Pregabalin is a commonly used therapy currently recommended as first-line treatment for a number of neuropathic pain (NeP) conditions. Since licensure, a number of clinical trials of pregabalin in different NeP conditions have been completed from which additional data on safety and tolerability can be drawn. In this analysis, patient-level data from 31 randomized clinical trials of pregabalin in peripheral NeP sponsored by Pfizer were pooled and assessed for incidence of adverse events (AEs). Incidence by age, disease condition, and race, together with risk differences and time to onset and resolution of AEs, was assessed. In total, 7,510 patients were included: 4,884 on pregabalin (representing 805 patient-years treatment) and 2,626 on placebo. Pregabalin vs. placebo risk analysis identified 9 AEs with a risk difference, for which the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was > 1%: dizziness (risk difference [95% CI]: (17.0 [15.4 to 18.6]), somnolence (10.8 [9.5 to 12.1]), peripheral edema (5.4 [4.3 to 6.4]), weight increase (4.7 [3.9 to 5.5]), dry mouth (2.9 [2.1 to 3.8]), constipation (2.3 [1.5 to 3.2]), blurred vision (2.2 [1.6 to 2.9]), balance disorder (2.0 [1.5 to 2.5]), and euphoric mood (1.6 [1.2 to 2.0]). The most common AEs, dizziness and somnolence, typically emerged within the first 1 to 2 weeks of treatment and resolved 1 to 2 weeks later, without resulting in cessation of treatment. The data from this review provide information, indicating which AEs may be expected in patients treated with pregabalin, and suggest that careful dose titration to the highest tolerable dose is the most appropriate approach in clinical practice.

IntroductionShort- and long-acting granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (G-CSFs) are approved for the reduction of febrile neutropenia. A systematic literature review was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs reporting the use of G-CSFs following chemotherapy treatment.MethodsMedline®/Medline in-process, Embase®, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies published between January 2003 and June 2016. A hand-search of relevant conference proceedings was conducted for meetings held between 2012 and 2016. Eligible studies were restricted to those reporting a direct, head-to-head comparison of short- versus long-acting G-CSFs for reduction of chemotherapy-induced febrile neutropenia. Risk-of-bias assessments were performed for full publications only.ResultsThe search strategy yielded 4044 articles for electronic screening. Thirty-six publications were evaluated for the meta-analysis: 11 of 12 RCTs and 2 of 24 non-RCTs administered doses of the short-acting G-CSF filgrastim for ≥ 7 days. In RCT studies, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes of interest between short- and long-acting G-CSFs. In non-RCTs, the overall risk was lower with long-acting G-CSF than with short-acting G-CSF for incidence of febrile neutropenia [overall relative risk (RR) = 0.67, P  = 0.023], hospitalizations (overall RR = 0.68, P  < 0.05), and chemotherapy dose delays (overall RR = 0.68, P  = 0.020).ConclusionsOverall, the weight of evidence from RCTs indicates little difference in efficacy between the short- and long-acting G-CSFs if dosed according to recommended guidelines. There is some evidence for greater efficacy for long-acting G-CSFs in non-RCTs, which may be a result of under-dosing of short-acting G-CSFs in general practice in real-world usage.FundingHospira Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer Inc in September 2015, and Pfizer Inc.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0798-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, often have comorbid anxiety and depression that affects their quality of life (QoL) and management of their IBD. Areas covered A systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted to identify articles and conference abstracts on comorbid anxiety and depression in IBD patients using MEDLINE ® and Embase ® (January 2003 − June 2018). The impact of these psychological comorbidities on QoL and economic burden was examined. Non-pharmacologic interventions and disease-specific unmet clinical needs associated with these comorbidities were also evaluated. Expert opinion There is evidence that individual and group-based cognitive behavioral therapy can reduce rates of anxiety and depression in adults and adolescents with IBD. Patients with IBD and anxiety or depression had an increased risk of hospitalization, emergency department visits, readmission, and used outpatient services more often than people without these conditions. Several disease-specific unmet clinical needs for IBD patients were identified. These included lack of reimbursement for mentalhealth care, inconsistent screening for psychological comorbidities and patients not consulting mentalhealth professionals when needed. IBD patients may benefit from integrated medical and psychological treatment, and should be considered for behavioral treatment. Plain Language Summary Background People with IBD may have mental-health conditions, such as anxiety and depression. These conditions can affect people's quality of life and how they manage their IBD. What did this review look at?We found 79 publications on anxiety or depression in people with IBD, published between January 2003 and June 2018.In people with IBD and anxiety or depression, researchers looked at:the impact on health-related quality of life and healthcare utilization, including access to and reimbursement for mental-health services how effective interventions that do not involve the use of medicines were (known as non-pharmacologic therapy). What were the main findings from this review? People with IBD and anxiety or depression were more likely to be admitted to hospital and visit emergency departments than people without these conditions.Access to mental-health care varied and some people with IBD were not screened for depression. Individual and group-based talking therapy (known as cognitive behavioral therapy) reduced rates of anxiety and depression in some people with IBD. What were the main conclusions from this review?We found evidence that people with IBD and anxiety or depression may benefit from certain nonpharmacologic interventions. However, many people with IBD and anxiety or depression did not have access to mental-health services.Healthcare professionals should address gaps in patient care to improve outcomes in people with IBD and anxiety or depression. See Additional file 1 for an infographic plain language summary.

Biologic therapies target aberrant pathways in diseases including diabetes, cancer and autoimmune disorders. Despite recent scientific advances, patient access to these agents can be limited. Biosimilars are designed to be highly similar to the originator biologic, targeting the same biological pathways, with comparable efficacy and safety. Biosimilars have the advantage of lower treatment costs, offering the potential for increased clinical use and patient access. Several biosimilars are approved for clinical use in the USA and Europe; however, there is a lack of awareness about biosimilars among healthcare providers and patients. This overview of the scientific basis of biosimilars and current indications aim to enhance discussions with patients and increase understanding of the role of biosimilars in individual treatment plans.

Biosimilars have the potential to broaden patient access to biologics and provide cost savings for health care systems. During the development of a biosimilar, data that directly compare the proposed biosimilar with the reference product are required. Such comparative data are generated in a stepwise hierarchical process that begins with extensive laboratory-based structural analyses and functional assays. This initial analytical phase serves as the foundation for the demonstration of biosimilarity and is followed by nonclinical in vivo testing (if required) and then clinical evaluation, including a comparative pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics study that is usually conducted in healthy volunteers. The development program typically culminates with a comparative clinical efficacy study. The aim of this study is to confirm clinical equivalence of the potential biosimilar and reference product on the basis of prespecified margins, using a study population and efficacy end point that are sufficiently sensitive for detecting potential product-related differences. Such studies also include detailed analyses of safety as well as evaluation of immunogenicity. As biosimilars become more widely available in oncology, especially with recent regulatory approvals of rituximab, trastuzumab, and bevacizumab biosimilars, it is critically important that clinicians understand how the comparative clinical study differs from a traditional phase III efficacy and safety study in the development of a novel biologic originator product. Here, we review the role of comparative clinical studies in biosimilar development, with a focus on trials conducted to support approved trastuzumab biosimilars. We discuss the study populations and end points used, extrapolation of indications, and the confirmatory nature of these studies within the totality of evidence supporting biosimilarity.