Ceftaroline fosamil achieved high clinical cure and microbiological response rates in patients hospitalized with CAP of PORT risk class III or IV. Ceftaroline fosamil was well tolerated, with a safety profile that is similar to that of ceftriaxone and other cephalosporins. Ceftaroline fosamil is a promising agent for the treatment of CAP.

Rationale: Excessive daytime sleepiness is a common disabling symptom in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pitolisant, a selective histamine H3 receptor antagonist with wake-promoting effects, for the treatment of daytime sleepiness in patients with moderate to severe obstructive sleep apnea refusing continuous positive airway pressure treatment. Methods: In an international, multicenter, double-blind, randomized (3:1), placebo-controlled, parallel-design trial, pitolisant was individually titrated at up to 20 mg/d over 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score. Key secondary endpoints were maintenance of wakefulness assessed on the basis of the Oxford Sleep Resistance test, safety, Clinical Global Impression of severity, patient's global opinion, EuroQol quality-oflife questionnaire, and Pichot fatigue questionnaire. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 268 patients with obstructive sleep apnea (75% male; mean age, 52 yr; apnea-hypopnea index, 49/h; baseline sleepiness score, 15.7) were randomized (200 to pitolisant and 68 to placebo) and analyzed on an intention-totreat basis. The Epworth Sleepiness Scale score was reduced more with pitolisant than with placebo (22.8; 95% confidence interval, 24.0 to 21.5; P , 0.001). Wake maintenance tests were not improved. The Pichot fatigue score was reduced with pitolisant. The overall impact of pitolisant was confirmed by both physicians' and patients' questionnaires. Adverse event incidence, mainly headache, insomnia, nausea, and vertigo, was similar in the pitolisant and placebo groups (29.5% and 25.4%, respectively), with no cardiovascular or other significant safety concerns. Conclusions: Pitolisant significantly reduced self-reported daytime sleepiness and fatigue and improved patient-reported outcomes and physician disease severity assessment in sleepy patients with obstructive sleep apnea refusing or nonadherent to continuous positive airway pressure. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01072968) and EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2009-017251-94).

Gemifloxacin once daily for 5 days is not inferior to 7 days in the PP population with respect to clinical, bacteriological and radiological efficacy. Further work is needed, however, to explore whether fewer treatment days would improve patient compliance and reduce the incidence of AEs.

on behalf of the HAROSA I Study Group * BACKGROUND: Excessive daytime sleepiness (EDS) in individuals with OSA syndrome persisting despite good adherence to CPAP is a disabling condition. Pitolisant is a selective histamine H3-receptor antagonist with wake-promoting effects.RESEARCH QUESTION: Is pitolisant effective and safe for reducing daytime sleepiness in individuals with moderate to severe OSA adhering to CPAP treatment but experiencing residual EDS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized (3:1), placebo-controlled, parallel-design trial, pitolisant was titrated individually at up to 20 mg/day and taken over 12 weeks. The primary end point was change in the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) score in the intention-totreat population. Key secondary end points were maintenance of wakefulness assessed by the Oxford Sleep Resistance Test, Clinical Global Impressions scale of severity, the patient's global opinion, EuroQoL quality-of-life questionnaire score, Pichot fatigue questionnaire score, and safety.RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four OSA participants (82.8% men; mean age, 53.1 years; mean Apnea Hypopnea Index with CPAP, 4.2/h; baseline ESS score, 14.7) were randomized to pitolisant (n ¼ 183) or placebo (n ¼ 61). ESS significantly decreased with pitolisant compared with placebo (À2.6; 95% CI, -3.9 to À1.4; P < .001), and the rate of responders to therapy (ESS # 10 or change in ESS $ 3) was significantly higher with pitolisant (71.0% vs 54.1%; P ¼ .013). Adverse event occurrence (mainly headache and insomnia) was higher in the pitolisant group compared with the placebo group (47.0% and 32.8%, respectively; P ¼ .03). No cardiovascular or other significant safety concerns were reported.INTERPRETATION: Pitolisant used as adjunct to CPAP therapy for OSA with residual sleepiness despite good CPAP adherence significantly reduced subjective and objective sleepiness and improved participant-reported outcomes and physician-reported disease severity.

Introduction:Adverse drug reactions can cause increased morbidity and mortality, and therefore information needs to be studied systematically. Little is known about the adverse drug reactions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy. The goal of this study is to assess the expectedness, seriousness and severity of adverse drug reactions during chronic obstructive pulmonary disease therapy based on their reporting in the national pharmacovigilance system.Methods:This was a prospective, observational, 1-year, real-life study about the pharmacotherapy of a sample of 390 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Prescribed medicines were systematized and national pharmacovigilance databases were searched for reported adverse drug reactions. The expectedness was evaluated through the review of the summary of product characteristics, the seriousness was evaluated by the clinicians based on the life threatening nature of the adverse drug reactions, and the severity was evaluated through Hartwig’s Severity Assessment Scale. Descriptive statistics of the reported adverse drug reactions was performed and the relative risk of developing an adverse drug reaction with all international non-proprietary names included in the analysis was calculated.Results:Results confirm that the chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a disease with high appearance of adverse drug reactions, and causes many additional costs to the healthcare system. Unexpected and severe adverse drug reactions are frequent. A total of 4.8% of adverse drug reactions were evaluated as life threatening. Majority of adverse drug reactions are classified in Levels 1 (32.6%), 2 (26.4%) and 3 (19%) according to Hartwig’s Severity Assessment Scale. Approximately 22% of reported adverse drug reactions affect people’s everyday life to a greater extent and require additional therapy which might further increase the risk. The relative risk of developing an adverse drug reaction was highest for novphyllin (relative risk = 0.65), followed by aclidinium bromide (relative risk = 0.09). Both indacaterol and salbutamol are with a relative risk of 0.07.Conclusion:In conclusion, the medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cause many serious adverse drug reactions, most of them were unexpected, lacking in the short product characteristics. Appropriate reporting of adverse drug reactions is necessary to decrease the risk of patients and healthcare system.