No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The 2005 and 2010 FDA regulatory activities might have contributed to reduced use of LABA agents, as intended; however, their effect, independent of other factors, cannot be determined. Use of other classes of asthma medications was similarly affected.

Abstract. International regulatory agencies have developed recommendations and guidances for bioequivalence approaches of orally inhaled drug products (OIDPs) for local action. The objective of this article is to discuss the similarities and differences among these approaches used by international regulatory authorities when applications of generic and/or subsequent entry locally acting OIDPs are evaluated. We focused on four jurisdictions that currently have published related guidances for generic and/or subsequent entry OIDPs.

BackgroundEmerging safety issues associated with long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) have led to multiple regulatory activities by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 2003, including Drug Safety Communications (DSCs) in 2010. These DSCs had three specific recommendations for the safe use of LABA products in adult asthma treatment.MethodsWe examined the initiation of LABA-containing products for adult asthma treatment using an intermittent time series approach in a claims database from 2003 to 2012. We assessed the alignment of dispensing patterns with the following 2010 FDA recommendations: 1) contraindicated use of single-ingredient (SI)-LABA without an asthma controller medication (ACM); 2) a LABA should only be used when asthma is not adequately controlled on inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) or ACM; and 3) step-down asthma therapy (e.g., discontinue LABA) when asthma control is achieved.ResultsThere were 477,922 adults (18–64 years old) dispensed a new LABA during 2003–2012. Among LABA initiators, patients who initiated an SI-LABA and who did “not” have an ACM dispensed on the same date decreased from >9% in 2003 (the initial labeling change) to <2% post 2010 DSCs (p-value <0.0001 in the segmented regression model). The proportion of asthma patients dispensed an ICS in 6 months prior to initiating LABA treatment did not increase. The proportion of patients with longer than 4 months of continuous treatment did not decrease over the study period.ConclusionAlthough the decrease in SI-LABA initiation is consistent with FDA’s recommendations, low ICS dispensing before initiating a LABA and LABA continuation practices require further efforts to move toward the recommended safe practices.

BACKGROUND There is a known drug interaction (DI) between xanthine oxidase (XO) inhibitors and the thiopurine immunosuppressants, azathioprine (AZA) and mercaptopurine (6-MP). Xanthine oxidase inhibition increases concentrations of AZA and 6-MP active metabolites, possibly resulting in myelosuppression. When allopurinol is used with AZA or 6-MP, dose reduction of AZA or 6-MP is recommended. Febuxostat is a newer XO inhibitor approved for the treatment of gout. OBJECTIVE To determine the clinical impact of the febuxostat-thiopurine DI. DESIGN AND SETTING Case series derived from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Adverse EventReporting System (FAERS) and published medical literature. PATIENTS Nineteen patients who received concomitant febuxostat and either AZA or 6-MP. MEASUREMENTS Laboratory and clinical data. RESULTS Nineteen cases reporting myelosuppressive events were identified in patients receiving febuxostat with AZA or 6-MP. Eighteen cases were treated with the combination of AZA and febuxostat. A median of 1.6 months elapsed from initiation of the drug combination until discovery of the event. Sixteen cases required hospitalization; 15 reported administration of blood products. Thirteen cases reported resolution of the event with discontinuation of both drugs, two reported discontinuation of the thiopurine only, and one reported discontinuation of febuxostat only. LIMITATIONS Thiopurine monotherapy may cause myelosuppression. Complications of immunosuppression that may contribute to the real-world morbidity and mortality associated with the febuxostatthiopurine DI were not examined. Finally, FAERS data are limited by the voluntary nature of reporting. CONCLUSION Current febuxostat labeling contraindicates concomitant administration of febuxostat with either AZA or 6-MP. This case series demonstrates that the DI can result in clinically significant adverse events and is supportive of current febuxostat labeling.