Switch Analysis of Teriflunomide from Other Multiple Sclerosis Disease Modifying Therapies Ronald O

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Switch Analysis of Teriflunomide from Other Multiple Sclerosis Disease Modifying Therapies Ronald O DX53 Switch Analysis of Teriflunomide from Other Multiple Sclerosis Disease Modifying Therapies Ronald O. Bailey, M.D., Nader M. Gemayel, Ph.D., Vu A. Nguyen, M.A., and Carina G. Sprague, LVN Riverside Medical Clinic, Riverside, CA Table 1: Baseline Demographics and Switch Reasons Figure 1: Patient Outcomes •The percent of patients who relapsed on OBJECTIVES 1.1% teriflunomide was low, all were on prior DISCUSSION Variable N = 95 5.3% 3.2% 1.1% NTZ therapy and occurred at month 6. All had complete recovery after steroid •The ARR for teriflunomide 14mg in this switch study was 0.04 To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of teriflunomide in Age (yr) – mean ± SD 55.4 ± 10.6 treatment and switching back to NTZ. the first switch analysis study. Range 24 to 81 compared to 0.37 in the TEMSO study, 0.32 in the TOWER (Tables 2 and 3) study, and 0.26 in the TENERE study.2-4 This difference may be Female Gender – N (%) 83 (87%) •Patients on prior sub-optimal DMTs due to differences in study design, baseline characteristics, and BACKGROUND were relapse-free on terifluonimide. study duration. Caucasian – N (%) 78 (82%) •One-third of patients on prior NTZ experienced relapse 89.5% •Ten patients (10.5%) reported side requiring steroids. Recurrence of disease activity after NTZ EDSS – mean ± SD 3.5 ± 1.7 effects early in the treatment course •Teriflunomide is an oral once-daily immunomodulatory discontinuation is common and effective therapy after NTZ Range 1 to 8 (within 2 months). Of these, 5 (5.3%) agent with anti-inflammatory properties, that blocks the discontinuation has not been identified. Recent studies reported proliferation of activated B and T lymphocytes.1 discontinued teriflunomide and resumed Disease Duration (yr) – mean ± SD 15.0 ± 10.2 prior DMT. Side effects in the other 5 31% to 60% of patients on prior NTZ experienced relapses after 5-6 •Although the effects of teriflunomide on relapse-related Range 2 to 40 Clinically stable on teriflunomide D/C side effects patients resolved while remaining on switching to fingolimod and 41% to other treatments. D/C relapse (require steroids) D/C pseudo-relapse neurologic sequelae are known, there is no published study teriflunomide. (Tables 3 and 4) •In this study, the incidences of hair thinning (2%), increased evaluating the effectiveness and safety of teriflunomide Prior Therapies – N (%) D/C pregnancy D/C = discontinue due to liver enzymes (2%), diarrhea (2%), and nausea/vomiting (1%) Glatiramer acetate (GA) 70 (73.7%) •Two patients (2.1%) experienced mild when switched from other multiple sclerosis (MS) disease were lower than the incidences reported in the TEMSO study for Interferon β (IFN β) 14 (14.7%) hair thinning (both with onset at month 2) modifying therapies (DMTs). teriflunomide 14mg (13%, 14%, 18%, and 14%, respectively).2 Natalizumab (NTZ) 9 (9.5%) Figure 2: Probability of Remaining on Teriflunomide and resolved within 1 and 3 months, Other orals 2 (2.1%) Therapy over Time respectively, while remaining on teriflunomide. Two (2.1%) had elevated 100% METHODS Primary Reason for Switching – N (%) liver enzymes (>3x ULN), both resolved CONCLUSION Lipoatrophy or injection site reaction 32 (32.6%) within 2 and 3 months, respectively, after Preference for an oral agent 22 (23.2%) 90% discontinuation. (Table 4) •Patients were included in this study if they: Injection or infusion exhaustion 19 (20.0%) 80% 1. Switched to teriflunomide from another MS DMT, and Increase in relapse 10 (10.5%) •Teriflunomide is an effective and well tolerated oral medication for the management of MS. 2. On teriflunomide for at least 6 months (unless JCV positive serology 6 (6.3%) 70% Table 4: Adverse Events Increase in EDSS 5 (5.3%) treatment discontinuation due to side effects, relapse, •Side effects were mild and rarely led to treatment Nabs to IFN β 1 (1.1%) Adverse Events N (%) and/or at the patient’s request) 60% Nabs to NTZ 1 (1.1%) Entire cohort discontinuation. 3. Note: Treatment duration for each patient will vary 50% EDSS > 3 Anxiety 1 (1.1%) as each patient had different teriflunomide start date. Nabs = neutralizing antibodies •A 97% relapse-free rate during the first year of treatment EDSS ≤ 3 40% Diarrhea 2 (2.1%) compares favorably to other DMTs in our clinical practice and •For prior therapy with natalizumab (NTZ), teriflunomide makes teriflunomide a logical choice for first line switch therapy Hair thinning* 2 (2.1%) was given one month after the last NTZ infusion. No Table 2: Clinical Outcomes 30% in the management of MS. washout period was used for conversion of other MS DMTs Probability of Remaining on Therapy Hypotension 1 (1.1%) Outcomes N = 95 20% to teriflunomide. Increased LFTs** 2 (2.1%) 0 5 10 15 20 •Analysis included baseline demographics, reasons for Pseudo-relapse – N (%) 2 (2.1%) Nausea / Vomiting 1 (1.1%) Months REFERENCES switching, pseudo-relapses, relapses requiring steroids Relapse requiring steroids – N (%) 3 (3.2%) Pregnancy 1 (1.1%) treatment, Cox proportional hazards on probability of Annualized relapse rate (ARR) 0.04 LFTs = liver function tests *One resolved after 1 month and one resolved after 3 months 1. Aubagio® Prescribing Information (September 2012) remaining on therapy across time, side effects, and **Both cases resolved 2 and 3 months, respectively, after drug discontinuation 2. O’Connor P, et al. New Engl J Med. 2011;365:1293-1303. % relapse-free 96.8% Table 3: Reasons for Treatment Discontinuation discontinuation rate on teriflunomide. 3. Confavreux C, et al. Lancet Neurol. 2014;13:247-256. Reasons N (%) Comments 4. Vermeersch P, et al. Mult Scler J. Nov 21, 2013. [Epub ahead of print]. 5. Copobianco M, et. al. Neurology. 2014 vol 8 no 10 Supplement P7.206 6. Havla J, et al. Neurology. 2014 vol 8 no 10 Supplement P7.206 RESULTS •Over 50% switched to teriflunomide due to injection- Side effects 5 (5.3%) Reasons: 1 anxiety*, 1 hypotension/diarrhea, 1 associated reasons, almost 25% due to preference for nausea/vomiting*, and 2 increased in LFTs an oral agent, and about 16% due to sub-optimal Statistical Analysis: Simple descriptive statistics were done using Microsoft Excel and Cox Proportional Hazards •Ninety-five patients met the inclusion criteria. All were therapies (increase in relapse or EDSS). (Table 1) Relapse requiring steroids** 3 (3.2%) All were on prior NTZ therapy and occurred at month 6 survival model was performed using Software R. started on teriflunomide 14mg. Baseline demographics Cox Proportional Hazards: •Almost 90% of patients were clinically stable on Pseudo-relapse*** 1 (1.1%) Was on prior NTZ therapy and occurred at month 4 and primary reasons for switching are listed in Table 1. The Cox model estimates the survival probability S(t) of a patient surviving at least until time t, teriflunomide therapy, without any relapse or side via the hazard function defined by: •While the majority of patients were Caucasian, almost effects leading to discontinuation. (Figure 1) Pregnancy 1 (1.1%) Patient discontinued teriflunomide and underwent The hazard function is modeled as a function of input variables (e.g., EDSS score) via the equation: 20% of patients were non-Caucasian (mostly African- accelerated elimination at week 6 of pregnancy and •The probability of patients remaining on teriflunomide American and Hispanics). (Table 1) experienced spontaneous abortion at week 7 at 12 months is almost 90%, regardless of EDSS *Discontinued at patient’s request. Disclosure: •Average duration of therapy was 10.1 ± 4.4 months. score ≤3 or >3. (Figure 2) **All returned back to baseline after steroid treatment and switching back to NTZ ***Both patients returned back to baseline while remaining on teriflunomide. One patient subsequently requested to be switched back to NTZ The authors have nothing to declare.
Recommended publications
  • AUBAGIO* (Teriflunomide)
    AUBAGIO* (teriflunomide) * Bolded medications are the preferred products RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION IN PA PROGRAM Background Aubagio (teriflunomide) is indicated for relapsing multiple sclerosis. It is an anti-inflammatory immunomodulatory agent, which inhibits dihydroorotate dehydrogenase, a mitochondrial enzyme involved in de novo pyrimidine synthesis. The exact mechanism by which teriflunomide exerts its therapeutic effect in multiple sclerosis is unknown, but may involve a reduction in the number of activated lymphocytes in the CNS (1). Regulatory Status FDA-approved indication: Aubagio is a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor indicated for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), to include clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing- remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease (1). The Aubagio label includes a boxed warning citing the risk of hepatotoxicity. Aubagio is contraindicated in patients with severe hepatic impairment. Severe liver injury, including fatal liver failure, has been reported in patients treated with leflunomide, which is indicated for rheumatoid arthritis. A similar risk would be expected for teriflunomide because recommended doses of teriflunomide and leflunomide result in a similar range of plasma concentrations of teriflunomide. Concomitant use of Aubagio with other potentially hepatotoxic drugs may increase the risk of severe liver injury. Obtain transaminase and bilirubin levels within 6 months before initiation of Aubagio and monitor ALT levels at least monthly for six months after starting Aubagio. If drug induced liver injury is suspected, discontinue Aubagio and start an accelerated elimination procedure. Elimination of Aubagio can be accelerated by administration of cholestyramine or activated charcoal for 11 days (1). Aubagio also carries a boxed warning on the risk of teratogenicity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Change of Fingolimod Patient Profiles Over Time
    Journal of Personalized Medicine Article The Change of Fingolimod Patient Profiles over Time: A Descriptive Analysis of Two Non-Interventional Studies PANGAEA and PANGAEA 2.0 Tjalf Ziemssen 1,* and Ulf Schulze-Topphoff 2 1 Zentrum für Klinische Neurowissenschaften, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, D-01307 Dresden, Germany 2 Novartis Pharma GmbH, D-90429 Nuremberg, Germany; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: (1) Background: Fingolimod (Gilenya®) was the first oral treatment for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS). Since its approval, the treatment landscape has changed enormously. (2) Methods: Data of PANGAEA and PANGAEA 2.0, two German real-world studies, were descriptively analysed for possible evolution of patient profiles and treatment behavior. Both are prospective, multi-center, non-interventional, long-term studies on fingolimod use in RRMS in real life. Data of 4229 PANGAEA patients (recruited 2011–2013) and 2441 PANGAEA 2.0 patients (recruited 2015–2018) were available. Baseline data included demographics, RRMS characteristics and disease severity. (3) Results: The mean age of PANGAEA and PANGAEA 2.0 patients was similar (38.8 vs. 39.2 years). Patients in PANGAEA 2.0 had shorter disease duration (7.1 vs. 8.2 years) and fewer relapses in the year before baseline (1.2 vs. 1.6). Disease severity at baseline estimated by Citation: Ziemssen, T.; EDSS and SDMT was lower in PANGAEA 2.0 patients compared to PANGAEA (EDSS difference Schulze-Topphoff, U. The Change of 1.0 points; SDMT difference 3.3 points). (4) Conclusions: The results hint at an influence of changes in Fingolimod Patient Profiles over the treatment guidelines and the label on fingolimod patients profiles over time.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Review(S) Clinical Review
    CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH APPLICATION NUMBER: 22-527 MEDICAL REVIEW(S) CLINICAL REVIEW Application Type NDA Application Number 22-527 Priority or Standard P Submit Date 12-21-2009 Received Date 12-21-2009 PDUFA Goal Date 9-21-2010 Division / Office FDA/ODE1 Reviewer Name Heather D. Fitter Review Completion Date August 26, 2010 Established Name Fingolimod (Proposed) Trade Name Gilenya Therapeutic Class S1P receptor modulator Applicant Novartis Formulation(s) Oral tablets Dosing Regimen 0.5 mg Indication(s) To reduce the frequency of relapses and delay the progression of disability in relapsing MS Intended Population(s) Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis Template Version: March 6, 2009 Clinical Review Heather D. Fitter, M.D. NDA 22-527 Fingolimod Table of Contents 1 RECOMMENDATIONS/RISK BENEFIT ASSESSMENT......................................... 7 1.1 Recommendation on Regulatory Action ............................................................. 7 1.2 Risk Benefit Assessment.................................................................................... 8 2 INTRODUCTION AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND ........................................ 8 2.1 Product Information ............................................................................................ 9 2.2 Table of Currently Available Treatments for the Proposed Indication................. 9 2.3 Availability of Proposed Active Ingredient in the United States ........................ 12 2.4 Important Safety Issues with Consideration to Related Drugs.........................
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Changes in Disease Modifying Treatment in The
    Abstract number 4CPS-109 ATC code: L04 - Immunosuppressive agents ANALYSIS OF CHANGES IN DISEASE MODIFYING TREATMENT IN THE MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS Arancón Pardo A1, Sobrino Jiménez C1, Rodríguez Martín E1, Bilbao Gómez-Martino C1, Villamañán Bueno E1, Jiménez-Nácher I1, Moreno Ramos F1, González Fernández A1, Moreno Palomino M1, García-Trevijano M1, Herrero Ambrosio A1 1Hospital Universitario La Paz, Pharmacy Department, Madrid, Spain. BACKGROUND AND IMPORTANCE •Currently, several disease modifying drugs are approved for multiple sclerosis (MS). IFNβ-1b, IFNβ-1a, pegIFNβ-1a, glatiramer acetate, teriflunomide and dimethylfumarate are indicated for first-line therapy. Second-line treatment includes natalizumab, fingolimod, alemtuzumab, cladribine and ocrelizumab. When disease progresses, modifications between first-line drugs or switch to a second-line drug are proposed. It is essential to know their efficacy and security profiles, in order to decide which is the best option for each patient. AIM AND OBJECTIVES •To assess the reasons for changes in disease modifying drugs in MS patients in routine clinical practice. MATERIAL AND METHODS •We included patients with MS who changed their treatment between 23rd May 2018 and 26th March 2019. •The collected data were: Disease modifying drugs Reasons for treatment Duration of initial therapy before and after the modification modification RESULTS •42 patients had any treatment modification during the study period. •26 (62%) were women and mean age was 47 years (SD 9.3). •Median duration of previous treatment was 44 months (3-282). •Previous treatment was a first-line drug in 34 patients (81%) and modified treatment was a first-line drug in 24 (57%).
    [Show full text]
  • Patient Focused Disease State and Assistance Programs
    Patient Focused Disease State and Assistance Programs Medication Medication Toll-free Brand (Generic) Website number Additional Resources Allergy/Asthma Xolair (omalizumab) xolair.com 1-866-4-XOLAIR lung.org Cardiovascular Pradaxa (dabigatran) pradaxa.com 877-481-5332 heart.org Praluent (alirocumab) praluent.com 844-PRALUENT thefhfoundation.org Repatha (evolocumab) repatha.com 844-REPATHA Tikosyn (dofetilide) tikosyn.com 800-879-3477 Crohn’s Disease Cimzia (certolizumab pegol) cimzia.com 866-4-CIMZIA crohnsandcolitis.com Humira (adalimumab) humira.com 800-4-HUMIRA crohnsforum.com Stelara (ustekinumab) stelarainfo.com 877-STELARA Dermatology Cosentyx (secukinumab) cosentyx.com 844-COSENTYX psoriasis.org Dupixent (dupilumab) dupixent.com 844-DUPIXENT nationaleczema.org Enbrel (etanercept) enbrel.com 888-4-ENBREL Humira (adalimumab) humira.com 800-4-HUMIRA Otezla (apremilast) otezla.com 844-4-OTEZLA Stelara (ustekinumab) stelarainfo.com 877-STELARA Taltz (ixekizumab) taltz.com 800-545-5979 Hematology Aranesp (darbepoetin alfa) aranesp.com 805-447-1000 chemocare.com Granix (filgrastim) granixrx.com 888-4-TEVARX hematology.org Jadenu (deferasirox) jadenu.com 888-282-7630 Neulasta (pegfilgrastim) neulasta.com 800-77-AMGEN Neupogen (filgrastim) neupogen.com 800-77-AMGEN Nivestym (filgrastim) nivestym.com 800-879-3477 Zarxio (filgrastim) zarxio.com 800-525-8747 Zytiga (abiraterone) zytiga.com 800-JANSSEN Hepatitis B Baraclude (entecavir) baraclude.com 800-321-1335 cdc.gov Viread (tenofovir disoproxil viread.com 800-GILEAD-5 hepb.org fumarate)
    [Show full text]
  • COMPARISON of the WHO ATC CLASSIFICATION & Ephmra/Intellus Worldwide ANATOMICAL CLASSIFICATION
    COMPARISON OF THE WHO ATC CLASSIFICATION & EphMRA/Intellus Worldwide ANATOMICAL CLASSIFICATION: VERSION June 2019 2 Comparison of the WHO ATC Classification and EphMRA / Intellus Worldwide Anatomical Classification The following booklet is designed to improve the understanding of the two classification systems. The development of the two systems had previously taken place separately. EphMRA and WHO are now working together to ensure that there is a convergence of the 2 systems rather than a divergence. In order to better understand the two classification systems, we should pay attention to the way in which substances/products are classified. WHO mainly classifies substances according to the therapeutic or pharmaceutical aspects and in one class only (particular formulations or strengths can be given separate codes, e.g. clonidine in C02A as antihypertensive agent, N02C as anti-migraine product and S01E as ophthalmic product). EphMRA classifies products, mainly according to their indications and use. Therefore, it is possible to find the same compound in several classes, depending on the product, e.g., NAPROXEN tablets can be classified in M1A (antirheumatic), N2B (analgesic) and G2C if indicated for gynaecological conditions only. The purposes of classification are also different: The main purpose of the WHO classification is for international drug utilisation research and for adverse drug reaction monitoring. This classification is recommended by the WHO for use in international drug utilisation research. The EphMRA/Intellus Worldwide classification has a primary objective to satisfy the marketing needs of the pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, a direct comparison is sometimes difficult due to the different nature and purpose of the two systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Teriflunomide (Aubagio) Reference Number: CP.PHAR.262 Effective Date: 08.01.16 Last Review Date: 05.20 Line of Business: Commercial, HIM, Medicaid Revision Log
    Clinical Policy: Teriflunomide (Aubagio) Reference Number: CP.PHAR.262 Effective Date: 08.01.16 Last Review Date: 05.20 Line of Business: Commercial, HIM, Medicaid Revision Log See Important Reminder at the end of this policy for important regulatory and legal information. Description Teriflunomide (Aubagio®) is a pyrimidine synthesis inhibitor. FDA Approved Indication(s) Aubagio is indicated for the treatment of relapsing forms of multiple sclerosis (MS), to include clinically isolated syndrome, relapsing-remitting disease, and active secondary progressive disease, in adults. Policy/Criteria Provider must submit documentation (such as office chart notes, lab results or other clinical information) supporting that member has met all approval criteria. It is the policy of health plans affiliated with Centene Corporation® that Aubagio is medically necessary when the following criteria are met: I. Initial Approval Criteria A. Multiple Sclerosis (must meet all): 1. Diagnosis of one of the following (a, b, or c): a. Clinically isolated syndrome; b. Relapsing-remitting MS; c. Secondary progressive MS; 2. Prescribed by or in consultation with a neurologist; 3. Age ≥ 18 years; 4. Aubagio is not prescribed concurrently with other disease modifying therapies for MS (see Appendix D); 5. At the time of request, member is not receiving leflunomide; 6. Dose does not exceed 14 mg (1 tablet) per day. Approval duration: 6 months B. Other diagnoses/indications 1. Refer to the off-label use policy for the relevant line of business if diagnosis is NOT specifically listed under section III (Diagnoses/Indications for which coverage is NOT authorized): CP.PMN.53 for Medicaid. II. Continued Therapy A.
    [Show full text]
  • The Real-World Patient Experience of Fingolimod and Dimethyl Fumarate
    Wicks et al. BMC Res Notes (2016) 9:434 DOI 10.1186/s13104-016-2243-8 BMC Research Notes RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access The real‑world patient experience of fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate for multiple sclerosis Paul Wicks1* , Lawrence Rasouliyan2, Bo Katic1, Beenish Nafees3, Emuella Flood3 and Rahul Sasané4 Abstract Background: Oral disease-modifying therapies offer equivalent or superior efficacy and greater convenience versus injectable options. Objectives: To compare patient-reported experiences of fingolimod and dimethyl fumarate. Methods: Adult relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients treated with fingolimod or dimethyl fumarate were recruited from an online patient community and completed an online survey about treatment side effects, discon- tinuation, and satisfaction. Results: 281 patients in four groups completed the survey: currently receiving fingolimod (CF, N 61), currently receiving dimethyl fumarate (CDMF, N 129), discontinued fingolimod (DF, N 32) and discontinued= dimethyl fuma- rate (DDMF, N 59). Reasons for treatment= switch were to take oral treatment =(CF: 63.3 %, CDMF: 61.8 %), side effects of prior medication= (CF: 67.3 %, CDMF: 44.1 %) and lack of effectiveness of prior medication (CF: 38.8 %, CDMF: 31.4 %). Main reasons for discontinuation were side effects (DF: 46.9 %, DDMF: 67.8 %) and lack of effectiveness (DF: 25.0 %, DDMF: 15.3 %). CDMF patients had an increased risk of abdominal pain, flushing, diarrhea, and nausea. Treatment satisfaction was highest among CF patients followed by CDMF, DF, and then DDMF patients. Conclusions: Discontinuation was driven by experience of side effects. Patients currently taking dimethyl fumarate were more likely to experience a side effect versus patients currently taking fingolimod.
    [Show full text]
  • Fingolimod (Gilenya)
    Fingolimod (Gilenya) This factsheet is about fingolimod, a Whether you’ll be offered this or any other DMT disease modifying therapy (DMT) for depends on whether you qualify for it based relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS). on guidelines used by your neurologist. These come from NICE and the Association of British At the end of this factsheet you’ll find out where Neurologists and are based on a drug’s Europe- you can get more information on this drug, other wide licence. drugs for MS and the benefits of early treatment. In England there are also rules from NHS England about who can have the different DMTs and when. This factsheet doesn’t cover everything about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also have this drug and shouldn’t be used in place of their own guidelines for many DMTs. advice from your MS specialist team. For more information speak to them and read the online information from the drug’s makers (see the Whether you can have a drug also depends on section More information and support). if the NHS where you live will pay for it. NHS England guidelines on this tend to follow what What is fingolimod? NICE says. Fingolimod is a drug that was first given a licence These people can have fingolimod: to be used against relapsing MS in the UK in 2011. In England and Northern Ireland: In 2012 the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) gave the go ahead for it to be • People with ‘highly active relapsing remitting used on the NHS.
    [Show full text]
  • Immunosuppressive Therapy DR
    OCTOBER 2017 Immunosuppressive Therapy DR. ANDREW MACKIN BVSc BVMS MVS DVSc FANZCVSc DipACVIM Professor of Small Animal Internal Medicine Mississippi State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Starkville, MS A number of established immunosuppressive agents have been used in small animal medicine for many decades. Some have justifiably fallen out of favor whereas, for others, new and promising uses have been described in the recent veterinary literature. Established “old favorites” have included cyclophosphamide, chlorambucil, azathioprine, danazol and vincristine, although cyclophosphamide and danazol are rarely used as immunosuppressive agents these days. Several potent immunosuppressive drugs developed over the past few decades in human medicine have recently made the leap to our small animal patients, and our use of drugs such as cyclosporine, leflunomide and mycophenolate is growing. Cyclophosphamide Cyclophosphamide, a cell-cycle nonspecific nitrogen mustard derivative alkylating agent, was one of the first major chemotherapeutic agents approved by the FDA over 50 years ago, and has since become very well-established in human medicine as both an antineoplastic drug and as an immunosuppressive agent. Within a few years of FDA approval in the late 1950s, the use of cyclophosphamide for the prevention of transplant rejection in experimental models and for the treatment of both neoplasia and immune-mediated diseases was described in both dogs and cats. Cyclophosphamide has persisted to this day as one of the core drugs used in many small animal cancer chemotherapeutic protocols. In contrast, after many years as one of the most commonly immunosuppressive drugs utilized to treat immune-mediated diseases in cats and dogs, the use of cyclophosphamide as an immunosuppressive agent in small animal patients has in the past two decades essentially faded away.
    [Show full text]
  • Persistence with Dimethyl Fumarate in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: a Population-Based Cohort Study
    Eur J Clin Pharmacol https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-017-2366-4 PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND PRESCRIPTION Persistence with dimethyl fumarate in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis: a population-based cohort study Irene Eriksson1,2 & Thomas Cars3 & Fredrik Piehl4 & Rickard E. Malmström1,5 & Björn Wettermark1,2 & Mia von Euler1,5,6 Received: 21 June 2017 /Accepted: 30 October 2017 # The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication Abstract DMF discontinuation (treatment gap ≥ 60 days) or switching Purpose To describe patients initiating dimethyl fumarate to another DMT. (DMF) and measure persistence with DMF, discontinuation, Results The study included 400 patients (median follow- and switching in treatment-naïve DMF patients and patients up = 2.5 years). The majority had previously been treated with switching to DMF from other multiple sclerosis disease- other DMTs (61%). Throughout the follow-up period, 124 modifying treatments (DMTs). patients (31%) discontinued DMF and 114 patients (29%) Methods A population-based cohort study of all Stockholm switched treatment. Overall, 34% of patients initiating DMF County residents initiating DMF from 9 May 2014 until 31 stopped treatment within 1 year and only 43% of patients May 2017. All data were derived from a regional database that remained on DMF at 2 years from treatment initiation. collects individual-level data on healthcare and drug utiliza- Conclusions DMF had a rapid market uptake likely due to tion of all residents. The study outcomes were persistence with high expectations held by both patients and clinicians. DMF and DMF discontinuation and switching to other DMTs. However, persistence with DMF in routine clinical practice Persistence was measured as the number of days until either was found to be low.
    [Show full text]
  • CIRCULAR 73 of 2015: Entry and Verification (E&V) Criteria for Identifying Beneficiaries with Risk Factors in Medical Scheme
    CIRCULAR Reference: E&V version 9.1 Contact person: Carrie-Anne Cairncross Tel: 012 431 0412 Fax: 086 687 3979 E-mail: [email protected] Date: 11 December 2015 CIRCULAR 73 OF 2015: Entry and verification (E&V) criteria for identifying beneficiaries with risk factors in medical schemes The Council for Medical schemes (CMS) has published the guidelines for identifying medical scheme beneficiaries with risk factors in accordance with the entry and verification criteria. (http://www.medicalschemes.com/files/ITAP%20Documents/Vers9_1OfEVGdlns20151211.pdf) It is important that medical schemes and administrators take note of the updated version 9.1 and implement all the changes made in the guideline before they extract the data for the 2015 submission. The changes are listed below. 1. Parts 3 and 4, which relate to preparation and submission of data has been amended to reflect the submission of Scheme Risk Measurement (SRM) data via the Healthcare Utilisation Annual Statutory Returns (ASR) System. 2. Changes to clinical entry end verification criteria: 2.1. The provider type was changed from any registered medical practitioner to specialist ophthalmologist (Table 17) 2.2. Glaucoma was added to the list of conditions that need specialist diagnosis as stated in paragraph 5.17 2.3. Rheumatoid Arthritis was removed from paragraph 5.17 2.4. The note on the Rheumatoid Arthritis table i.e. “Where a patient is not using disease modifying anti-rheumatic medicines, the diagnosis must be verified by a specialist physician or rheumatologist” has been updated to state “Where a patient is using disease modifying anti-rheumatic medicines, the diagnosis must be verified by a specialist physician or rheumatologist.” 2.5.
    [Show full text]