on the highest approved dose in the 203 204 SAAG ET AL US (1). As an inhibitor of xanthine oxidase, allopurinol Trial design. Treatment procedures. CLEAR 1 was reduces uric acid production and lowers serum UA levels a 12-month, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo- (2). However, many patients––more than 50% in clinical controlled, US-based phase III trial investigating the efficacy and safety of lesinurad (200 mg or 400 mg orally, once a day) in com- trials––do not achieve the serum UA target of ,6.0 mg/dl bination with allopurinol versus allopurinol in combination with at the most commonly used allopurinol dosage of 300 mg/ placebo (control arm). The study included a screening period of day (3–6). In cases where the serum UA target cannot be ;28 days, which included a run-in period of ;14 days during achieved with allopurinol alone at an appropriate dosage, which gout flare prophylaxis was initiated, and a 12-month treatment guidelines recommend substitution therapy double-blind treatment period (Figure 1). Eligible patients were randomized in a double-blind (e.g., with febuxostat or a uricosuric agent) or combination manner to receive lesinurad 200 mg, lesinurad 400 mg, or pla- therapy that includes allopurinol with a uricosuric agent cebo in a 1:1:1 ratio, added to continued treatment with allopur- (1,7,8). The current US-based study is 1 of 2 replicate ran- inol at the same prestudy dosage (permitted range 300–800 mg/ domized controlled trials where this recommendation is day; 200 mg allowed in those with moderate renal impairment). formally investigated for the first time. Randomization at study sites used a centralized interactive voice-response system/interactive web-response system. Lesinurad (RDEA594) is a novel selective uric Doses of lesinurad or matching placebo were taken once acid reabsorption inhibitor for the treatment of gout in daily in the morning with food and 1 cup of water. Patients were combination with a xanthine oxidase inhibitor. Lesinurad encouraged to drink 2 liters of fluid a day and remain well inhibits the uric acid transporter URAT1, which is respon- hydrated, according to the ACR guidelines (1). Compliance with sible for reabsorption of urate from the renal tubular study medication was determined by assessment of dispensing records and verification of returned medication packaging. Con- lumen (9). By inhibiting URAT1, lesinurad increases the comitant medication use was also recorded at each study visit. excretion of uric acid in the kidney and lowers serum UA Gout flare prophylaxis was initiated at the same time as levels (10,11). Lesinurad in combination with allopurinol sponsor-provided allopurinol (day 214) and consisted of colchi- therefore provides a dual mechanism of action for manag- cine (0.5 mg or 0.6 mg once a day, per protocol and as locally avail- able) or a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug (NSAID) if ing the hyperuricemia of gout: increased urinary excretion patients were intolerant of, or had contraindications for, colchi- of uric acid and reduced urate production. cine. Gout flare prophylaxis was continued through month 5 Lesinurad in combination with allopurinol has dem- unless the patient became intolerant or developed toxicity to the onstrated greater reductions in serum UA than allopurinol drug. alone in phase I and II studies (12–14). The current phase The study was conducted in accordance with Indepen- dent Ethics Committee E6 Good Clinical Practice, the Declara- III study, Combining Lesinurad with Allopurinol Standard tion of Helsinki (October 2008), and applicable local regulatory of Care in Inadequate Responders (CLEAR 1), is 1 of 2 rep- requirements (including Institutional Review Board approval and licate, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act assurances). center studies to investigate lesinurad (200 mg or 400 mg Patients were permitted to withdraw from the medication or the orally, once daily) in combination with allopurinol (at the study at any time. The study was conducted between February 8, 2012 and July 1, 2014. investigator-determined appropriate dosage) in patients Evaluations. The primary efficacy end point was the with gout (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01510158). proportion of patients with a serum UA level of ,6.0 mg/dl by month 6 in each treatment group. There were 2 key secondary PATIENTS AND METHODS end points. First was a mean rate of gout flares requiring treat- ment for the 6-month period from the end of month 6 to the end Study participants. Men and women (ages 18–85 of month 12. Permitted gout flare treatments included colchicine, years; body mass index ,45 kg/m2)withadiagnosisofgoutwere analgesics, and/or antiinflammatory medications, including oral eligible for study inclusion if they had an inadequate response to and intraarticular corticosteroids. Gout flares were reported in a standard-of-care allopurinol (defined below). The diagnosis of daily electronic diary. Second was the proportion of patients with gout was based on the American College of Rheumatology target tophi at baseline who experienced complete resolution of (ACR) criteria for the classification of acute arthritis of primary $1 tophus by month 12. Target tophi (up to 5 per patient) were gout (15). Inclusion criteria were receipt of a stable dosage of those measuring $5mmand#20 mm in the longest diameter allopurinol (judged by the treating physician to be medically located on the hands/wrists and/or feet/ankles.
Recommended publications
  • Zurampic (Lesinurad)
    Market Applicability Market DC GA KY MD NJ NY WA Applicable X X X X X X NA Zurampic (lesinurad) Override(s) Approval Duration Prior Authorization 1 year Quantity Limit Medications Quantity Limit Zurampic (lesinurad) May be subject to quantity limit APPROVAL CRITERIA Requests for Zurampic (lesinurad) may be approved if the following criteria are met: I. Individual has had a previous trial (medication samples/coupons/discount cards are excluded from consideration as a trial) and inadequate response (unable to achieve target serum uric acid levels) to one preferred xanthine oxidase inhibitor (allopurinol, febuxostat*); AND II. Individual has hyperuricemia associated with gout; AND III. Individual is unable to achieve target serum uric acid levels while on a xanthine oxidase inhibitor (such as allopurinol or febuxostat*); AND IV. Individual remains symptomatic (such as, but not limited to joint pain, swelling, limited range of motion, erythema) despite use of xanthine oxidase inhibitor; AND V. Individual will continue use of a xanthine oxidase inhibitor in conjunction with Zurampic. *requires prior authorization Zurampic (lesinurad) may not be approved for the following: I. Individual has severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance less than 30 mL/min), end stage renal disease, is on dialysis or is a kidney transplant recipient; OR II. Individual has Lesch-Nyhan syndrome or tumor lysis syndrome. PAGE 1 of 2 08/14/2019 This policy does not apply to health plans or member categories that do not have pharmacy benefits, nor does it apply to Medicare. Note that market specific restrictions or transition-of-care benefit limitations may apply. CRX-ALL-0429-19 Market Applicability Market DC GA KY MD NJ NY WA Applicable X X X X X X NA Note: Zurampic (lesinurad) has a black box warning indicating risk of acute renal failure is more common when Zurampic is used without a xanthine oxidase inhibitor.
    [Show full text]
  • New Therapeutic Agents Marketed in 2015: Part 4 Amy M
    CPE New therapeutic agents marketed in 2015: Part 4 Amy M. Lugo and Brian Park Amy M. Lugo, PharmD, BCPS, BC-ADM, Abstract FAPhA, Clinical Pharmacy Specialist, Pharmacy Operations Division, Formu- lary Management Branch, Defense Health Objective: To provide information about the most important properties of new Agency, San Antonio therapeutic agents approved by FDA and first marketed in 2015. Brian Park, PharmD candidate, University of Data sources: Product labeling supplemented selectively with published stud- New England College of Pharmacy, Portland, ies and drug information reference sources. ME Data synthesis: This review covers 11 new therapeutic agents approved by FDA Correspondence: Amy M. Lugo, 7800 and first marketed in the United States in 2015: selexipag, cobimetinib, osimertinib, IH-10 W, Ste. 335, San Antonio, TX 78230; necitumumab, alectinib, insulin degludec, lesinurad, mepolizumab, brexpiprazole, [email protected] cariprazine, and flibanserin. Indications and information on dosage and adminis- Disclosure: The authors declare no conflicts tration for these agents are reviewed, as well as efficacy, safety, the most important of interest or financial interests in any product or service mentioned in this article. pharmacokinetic properties, drug interactions, and other precautions. Practical considerations for use of these new agents also are discussed. Whenever possible, Department of Defense (DoD) disclaimer: The information discussed here represents properties of the new drugs are compared with those of older agents marketed for the views of the author and does not neces- the same indications. sarily reflect the views of DoD or the Depart- Summary: Selexipag is the second oral prostacyclin agonist for the treatment ments of the Army, Navy, or Air Force.
    [Show full text]
  • 207988Orig1s000
    CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH APPLICATION NUMBER: 207988Orig1s000 RISK ASSESSMENT and RISK MITIGATION REVIEW(S) Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology Office of Medication Error Prevention and Risk Management RISK EVALUATION AND MITIGATION STRATEGY (REMS) REVIEW Date: December 20, 2015 Reviewer(s): Jasminder Kumar, PharmD Division of Risk Management (DRISK) Acting Team Leader: Jamie Wilkins Parker, Pharm.D., DRISK Deputy Director: Reema Mehta, Pharm.D., M.P.H., DRISK Director: Cynthia LaCivita, Pharm.D. Subject: Review evaluates if a REMS is needed for Zurampic (lesinurad) Drug Name: Zurampic (lesinurad) Therapeutic Class: Uricosuric agent Dosage form and route: 200mg tablet for oral administration Application Type/Number: NDA 207988 Applicant/Sponsor: Ardea Biosciences Inc. OSE RCM #: 2015-52 *** This document contains proprietary and confidential information that should not be released to the public. *** 1 Reference ID: 3863300 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Product Background ......................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Disease Background ......................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Regulatory History ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Stems for Nonproprietary Drug Names
    USAN STEM LIST STEM DEFINITION EXAMPLES -abine (see -arabine, -citabine) -ac anti-inflammatory agents (acetic acid derivatives) bromfenac dexpemedolac -acetam (see -racetam) -adol or analgesics (mixed opiate receptor agonists/ tazadolene -adol- antagonists) spiradolene levonantradol -adox antibacterials (quinoline dioxide derivatives) carbadox -afenone antiarrhythmics (propafenone derivatives) alprafenone diprafenonex -afil PDE5 inhibitors tadalafil -aj- antiarrhythmics (ajmaline derivatives) lorajmine -aldrate antacid aluminum salts magaldrate -algron alpha1 - and alpha2 - adrenoreceptor agonists dabuzalgron -alol combined alpha and beta blockers labetalol medroxalol -amidis antimyloidotics tafamidis -amivir (see -vir) -ampa ionotropic non-NMDA glutamate receptors (AMPA and/or KA receptors) subgroup: -ampanel antagonists becampanel -ampator modulators forampator -anib angiogenesis inhibitors pegaptanib cediranib 1 subgroup: -siranib siRNA bevasiranib -andr- androgens nandrolone -anserin serotonin 5-HT2 receptor antagonists altanserin tropanserin adatanserin -antel anthelmintics (undefined group) carbantel subgroup: -quantel 2-deoxoparaherquamide A derivatives derquantel -antrone antineoplastics; anthraquinone derivatives pixantrone -apsel P-selectin antagonists torapsel -arabine antineoplastics (arabinofuranosyl derivatives) fazarabine fludarabine aril-, -aril, -aril- antiviral (arildone derivatives) pleconaril arildone fosarilate -arit antirheumatics (lobenzarit type) lobenzarit clobuzarit -arol anticoagulants (dicumarol type) dicumarol
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Management of Gout. Part 1: Systematic Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Therapeutic Approaches to Hyperuricemia DINESH KHANNA,1 JOHN D
    Arthritis Care & Research Vol. 64, No. 10, October 2012, pp 1431–1446 DOI 10.1002/acr.21772 © 2012, American College of Rheumatology SPECIAL ARTICLE 2012 American College of Rheumatology Guidelines for Management of Gout. Part 1: Systematic Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Therapeutic Approaches to Hyperuricemia DINESH KHANNA,1 JOHN D. FITZGERALD,2 PUJA P. KHANNA,1 SANGMEE BAE,2 MANJIT K. SINGH,3 TUHINA NEOGI,4 MICHAEL H. PILLINGER,5 JOAN MERILL,6 SUSAN LEE,7 SHRADDHA PRAKASH,2 MARIAN KALDAS,2 MANEESH GOGIA,2 FERNANDO PEREZ-RUIZ,8 WILL TAYLOR,9 FRE´ DE´ RIC LIOTE´ ,10 HYON CHOI,4 JASVINDER A. SINGH,11 NICOLA DALBETH,12 SANFORD KAPLAN,13 VANDANA NIYYAR,14 DANIELLE JONES,14 STEVEN A. YAROWS,15 BLAKE ROESSLER,1 GAIL KERR,16 CHARLES KING,17 GERALD LEVY,18 DANIEL E. FURST,2 N. LAWRENCE EDWARDS,19 BRIAN MANDELL,20 H. RALPH SCHUMACHER,21 MARK ROBBINS,22 2 7 NEIL WENGER, AND ROBERT TERKELTAUB Guidelines and recommendations developed and/or endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) are intended to provide guidance for particular patterns of practice and not to dictate the care of a particular patient. The ACR considers adherence to these guidelines and recommendations to be voluntary, with the ultimate determi- nation regarding their application to be made by the physician in light of each patient’s individual circumstances. Guidelines and recommendations are intended to promote beneficial or desirable outcomes but cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Guidelines and recommendations developed or endorsed by the ACR are subject to periodic revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesinurad Cuts Uric Acid in Refractory Gout
    20 ARTHRITIS AUGUST 2011 • RHEUMATOLOGY NEWS Lesinurad Cuts Uric Acid in Refractory Gout Ninety percent of patients who remained on fore the end of this year, said Barry D. a uric acid transporter molecule in the Quart, Pharm.D., president of Ardea kidney that takes uric acid out of urine treatment for 28 weeks met the study’s target level. Biosciences, the San Diego–based com- and places it back into the blood. pany that is developing the drug. The study led by Dr. Perez-Ruiz en- BY MITCHEL L. ZOLER mg/day of lesinurad also appeared safe, The phase III study will likely focus on rolled patients who met the 1977 gout di- with no adverse effects or other safety the 200-mg and 400-mg/day dosages, as agnosis criteria of the American FROM THE ANNUAL EUROPEAN CONGRESS OF RHEUMATOLOGY concerns seen during the limited treat- over time most patients appeared to re- Rheumatism Association (now the ment period reported, said Dr. Perez- spond to these lower dosages. American College of Rheumatology) LONDON – An investigational drug Ruiz, a rheumatologist at Hospital de “Almost no one needs 600 mg/day to and who had a serum uric acid level that boosts uric acid secretion led to sig- Cruces in Barakaldo, Spain. get a response,” Dr. Quart said in an in- greater than 6 mg/dL despite being on terview. a stable dose of 200-600 mg allopurinol Major Finding: After 4 weeks of treatment with a combination of 200-600 Although the current study used pa- for at least 6 weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Ehealth DSI [Ehdsi V2.2.2-OR] Ehealth DSI – Master Value Set
    MTC eHealth DSI [eHDSI v2.2.2-OR] eHealth DSI – Master Value Set Catalogue Responsible : eHDSI Solution Provider PublishDate : Wed Nov 08 16:16:10 CET 2017 © eHealth DSI eHDSI Solution Provider v2.2.2-OR Wed Nov 08 16:16:10 CET 2017 Page 1 of 490 MTC Table of Contents epSOSActiveIngredient 4 epSOSAdministrativeGender 148 epSOSAdverseEventType 149 epSOSAllergenNoDrugs 150 epSOSBloodGroup 155 epSOSBloodPressure 156 epSOSCodeNoMedication 157 epSOSCodeProb 158 epSOSConfidentiality 159 epSOSCountry 160 epSOSDisplayLabel 167 epSOSDocumentCode 170 epSOSDoseForm 171 epSOSHealthcareProfessionalRoles 184 epSOSIllnessesandDisorders 186 epSOSLanguage 448 epSOSMedicalDevices 458 epSOSNullFavor 461 epSOSPackage 462 © eHealth DSI eHDSI Solution Provider v2.2.2-OR Wed Nov 08 16:16:10 CET 2017 Page 2 of 490 MTC epSOSPersonalRelationship 464 epSOSPregnancyInformation 466 epSOSProcedures 467 epSOSReactionAllergy 470 epSOSResolutionOutcome 472 epSOSRoleClass 473 epSOSRouteofAdministration 474 epSOSSections 477 epSOSSeverity 478 epSOSSocialHistory 479 epSOSStatusCode 480 epSOSSubstitutionCode 481 epSOSTelecomAddress 482 epSOSTimingEvent 483 epSOSUnits 484 epSOSUnknownInformation 487 epSOSVaccine 488 © eHealth DSI eHDSI Solution Provider v2.2.2-OR Wed Nov 08 16:16:10 CET 2017 Page 3 of 490 MTC epSOSActiveIngredient epSOSActiveIngredient Value Set ID 1.3.6.1.4.1.12559.11.10.1.3.1.42.24 TRANSLATIONS Code System ID Code System Version Concept Code Description (FSN) 2.16.840.1.113883.6.73 2017-01 A ALIMENTARY TRACT AND METABOLISM 2.16.840.1.113883.6.73 2017-01
    [Show full text]
  • Zurampic, INN-Lesinurad
    EMA/1488/2016 Summary of the risk management plan (RMP) for Zurampic (lesinurad) This is a summary of the risk management plan (RMP) for Zurampic, which details the measures to be taken in order to ensure that Zurampic is used as safely as possible. For more information on RMP summaries, see here. This RMP summary should be read in conjunction with the EPAR summary and the product information for Zurampic, which can be found on Zurampic’s EPAR page. Overview of disease epidemiology Zurampic is a medicine used in adults with gout to reduce high levels of uric acid in the blood. Gout results from a build-up of uric acid crystals in and around the joints, especially in the toes, which causes pain and swelling. Lowering the level of uric acid in the blood can prevent the formation of uric acid crystals and reduce uric acid deposits. The prevalence of gout is increasing and it is now the most common type of inflammatory arthritis. Gout is estimated to occur in 1% to 2% of the adult population; about 9 million people in Europe suffer from attacks of gout. It is 3 to 4 times more common in men than in women and, in general, increases with age. Summary of treatment benefits Zurampic contains the active ingredient lesinurad which acts in the kidney to help to remove uric acid from the body. Zurampic is used in combination with other gout medicines called ‘xanthine oxidase inhibitors’ such as allopurinol or febuxostat. It is used when a xanthine oxidase inhibitor on its own does not satisfactorily control the uric acid level in the blood.
    [Show full text]
  • Prontuario Terapeutico Ospedale / Territorio Regionale O NC (PTOR) - XIX Edizione 3° Aggiornamento 2018
    Hl REGIONE MARCHE seduta del ~ GIUNTA REGIONALE 17/1212018 DELIBERAZIONE DELLA GIUNTA REGIONALE delibera ADUNANZA N. __2_2_7__ LEGISLATURA N. __X____ 1721 DE/PR/ARS Oggetto: Prontuario Terapeutico Ospedale / Territorio Regionale O NC (PTOR) - XIX Edizione 3° aggiornamento 2018 Prot. Segr. 1813 Lunedì 17 dicembre 2018 , nella sede della Regione Mar che , ad Ancona, in via Gent ile da Fabriano, si è riunita la Giunta regionale, regolarmente convocata . Sono presenti: - LUCA CERISCIOLI Presidente - ANNA CASINI Vi cepresidente - MANUELA BORA Assessore - LORETTA BRAVI Assessore - MORENO PIERON I Assessore - ANGELO SCIAPICHETTI Assessore E' as sente: - FABRIZIO CESETTI Assessore Constatato il numero legale per la validità del l I adunanza, assume la Presidenza il Presidente della Giunta regionale, Lu ca Cerisc ioli. Assiste a lla seduta il Segretario della Giunta regionale. Deborah Giraldi. Riferisce in qualità di relatore il Presidente Luca Ceriscioli. La deliberazione in oggetto è approvata all'unanimità dei presenti. NOTE DELLA SEGRETERIA DELLA GIUNTA Inviata per gli adempimenti di competenza Proposta o richiesta di parere trasmessa al Presidente del Consiglio regionale il _ ________ _ alla struttura organizzativa: ________ prot. n. ______ alla P.O. di spesa: _ _________ _ al Presidente del Consiglio regionale L'TNCARlCATO alla redazione del Bollettino ufficiale Il__________ L' fNCARlCATO REGIONE MARCHE seduta del GIUNTA REGIONALE ~ 7 DIC . 20 8 delibera DELIBERAZIONE DELLA GIUNTA REGIONALE 1 7 2 1 OGGETTO: Prontuario Terapeutico Ospedale
    [Show full text]
  • Gout Guideline Supplementary Appendix 8 – Evidence Report
    SUPPLEMENTARY APPENDIX 8: Evidence Report 2020 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Management of Gout Methods for the evidence synthesis 1. Question generation With the assistance of a methodologist, the core team formulated 57 questions using the Patients, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes (PICO) framework, which were classified in 6 topics 1. Indications for ULT (5 questions) 2. Approaches to initiating ULT (7 questions) 3. Ongoing management of ULT in gout (18 questions) 4. Gout flares (10 questions) 5. Lifestyle in patients with gout (9 questions) 6. Lifestyle in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia (8 questions) The core team formulated the questions considering relevant clinical problems, and chose the outcomes using a patient-centered perspective. 2. Outcome prioritization The core team brainstormed about all the potentially relevant outcomes for decision-making, and prioritized those that were considered critical or important, relative to the other outcomes.[1] For each outcome, the core team generated a hierarchy for the methods of measurement and reporting. In addition, they chose time points of measurement that would be the most informative. 3. Eligibility criteria Eligibility criteria regarding patients, interventions, and comparators varied across questions, and matched the patients and interventions specified in each question. We included randomized clinical trials and any type of observational study that presented data relevant to the comparisons of interest. We only included studies published in full (in other words, we did not include studies published only as conference abstracts). We only included studies published in English language. We allowed departures from the eligibility criteria when- after study 1 selection- there was no evidence for specific questions, and the core team believed that case series, or studies conducted in slightly different populations would be useful to inform such questions.
    [Show full text]
  • AHRQ Healthcare Horizon Scanning System – Status Update Horizon
    AHRQ Healthcare Horizon Scanning System – Status Update Horizon Scanning Status Update: April 2015 Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA290-2010-00006-C Prepared by: ECRI Institute 5200 Butler Pike Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 April 2015 Statement of Funding and Purpose This report incorporates data collected during implementation of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Healthcare Horizon Scanning System by ECRI Institute under contract to AHRQ, Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA290-2010-00006-C). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its content, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. A novel intervention may not appear in this report simply because the System has not yet detected it. The list of novel interventions in the Horizon Scanning Status Update Report will change over time as new information is collected. This should not be construed as either endorsements or rejections of specific interventions. As topics are entered into the System, individual target technology reports are developed for those that appear to be closer to diffusion into practice in the United States. A representative from AHRQ served as a Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative and provided input during the implementation of the horizon scanning system. AHRQ did not directly participate in the horizon scanning, assessing the leads or topics, or provide opinions regarding potential impact of interventions.
    [Show full text]
  • Modulation of Urate Transport by Drugs
    pharmaceutics Review Modulation of Urate Transport by Drugs Péter Tátrai 1, Franciska Erd˝o 2, Gabriella Dörnyei 3 and Péter Krajcsi 1,2,3,* 1 Solvo Biotechnology, Science Park, Building B2, 4-20 Irinyi József utca, H-1117 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] 2 Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics, Pázmány Péter Catholic University, H-1083 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] 3 Department of Morphology and Physiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Semmelweis University, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: Background: Serum urate (SU) levels in primates are extraordinarily high among mammals. Urate is a Janus-faced molecule that acts physiologically as a protective antioxidant but provokes inflammation and gout when it precipitates at high concentrations. Transporters play crucial roles in urate disposition, and drugs that interact with urate transporters either by intention or by accident may modulate SU levels. We examined whether in vitro transporter interaction studies may clarify and predict such effects. Methods: Transporter interaction profiles of clinically proven urate-lowering (uricosuric) and hyperuricemic drugs were compiled from the literature, and the predictive value of in vitro-derived cut-offs like Cmax/IC50 on the in vivo outcome (clinically relevant decrease or increase of SU) was assessed. Results: Interaction with the major reabsorptive urate transporter URAT1 appears to be dominant over interactions with secretory transporters in determining the net effect of a drug on SU levels. In vitro inhibition interpreted using the recommended cut-offs is useful at predicting the clinical outcome. Conclusions: In vitro safety assessments regarding urate transport should be done early in drug development to identify candidates at risk of causing major imbalances.
    [Show full text]