scholarly journals Initial Experience of the Levodopa–Entacapone–Carbidopa Intestinal Gel in Clinical Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 254
Author(s):  
Mezin Öthman ◽  
Erik Widman ◽  
Ingela Nygren ◽  
Dag Nyholm

Patients in fluctuating stages of Parkinson’s disease (PD) require device-aided treatments. Continuous infusion of levodopa–carbidopa intestinal gel (LCIG) is a well-proven option in clinical practice. We now report the first clinical experience of levodopa–entacapone–carbidopa intestinal gel (LECIG) therapy. An observational study of the first patients to start LECIG in our clinic was performed. Twenty-four patients (11 females, 13 males) were included. The median age was 71.5 years, and the median duration since PD diagnosis was 15.5 years. The median treatment duration was 305 days. Median doses were: 6.0 mL as morning dose, 2.5 mL/h as infusion rate, and 1.0 mL as extra dose. Half of the patients were switched directly from LCIG. These patients express improvements in the size and weight of the pump. Furthermore, most of them considered the new pump to be improved regarding user-friendliness. Six patients discontinued LECIG, three due to diarrhea, one due to hallucinations and two deceased (one cardiac arrest and one COVID-19). LECIG has shown to be possible to use in patients with PD, efficacy and safety as expected. Patients are generally happy with the size and usability of the pump, but some technical improvements of the software are warranted, as well as larger, prospective studies.

2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 245-251 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Russi ◽  
Vera Damuzzo ◽  
Marco Chiumente ◽  
Jacopo Pigozzo ◽  
Marco Cesca ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-21
Author(s):  
D. P. Kamilova ◽  
M. M. Ovchinnikova ◽  
E. Sh. Ablyaeva ◽  
M. M. Leviashvili ◽  
N. S. Stuleva ◽  
...  

Introduction. The efficacy and safety of biosimilar follitropin alpha have been demonstrated in randomized blinded prospective clinical trials of phases I and III. Unfortunately, there is a gap between the clinical trials and real clinical practice data. The real-world patient data helps to create an evidence-based background for successful implementation of medicine at everyday practice in a nonselected population.Aim: to investigate the efficacy of follitropin alpha biosimilar therapy (Primapur®) in nonselected real-world population.Materials and Methods. A retrospective observational anonymized cohort study of follitropin alpha biosimilar (Primapur®) as a pre-filled pen injector with a dose adjustment of 5 IU, aimed to investigate its efficacy and safety in a nonselected population with indications to assisted reproductive technologies (ART) was carried out. The ovarian stimulation (OS) protocols included: monotherapy protocols with using only Primapur®; mixed protocols (recombinant and urinary-derived gonadotropins); short protocols with using antagonists of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and long protocols with GnRH agonists. The stimulation protocols were analyzed with Primapur® application for at least 5 days.Results. The overall clinical efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles (N = 5484) was: oocytes retrieved - 9.5 ± 7.2, mature (MII) - 6.8 ± 6.6, fertilized (2PN) - 6.1 ± 5.8, clinical pregnancy per ET (PR) - 38.4 %. Mixed gonadotropin protocols (N = 2625) vs. monotherapy with Primapur® (N = 2859): oocytes retrieved - 8.6 ± 6.8 vs. 10.3 ± 7.4 (p < 0.001), mature (MII) - 6.7 ± 6.2 vs. 7.7 ± 6.9 (p < 0.001), fertilized (2PN) - 5.8 ± 5.2 vs. 7.2 ± 6.2 (p < 0.001). There were statistically significant differences between oocyte yields in mixed vs. monotherapy protocols due to subgroup differences, including age, body mass index (BMI) and IVF/ICSI attempts. No statistically significant differences were found for PR: 39.3 % vs. 37.6 % (p = 0.314). Monotherapy protocols with GnRH antagonist OS (N = 2183) vs. GnRH agonist (N = 676) revealed: oocytes retrieved - 10.5 ± 7.5 vs. 9.6 ± 7.0 (p = 0.032), mature (MII) - 7.6 ± 6.9 vs. 6.7 ± 5.7 (p < 0.001), fertilized (2PN) - 7.3 ± 6.3 vs. 5.7 ± 5.0 (p < 0.001). There were statistically significant differences between BMI and IVF/ICSI attempts. No statistically significant differences were found for PR: 37.9 % vs. 35.9 % (p = 0.482). All medicines were well tolerated and no serious adverse reactions were reported.Conclusion. This was the largest retrospective observational study conducted in the field of fertility in Russia and involved 5484 ovarian stimulation protocols at 35 IVF clinics. The obtained results demonstrated similar clinical efficacy for follitropin alpha biosimilar Primapur® in different OS protocols in real clinical practice. 


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1450.1-1450
Author(s):  
A. Kivitz ◽  
J. E. Gottenberg ◽  
M. Bergman ◽  
M. Iglesias-Rodriguez ◽  
G. St John ◽  
...  

Background:Due to strict inclusion/exclusion criteria, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may not represent the heterogeneous rheumatoid arthritis (RA) population encountered in routine clinical practice; longitudinal observational studies are needed to complement learnings from RCTs. The PROspective sarilumab (preFILled syringe/pen) multinational, obsErvational Study (PROFILE) is collecting information on treatment strategies and sarilumab usage patterns and adherence in routine clinical practice for up to 52 weeks in patients with moderate-to-severe RA.Objectives:In this planned interim analysis, we report baseline characteristics of patients prescribed sarilumab in routine clinical practice and the efficacy and safety of sarilumab after 12 weeks of treatment.Methods:Adults with RA (2010 ACR/EULAR criteria) can enroll in this multinational, open-label, single-arm, Phase 4 study if, per their treating physicians’ judgment, they are to initiate treatment with sarilumab as mono- or combination (with csDMARD) therapy, in accordance with local labeling/prescribing information, ≤4 weeks prior to or ≤8 weeks after study Visit 1 (signed informed consent and disease characteristics documented); 1000 patients are planned for enrollment. Concomitant use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/tsDMARDs) is not permitted. Primary endpoint is change from baseline in Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) score at Weeks 24 and 52. Statistical analyses are descriptive.Results:This analysis included 291 patients who reached, or discontinued before, the Week 12 visit, of whom 108 (37%) received sarilumab mono- and 183 (63%) received combination therapy. At baseline (BL), the monotherapy group had longer disease duration and a smaller proportion of b/tsDMARD-naïve patients than the combination therapy group (9.7 vs 8.7 years and 39% vs 53%). Baseline and week 12 CDAI values were available in 132 patients. Mean (SD) BL CDAI scores for the monotherapy and combination groups were 26.7 (13.1) and 27.0 (14.4). At Week 12, CDAI scores were improved by −9.1 (17.5) and −10.5 (13.9), and 37% (19/51) of patients receiving monotherapy and 48% (45/93) of those receiving combination therapy had achieved low disease activity (CDAI ≤10). Remission (CDAI ≤2.8) was achieved by 12% (6/51) of monotherapy and 20% (19/93) of combination-therapy patients. Overall, 55 (19%) discontinued sarilumab: 27 (9%) for an adverse event (AE), 19 (7%) for insufficient response, 4 (1%) for noncompliance, 5 (2%) for other reasons. Severe AEs leading to treatment discontinuation were leukopenia and neutropenia (n=1 patient), peripheral swelling (1), lung cancer (1), and fatigue (1). Ten patients (3%) had a treatment-emergent serious AE.Conclusion:In this planned interim analysis, sarilumab mono- or combination therapy resulted in improved disease outcomes, assessed by CDAI, at Week 12, an important treat-to-target time point. Safety and efficacy were consistent with Phase 3 trial findings, with no new safety signals, although interim results must be interpreted with caution. Future analyses will evaluate efficacy and safety after 24 and 52 weeks of treatment in routine clinical practice.Acknowledgments:Study funding and medical writing support (Laura George, Adelphi Communications Ltd, Macclesfield, UK) were provided by Sanofi Genzyme (Cambridge, USA) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Tarrytown, USA) in accordance with Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines.Disclosure of Interests:Alan Kivitz Shareholder of: AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, GSK, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi, Consultant of: AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim,,Flexion, Genzyme, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, SUN Pharma Advanced Research, UCB, Paid instructor for: Celgene, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene, Flexion, Genzyme, Horizon, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer Inc, Regeneron, Sanofi, Jacques-Eric Gottenberg Grant/research support from: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Martin Bergman Shareholder of: Johnson & Johnson – stockholder, Consultant of: AbbVie, BMS, Celgene Corporation, Genentech, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi – consultant, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Celgene Corporation, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi – speakers bureau, Melitza Iglesias-Rodriguez Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Gregory St John Shareholder of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Employee of: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Chunfu Qiu Shareholder of: Sanofi Genzyme, Employee of: Sanofi Genzyme, Hubert van Hoogstraten Shareholder of: Sanofi, Employee of: Sanofi, Louis Bessette Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, UCB Pharma, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20612-e20612
Author(s):  
Carmen Areses Manrique ◽  
Francisco J. Afonso Afonso ◽  
Francisca Vazquez Rivera ◽  
Martin Lázaro Quintela ◽  
Sergio Vazquez-Estevez ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (06) ◽  
pp. 877-888
Author(s):  
Samo Zver ◽  
Simona Avcin ◽  
Ovidiu Bedreag ◽  
Sanja Bizilj ◽  
Vanja Ecrulj ◽  
...  

Introduction: An echinocandin, such as micafungin, is recommended as first-line treatment for invasive Candida infections in immunocompromised patients. This multicenter, observational, prospective, non- interventional study evaluated the real-world use of micafungin in clinical practice in Slovenia and Romania, as this remains unexplored. Methodology: The primary endpoint was evaluation of micafungin use, including rationale for prescription, treatment duration, and daily dose. Secondary endpoints included recordings of patient baseline characteristics and evaluations of efficacy and safety. Across 11 centers in two countries, 118 patients (18 children [< 16 years] and 100 adults [≥ 16 years]) received micafungin for the first time according to their clinic’s standard practice. Results: Micafungin was prescribed for treatment in 57.6% of patients and for prophylaxis in 40.7% of patients. The median (range) treatment duration was 9.0 (0 – 54) days and 13.0 (2 – 6)] days, respectively. The median dose of micafungin was higher than recommended for children receiving prophylaxis or treatment for invasive candidiasis and for adults receiving prophylaxis. Fever was the most commonly observed clinical sign at baseline (16 children [88.9%] and 31 adults [31%]) and hematologic malignancy was the most frequent primary diagnosis at admission (11 children [61.1%] and 40 adults [40%]). Candida species were the most commonly identified causal agents of invasive fungal infections (2 children [11.1%] and 48 adults [48%]). Conclusions: The efficacy and safety profiles of micafungin use in Slovenia and Romania based on clinician’s own experiences in local clinical practice were consistent with those reported in other real-world studies.


2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS156-TPS156 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Kunzmann ◽  
R. G. Linke ◽  
P. Ruf ◽  
H. Lindhofer ◽  
M. Hennig ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document