DOCSLIB.ORG

Metipranolol-Induced Adverse Reactions: Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

METIPRANOLOL-INDUCED ADVERSE REACTIONS: II. LOSS OF INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE CONTROL TAYO AKINGBEHIN and JOSE R. VILLADA Southport SUMMARY ment of the metipranolol-induced adverse drug reactions This paper reviews the behaviour of intraocular pressure (ADRs) which was not unexpected in those eyes with (lOP) in glaucomatous eyes treated with metipranolol intraocular inflammation but was inexplicable in eyes with and without drug-induced adverse reactions with external ocular inflammation and those without any (ADRs). Two hundred and forty seven patients with open clinical signs of inflammation. angle glaucoma who were receiving the three different In this paper we continue our investigation of metipra­ strengths of metipranolol (0.1 %, 0.3 %, and 0.6 % ) in our nolo I-induced ADRs. We studied the behaviour of lOP in Department and the 7 patients who participated in the glaucomatous eyes with metipranolol-induced ADRs and metipranolol rechallenge trial were included in this study. also in those metipranolol treated eyes without clinical Out of the 247 patients, there were 52 eyes of 29 patients signs of ADRs. who showed 78 episodes of ADRs associated with meti­ pranolol. Forty five of these 78 episodes (57.6%) were PATIENTS AND METHODS associated with loss of lOP control. Two of the 7 eyes We reviewed retrospectively the case-notes of all patients treated with metipranolol in the rechallenge trial showed treated with metipranolol in our department and examined loss of lOP control, 1 of them without any signs of ocular those patients who responded to an invitation to attend inflammation. We further studied all the glaucomatous special clinics as described in the previous paper. 5 The eyes controlled with metipranolol 0.6% only and 22 eyes behaviour of the lOP in the eyes of those patients entered were identified with loss of lOP control but without rec­ into the rechallenge study were also analysed.6 ognisable signs or symptoms of ADR. Five other eyes in In the light of the preliminary results of the above two this group later developed metipranolol-induced ADRs. studies we further reviewed the behaviour of lOP in all The possible pathophysiological mechanisms for the loss glaucomatous eyes who had been controlled with metipra­ of lOP control are discussed and it is suggested that the active drug, metipranolol, could be directly implicated. nolol 0.6% only. RESULTS Elevation of intraocular pressure (lOP) is a well recog­ nised complication of intraocular inflammation but its Two hundred and forty seven glaucoma patients in our prevalence in the various inflammatory conditions as department were treated with guttae metipranolol: 109 reported by several authors vary markedly. For example, with metipranolol 0.6%, 103 with metipranolol 0.3% and the incidence of secondary glaucoma in patients with 35 with metipranolol 0.1 % acute uveitis is quoted between 12%1 and 15%,2 but in Seven patients completed the metipranolol rechallenge Fuch's Heterochromic Cyclitis estimates vary from 9%3 to study. 59%.4 There is however, very little in the literature on the From case-notes and clinical reviews we found 29 prevalence of secondary elevation of lOP in glaucomatous patients (52 eyes) with metipranolol-induced ADRs: eyes with ocular inflammation. granulomatous anterior uveitis (15 patients, 25 eyes); ble­ We described in a previous paper5 the adverse reactions pharoconjunctivitis (11 patients, 21 eyes); combined associated with the use of topical metipranolol in glauco­ granulomatous anterior uveitis and blepharoconjunctivitis matous eyes i.e. granulomatous anterior uveitis, marginal (2 patients, 4 eyes); periorbital dermatitis (1 patient, 2 keratitis, blepharoconjunctivitis and periorbital dermat­ eyes); and marginal keratitis (1 patient, 2 eyes). itis. Some of these glaucomatous eyes with controlled lOP There was a total of 78 different recorded episodes of exhibited secondary elevation in lOP with the develop- ADRs sufferedby the 52 eyes of the 29 patients. In 45 epi­ sodes (57.6%) there was a significant elevation in lOP Correspondence to: Mr Tayo Akingbehin MD FRCS FCOphth, Department of Ophthalmology, District General Hospital, Southport, (;:, 5 mm Hg) associated with the ADR. The distribution PR8 6NJ. of the patients, eyes and episodes in which there was loss Eye (1992) 6,280-283 SECONDARY ELEVATION IN INTRAOCULAR PRESSURE DUE TO METIPRANOLOL 281 Table I. Distribution of patients, eyes and episodes in which there was medications (timolol maleate 0.5%, 10 eyes; carteolol 2%, a loss of lOP control 8 eyes; levobunolol 0.5%,2 eyes; pilocarpine 1 % 2 eyes) Reaction No. of patients Eyes involved No. of episodes which controlled the lOP and were therefore not seen to develop any metipranolol-induced ADRs. GAU 10 17 27 BC 8 11 11 DISCUSSION BC&GAU 2 3 5 MK 1 2 2 The incidence of secondary glaucoma in patients with PD 0 0 0 acute uveitis in non-glaucomatous eyes in other studies 20* 33 45 varies between 12% (IOP>21 mm Hg on at least two *One patient is counted twice because she had dif f erent reactions in occasions)l and 15% (IOP>25 mm Hg).2 Jones7 review of each eye. glaucoma in 103 patients with Fuch's Heterochromic G A U granulomatous anterior uveitis B C blepharoconjunctivitis Cyclitis showed an incidence of 26.2% but other investi­ MK marginalkeratitis gators have reported estimates which vary from 9%3 to PD periorbital dermatitis 59%4 This paper reviews the secondary elevation in lOP seen of IOP control is shown Table I. In 42 out of the 45 in eyes with primary glaucoma treated by metripranolol (93.3%) episodes of ADR with elevation of IOP the with or without the various forms of metipranolol-induced responsible drug was metipranolol 0.6% and in the ADRs. As faras could be determined from the case notes remaining 3 episodes (6.7%) metipranolol 0.3% was the 52 eyes of the 29 patients who developed metiprano implicated (Table 11). � lo -mduced. ADRs had controlled lOPs i e. <22 mm Hg The 27 episodes (out of a total of 46 episodes) of granu­ � pnor to the first documentation of an ADR. Where an eye lomatous anterior uveitis with loss of lOP control had a suffered more than one episode of ADR (as there were a range of f:, lOP from 8 to 32 mm Hg with a mean f:, lOP total of 78 episodes in this group) the lOP returned to of 16.7 mm Hg (SD 6.3). There were 11 episodes of ble­ within normal limits on the same anti-glaucoma treatment pharoconjunctivitis with loss of lOP control (11 out of before the development of subsequent ADRs. In this 20), range of f:, lOP 5-18 mm Hg and mean f:, lOP 10.3 group of glaucomatous eyes therefore, further elevation in mm Hg (SD 4.6) and 3 episodes of combined granuloma­ lOP was only seen with an active ADR. tous anterior uveitis and blepharoconjunctivitis with sig­ In this study,loss of IOP control or significantelevation nificant elevation in lOP (3 out of 8), had a range f:, lOP in lOP is taken as an increase in lOP greater than 5 mm 8-22 mm Hg and mean f:, lOP 11.6 mm Hg (Table III). Hg. Two metipranolol 0.3% treated eyes of the 7 patients in The incidence of loss of lOP control was similar in the the rechallenge study showed an elevation of lOP within three sub-groups of ADRs: granulomatous anterior uveitis two weeks of the start of the study, 1 of them without any 59%, blepharoconjunctivitis 60% and granulomatous signs of ocular inflammation and a f:, lOP of 17 mm Hg. anterior uveitis and blepharoconjunctivitis combined The other eye had granulomatous anterior uveitis, blepha­ 62.5%. In the sub-group with marginal keratitis the 2 eyes roconjunctivitis, ectropion secondary to the skin changes affected showed this phenomenon (100%) but the number and a f:, IOP 22 mm Hg. is too small for any meaningful conclusion. The 2 glauco­ The further review of patients and case-notes revealed matous eyes with metipranolol-induced periorbital der­ 2 eyes of 14 p tien s on metipranolol 0.6% only with sig­ 7 � � matitis did not show any loss of lOP control. mficant elevatIOn m lOP (;::5 mm Hg) prior to the Panek! listed several pathophysiological mechanisms development of any recognisable clinical features of for the elevation of lOP in eyes with uveitis: �DRs. Five of these eyes later developed metipranolol­ mduced granulomatous anterior uveitis within a few Table III. Elevation of lOP in the dif f erent metipranolol-associated weeks. The other 22 eyes of 11 patients in this group were adverse reactions changed from metipranolol 0.6% to other anti-glaucoma mean elevation Table II. Distribution of episodes of ADRs associated with loss of ADR of lOP range SD lOP control and different strengths of metipranolol GAU 16.7 mm Hg 8-32 mmHg 6.3 metipranolol metipranolol metipranolol n=27 ADR 0. 1% 0.3% 0.6% BC 10.3 mmHg 5-18 mm Hg 4.6 n=l1 GAU 0 0 27 BC&GA BC 0 1 10 U 11.6 mm Hg 8-22 mm Hg 6 BC&GAU 0 0 5 n=5 MK 0 2 o MK 11 mmHg 8. 14 mmHg 4. 2 PD 0 0 o n=2 PD o 3 42 n=2 GAU granulomatous anterior uveitis GAU granulomatous anterior uveitis BC blepharoconjunctivitis BC blepharoconjunctivitis MK marginal keratitis MK marginalkeratitis PD periorbital dermatitis PD periorbital dermatitis 282 T. AKINGBEHIN ET AL. (1) mechanical blockage of the trabeculum by serum gression of the glaucoma and not related to the use of meti­ components that are liberated because of vascular pranolol. The trend of elevation in lOP was not gradual as incompetence; would be expected for worsening of glaucoma and also the (2) hypersecretion associated with prostaglandin fact that lOP control was achieved very quickly with a mediated vascular hyperpermeability; comparable or less efficacious anti-glaucoma therapy, (3) overtaxing of outflow mechanisms by protein that both support the view that the loss of IOP control might be interferes with active transport; related to metipranolol.
Recommended publications
  • Brimonidine Tartrate; Brinzolamide

    Brimonidine Tartrate; Brinzolamide

    Contains Nonbinding Recommendations Draft Guidance on Brimonidine Tartrate ; Brinzolamide This draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA, or the Agency) on this topic. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. To discuss an alternative approach, contact the Office of Generic Drugs. Active Ingredient: Brimonidine tartrate; Brinzolamide Dosage Form; Route: Suspension/drops; ophthalmic Strength: 0.2%; 1% Recommended Studies: One study Type of study: Bioequivalence (BE) study with clinical endpoint Design: Randomized (1:1), double-masked, parallel, two-arm, in vivo Strength: 0.2%; 1% Subjects: Males and females with chronic open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in both eyes. Additional comments: Specific recommendations are provided below. ______________________________________________________________________________ Analytes to measure (in appropriate biological fluid): Not applicable Bioequivalence based on (95% CI): Clinical endpoint Additional comments regarding the BE study with clinical endpoint: 1. The Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) recommends conducting a BE study with a clinical endpoint in the treatment of open angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension comparing the test product to the reference listed drug (RLD), each applied as one drop in both eyes three times daily at approximately 8:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m., and 10:00 p.m. for 42 days (6 weeks). 2. Inclusion criteria (the sponsor may add additional criteria): a. Male or nonpregnant females aged at least 18 years with chronic open angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension in both eyes b.
  • Table 1. Glaucoma Medications: Mechanisms, Dosing and Precautions Brand Generic Mechanism of Action Dosage/Avg

    Table 1. Glaucoma Medications: Mechanisms, Dosing and Precautions Brand Generic Mechanism of Action Dosage/Avg

    OPTOMETRIC STUDY CENTER Table 1. Glaucoma Medications: Mechanisms, Dosing and Precautions Brand Generic Mechanism of Action Dosage/Avg. % Product Sizes Side Effects Warnings Reduction CHOLINERGIC AGENTS Direct Pilocarpine (generic) Pilocarpine 1%, 2%, 4% Increases trabecular outflow BID-QID/15-25% 15ml Headache, blurred vision, myopia, retinal detachment, bronchiole constriction, Angle closure, shortness of breath, retinal narrowing of angle detachment Indirect Phospholine Iodide (Pfizer) Echothiophate iodide 0.125% Increases trabecular outflow QD-BID/15-25% 5ml Same as above plus cataractogenic iris cysts in children, pupillary block, Same as above, plus avoid prior to any increased paralysis with succinylcholine general anesthetic procedure ALPHA-2 AGONISTS Alphagan P (Allergan) Brimonidine tartrate 0.1%, 0.15% with Purite Decreases aqueous production, increases BID-TID/up to 26% 5ml, 10ml, 15ml Dry mouth, hypotension, bradycardia, follicular conjunctivitis, ocular irritation, Monitor for shortness of breath, dizziness, preservative uveoscleral outflow pruritus, dermatitis, conjunctival blanching, eyelid retraction, mydriasis, drug ocular redness and itching, fatigue allergy Brimonidine tartrate Brimonidine tartrate 0.15%, 0.2% Same as above Same as above 5ml, 10ml Same as above Same as above (generic) Iopidine (Novartis) Apraclonidine 0.5% Decreases aqueous production BID-TID/up to 25% 5ml, 10ml Same as above but higher drug allergy (40%) Same as above BETA-BLOCKERS Non-selective Betagan (Allergan) Levobunolol 0.25%, 0.5% Decreases
  • Sustained-Release Compositions Containing Cation Exchange Resins and Polycarboxylic Polymers

    Sustained-Release Compositions Containing Cation Exchange Resins and Polycarboxylic Polymers

    ~" ' Nil II II II II Ml Ml INI MINI II J European Patent Office *»%r\ n » © Publication number: 0 429 732 B1 Office_„. europeen des brevets © EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION © Date of publication of patent specification: 16.03.94 © Int. CI.5: A61 K 9/06, A61 K 9/1 8, A61 K 47/32 © Application number: 89312590.6 @ Date of filing: 01.12.89 © Sustained-release compositions containing cation exchange resins and polycarboxylic polymers. @ Date of publication of application: (73) Proprietor: ALCON LABORATORIES, INC. 05.06.91 Bulletin 91/23 6201 South Freeway Fort Worth Texas 76107(US) © Publication of the grant of the patent: 16.03.94 Bulletin 94/11 @ Inventor: Janl, Rajni 4621 Briarhaven Road © Designated Contracting States: Fort Worth, Texas 76109(US) AT BE CH DE FR GB IT LI LU NL SE Inventor: Harris, Robert Gregg 3224 Westcliff Road W. © References cited: Fort Worth, Texas 76109(US) EP-A- 0 254 822 J.Pharm. SCI., vol. 60, no. 9, September 1971, © Representative: Jump, Timothy John Simon et pages 1343-1345 A. HEYD:"Polymer-drug in- al teraction: stability of aqueous gels contain- Venner Shipley & Co. ing neomycin sulfate" 20 Little Britain London EC1A 7DH (GB) 00 CM CO o> CM Note: Within nine months from the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent, any person ® may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to the European patent granted. Notice of opposition CL shall be filed in a written reasoned statement. It shall not be deemed to have been filed until the opposition fee LU has been paid (Art.
  • REMEDY for GLAUCOMA COMPRISING Rho KINASE INHIBITOR and -BLOCKER

    REMEDY for GLAUCOMA COMPRISING Rho KINASE INHIBITOR and -BLOCKER

    Europäisches Patentamt *EP001568382A1* (19) European Patent Office Office européen des brevets (11) EP 1 568 382 A1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION published in accordance with Art. 158(3) EPC (43) Date of publication: (51) Int Cl.7: A61K 45/06, A61K 31/138, 31.08.2005 Bulletin 2005/35 A61K 31/343, A61K 31/353, A61K 31/437, A61K 31/4409, (21) Application number: 03772800.3 A61K 31/4412, A61K 31/496, (22) Date of filing: 17.11.2003 A61K 31/5377, A61K 31/551, A61P 27/06, A61P 43/00 (86) International application number: PCT/JP2003/014559 (87) International publication number: WO 2004/045644 (03.06.2004 Gazette 2004/23) (84) Designated Contracting States: • NAKAJIMA, Tadashi AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR Ikoma-shi, Nara 630-0101 (JP) HU IE IT LI LU MC NL PT RO SE SI SK TR • MATSUGI, Takeshi Designated Extension States: Ikoma-shi, Nara 630-0101 (JP) AL LT LV MK • HARA, Hideaki Ikoma-shi, Nara 630-0101 (JP) (30) Priority: 18.11.2002 JP 2002333213 (74) Representative: Peaucelle, Chantal et al (71) Applicant: SANTEN PHARMACEUTICAL CO., Cabinet Armengaud Ainé LTD. 3, avenue Bugeaud Osaka 533-8651 (JP) 75116 Paris (FR) (72) Inventors: • HATANO, Masakazu Ikoma-shi, Nara 630-0101 (JP) (54) REMEDY FOR GLAUCOMA COMPRISING Rho KINASE INHIBITOR AND &bgr;-BLOCKER (57) A subject of the present invention is to find utility of a co mbination of a Rho kinase inhibitor having a novel action and a β-blocker as a therapeutic agent for glau- coma.
  • (19) 11 Patent Number: 6165500

    (19) 11 Patent Number: 6165500

    USOO6165500A United States Patent (19) 11 Patent Number: 6,165,500 Cevc (45) Date of Patent: *Dec. 26, 2000 54 PREPARATION FOR THE APPLICATION OF WO 88/07362 10/1988 WIPO. AGENTS IN MINI-DROPLETS OTHER PUBLICATIONS 75 Inventor: Gregor Cevc, Heimstetten, Germany V.M. Knepp et al., “Controlled Drug Release from a Novel Liposomal Delivery System. II. Transdermal Delivery Char 73 Assignee: Idea AG, Munich, Germany acteristics” on Journal of Controlled Release 12(1990) Mar., No. 1, Amsterdam, NL, pp. 25–30. (Exhibit A). * Notice: This patent issued on a continued pros- C.E. Price, “A Review of the Factors Influencing the Pen ecution application filed under 37 CFR etration of Pesticides Through Plant Leaves” on I.C.I. Ltd., 1.53(d), and is subject to the twenty year Plant Protection Division, Jealott's Hill Research Station, patent term provisions of 35 U.S.C. Bracknell, Berkshire RG12 6EY, U.K., pp. 237-252. 154(a)(2). (Exhibit B). K. Karzel and R.K. Liedtke, “Mechanismen Transkutaner This patent is Subject to a terminal dis- Resorption” on Grandlagen/Basics, pp. 1487–1491. (Exhibit claimer. C). Michael Mezei, “Liposomes as a Skin Drug Delivery Sys 21 Appl. No.: 07/844,664 tem” 1985 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (Biomedical Division), pp 345-358. (Exhibit E). 22 Filed: Apr. 8, 1992 Adrienn Gesztes and Michael Mazei, “Topical Anesthesia of 30 Foreign Application Priority Data the Skin by Liposome-Encapsulated Tetracaine” on Anesth Analg 1988; 67: pp 1079–81. (Exhibit F). Aug. 24, 1990 DE) Germany ............................... 40 26834 Harish M. Patel, "Liposomes as a Controlled-Release Sys Aug.
  • Drugs for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: an Overview of Systematic Reviews

    Drugs for Primary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: an Overview of Systematic Reviews

    Supplementary Online Content Karmali KN, Lloyd-Jones DM, Berendsen MA, et al. Drugs for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: an overview of systematic reviews. JAMA Cardiol. Published online April 27, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2016.0218. eAppendix 1. Search Documentation Details eAppendix 2. Background, Methods, and Results of Systematic Review of Combination Drug Therapy to Evaluate for Potential Interaction of Effects eAppendix 3. PRISMA Flow Charts for Each Drug Class and Detailed Systematic Review Characteristics and Summary of Included Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses eAppendix 4. List of Excluded Studies and Reasons for Exclusion This supplementary material has been provided by the authors to give readers additional information about their work. © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. 1 Downloaded From: https://jamanetwork.com/ on 09/28/2021 eAppendix 1. Search Documentation Details. Database Organizing body Purpose Pros Cons Cochrane Cochrane Library in Database of all available -Curated by the Cochrane -Content is limited to Database of the United Kingdom systematic reviews and Collaboration reviews completed Systematic (UK) protocols published by by the Cochrane Reviews the Cochrane -Only systematic reviews Collaboration Collaboration and systematic review protocols Database of National Health Collection of structured -Curated by Centre for -Only provides Abstracts of Services (NHS) abstracts and Reviews and Dissemination structured abstracts Reviews of Centre for Reviews bibliographic
  • Systematic Evidence Review from the Blood Pressure Expert Panel, 2013

    Systematic Evidence Review from the Blood Pressure Expert Panel, 2013

    Managing Blood Pressure in Adults Systematic Evidence Review From the Blood Pressure Expert Panel, 2013 Contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................ vi Blood Pressure Expert Panel ..............................................................................................................vii Section 1: Background and Description of the NHLBI Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Project ............ 1 A. Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 Section 2: Process and Methods Overview ......................................................................................... 3 A. Evidence-Based Approach ....................................................................................................... 3 i. Overview of the Evidence-Based Methodology ................................................................. 3 ii. System for Grading the Body of Evidence ......................................................................... 4 iii. Peer-Review Process ....................................................................................................... 5 B. Critical Question–Based Approach ........................................................................................... 5 i. How the Questions Were Selected ................................................................................... 5 ii. Rationale for the Questions
  • Cvs Caremark ® Maintenance Drug List

    Cvs Caremark ® Maintenance Drug List

    CVS CAREMARK® MAINTENANCE DRUG LIST EFFECTIVE AS OF 03/03/2021 Maintenance drugs are prescriptions commonly used to treat conditions that are considered chronic or long-term. These conditions usually require regular, daily use of medicines. Examples of maintenance drugs are those used to treat high blood pressure, heart disease, asthma and diabetes. Due to the large number of available medicines, this list is not all inclusive. Please note that this list does not guarantee coverage and is subject to change. Your prescription benefit plan may not cover certain products or categories, regardless of their appearance on this list. Where a generic is available, it is listed by the generic name. If no generic is available, then the brand name appears. This list represents brand products in CAPS and generic products in lower case italics. If you have questions about your prescription benefits, please log on to your account at Caremark.com or call Customer Care at the number on your ID card. Allergies pentoxifylline Depression desloratidine prasugrel bupropion levocetirizine ticlopidine citalopram ZONTIVITY desvenlafaxine Alzheimer’s Disease duloxetine donepezil Cancer escitalopram galantamine anastrozole fluoxetine memantine exemestane fluvoxamine rivastigmine letrozole mirtazapine NAMZARIC tamoxifen nefazodone toremifene paroxetine Antipsychotics sertraline trazodone Aripiprazole Contraceptives venlafaxine brexipiprazole ethinyl estradiol-desogestrel APLENZIN loxapine ethinyl estradiol-drospirenone FETZIMA olanzapine ethinyl estradiol-ethynodiol
  • Active Moiety Name FDA Established Pharmacologic Class (EPC) Text

    Active Moiety Name FDA Established Pharmacologic Class (EPC) Text

    FDA Established Pharmacologic Class (EPC) Text Phrase PLR regulations require that the following statement is included in the Highlights Indications and Usage heading if a drug is a member of an EPC [see 21 CFR 201.57(a)(6)]: Active Moiety Name “(Drug) is a (FDA EPC Text Phrase) indicated for [indication(s)].” For each listed active moiety, the associated FDA EPC text phrase is included in this document. For more information about how FDA determines the EPC Text Phrase, see the 2009 "Determining EPC for Use in the Highlights" guidance and 2013 "Determining EPC for Use in the Highlights" MAPP 7400.13.
  • Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Notices DIX to the HTSUS—Continued

    Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Notices DIX to the HTSUS—Continued

    20558 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 80 / Wednesday, April 26, 1995 / Notices DEPARMENT OF THE TREASURY Services, U.S. Customs Service, 1301 TABLE 1.ÐPHARMACEUTICAL APPEN- Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DIX TO THE HTSUSÐContinued Customs Service D.C. 20229 at (202) 927±1060. CAS No. Pharmaceutical [T.D. 95±33] Dated: April 14, 1995. 52±78±8 ..................... NORETHANDROLONE. A. W. Tennant, 52±86±8 ..................... HALOPERIDOL. Pharmaceutical Tables 1 and 3 of the Director, Office of Laboratories and Scientific 52±88±0 ..................... ATROPINE METHONITRATE. HTSUS 52±90±4 ..................... CYSTEINE. Services. 53±03±2 ..................... PREDNISONE. 53±06±5 ..................... CORTISONE. AGENCY: Customs Service, Department TABLE 1.ÐPHARMACEUTICAL 53±10±1 ..................... HYDROXYDIONE SODIUM SUCCI- of the Treasury. NATE. APPENDIX TO THE HTSUS 53±16±7 ..................... ESTRONE. ACTION: Listing of the products found in 53±18±9 ..................... BIETASERPINE. Table 1 and Table 3 of the CAS No. Pharmaceutical 53±19±0 ..................... MITOTANE. 53±31±6 ..................... MEDIBAZINE. Pharmaceutical Appendix to the N/A ............................. ACTAGARDIN. 53±33±8 ..................... PARAMETHASONE. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the N/A ............................. ARDACIN. 53±34±9 ..................... FLUPREDNISOLONE. N/A ............................. BICIROMAB. 53±39±4 ..................... OXANDROLONE. United States of America in Chemical N/A ............................. CELUCLORAL. 53±43±0
  • Therapeutic Class Overview Ophthalmic Agents, Intraocular Pressure (IOP)-Modifying

    Therapeutic Class Overview Ophthalmic Agents, Intraocular Pressure (IOP)-Modifying

    Therapeutic Class Overview Ophthalmic Agents, Intraocular Pressure (IOP)-Modifying INTRODUCTION Glaucoma is an optic neuropathy that causes gradual degeneration of the cells making up the optic nerve. Glaucoma is among the leading causes of blindness worldwide, and in 2020, an estimated 3.2 million people worldwide are anticipated to be blind due to glaucoma (Flaxman et al 2017). Open-angle glaucoma is the most common form; other forms include angle-closure, congenital, and secondary glaucoma (Jacobs 2018[a]). Patients with open-angle glaucoma initially experience peripheral visual field loss, followed by central field loss, which may progress to irreversible blindness if untreated (Jacobs 2018[a]). The exact etiology of open-angle glaucoma is unknown (Jacobs 2018[a]). Major risk factors for developing open-angle glaucoma include advanced age, African or Hispanic/Latino descent, elevated intraocular pressure (IOP), family history of glaucoma, low ocular perfusion pressure, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and myopia (Ellis et al 2000, Girkin et al 2004, Lesk et al 2007, Prum et al 2016). Elevated IOP is the only major risk factor for glaucoma that is treatable. Available evidence suggests that lowering IOP inhibits or reduces the progression of optic nerve damage (Jacobs 2018[a]). Treatment may be initiated in patients with a raised IOP despite having no visual field loss or optic nerve damage (Jacobs 2018[a]). An IOP > 22 mmHg is generally considered to be elevated and would be treated by most clinicians; however, this number varies according to screening methods, risk factors, and disease progression (Jacobs 2018[a]). The target IOP should be individualized based on response to therapy and disease progression in order to maintain IOP within a range that is unlikely to adversely affect patients’ health-related quality of life (Jacobs 2018[b]).
  • Metipranolol-Induced Adverse Reactions: I. the Rechallenge Study

    Metipranolol-Induced Adverse Reactions: I. the Rechallenge Study

    METIPRANOLOL-INDUCED ADVERSE REACTIONS: I. THE RECHALLENGE STUDY TAYO AKINGBEHIN*, JOSE R. VILLADA*, TOM WALLE Yt Southport and Liverpool SUMMARY beta-blocker licensed in the United Kingdom for the treat­ Previously unreported adverse drug reactions can be dif­ ment of glaucoma in 1986, although it was in widespread ficult to detect and it may be even more difficult to estab­ use in Europe for many years before that and was recently lish a cause and effect relationship, particularly if the marketed in the United States (1991). Some authors sug­ adverse reacions mimic naturally occurring disease. In a gested that metipranolol was less well tolerated than other previous paper we reported 29 patients with granuloma­ beta-blockers with a high incidence of subjective but not tous anterior uveitis, blepharoconjunctivitis, periorbital objective side effects.2•3 In February 1990, we saw 5 cases dermatitis, marginal keratitis and elevation in intra­ of either granulomatous anterior uveitis or blepharocon­ ocular pressure (lOP), suspected to be caused by meti­ junctivitis or both in patients using metipranolol. These pranolol (Glauline). With the approval of the District associations were reported by "yellow card" to the Com­ Ethics Committee 7 of those patients were rechallenged mittee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) who had one pre­ with metipranolol 0.3% compared to timolol maleate vious report of iritis with this drug and to the 0.5% in a double blind trial. The 7 metipranolol treated Pharmaceutical Company who had no previous reports eyes developed an adverse reaction within 14 days. Meti­ either from Germany or the United Kingdom where more pranolol (Glauline) has been conclusively proven to cause than 700,000 prescriptions had been issued up to 1990 granulomatous anterior uveitis, blepharoconjunctivitis (Smith & Nephew, personal communication).