New insights in toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell's syndrome): clinical considerations, pathobiology and targeted treatments revisited.
Paquet, Philippe ; Pierard, Gérald
in Drug Safety : An International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Drug Experience (2010), 33(3), 189-212
Drug-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), also known as Lyell's syndrome, is a life-threatening drug reaction characterized by extensive destruction of the epidermis and mucosal epithelia. The eyes ... [more ▼]
Drug-induced toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN), also known as Lyell's syndrome, is a life-threatening drug reaction characterized by extensive destruction of the epidermis and mucosal epithelia. The eyes are typically involved in TEN. At present, the disease has a high mortality rate. Conceptually, TEN and the Stevens-Johnson syndrome are closely related, although their severity and outcome are different. Distinguishing TEN from severe forms of erythema multiforme relies on consideration of aetiological, clinical and histological characteristics. The current understanding of the pathomechanism of TEN suggests that keratinocytes are key initiator cells. It is probable that the combined deleterious effects on keratinocytes of both the cytokine tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha and oxidative stress induce a combination of apoptotic and necrotic events. As yet, there is no evidence indicating the superiority of monotherapy with corticosteroids, ciclosporin (cyclosporine) or intravenous immunoglobulins over supportive care only for patients with TEN. However, the current theory of TEN pathogenesis supports the administration of a combination of antiapoptotic/antinecrotic drugs (e.g. anti-TNF-alpha antibodies plus N-acetylcysteine) targeting different levels of the keratinocyte failure machinery. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 31 (0 ULg)
Controversy about the cardiovascular safety of sibutramine.
in Drug Safety : An International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Drug Experience (2010), 33(7), 615-8Detailed reference viewed: 40 (0 ULg)
Drug interactions of clinical importance with antihyperglycaemic agents: an update.
in Drug Safety : An International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Drug Experience (2005), 28(7), 601-31
Because management of type 2 diabetes mellitus usually involves combined pharmacological therapy to obtain adequate glucose control and treatment of concurrent pathologies (especially dyslipidaemia and ... [more ▼]
Because management of type 2 diabetes mellitus usually involves combined pharmacological therapy to obtain adequate glucose control and treatment of concurrent pathologies (especially dyslipidaemia and arterial hypertension), drug-drug interactions must be carefully considered with antihyperglycaemic drugs. Additive glucose-lowering effects have been extensively reported when combining sulphonylureas (or the new insulin secretagogues, meglitinide derivatives, i.e. nateglinide and repaglinide) with metformin, sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives) with thiazolidinediones (also called glitazones) and the biguanide compound metformin with thiazolidinediones. Interest in combining alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with either sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives), metformin or thiazolidinediones has also been demonstrated. These combinations result in lower glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting glucose and postprandial glucose levels than with either monotherapy. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interferences have been reported with some combinations, they do not appear to have important clinical consequences. No significant adverse effects, except a higher risk of hypoglycaemic episodes that may be attributed to better glycaemic control, occur with any combination. Challenging the classical dual therapy with sulphonylurea plus metformin, there is a recent trend to use alternative dual combinations (sulphonylurea plus thiazolidinedione or metformin plus thiazolidinedione). In addition, triple therapy with the addition of a thiazolidinedione to the metformin-sulphonylurea combination has been recently evaluated and allows glucose targets to be reached before insulin therapy is considered. This triple therapy appears to be safe, with no deleterious drug-drug interactions being reported so far.Potential interferences may also occur between glucose-lowering agents and other drugs, and such drug-drug interactions may have important clinical implications. Relevant pharmacological agents are those that are widely coadministered in diabetic patients (e.g. lipid-lowering agents, antihypertensive agents); those that have a narrow efficacy/toxicity ratio (e.g. digoxin, warfarin); or those that are known to induce (rifampicin [rifampin]) or inhibit (fluconazole) the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Metformin is currently a key compound in the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes, used either alone or in combination with other antihyperglycaemics. There are no clinically relevant metabolic interactions with metformin, because this compound is not metabolised and does not inhibit the metabolism of other drugs. In contrast, sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones are extensively metabolised in the liver via the CYP system and thus, may be subject to drug-drug metabolic interactions. Many HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are also metabolised via the CYP system. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interactions may occur, it is not clear whether drug-drug interactions between oral antihyperglycaemic agents and statins may have clinical consequences regarding both efficacy and safety. In contrast, a marked pharmacokinetic interference has been reported between gemfibrozil and repaglinide and, to a lesser extent, between gemfibrozil and rosiglitazone. This leads to a drastic increase in plasma concentrations of each antihyperglycaemic agent when they are coadministered with the fibric acid derivative, and an increased risk of adverse effects.Some antihypertensive agents may favour hypoglycaemic episodes when co-prescribed with sulphonylureas or meglitinide derivatives, especially ACE inhibitors, but this effect seems to result from a pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction rather than from a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. No, or only modest, interferences have been described with glucose-lowering agents and other pharmacological compounds such as digoxin or warfarin. The effects of inducers or inhibitors of CYP isoenzymes on the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of the glucose-lowering agents of each pharmacological class has been tested. Significantly increased (with CYP inhibitors) or decreased (with CYP inducers) plasma levels of sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones have been reported in healthy volunteers, and these pharmacokinetic changes may lead to enhanced or reduced glucose-lowering action, and thus hypoglycaemia or worsening of metabolic control, respectively. In addition, some case reports have evidenced potential drug-drug interactions with various antihyperglycaemic agents that are usually associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 47 (3 ULg)
Tolerability profile of metformin/glibenclamide combination tablets (Glucovance): a new treatment for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus.
; Scheen, André ;
in Drug Safety : An International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Drug Experience (2004), 27(15), 1205-16
It is important to manage blood glucose intensively in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in order to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Oral combination therapy that addresses insulin ... [more ▼]
It is important to manage blood glucose intensively in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in order to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Oral combination therapy that addresses insulin resistance and beta-cell dysfunction is a proven means of improving glycaemic control when monotherapy becomes insufficiently effective. Metformin/glibenclamide (glyburide) combination tablets were developed to provide a means of applying this strategy while minimising polypharmacy. This review examines the tolerability profile of this treatment from four double-blind, randomised clinical trials in a total of 2342 type 2 diabetic patients with hyperglycaemia despite treatment with diet and exercise, a sulphonylurea or metformin. Treatment with combination tablets was associated with markedly superior blood glucose control, at lower doses of metformin and glibenclamide, compared with monotherapies. The incidence of symptoms of hypoglycaemia varied between dosages and trials, though the incidence of severe or biochemically confirmed hypoglycaemia or withdrawals from clinical trials for this reason was consistently low and comparable with glibenclamide alone. No patient required third-party assistance for hypoglycaemia. Significantly fewer diet-failed patients receiving low-dose combination tablets reported gastrointestinal adverse effects compared with metformin alone, with a comparable incidence between metformin and combination tablets in post-monotherapy studies. The incidence of other adverse events, including serious adverse events, was similar for combination tablets and monotherapies. The lower doses of metformin and glibenclamide with the combination tablet approach, and the design of the combination tablets themselves, may underlie the beneficial tolerability profile of this treatment. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 90 (0 ULg)
Hepatotoxicity with thiazolidinediones: is it a class effect?
in Drug Safety : An International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Drug Experience (2001), 24(12), 873-88
Decreased insulin sensitivity plays a major role in various human diseases. particularly type 2 diabetes mellitus, and is associated with a higher risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular complications ... [more ▼]
Decreased insulin sensitivity plays a major role in various human diseases. particularly type 2 diabetes mellitus, and is associated with a higher risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular complications. Thiazolidinediones, more commonly termed glitazones, are the first drugs to specifically target muscular insulin resistance. They have proven efficacy for reducing plasma glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with diet alone, sulphonylureas, metformin or insulin. In addition, they are associated with some improvement of the cardiovascular risk profile. However, troglitazone, the first compound approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US, proved to be hepatotoxic and was withdrawn from the market after the report of several dozen deaths or cases of severe hepatic failure requiring liver transplantation. It remains unclear whether or not hepatotoxicity is a class effect or is related to unique properties of troglitazone. Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, two other glitazones, appear to have similar efficacy with regard to blood glucose control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus as compared with troglitazone. In controlled clinical trials, the incidence of significant (> or =3 x upper limit of normal) increases in liver enzyme levels (ALT in particular) was similar with rosiglitazone or pioglitazone as compared with placebo, whereas troglitazone was associated with a 3-fold greater incidence. In contrast to the numerous case reports of acute liver failure in patients receiving troglitzone, only a few case reports of hepatotoxicity have been reported in patients treated with rosiglitazone until now, with a causal relationship remaining uncertain. Furthermore, no single case of severe hepatotoxicity has been reported yet with pioglitazone. It should be mentioned that troglitazone, unlike pioglitazone and rosiglitazone, induces the cytochrome P450 isoform 3A4, which is partly responsible for its metabolism, and may be prone to drug interactions. Importantly enough, obesity, insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus are associated with liver abnormalities, especially non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, independent of any pharmacological treatment. This association obviously complicates the selection of patients who are good candidates for a treatment with glitazones as well as the monitoring of liver tests after initiation of therapy with any thiazolidinedione compound. While regular monitoring of liver enzymes is still recommended and more long term data are desirable, current evidence from clinical trials and postmarketing experience in the US supports the conclusion that rosiglitazone and pioglitazone do not share the hepatotoxic profile of troglitazone. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 26 (1 ULg)
A risk-benefit assessment of epoetin in the management of anaemia associated with cancer.
in Drug Safety : An International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Drug Experience (1998), 19(4), 269-82
Many patients with solid tumours or haematological malignancies develop anaemia, and the use of chemotherapy aggravates this condition. Red blood cell transfusions are often necessary but are associated ... [more ▼]
Many patients with solid tumours or haematological malignancies develop anaemia, and the use of chemotherapy aggravates this condition. Red blood cell transfusions are often necessary but are associated with many risks, including immunosuppressive effects that may increase the risk of tumour recurrence. Many clinical studies have shown that epoetin (recombinant human erythropoietin) therapy can ameliorate, or even prevent, the anaemia associated with chemotherapy and cancer (including solid tumours as well as multiple myeloma or lymphoma). Response, defined as a significant (>50%) reduction in the rate of transfusions and/or a significant (>2 g/dl) elevation of haemoglobin levels, is usually observed in about 60% of the patients, irrespective of the type of standard chemotherapy given. The decrease in transfusion requirements is the major objective of epoetin therapy, because they are costly, inconvenient and are associated with potential adverse effects. Epoetin therapy also brings about substantial improvements in various indices of quality of life that are proportional to changes in haemoglobin level. However, large dosages of epoetin are generally required and about 40% of patients do not respond even to very high dosages. A number of adverse effects of epoetin therapy have been observed in patients with renal failure. The most prominent include hypertension, headaches, seizures and thrombotic events. These complications can also occur in patients with renal failure who are not receiving epoetin. Their exact incidence has been assessed in placebo-controlled studies, which have demonstrated that there is no increased risk of thrombosis or seizure with epoetin. However, it is now generally accepted that 10 to 20% of haemodialysis patients will experience an elevation of blood pressure because of epoetin and there is no doubt that a rapid elevation of blood pressure may cause generalised seizures. In other settings, including anaemia associated with cancer, very few adverse effects have been attributed to epoetin. However, close monitoring of blood pressure should be implemented in patients with hypertension. There is no evidence that epoetin stimulates tumour growth. With the dosages of epoetin currently used, there is no evidence of stem cell competition, resulting in thrombocytopenia or neutropenia, or of stem cell exhaustion, producing secondary anaemia when treatment is stopped. Epoetin is a remarkably well tolerated drug that offers significant benefits in patients with cancer. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 12 (1 ULg)
Antihyperglycaemic agents. Drug interactions of clinical importance.
Scheen, André ; Lefebvre, Pierre
in Drug Safety : An International Journal of Medical Toxicology & Drug Experience (1995), 12(1), 32-45
Non-insulin-dependent (type 2) diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) affects middle-aged or elderly people who frequently have several other concomitant diseases, especially obesity, hypertension, dyslipidaemias ... [more ▼]
Non-insulin-dependent (type 2) diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) affects middle-aged or elderly people who frequently have several other concomitant diseases, especially obesity, hypertension, dyslipidaemias, coronary insufficiency, heart failure and arthropathies. Thus, polymedication is the rule in this population, and the risk of drug interactions is important, particularly in elderly patients. The present review is restricted to the interactions of other drugs with antihyperglycaemic compounds, and will not consider the mirror image, i.e. the interactions of antihyperglycaemic agents with other drugs. Oral antihyperglycaemic agents include sulphonylureas, biguanides--essentially metformin since the withdrawn of phenformin and buformin--and alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, acarbose being the only representative on the market. These drugs can be used alone or in combination to obtain better metabolic control, sometimes with insulin. Drug interactions with antihyperglycaemic agents can be divided into pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions. Most pharmacokinetic studies concern sulphonylureas, whose action may be enhanced by numerous other drugs, thus increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia. Such an effect may result essentially from protein binding displacement, inhibition of hepatic metabolism and reduction of renal clearance. Reduction of the hypoglycaemic activity of sulphonylureas due to pharmacokinetic interactions with other drugs appears to be much less frequent. Drug interactions leading to an increase in plasma metformin concentrations, mainly by reducing the renal excretion or the hepatic metabolism of the biguanide, should be avoided to limit the risk of hyperlactaemia. Owing to its mode of action, pharmacokinetic interferences with acarbose are limited to the gastrointestinal tract, but have not been extensively studied yet. Pharmacodynamic interactions are quite numerous and may result in a potentiation of the hypoglycaemic action or, conversely, in a deterioration of blood glucose control. Such interactions may be observed whatever the type of antidiabetic treatment. They result from the intrinsic properties of the coprescribed drug on insulin secretion and action, or on a key step of carbohydrate metabolism. Finally, a combination of 2 to 3 antihyperglycaemic agents is common for treating patients with NIDDM to benefit from the synergistic effect of compounds acting on different sites of carbohydrate metabolism. Possible pharmacokinetic interactions between alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and classical antidiabetic oral agents should be better studied in the diabetic population. [less ▲]Detailed reference viewed: 29 (0 ULg)