This study evaluated azacitidine as treatment of minimal residual disease (MRD) determined by a sensitive donor chimerism analysis of CD34+ blood cells to pre-empt relapse in patients with CD34+ myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) or acute myeloid leukemia (AML) after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). At a median of 169 days after HSCT, 20/59 prospectively screened patients experienced a decrease of CD34+ donor chimerism to <80% and received four azacitidine cycles (75 mg/m2/day for 7 days) while in complete hematologic remission. A total of 16 patients (80%) responded with either increasing CD34+ donor chimerism to ⩾80% (n=10; 50%) or stabilization (n=6; 30%) in the absence of relapse. Stabilized patients and those with a later drop of CD34+ donor chimerism to <80% after initial response were eligible for subsequent azacitidine cycles. A total of 11 patients (55%) received a median of 4 (range, 1–11) additional cycles. Eventually, hematologic relapse occurred in 13 patients (65%), but was delayed until a median of 231 days (range, 56–558) after initial decrease of CD34+ donor chimerism to <80%. In conclusion, pre-emptive azacitidine treatment has an acceptable safety profile and can substantially prevent or delay hematologic relapse in patients with MDS or AML and MRD after allogeneic HSCT.

Aim: To investigate a 1-week once-daily triple therapy with esomeprazole, moxifloxacin, and rifabutin for rescue therapy of Helicobacter pylori infection. Methods: Consecutive patients (n = 103) with at least one previous treatment failure and H. pylori infection resistant to both metronidazole and clarithromycin were treated with esomeprazole 40 mg, moxifloxacin 400 mg, and rifabutin 300 mg, given once daily for 7 days. Eradication was confirmed by histology and culture. CYP2C19 status was determined by polymerase chain reactionrestriction fragment length polymorphism. Results: Intention-to-treat and per-protocol eradication rates were 77.7% (68.4 -85.3) and 83.3% (74.4 -90.2). Five patients discontinued prematurely (4.8%). Eradication was achieved in 93.1% of poor/intermediate metabolizers and in 78.8% of homozygous extensive metabolizers ( p = .14). Eradication rates in patients with one, two, three, and four or more previous failures were 78.3%, 89.6%, 68.6%, and 88.9%, respectively ( p = .21). The regimen was effective in seven of nine patients who previously failed quadruple therapy. Post-treatment resistance to moxifloxacin and rifabutin was detected in two (12.5%) and five (31%) patients after treatment failure. Conclusion: Once-daily triple therapy with esomeprazole, moxifloxacin, and rifabutin is a promising, safe, and convenient regimen for rescue therapy of H. pylori infection that may serve as a valuable alternative to quadruple therapy, particularly for patients with intolerance to amoxicillin.

BackgroundSales data indicate a major increase in the prescription of antifungal drugs in the last two decades. Many new agents for systemic use that only recently have become available are likely to be prescribed intensively in acute care hospitals. Sales data do not adequately describe the developments of drug use density. Given the concerns about the potential emergence of antifungal drug resistance, data on drug use density, however, may be valuable and are needed for analyses of the relationship between drug use and antifungal resistance.MethodsHospital pharmacy records for the years 2001 to 2003 were evaluated, and the number of prescribed daily doses (PDD, defined according to locally used doses) per 100 patient days were calculated to compare systemic antifungal drug use density in different medical and surgical service areas between five state university hospitals.ResultsThe 3-year averages in recent antifungal drug use for the five hospitals ranged between 8.6 and 29.3 PDD/100 patient days in the medical services (including subspecialties and intensive care), and between 1.1 and 4.0 PDD/100 patient days in the surgical services, respectively. In all five hospitals, systemic antifungal drug use was higher in the hematology-oncology service areas (mean, 48.4, range, 24 to 101 PDD/100 patient days, data for the year 2003) than in the medical intensive care units (mean, 18.3, range, 10 to 33 PDD/100) or in the surgical intensive care units (mean, 10.7, range, 6 to 18 PDD/100). Fluconazole was the most prescribed antifungal drug in all areas. In 2003, amphotericin B consumption had declined to 3 PDD/100 in the hematology-oncology areas while voriconazole use had increased to 10 PDD/100 in 2003.ConclusionHematology-oncology services are intense antifungal drug prescribing areas. Fluconazole and other azol antifungal drugs are the most prescribed drugs in all patient care areas while amphotericin B use has considerably decreased. The data may be useful as a benchmark for focused interventions to improve prescribing quality.

In patients with relapsed or refractory (r/r) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), long-term disease control can only be achieved by allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We studied the safety and efficacy of clofarabine-based salvage therapy. The study was designed as phase II, multicenter, intent-to-transplant (ITT) study. A total of 84 patients with r/r AML were enrolled. All patients received at least one cycle of CLARA (clofarabine 30 mg/m(2) and cytarabine 1 g/m(2), days 1-5). Chemo-responsive patients with a donor received HSCT in aplasia after first CLARA. Generally, HSCT was performed as soon as possible. The conditioning regimen consisted of clofarabine (4 × 30 mg/m(2)) and melphalan (140 mg/m(2)). The median patient age was 61 years (range 40-75). On day 15 after start of CLARA, 26% of patients were in a morphologically leukemia-free state and 79% exposed a reduction in bone marrow blasts. Overall, 67% of the patients received HSCT within the trial. The primary end point, defined as complete remission after HSCT, was achieved by 60% of the patients. According to the ITT, overall survival at 2 years was 43% (95% confidence interval (CI), 32-54%). The 2-year disease-free survival for transplanted patients was 52% (95% CI, 40-69%). Clofarabine-based salvage therapy combined with allogeneic HSCT in aplasia shows promising results in patients with r/r AML.

The purpose of this analysis of health economic studies in the field of oncology was to investigate among sponsored studies whether any relationship could be established between the type of sponsorship and (1) type of economic analysis, (2) health technology assessed, (3) sensitivity analysis performed, (4) publication status, and (5) qualitative conclusions about costs. The Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED, version 1995(HEED, version -2000 was searched on the basis of oncological ICD-9 codes, sponsorship, and comparative studies. This search yielded a total of 150 eligible articles. Their evaluations were prepared independently by two investigators, on the basis of specific criteria. When evaluators disagreed, a third investigator provided a deciding evaluation. There was no statistically significant relationship between the type of sponsorship and sensitivity analysis performed (P ¼ 0.29) or publication status (P ¼ 0.08). However, we found a significant relationship between the types of sponsorship and of economic analysis (P ¼ 0.004), the health technology assessed (Po0.0001), and qualitative cost assessment (P ¼ 0.002). Studies with industrial sponsorship were 2.56 (99% lower confidence interval (CI) ¼ 1.28) times more likely to involve cost-minimisation analyses, were 0.04 (99% higher CI ¼ 0.39) times less likely to investigate diagnostic screening methods, and were 1.86 (99% lower CI ¼ 1.21) times more likely to reach positive qualitative conclusions about costs than studies supported by nonprofit organisations. In conclusion, our results suggest that there is a greater probability that industry-sponsored economic studies in the field of oncology tend to be costminimisation analyses, to investigate less likely diagnostic screening methods, and to draw positive qualitative conclusions about costs, as compared to studies supported by nonprofit organisations. There has long been discussion as to whether commercial sponsorship of clinical studies produces a conflict of interests (Davidson, 1986;Rochon et al, 1994;Krimsky and Rothenberg, 1998;Smith, 1998;Stelfox et al, 1998;Montaner et al, 2001;Morin et al, 2002). However, only two applied studies deal with this issue for health economic studies conducted in the field of oncology. Friedberg et al (1999) found that, in the case of new drugs developed for oncological use (including haematopoietic growth factors, antiemetics, taxanes), pharmaceutical sponsorship of economic analyses was associated with a low likelihood of reporting unfavourable results. Subsequently, however, the same authors moderated these conclusions about costs in a comparison of industry vs nonprofit-sponsored economic analyses of six novel drugs used in oncology (Knox et al, 2001). After reviewing all the available pharmacoeconomic reports, they established the differences in study reporting -but not in the types of journals in which the studies were published -between pharmaceutical companyand non-profit-sponsored studies. They concluded that these results, and in particular the...