Influenza is associated with significant morbidity in the general and at-risk population, a high degree of resource use in the at-risk population and substantial reduction or loss of productivity in the active working Italian population.

The importance of the patients point of view on their health status is widely recognised. Patient-reported outcomes is a broad term encompassing a large variety of different health data reported by patients, as symptoms, functional status, Quality of Life and Health-Related Quality of Life. Measurements of Health-Related Quality of Life have been developed during many years of researches, and a lot of validated questionnaires exist. However, few attempts have been made to standardise the evaluation of instruments characteristics, no recommendations are made about interpretation on Health-Related Quality of Life results, especially regarding the clinical significance of a change leading a therapeutic approach. Moreover, the true value of Health-Related Quality of Life evaluations in clinical trials has not yet been completely defined. An important step towards a more structured and frequent use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in drug development is represented by the FDA Guidance, issued on February 2006. In our paper we aim to report some considerations on this Guidance. Our comments focus especially on the characteristics of instruments to use, the Minimal Important Difference, and the methods to calculate it. Furthermore, we present the advantages and opportunities of using the Patient-Reported Outcomes in drug development, as seen by a pharmaceutical company. The Patient-Reported Outcomes can provide additional data to make a drug more competitive than others of the same pharmacological class, and a well demonstrated positive impact on the patient' health status and daily life might allow a higher price and/or the inclusion in a reimbursement list. Applying extensively the FDA Guidance in the next trials could lead to a wider culture of subjective measurement, and to a greater consideration for the patient's opinions on his/her care. Moreover, prescribing doctors and payers could benefit from subjective information to better define the value of drugs.

No abstract

A combined DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib vaccine containing diphtheria (D), tetanus (T), acellular pertussis (Pa), hepatitis B (HBV) and types 1, 2 and 3 inactivated polioviruses (IPV) extemporaneously mixed with a conjugated Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) vaccine (Group 1) was compared to the DTPa-HBV-IPV and Hib vaccines (Group 2) administered separately at 3, 5 and 11 months of age (n = 440). A microneutralization assay was used to detect antibodies against the 3 polio virus types (cut-off 1:8 dil), RIA for anti-HBs antibodies (cut-off 10 mIU/ml) and ELISA for antibodies against all other vaccine antigens (cut-off: 0.1 IU/ml for anti-tetanus and anti-diphtheria antibodies; 5 El.U/ml for antibodies against each of the 3 acellular pertussis antigens and 0.15 microg/ml for anti-PRP antibodies). Similar immune responses were observed in both groups 1 month after dose 2 as well as after dose 3. Six months after dose 2 however, the proportion of subjects maintaining an anti-tetanus antibody concentration > or = 0.1 IU/ml was lower in Group 2 and a slight group difference in favour of Group 1 was also observed for anti-PRP, anti-diphtheria and anti-polio type 1 antibody persistence prior to the third dose. The overall incidence of local and general solicited symptoms was similar in both groups. One subject discontinued study vaccination following an SAE considered to be related to vaccination. The DTPa-HBV-IPV/Hib combined vaccine is immunogenic and well tolerated when administered according to a 3, 5 and 11 month vaccination schedule and can therefore be considered as a feasible alternative to the separate administration of the pentavalent DTPa-HBV-IPV and the monovalent Hib vaccines.

This multicentre, double-blind study compared (100 mg) sumatriptan administered orally with placebo in treating an acute attack of migraine; 238 patients were studied over a 48-h period. Four hours after treatment, 92 of the 142 evaluable sumatriptan patients (65%) showed significant reductions (P < 0.001) in headache severity, clinical disability and accompanying symptoms compared with 32 of the 80 evaluable placebo-treated patients (40%). The duration of attack prior to taking medication and the history of persistent migraine do not influence the observed difference between the two treatment regimens (sumatriptan and placebo), which remained statistically significant (P < 0.001) in both cases. The incidence of headache recurrence in patients who experienced relief 4 h after initial treatment was low, occurring in 16 (17%) and 4 (13%) of the sumatriptan- and placebo-treated patients, respectively. Only patients with a history of migraine attacks lasting longer than 24 h suffered headache recurrences, and these recurrences were not consistent with the International Headache Society definition of migraine. Treatment with sumatriptan was well tolerated.