DOCSLIB.ORG

Pharmacological Interventions in Children and Young People Comparisons Included in This Clinical Question Antidepressant (Desipramine) Vs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Pharmacological Interventions in Children and Young People Comparisons Included in This Clinical Question Antidepressant (Desipramine) Vs 17.5.1 Pharmacological interventions in children and young people Comparisons Included in this Clinical Question Antidepressant (Desipramine) vs. Antidepressant (Imipramine) vs. Atomoxetine (Continued on Effective Atomoxetine + Fluoxetine vs. Placebo Placebo dose) vs. Atomoxetine (Decreased Atomoxetine alone dose) BIEDERMAN1989 KRATOCHVIL2005 DONNELLY1986 NEWCORN2006 SPENCER2002C Atomoxetine vs. Placebo Bupropion vs. Placebo Clonidine + Clonidine vs. Placebo Methylphenidate/Dexamphetamine vs. ALLEN2005 CASAT1987 KURLAN2002 Placebo + BOHNSTEDT2005 CONNERS1996B Methylphenidate/Dexamphetamine BROWN2006 HAZELL2003 KELSEY2004 MICHELSON2001 MICHELSON2002 MICHELSON2004 SPENCER2002A SPENCER2002B WEISS2005 WERNICKE2004A Dexmethylphenidate vs. Placebo Methylphenidate + Clonidine vs. Methylphenidate + Thioridazine vs. Methylphenidate + Thioridazine vs. Placebo Methylphenidate Placebo WIGAL2004 KURLAN2002 GITTELMANKLEIN1976A GITTELMANKLEIN1976A Methylphenidate + Thioridazine vs. Methylphenidate 0.3mg/kg vs. Methylphenidate 0.3mg/kg vs. Methylphenidate 0.4mg/kg vs. Thioridazine Methylphenidate 0.5mg/kg Methylphenidate 0.7mg/kg Methylphenidate 0.8mg/kg GITTELMANKLEIN1976A KUPIETZ1988 KUPIETZ1988 IALONGO1994 Methylphenidate 0.7mg/kg vs. Methylphenidate vs. Bupropion Methylphenidate vs. Clonidine Methylphenidate vs. Methylphenidate 0.5mg/kg Dexmethylphenidate BARRICKMAN1995 KURLAN2002 KUPIETZ1988 WIGAL2004 Methylphenidate vs. Pemoline CONNERS1980 Methylphenidate vs. Placebo Methylphenidate vs. Thioridazine Modafinil vs. Placebo Nicotine vs. Placebo BUTTER1983 GITTELMANKLEIN1976A BIEDERMAN2005 SHYTLE2002 CONNERS1980 BIEDERMAN2006B FINDLING2006 GREENHILL2006A GITTELMANKLEIN1976A RUGINO2003 GREENHILL2002 SWANSON2006 GREENHILL2006 IALONGO1994 KOLLINS2006 KUPIETZ1988 KURLAN2002 LERER1977 PLISZKA2000 WIGAL2004 WILENS2006A WOLRAICH2001 Pemoline vs. Placebo Stimulants (+ Placebo) vs. Placebo Sustained-release methylphenidate vs. TCAs vs. Clonidine Immediate-release methylphenidate CONNERS1980 SINGER1995 WOLRAICH2001 TCAs vs. Placebo Thioridazine vs. Placebo SINGER1995 GITTELMANKLEIN1976A Characteristics of Included Studies Methods Participants Outcomes Interventions Notes ALLEN2005 Study Type: RCT n= 148 Data Used Group 1N= 76 Research from Lilly ADHDRS Inattentive (Change from BL: Research Laboratories Study Description: Comorbidity (Specific: Tic Age: Mean 11 Range 7-17 Atomoxetine. Mean dose 1.33mg/kg/day - means, SDs) Disorder, & non-specific). Sex: 131 males 17 females INITIAL WASHOUT:10-18 day(screening) Sample consisted of 'Children' and ADHDRS Total (Change from Baseline: DOSE: 3wk titration phase- 'Adolescents' (percentages not reported). Diagnosis: means, SDs) began:0.5mg/kg/day,titrated to 30% Chronic Motor Tic Disorder by YGTSS >5, ADHDRS Hyper/Impuls.(Change from BL: 1.0mg/kg/day at end of wk 1, then titrated Type of Analysis: ITT (P's:prov.data @ BL & 1 K-SADS-PL & Clinical Interview means, SDs) up/down (final range 0.5-1.5 mg/kg/day, post-BL assessment) Data Not Used max daily dose 110mg) ADMIN:Daily as divided dose (morning & Blindness: Double blind 22% Oppositional defiant disorder by DSM-IV Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS) - late afternoon) Duration (days): Mean 140 outcome not relevant Group 2N= 72 3% ADHD Hyperactive/Impulsive subtype by CGI-ADHD/Psych-S - outcome not relevant Setting: Recruited from 14 sites in USA, DSM-IV, K-SADS-PL, ADHDRS-IV-Parent-Inv CGI-Tic/Neuro-S - outcome not relevant Placebo - INITIAL WASHOUT:10-18 day primarily hospitals and clinics. ADMIN:Daily as divided dose(morning & Tic Symptom Self Report (TSSR) - outcome late afternoon) Notes: Randomisation carried out by a not relevant 36% ADHD Inattentive subtype by DSM-IV, K- NB.: No mention of form/appearance of computerised Interactive Voice Response SADS-PL, ADHDRS-IV-Parent-Inv CGI-Overall-S - outcome not relevant either Placebo or Atomoxetine - assume System. Notes: TAKEN AT:Baseline & Endpoint (Not tablet form, identical?? Info on Screening Process: 10-18 day 7% Major depression, GAD, or OCD by DSM-IV clear when assesments were made between screening and washout period - physical exam, these times) vital sign measurements, medical history etc. LOST TO F.U.: ATX 2/76, PLB 1/72 (Not incl.in 79% Tourette's Syndrome by YGTSS >5, K- 166 patients entered screening, 148 randomly ITT analysis) SADS-PL & Clinical Interview assisgned, 145 provided data at baseline and at least one postbaseline assesment. 61% ADHD Combined subtype by DSM-IV, K- SADS-PL, ADHDRS-IV-Parent-Inv 18% Chronic Vocal Tic Disorder by YGTSS >5, K-SADS-PL & Clinical Interview Exclusions: Weight<20 kg, or >80kg; Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (C-YBOCS) >15, or diagnosis of OCD severe enough to require medication; Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R) >40, or diagnosis of depression severe enough to require medication; history of bipolar disorder/psychosis; seizure disorder; current use of any psychotropic medication other than study drug. Notes: YGTSS= Yale Global Tic Severity Scale ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv = Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder Rating Scale-IV-Parent Version: Investigator administered and scored (NB. Needed to be >1.5 SDs above age and sex norm) Baseline: Mean (SD) YGTSS = 22 (8) (mild to moderate level of tic severity) NB: ATX group:significantly greater impairment in their mean ADHDRS-IV-Parent:Inv total and hyperactivity sub- scale scores (Change scores extracted). ADHDRS Total Mean (SD): ATX: 38.9 (9.1); PLB: 35.0 (9.5) ADHDRS Inattentive: ATX: 21.6 (4.1); PLB: 20.5 (5.0) ADHDRS Hyperactive/Implusive: ATX: 17.2 (6.8) PLB: 14.6 (7.2) Results from this paper: Internal validity: 1.1 Well covered 1.2 Well covered 1.3 Well covered 1.4 Well covered 1.5 Adequately addressed 1.6 Adequately addressed 1.7 Well covered 1.8 ATX 65% (49/76), PLB 72% (52/72) 1.9 Well covered 1.10 Not addressed Overall assessment of the study: 2.1: 1+ BARRICKMAN1995 Study Type: RCT crossover n= 15 Data Used Group 1N= 9 Funding: NR IOWA-Conners Abb.Teacher Rating Study Description: Comorbidity (Non-specific: Age: Range 7-17 Methylphenidate. Mean dose 0.8 +/- 0.1 Scale(mean change) CD, ODD, developmental learning disorders). Sex: 12 males 3 females mg/kg/day - WASHOUT: 14days Sample consisted of 'Children' and Data Not Used DOSE: Wk1 0.4mg/kg/day; Wk2-3 titrated 'Adolescents' (percentages not reported). Diagnosis: WISC-R - Baseline only; not relevant outcome to 0.7+/-0.2mg/kg/day-fixed wks4-6. 100% ADHD by DSM-III-R K-SADS-E - Baseline only ADMIN: 3 Type of Analysis: Completer capsules/day(morn,noon,4pm)[MPH Conner's Continous Performance Test - active morn & noon, & active 4pm if Blindness: Double blind Baseline only; not relevant outcome Exclusions: IQ<70; any other Axis I, II, or III diagnoses required]. Duration (days): Mean 42 (screened with Schedule for Affectiveness Disorders and Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale - Baseline Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Epidemiologic only; not relevant outcome Setting: Outpatient clinic; USA. Version (K-SADS-E); any seizure history; eating disorders; Clinical Global Impression Scale (NIMH) - Notes: RANDOMISATION: No detail; only current use of MOAI Baseline only 'randomised'. NB. Assume equal n's Children's Depression Inventory - Baseline randomised to each group. Baseline: Several scales (Iowa-Conners, CGI, Children's only; not relevant outcome NB. Duration is to point of crossover only Depression Inventory, Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Matching Familiar Figures Task - Baseline Group 2N= 9 Scale, etc.) administered at baseline, but baseline scores only; not relevant outcome Info on Screening Process: Consecutive Bupropion. Mean dose 2.6 +/- 0.5 not reported. recruitment of p's willing to participate. No Rey Auditory-Verbal Learning Test - Baseline mg/kg/day - WASHOUT: 14days information reported re. No's only; not relevant outcome DOSE: Wk1 1.5mg/kg/day; Wk2 screened/excluded/turn-down trial. IOWA-Conners Abb.Parent Rating Scale - no 2.0mg/kg/day; 3wk titrated to 3.3+/- NB. 18 p's randomised into trial, paper only pre-cross-over data 1.2mg/kg/day-fixed wks4-6. reported demographics for n=15 (reported Notes: TAKEN AT: All outcomes taken at ADMIN: 3 here). baseline; at endpoint: only history, physical capsules/day(morn,noon,4pm)[BUP examinations and Conners scales repeated. active morn & 4pm, & active noon if LOST TO FOLLOW-UP: 3/18 (unknown required]. allocation); completer analysis. Results from this paper: Internal validity 1.1 Well covered 1.2 Not reported adequately 1.3 Not reported adequately 1.4 Well covered 1.5 Not reported- crossover trial 1.6 Adequately assessed 1.7 Adequately assessed 1.8 17% from whole sample (3/18 dropped out at some point, unclear whether this before crossover or after) 1.9 Poorly addressed 1.10 Not applicable Overall assessment of the study 2.1: 1+ BIEDERMAN1989 Study Type: RCT n= 62 Data Used Group 1N= 31 Funding: Supported in part AE: Decreased appetite (dichotomous data) by grants from Merrell-Dow Study Description: Comorbidity: 'Non-specific' Age: Range 6-17 Placebo - WASHOUT: see excl.'s Pharmaceutical Company; comorbidity. AE: Abdominal pain (dichotomous data) DOSE/ADMIN: Increased to nearest Sex: 58 males 4 females Charlupski Foundation; Sample: 67% 'Children'; 33% 'Adolescents'. AE: Loss of >=5% body weight (dichot data) conveniant no.of pills(identical DSI)to USPHS (NIMH) award and Diagnosis: yield dose >=0.5mg/kg by wk3 & resulted Type of Analysis: ? (P's who completed >=3wks Leaving the Study Early due to Adverse Event grants. 37% Conduct disorder by Unspecified
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Yerevan State Medical University After M. Heratsi
    YEREVAN STATE MEDICAL UNIVERSITY AFTER M. HERATSI DEPARTMENT OF PHARMACY Balasanyan M.G. Zhamharyan A.G. Afrikyan Sh. G. Khachaturyan M.S. Manjikyan A.P. MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY HANDOUT for the 3-rd-year pharmacy students (part 2) YEREVAN 2017 Analgesic Agents Agents that decrease pain are referred to as analgesics or as analgesics. Pain relieving agents are also called antinociceptives. An analgesic may be defined as a drug bringing about insensibility to pain without loss of consciousness. Pain has been classified into the following types: physiological, inflammatory, and neuropathic. Clearly, these all require different approaches to pain management. The three major classes of drugs used to manage pain are opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, and non opioids with the central analgetic activity. Narcotic analgetics The prototype of opioids is Morphine. Morphine is obtained from opium, which is the partly dried latex from incised unripe capsules of Papaver somniferum. The opium contains a complex mixture of over 20 alkaloids. Two basic types of structures are recognized among the opium alkaloids, the phenanthrene (morphine) type and the benzylisoquinoline (papaverine) type (see structures), of which morphine, codeine, noscapine (narcotine), and papaverine are therapeutically the most important. The principle alkaloid in the mixture, and the one responsible for analgesic activity, is morphine. Morphine is an extremely complex molecule. In view of establish the structure a complicated molecule was to degrade the: compound into simpler molecules that were already known and could be identified. For example, the degradation of morphine with strong base produced methylamine, which established that there was an N-CH3 fragment in the molecule.
    [Show full text]
  • Dosulepin Prescribing
    SAFETY BULLETIN: DOSULEPIN PRESCRIBING In December 2007, the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued safety advice around prescribing of dosulepin, related to the narrow margin between therapeutic doses and potentially fatal doses. Nevertheless, dosulepin continues to be prescribed widely. Over eight years after the safety advice was published, prescribing of dosulepin in the Dorset area remains high. In the South West area, Dorset CCG was the highest prescriber of dosulepin for the 2015/16 financial year (3.238% of all antidepressant items). Of the 209 CCGs in the UK, Dorset is the fourteenth highest prescriber of dosulepin, and well above the national average of 2.111%. The following points summarise the reasons that dosulepin is not recommended for prescribing nationally, and in Dorset: Dosulepin has a small margin of safety between the (maximum) therapeutic dose and potentially fatal doses. The NICE guideline on depression in adults recommends that dosulepin should not be prescribed for adults with depression because evidence supporting its tolerability relative to other antidepressants is outweighed by the increased cardiac risk and toxicity in overdose. Dosulepin has also been used ‘off label’ in other indications such as fibromyalgia and neuropathic pain. However the evidence for use in in this way is weak, and is not recommended. The lethal dose of dosulepin is relatively low and can be potentiated by alcohol and other CNS depressants. Dosulepin overdose is associated with high mortality and can occur rapidly, even before hospital treatment can be received. Onset of toxicity occurs within 4-6 hours. Every year, up to 200 people in England and Wales fatally overdose with dosulepin.
    [Show full text]
  • Dose Equivalents of Antidepressants Evidence-Based Recommendations
    Journal of Affective Disorders 180 (2015) 179–184 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Affective Disorders journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jad Research report Dose equivalents of antidepressants: Evidence-based recommendations from randomized controlled trials Yu Hayasaka a,n, Marianna Purgato b, Laura R Magni c, Yusuke Ogawa a, Nozomi Takeshima a, Andrea Cipriani b,d, Corrado Barbui b, Stefan Leucht e, Toshi A Furukawa a a Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine/School of Public Health, Yoshida Konoe-cho, Sakyo- ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan b Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Section of Psychiatry, University of Verona, Policlinico “G.B.Rossi”, Pzz.le L.A. Scuro, 10, Verona 37134, Italy c Psychiatric Unit, Istituto di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico, Centro San Giovanni di Dio, Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy d Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK e Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstr. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany article info abstract Article history: Background: Dose equivalence of antidepressants is critically important for clinical practice and for Received 4 February 2015 research. There are several methods to define and calculate dose equivalence but for antidepressants, Received in revised form only daily defined dose and consensus methods have been applied to date. The purpose of the present 10 March 2015 study is to examine dose equivalence of antidepressants by a less arbitrary and more systematic method. Accepted 12 March 2015 Methods: We used data from all randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose trials comparing fluoxetine or Available online 31 March 2015 paroxetine as standard drugs with any other active antidepressants as monotherapy in the acute phase Keywords: treatment of unipolar depression.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (Pips) for Older People (Modified from ‘STOPP/START 2’ O’Mahony Et Al 2014)
    Appendix A: Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (PIPs) for older people (modified from ‘STOPP/START 2’ O’Mahony et al 2014) Consider holding (or deprescribing - consult with patient): 1. Any drug prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication 2. Any drug prescribed beyond the recommended duration, where well-defined 3. Any duplicate drug class (optimise monotherapy) Avoid hazardous combinations e.g.: 1. The Triple Whammy: NSAID + ACE/ARB + diuretic in all ≥ 65 year olds (NHS Scotland 2015) 2. Sick Day Rules drugs: Metformin or ACEi/ARB or a diuretic or NSAID in ≥ 65 year olds presenting with dehydration and/or acute kidney injury (AKI) (NHS Scotland 2015) 3. Anticholinergic Burden (ACB): Any additional medicine with anticholinergic properties when already on an Anticholinergic/antimuscarinic (listed overleaf) in > 65 year olds (risk of falls, increased anticholinergic toxicity: confusion, agitation, acute glaucoma, urinary retention, constipation). The following are known to contribute to the ACB: Amantadine Antidepressants, tricyclic: Amitriptyline, Clomipramine, Dosulepin, Doxepin, Imipramine, Nortriptyline, Trimipramine and SSRIs: Fluoxetine, Paroxetine Antihistamines, first generation (sedating): Clemastine, Chlorphenamine, Cyproheptadine, Diphenhydramine/-hydrinate, Hydroxyzine, Promethazine; also Cetirizine, Loratidine Antipsychotics: especially Clozapine, Fluphenazine, Haloperidol, Olanzepine, and phenothiazines e.g. Prochlorperazine, Trifluoperazine Baclofen Carbamazepine Disopyramide Loperamide Oxcarbazepine Pethidine
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Review Officer Manual
    Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Medical Review Officer Manual for Federal Agency Workplace Drug Testing Programs EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2010 Note: This manual applies to Federal agency drug testing programs that come under Executive Order 12564 dated September 15, 1986, section 503 of Public Law 100-71, 5 U.S.C. section 7301 note dated July 11, 1987, and the Department of Health and Human Services Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (73 FR 71858) dated November 25, 2008 (effective October 1, 2010). This manual does not apply to specimens submitted for testing under U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs (49 CFR Part 40). The current version of this manual and other information including MRO Case Studies are available on the Drug Testing page under Medical Review Officer (MRO) Resources on the SAMHSA website: http://www.workplace.samhsa.gov Previous Versions of this Manual are Obsolete 3 Table of Contents Chapter 1. The Medical Review Officer (MRO)........................................................................... 6 Chapter 2. The Federal Drug Testing Custody and Control Form ................................................ 7 Chapter 3. Urine Drug Testing ...................................................................................................... 9 A. Federal Workplace Drug Testing Overview..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2006/0110428A1 De Juan Et Al
    US 200601 10428A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2006/0110428A1 de Juan et al. (43) Pub. Date: May 25, 2006 (54) METHODS AND DEVICES FOR THE Publication Classification TREATMENT OF OCULAR CONDITIONS (51) Int. Cl. (76) Inventors: Eugene de Juan, LaCanada, CA (US); A6F 2/00 (2006.01) Signe E. Varner, Los Angeles, CA (52) U.S. Cl. .............................................................. 424/427 (US); Laurie R. Lawin, New Brighton, MN (US) (57) ABSTRACT Correspondence Address: Featured is a method for instilling one or more bioactive SCOTT PRIBNOW agents into ocular tissue within an eye of a patient for the Kagan Binder, PLLC treatment of an ocular condition, the method comprising Suite 200 concurrently using at least two of the following bioactive 221 Main Street North agent delivery methods (A)-(C): Stillwater, MN 55082 (US) (A) implanting a Sustained release delivery device com (21) Appl. No.: 11/175,850 prising one or more bioactive agents in a posterior region of the eye so that it delivers the one or more (22) Filed: Jul. 5, 2005 bioactive agents into the vitreous humor of the eye; (B) instilling (e.g., injecting or implanting) one or more Related U.S. Application Data bioactive agents Subretinally; and (60) Provisional application No. 60/585,236, filed on Jul. (C) instilling (e.g., injecting or delivering by ocular ion 2, 2004. Provisional application No. 60/669,701, filed tophoresis) one or more bioactive agents into the Vit on Apr. 8, 2005. reous humor of the eye. Patent Application Publication May 25, 2006 Sheet 1 of 22 US 2006/0110428A1 R 2 2 C.6 Fig.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Dosulepin in Tension Type Headache and Midfacial Pain a Randomised Controlled Study
    IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS) e-ISSN: 2279-0853, p-ISSN: 2279-0861.Volume 19, Issue 3 Ser.4 (March. 2020), PP 10-14 www.iosrjournals.org Efficacy of Dosulepin in Tension Type Headache and Midfacial Pain a Randomised Controlled Study Corresponding Author: XXXXX Abstract Introduction: Patients presenting with pain in the facial region are commonly reffered to Otorhinolaryngologist. Due to the various causative factors causing pain in the facial region, the proper diagnosis and more importantly the skill to rule out the sinogenic pain plays an important role in management. Tension type headache and midfacial pain are often misdiagnosed and treated wrongly and thus add to the morbidity of patients. Of all the medications that are used for the treatment, most provide minimal, short term relief with side effects on prolong use. Dosulepin a Tricyclic Antidepressant helps in relieving pain with minimal side effects as compared to other Tricyclic Antidepressants. Aims and Objective: To study the efficacy of dosulepin in patients attending outpatient Department of otorhinolaryngology of Silchar Medical College and Hospital Methods: 130 patients attending outpatient Department of ENT and Head and Neck Surgery of Silchar Medical College & Hospital, from September 2017 to August 2018 with complaints of headache diagnosed as tension type headache and midfacial pain were evaluated. Neurological and radiographic examinations were performed prior to therapy and local cause of pain in the facial region were ruled out. Together with this we also performed psychic evaluation for those patients who could not be withdrawn from current medication and then to start them on our current medication.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Prescribing Group MEDICINE REVIEW
    Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Prescribing Group MEDICINE REVIEW Name of Medicine / Trimipramine (Surmontil®) Class (generic and brand) Licensed indication(s) Treatment of depressive illness, especially where sleep disturbance, anxiety or agitation are presenting symptoms. Sleep disturbance is controlled within 24 hours and true antidepressant action follows within 7 to 10 days. Licensed dose(s) Adults: For depression 50-75 mg/day initially increasing to 150-300 mg/day in divided doses or one dose at night. The maintenance dose is 75-150 mg/day. Elderly: 10-25 mg three times a day initially. The initial dose should be increased with caution under close supervision. Half the normal maintenance dose may be sufficient to produce a satisfactory clinical response. Children: Not recommended. Purpose of Document To review information currently available on this class of medicines, give guidance on potential use and assign a prescribing classification http://www.cambsphn.nhs.uk/CJPG/CurrentDrugClassificationTable.aspx Annual cost (FP10) 10mg three times daily: £6,991 25mg three times daily: £7,819 150mg daily: £7,410 300mg daily: £14,820 Alternative Treatment Options within Class Tricyclic Annual Cost CPCCG Formulary Classification Antidepressant (FP10) Amitriptyline (75mg) Formulary £36 Lofepramine (140mg) Formulary £146 Imipramine (75mg) Non-formulary £37 Clomipramine (75mg) Non-formulary £63 Trimipramine (75mg). TBC £7,819 Nortriptyline (75mg) Not Recommended (pain) £276 Doxepin (150mg) TBC £6,006 Dosulepin (75mg) Not Recommended (NICE DO NOT DO) £19 Dosages are based on possible maintenance dose and are not equivalent between medications Recommendation It is recommended to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG JPG members and through them to local NHS organisations that the arrangements for use of trimipramine are in line with restrictions agreed locally for drugs designated as NOT RECOMMENDED:.
    [Show full text]
  • (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub
    US 20130289061A1 (19) United States (12) Patent Application Publication (10) Pub. No.: US 2013/0289061 A1 Bhide et al. (43) Pub. Date: Oct. 31, 2013 (54) METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS TO Publication Classi?cation PREVENT ADDICTION (51) Int. Cl. (71) Applicant: The General Hospital Corporation, A61K 31/485 (2006-01) Boston’ MA (Us) A61K 31/4458 (2006.01) (52) U.S. Cl. (72) Inventors: Pradeep G. Bhide; Peabody, MA (US); CPC """"" " A61K31/485 (201301); ‘4161223011? Jmm‘“ Zhu’ Ansm’ MA. (Us); USPC ......... .. 514/282; 514/317; 514/654; 514/618; Thomas J. Spencer; Carhsle; MA (US); 514/279 Joseph Biederman; Brookline; MA (Us) (57) ABSTRACT Disclosed herein is a method of reducing or preventing the development of aversion to a CNS stimulant in a subject (21) App1_ NO_; 13/924,815 comprising; administering a therapeutic amount of the neu rological stimulant and administering an antagonist of the kappa opioid receptor; to thereby reduce or prevent the devel - . opment of aversion to the CNS stimulant in the subject. Also (22) Flled' Jun‘ 24’ 2013 disclosed is a method of reducing or preventing the develop ment of addiction to a CNS stimulant in a subj ect; comprising; _ _ administering the CNS stimulant and administering a mu Related U‘s‘ Apphcatlon Data opioid receptor antagonist to thereby reduce or prevent the (63) Continuation of application NO 13/389,959, ?led on development of addiction to the CNS stimulant in the subject. Apt 27’ 2012’ ?led as application NO_ PCT/US2010/ Also disclosed are pharmaceutical compositions comprising 045486 on Aug' 13 2010' a central nervous system stimulant and an opioid receptor ’ antagonist.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Characterization of the Dopaminergic Psychostimulant Sydnocarb As an Allosteric Modulator of the Human Dopamine Transporter
    biomedicines Article Functional Characterization of the Dopaminergic Psychostimulant Sydnocarb as an Allosteric Modulator of the Human Dopamine Transporter Shaili Aggarwal 1, Mary Hongying Cheng 2 , Joseph M. Salvino 3 , Ivet Bahar 2 and Ole Valente Mortensen 1,* 1 Department of Pharmacology and Physiology, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19102, USA; [email protected] 2 Department of Computational and Systems Biology, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA; [email protected] (M.H.C.); [email protected] (I.B.) 3 The Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The dopamine transporter (DAT) serves a critical role in controlling dopamine (DA)- mediated neurotransmission by regulating the clearance of DA from the synapse and extrasynaptic regions and thereby modulating DA action at postsynaptic DA receptors. Major drugs of abuse such as amphetamine and cocaine interact with DATs to alter their actions resulting in an enhancement in extracellular DA concentrations. We previously identified a novel allosteric site in the DAT and the related human serotonin transporter that lies outside the central orthosteric substrate- and cocaine-binding pocket. Here, we demonstrate that the dopaminergic psychostimulant sydnocarb is a ligand of this novel allosteric site. We identified the molecular determinants of the interaction between sydnocarb and DAT at the allosteric site using molecular dynamics simulations. Biochemical- Citation: Aggarwal, S.; Cheng, M.H.; Salvino, J.M.; Bahar, I.; Mortensen, substituted cysteine scanning accessibility experiments have supported the computational predictions O.V. Functional Characterization of by demonstrating the occurrence of specific interactions between sydnocarb and amino acids within the Dopaminergic Psychostimulant the allosteric site.
    [Show full text]
  • Compositions and Methods for Selective Delivery of Oligonucleotide Molecules to Specific Neuron Types
    (19) TZZ ¥Z_T (11) EP 2 380 595 A1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION (43) Date of publication: (51) Int Cl.: 26.10.2011 Bulletin 2011/43 A61K 47/48 (2006.01) C12N 15/11 (2006.01) A61P 25/00 (2006.01) A61K 49/00 (2006.01) (2006.01) (21) Application number: 10382087.4 A61K 51/00 (22) Date of filing: 19.04.2010 (84) Designated Contracting States: • Alvarado Urbina, Gabriel AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR Nepean Ontario K2G 4Z1 (CA) HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL • Bortolozzi Biassoni, Analia Alejandra PT RO SE SI SK SM TR E-08036, Barcelona (ES) Designated Extension States: • Artigas Perez, Francesc AL BA ME RS E-08036, Barcelona (ES) • Vila Bover, Miquel (71) Applicant: Nlife Therapeutics S.L. 15006 La Coruna (ES) E-08035, Barcelona (ES) (72) Inventors: (74) Representative: ABG Patentes, S.L. • Montefeltro, Andrés Pablo Avenida de Burgos 16D E-08014, Barcelon (ES) Edificio Euromor 28036 Madrid (ES) (54) Compositions and methods for selective delivery of oligonucleotide molecules to specific neuron types (57) The invention provides a conjugate comprising nucleuc acid toi cell of interests and thus, for the treat- (i) a nucleic acid which is complementary to a target nu- ment of diseases which require a down-regulation of the cleic acid sequence and which expression prevents or protein encoded by the target nucleic acid as well as for reduces expression of the target nucleic acid and (ii) a the delivery of contrast agents to the cells for diagnostic selectivity agent which is capable of binding with high purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Prohibited Substances List
    Prohibited Substances List This is the Equine Prohibited Substances List that was voted in at the FEI General Assembly in November 2009 alongside the new Equine Anti-Doping and Controlled Medication Regulations(EADCMR). Neither the List nor the EADCM Regulations are in current usage. Both come into effect on 1 January 2010. The current list of FEI prohibited substances remains in effect until 31 December 2009 and can be found at Annex II Vet Regs (11th edition) Changes in this List : Shaded row means that either removed or allowed at certain limits only SUBSTANCE ACTIVITY Banned Substances 1 Acebutolol Beta blocker 2 Acefylline Bronchodilator 3 Acemetacin NSAID 4 Acenocoumarol Anticoagulant 5 Acetanilid Analgesic/anti-pyretic 6 Acetohexamide Pancreatic stimulant 7 Acetominophen (Paracetamol) Analgesic/anti-pyretic 8 Acetophenazine Antipsychotic 9 Acetylmorphine Narcotic 10 Adinazolam Anxiolytic 11 Adiphenine Anti-spasmodic 12 Adrafinil Stimulant 13 Adrenaline Stimulant 14 Adrenochrome Haemostatic 15 Alclofenac NSAID 16 Alcuronium Muscle relaxant 17 Aldosterone Hormone 18 Alfentanil Narcotic 19 Allopurinol Xanthine oxidase inhibitor (anti-hyperuricaemia) 20 Almotriptan 5 HT agonist (anti-migraine) 21 Alphadolone acetate Neurosteriod 22 Alphaprodine Opiod analgesic 23 Alpidem Anxiolytic 24 Alprazolam Anxiolytic 25 Alprenolol Beta blocker 26 Althesin IV anaesthetic 27 Althiazide Diuretic 28 Altrenogest (in males and gelidngs) Oestrus suppression 29 Alverine Antispasmodic 30 Amantadine Dopaminergic 31 Ambenonium Cholinesterase inhibition 32 Ambucetamide Antispasmodic 33 Amethocaine Local anaesthetic 34 Amfepramone Stimulant 35 Amfetaminil Stimulant 36 Amidephrine Vasoconstrictor 37 Amiloride Diuretic 1 Prohibited Substances List This is the Equine Prohibited Substances List that was voted in at the FEI General Assembly in November 2009 alongside the new Equine Anti-Doping and Controlled Medication Regulations(EADCMR).
    [Show full text]