British Pharmacopoeia 2009 Free Download Pdf

Results Exercise capacity was improved in the 41 patients treated with epoprostenol (median distance walked in six minutes, 362 m at 12 weeks vs. 315 m at base line), but it decreased in the 40 patients treated with conventional therapy alone (204 m at 12 weeks vs. 270 m at base line; P. Figure 1 Survival among the 41 Patients Treated with epoprostenol and the 40 Patients Receiving Conventional Therapy. Data on patients who underwent transplantation during the 12-week study were censored at the time of transplantation. Estimates were made by the Kaplan–Meier product-limit method. The two-sided P value from the log-rank test was 0.003.

Survival analysis with data on patients receiving transplants not censored at transplantation resulted in the same level of significance (two-sided P = 0.003 by the log-rank test). Primary pulmonary hypertension is a disease characterized by the progressive elevation of pulmonary-artery pressure and vascular resistance, ultimately producing right ventricular failure and death. A variety of treatments have been used, including vasodilators, anticoagulant agents, and lung or heart–lung transplantation, but none have resulted in improved survival in a prospective, randomized trial.

Epoprostenol (formerly called prostacyclin or prostaglandin I 2) is a potent, short-acting vasodilator and inhibitor of platelet aggregation that is produced by vascular endothelium. Short-term infusions of epoprostenol decrease pulmonary vascular resistance in a dose-dependent manner in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension, and this response has been used to determine whether long-term oral vasodilator therapy is warranted. In an eight-week prospective, randomized trial, the continuous intravenous infusion of epoprostenol produced hemodynamic and symptomatic improvement. Patients treated with epoprostenol for up to three years appeared to live longer than historical controls from the Registry on Primary Pulmonary Hypertension of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) who received standard therapy. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the continuous infusion of epoprostenol on exercise capacity, quality of life, hemodynamics, and survival in a 12-week open-label, prospective, randomized, multicenter study of patients with severe primary pulmonary hypertension who continued to be in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class III or IV despite conventional therapy.

Methods After giving their informed consent, 81 patients with primary pulmonary hypertension entered the study. We established a diagnosis in all patients before they entered, using the criteria of the Registry on Primary Pulmonary Hypertension of the NIH. Patients were in NYHA functional class III or IV despite optimal medical therapy, which consisted of the administration of anticoagulants, oral vasodilators, diuretic agents, cardiac glycosides, and supplemental oxygen. The primary objective was to evaluate the effects of the continuous infusion of epoprostenol on exercise capacity. Other major, prospectively defined objects of study were the effects of epoprostenol on survival and its effects on the quality of life.

We also evaluated the effects of epoprostenol on hemodynamics. Sterile, lyophilized epoprostenol sodium powder, synthesized by Upjohn (Kalamazoo, Mich.), was formulated by Wellcome Research Laboratories (Beckenham, Kent, United Kingdom) as flolan. Immediately before administration, epoprostenol was reconstituted with sterile glycine buffer (pH 10.5) and filtered. Right-heart catheterization was performed in all patients with the use of standard techniques. After base-line hemodynamic variables were measured, epoprostenol was infused at an initial rate of 2 ng per kilogram of body weight per minute, with increments of 2 ng per kilogram per minute every 15 minutes. The infusion was discontinued at the dose that produced one or more of the following effects: a decrease of more than 40 percent in systemic arterial pressure, an increase of more than 40 percent in heart rate, or signs or symptoms deemed sufficient to warrant discontinuation of the infusion — that is, nausea, vomiting, severe headache, lightheadedness, or severe restlessness and anxiety.

T he british pharmacopoeia (bp) 2010 h as now published and to mark the occasion here is the second edition of the bp newsletter. In this edition you will find useful information on sales of the bp 2009, providing you with a global picture of bp sales and opportunities that we have for building on these in the future.

The infusion was subsequently reduced by 2 ng per kilogram per minute, and hemodynamic measurements were recorded at this maximal tolerated dose. Randomization and Treatment Eighty-one patients completed the short-term dose-ranging phase of the study and entered the 12-week study. One additional patient, in whom a pneumothorax developed during the base-line cardiac catheterization, was not enrolled in the study. A computer-generated, adaptive randomization was performed, with stratification according to the functional class, study center, and base-line vasodilator use. Forty-one patients were randomly assigned to receive epoprostenol plus conventional therapy, and 40 patients were randomly assigned to receive conventional therapy alone. All the patients received oral anticoagulant agents during the study, with the exception of one patient in each treatment group. Adjustments in concomitant medications were allowed during the study on the basis of clinical judgment.

Venous access for the infusion of epoprostenol in the epoprostenol group was obtained by the insertion of a permanent catheter into a subclavian or jugular vein. Epoprostenol was infused continuously with the use of a portable infusion pump (CADD-1 Model 5100 HF, Pharmacia Deltec, St. Paul, Minn.). Before being discharged from the hospital, patients were trained in sterile technique, catheter care, and drug preparation and administration.

Epoprostenol therapy was initiated at a dose of 4 ng per kilogram per minute below the maximal tolerated dose determined during dose ranging. Dose adjustments during the 12-week study were made on the basis of signs or symptoms consistent with clinical deterioration or the occurrence of adverse events. Hemodynamic measurements were repeated at the end of the study. Exercise capacity was assessed at base line and at 1, 6, and 12 weeks with the use of the unencouraged six-minute-walk test. The patients' quality of life was evaluated at base line and at 6 and 12 weeks with the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire, the Nottingham Health Profile, and the Dyspnea-Fatigue Rating. Both the walk test and the quality-of-life instruments were administered by personnel not directly involved in patient care who were unaware of the treatment groups to which patients had been assigned.

At the completion of the study, all patients were given the option of entering an open-label study of continuous epoprostenol therapy. Statistical Analysis Data are presented as means ±SE, medians, and 95 percent confidence intervals. Six-minute-walk data were analyzed in two intention-to-treat analyses: a nonparametric analysis of covariance and a parametric analysis of variance. In the nonparametric analysis of covariance, patients who were unable to walk at base line were assigned a value of 0 m. Patients who had died or were unable to walk because of illness at week 12 were also assigned a value of 0 m. Patients who underwent transplantation during the study completed the exercise test at week 12, and the data on this test were included in the nonparametric analysis of covariance. An ordinary least-squares regression of the ranks of walking distance at week 12 was performed, with adjustment for covariates.

The resulting residuals were analyzed with the use of the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel procedure. The parametric analysis of variance evaluated the changes from base line to week 12 in the distances walked. In this analysis, patients who died or received transplants before week 12 had their last observations (or six-minute-walk values before transplantation) carried forward and used as their values at week 12. Survival was analyzed with the use of a log-rank test and included all the randomized patients. Survival analyses, adjusted for covariates, were based on the Cox regression model and were performed both with data on some patients censored at transplantation and with such data not censored. For hemodynamic and quality-of-life measures, we determined the change from base line and constructed two-sided 95 percent confidence intervals for the differences between treatment groups. In the Spearman analyses of the correlation between the changes from base-line six-minute-walk values and long-term hemodynamic effects, the last observation carried forward was used for patients who died or received transplants.

Business Environment In A Global Context Pdf Reader here. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Effects of the Short-Term Infusion The maximal short-term hemodynamic responses to infused epoprostenol are shown in Table 2 Short-Term Hemodynamic Effects of Epoprostenol at the Maximal Tolerated Dose during Short-Term Dose Ranging.. Only changes in stroke volume and systemic vascular resistance were significantly different in the two treatment groups. The mean maximal tolerated dose of epoprostenol was 9.2±0.5 ng per kilogram per minute in the group subsequently assigned to receive epoprostenol and 7.6±0.5 ng per kilogram per minute in the conventional-therapy group. The initial dose in the patients treated with a long-term infusion of epoprostenol was 5.3±0.5 ng per kilogram per minute; the dose was increased to 9.2±0.8 ng per kilogram per minute by the end of the study.

Exercise Capacity Exercise capacity was evaluated by measuring the change in the distance the patient could walk in six minutes from base line to week 12. The nonparametric analysis of covariance, with adjustment for the six-minute-walk values and the use of vasodilators at base line, showed that the median change from base line was an increase of 31 m in the epoprostenol-treated patients (median distance walked, 362 m at week 12 as compared with 315 m at base line) and a decrease of 29 m in the patients receiving conventional therapy (204 m at week 12 as compared with 270 m at base line; P. Clinical and Hemodynamic Measures The results of assessments of quality of life are shown in Table 3 Effects on the Quality of Life of Treatment with Epoprostenol as Compared with Conventional Therapy..

Patients who received epoprostenol for 12 weeks had significant improvements in all four parts of the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire, in two of the six parts of the Nottingham Health Profile, and in the Dyspnea-Fatigue Rating (P. Transplantation and Survival Three patients underwent lung transplantation during the 12-week study: one epoprostenol-treated patient at 11 days and two patients treated with conventional therapy at 63 and 68 days. All three were alive at the end of the study. Therapy for two patients randomly assigned to receive epoprostenol was discontinued before the end of the study: in one patient, because of adverse effects (jaw pain and diarrhea), and in the other, because the patient was unable to manage the drug-delivery system. Eight patients died during the 12-week study; all were in the conventional-therapy group (P = 0.003) ( Figure 1 Survival among the 41 Patients Treated with epoprostenol and the 40 Patients Receiving Conventional Therapy. Data on patients who underwent transplantation during the 12-week study were censored at the time of transplantation. Estimates were made by the Kaplan–Meier product-limit method.

The two-sided P value from the log-rank test was 0.003. Survival analysis with data on patients receiving transplants not censored at transplantation resulted in the same level of significance (two-sided P = 0.003 by the log-rank test).

Among those who died, there was an equal distribution of patients in NYHA functional classes III and IV. The six-minute-walk values at base line were significantly lower in these 8 patients than in the 73 survivors in both groups (195±63 m vs.

Complications Minor complications related to the use of epoprostenol were frequent and included jaw pain, diarrhea, flushing, headaches, nausea, and vomiting. Serious complications were most often due to the delivery system and included four episodes of nonfatal, catheter-related sepsis and one nonfatal thrombotic event (a paradoxical embolism). There were 26 episodes of malfunction of the drug-delivery system resulting in temporary interruption of the infusion. These included occlusions, perforations, and dislodgements of the catheter and pump malfunction. While epoprostenol therapy was interrupted, patients experienced an increase in their symptoms. Additional problems related to the delivery system included irritation or infection at the catheter site in seven patients, bleeding at the catheter site in four, and catheter-site pain in four. Discussion Since the description of the characteristic hemodynamic abnormalities over 40 years ago, primary pulmonary hypertension has been regarded as a progressive disease that is usually refractory to treatment.

In the present study, a randomized, controlled trial, we documented improvement in exercise capacity and survival in patients with severe primary pulmonary hypertension who were treated with epoprostenol in addition to conventional therapy, as compared with patients treated with conventional therapy alone. The eight patients who died had been randomly assigned to the conventional-therapy group, and all died as a result of their underlying pulmonary vascular disease. Even when these patients were excluded from the analyses of exercise-test results, exercise capacity remained significantly improved in the epoprostenol-treated patients as compared with the conventional-therapy group. In addition, hemodynamic function and exercise capacity tended to deteriorate or remain unchanged with conventional therapy, whereas it was consistently improved with the use of epoprostenol.

The rationale for using continuous epoprostenol infusion to treat primary pulmonary hypertension was based initially on the demonstration that epoprostenol is a potent pulmonary vasodilator when administered to laboratory animals with acute pulmonary vasoconstriction induced by constrictor stimuli. Our results, consistent with these findings, indicate that the short-term infusion of epoprostenol reduces pulmonary-artery pressure and pulmonary vascular resistance in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension.

However, randomization in this and in our previous study was performed independently of the short-term responses to epoprostenol during dose ranging, and we have previously observed that long-term effects are frequently seen even in the patients in whom no short-term changes were manifested. Thus, the long-term effects of epoprostenol in primary pulmonary hypertension may be only partially related to its vasodilator properties and may be due, at least in part, to poorly defined effects on vascular growth, remodeling, or platelet function. Unlike the use of other vasodilators to treat pulmonary hypertension (which should be reserved for patients who have short-term pulmonary vasoreactivity), the use of continuous intravenous epoprostenol may be worth investigating in patients who continue to have severe symptoms despite conventional therapy, even if they have no short-term response to epoprostenol or if their condition has deteriorated with conventional therapy.

Several factors have been shown to determine survival in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension, including hemodynamic variables and functional class. Determining the status of these factors may be helpful when one is selecting and timing a more aggressive approach to treatment, such as transplantation. In this study, we found that performance in the six-minute walk at base line was also an independent predictor of survival. Thus, assessing exercise capacity in this inexpensive and noninvasive way may be useful in determining whether alternative treatment options should be considered in individual patients. Since epoprostenol is unstable at pH values below 10.5, it cannot be given orally, and continuous intravenous infusion is necessary because of its short half-life in the circulation.

Although the delivery system for continuous infusion is complex, most patients were capable of learning how to prepare and infuse the drug. Only one patient was withdrawn from this study because of the inability to master drug delivery.

Despite the cumbersome nature of treatment with epoprostenol, the patients' quality of life was significantly improved. Thus, the complexity of the treatment may be offset by the overall improvement in well-being in most patients. Continuous intravenous epoprostenol therapy is not, however, devoid of potentially serious complications (most of which are attributable to the delivery system), including catheter-related infections, thrombosis, and temporary interruption of the infusion due to malfunction of the pump. Although these adverse events were not associated with death in this study, they are potentially life-threatening and underscore the need for an alternative mode of drug delivery. The principal limitation of this study was that it was not a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Therefore, we cannot completely exclude the possibility of investigator or patient bias, particularly with regard to exercise capacity. We felt we could not design this study as a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial because of ethical considerations based on the known incidence of sepsis caused by central venous catheters in control patients and because unique or highly predictable symptoms during long-term epoprostenol treatment — that is, jaw pain and diarrhea — prevented the blinding of physicians and patients. The changes in stroke volume and systemic vascular resistance during the short-term infusion of epoprostenol were greater in the group subsequently assigned to receive the drug, raising the possibility that these patients had greater vasoreactivity at base line. However, none of the hemodynamic variables that are predictors of survival (pulmonary-artery pressure, right atrial pressure, cardiac index, and mixed venous oxygen saturation) and none of the markers of pulmonary vasoreactivity with short-term vasodilator testing (short-term changes in pulmonary-artery pressure, cardiac index, and pulmonary vascular resistance) were different in the two groups. The Game El Juego De La Perversion Gratis. An additional limitation of this study is the suggestion that the base-line exercise capacity of the patients randomly assigned to receive conventional therapy was slightly worse than that of the patients assigned to receive epoprostenol.

Although these differences were not statistically significant, it is possible that the epoprostenol-treated patients may have been less impaired at base line. On the basis of our observation that exercise capacity is an independent predictor of survival in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension, future trials should include randomization based on performance in the six-minute walk at base line in addition to other known predictors of survival.

In conclusion, the continuous intravenous infusion of epoprostenol plus conventional therapy for primary pulmonary hypertension resulted in better hemodynamics, exercise endurance, quality of life, and survival than conventional therapy alone. Although we did not address the long-term effects of therapy, our previous study suggests that the beneficial effects of epoprostenol on hemodynamics and exercise capacity persist with long-term therapy. When epoprostenol is used as a bridge to transplantation, stabilizing the patient's hemodynamics could lower perioperative rates of morbidity and mortality. The continuous intravenous infusion of epoprostenol may be useful in the management of severe primary pulmonary hypertension when it is refractory to conventional medical therapy. Source Information From the Department of Pediatrics, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York (R.J.B.); the Department of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore (L.J.R.); the Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (W.A.L.); the Department of Medicine, Mayo Medical Center, Rochester, Minn. (M.D.M.); the Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago (S.R.); the Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver (D.B.B., B.M.G.); the Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. (V.F.T.); the Department of Medicine, University of Alabama, Birmingham (R.C.B.); the Department of Medicine, Harbor–UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif.

(B.H.B.); the Department of Medicine, Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles (S.K.K.); the Department of Medicine, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal (D.L.); the Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston (C.A.K.); the Department of Medicine, Presbyterian–University Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (S.M., B.F.U.); and the Medical Division, Burroughs Wellcome, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (L.M.C., M.M.J., S.D.B., D.S., J.W.C.). Address reprint requests to Dr.

Barst at the Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics, BH 262N, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, 3959 Broadway, New York, NY 10032. Appendix Other participants in the North American Primary Pulmonary Hypertension Study included E.

Kirkpatrick, Columbia–Presbyterian Medical Center, New York; K. Wynne, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver; W. Knight, University of Alabama Medical Center, Birmingham; D. Georgiou and J. Beckman, Harbor–UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, Calif.; W.R.

Ralph, and P. Schrader, Children's Hospital and University Hospital, University of Washington, Seattle; E.J. Williams, and B. Vogel, Maine Medical Center, Portland; N.A. Ettinger and D. Canfield, Barnes Hospital, Washington University, St.

Carlisle, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence; A. Hinderliter and P.W. Willis IV, University of North Carolina Hospitals, Chapel Hill; A.E. Chafizedah, Methodist Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; D. Claire, Cedars–Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; E.

Shalit, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal; B. Severson, and K. Kosberg, Mayo Medical Center, Rochester, Minn.; T.

Tokarczyk, Presbyterian–University Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh; L. Kaufman, University of Illinois at Chicago; L.

Hartle, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore; W.R. DeBoisblanc, and B. Everett, Charity Hospital, Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans; and A. Krichman, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C. References • 1 Rich S, Dantzker DR, Ayres SM, et al.

Primary pulmonary hypertension: a national prospective study. Ann Intern Med 1987;107:216-223 • 2 D'Alonzo GE, Barst RJ, Ayres SM, et al. Survival in patients with primary pulmonary hypertension: results from a national prospective registry. Ann Intern Med 1991;115:343-349 • 3 Rubin LJ. Primary pulmonary hypertension. Chest 1993;104:236-250 • 4 Reeves JT, Groves BM, Turkevich D. The case for treatment of selected patients with primary pulmonary hypertension.

Am Rev Respir Dis 1986;134:342-346 • 5 Weir EK, Rubin LJ, Ayres SM, et al. The acute administration of vasodilators in primary pulmonary hypertension: experience from the National Institutes of Health Registry on Primary Pulmonary Hypertension. Am Rev Respir Dis 1989;140:1623-1630 • 6 Rich S, Kaufmann E, Levy PS.

The effect of high doses of calcium-channel blockers on survival in primary pulmonary hypertension. N Engl J Med 1992;327:76-81 • 7 Barst RJ. Pharmacologically induced pulmonary vasodilatation in children and young adults with primary pulmonary hypertension. Chest 1986;89:497-503 • 8 Fuster V, Steele PM, Edwards WD, Gersh BJ, McGoon MD, Frye RL. Primary pulmonary hypertension: natural history and the importance of thrombosis. Circulation 1984;70:580-587 • 9 Reitz BA, Wallwork JL, Hunt SA, et al.

Heart-lung transplantation: successful therapy for patients with pulmonary vascular disease. N Engl J Med 1982;306:557-564 • 10 Pasque MK, Trulock EP, Kaiser LR, Cooper JD. Single-lung transplantation for pulmonary hypertension: three-month hemodynamic follow-up. Circulation 19-2279 • 11 Glanville AR, Burke CM, Theodore J, Robin ED. Primary pulmonary hypertension: length of survival in patients referred for heart-lung transplantation.

Chest 1987;91:675-681 • 12 Chapelier A, Vouhe P, Macchiarini P, et al. Comparative outcome of heart-lung and lung transplantation for pulmonary hypertension. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1993;106:299-307 • 13 Bando K, Armitage JM, Paradis IL, et al. Indications for and results of single, bilateral, and heart-lung transplantation for pulmonary hypertension. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994;108:1056-1065 • 14 Rubin LJ, Groves BM, Reeves JT, Frosolono M, Handel F, Cato AE.

Prostacyclin-induced acute pulmonary vasodilatation in primary pulmonary hypertension. Circulation 1982;66:334-338 • 15 Rubin LJ, Mendoza J, Hood M, et al. Treatment of primary pulmonary hypertension with continuous intravenous prostacyclin (epoprostenol): results of a randomized trial.

Ann Intern Med 1990;112:485-491 • 16 Barst RJ, Rubin LJ, McGoon MD, Caldwell EJ, Long WA, Levy PS. Survival in primary pulmonary hypertension with long-term continuous intravenous prostacyclin. Ann Intern Med 1994;121:409-415.